The Magnificent Seven

I feel like I'm the only one in the universe who's not wanting SqueeEnix to remake Final Fantasy 7. Now I have played FF7 and found it quite enjoyable but this was on my own terms: If I came late to it (2009 was when I actually sat down and played it for real), it was the intimidation factor: The accolades of the game and the continuing popularity of the game (practically unheard of in gaming before or since) raises the level of expectation to near impossible levels - so much so any newcomer would go in expecting to find Jesus.

SqueeEnix have steadfastly refused to remake FF7 and their reasons are sound enough: Namely the cost involved, building the whole thing over from scratch and the key people behind the original now scattered into different avenues. But still the fans persist to have their demands heard, you'd think they were holding a building full of people at gunpoint.

I've expressed some of thoughts already from suggesting that the prospects of remakes could be put to better use fixing the games of the post FF-7 era and how a game you played at ten years old being remade won't make it better but really, I give up: Why do you people want FF7 remade? What, hasn't there been any better games released in the fourteen years since? It's already on the PSN so it's not like it's not readily available and not getting played. Is it really the Nirvana of JRPGs that anything else isn't worth it (although I hear Xenoblade Chronicles is pretty cool)? Is it because it's so good that no other JRPG designer - not even SqueeEnix themselves - have no hope in hell of matching it, let alone surpassing it?
Yes it sold millions, yes assisted Sony in it's rise to power but at the end of the day so what? The game did it's job so why can't we just walk away and leave it?



In fact, the longed for revamp of FF7 makes an interesting counterpoint to the recent Star Wars release on Blu-ray. Here, George Lucas has enough money to do whatever the hell he likes but his attention is still focused on the thing that made him famous. And with the Blu-ray he is still mining for hard nerd cash that people will gladly hand over without a second thought.
BUT! The Blu-rays have been tampered with yet again into something that makes the original release near unrecognizable. Many fans are calling foul and getting into the rage that only nerds can muster. People are furious that George has been tampering continually with something they adored and wish he'd stop.

So I put this question to you FF7 fans: Is this what you want?
Do you want your favorite game tampered with?
Do you want something you loved being raped and repackaged?
Do you want to hand over your dollars to someone who doesn't give a toss what you think?
Do you want to support a company who's staying afloat through their single moment of glory?
Do you want to support a company who can't seem to move on from that single moment of glory?
Do you want so many childhood memories forever ruined?

But really a game still hailed with such fervor after fourteen years, and a few generations, seems to suggest the person in question haven't played anything else since
That being said, maybe it's high time we all started living in the present.

Morale Kombat

I'm not a big fan of morale choices. They are undoubtedly a mechanic that's growing in popularity in games these days but just becuase one guy does it doesn't mean everyone else should. It's for this reason that I approach morale choice systems with caution.

But that's not all: What I don't like about morality choices is the pretensions of challenging the player. Now I applaud any game that tries to break down the barrier between player and game and connect them at a level of emotion and thoughtfulness. BUT! With the morality systems in today's games I'm not getting that sense at all.
Let's compare Mass Effect with Shadow of the Colossus. In the former, the player is faced with key choices but the choices they make will have many a drastic repercussion throughout this universe Bioware have given us. Now there is a sense that these choices are meant to make the player think but strangely I don't get that sense at all: Instead I adopt the sense of 'make the decision and live with it as you can't go back'. Now there is nothing wrong with that approach but I doubt that was Bioware's intention.
Shadow of the Colossus on the other hand features a guy destroying a series of unique creatures for the sake of restoring a single life. The player has no say in this and they're just going along for the ride - And yet the game itself is far more successful at triggering an emotional reaction. I guess it goes to show that the less control you give the player, the more likely you'll have them embracing any point you give them.
It's a cruel equation: Give players more control and the more likely they'll mess things up, oblivious to anything you might have to say.

The other issue I have with morale choice systems is that it's one of extremes. Most often than not the player has the choice of being a complete bastard or a panzie goody-goody. Well what about some middle ground? Granted the choices offered by the morale system can shape the player character but what good is it when all the results of these choices are all in black and white? I've played through Mass Effect where my Shepard was a bastard to everyone but eventually made the right choices with the major missions. It was a fun roleplay action and it was most enjoyable. But alas, it annoyed me that it ultimately didn't mean anything at the end of the game. What's wrong with playing a 'grey' character? Anyone would think the game resents such players for being so stupid. And what's the point in being a roleplaying game if the roleplaying options are so restrictive?
That being said, the only I've played which did the morale system right was Red Dead Redemption. The implementation of the Honor/Fame system offers a lot more freedoms than ever before and finally allows the player to play a grey character: A true neutral who can do as many good things as bad things.

So in the end, I can see that morale choices as an interesting tool in shaping a character as the player sees fit. The more choices being offered to the player, the more freedoms they have in playing the game and building a character they can connect with. The honor/fame system in Red Dead Redemption is a step in the right direction and I hope that other developers take note. Because the more grey area there is, the more fascinating the player character becomes.
Because the world isn't as black and white as people would like to think it is (and I speak from experience).

Diabolical

It's official: Diablo 3 is on it's way, expecting to touch down sometime next year. Personally I'm a bit surprised that Blizzard were actually making a Diablo 3: One would expect that with the monumental success of World of Warcraft they would just pack it in and retire.

But I find interesting is that Diablo 3 has apparently been in development since 2001 - that's ten years. Seeing as the gaming industry moves at such a mind-blowing pace, ten years would be an eternity: Technological advancements happen, investors get worried with lack of action and the many of potential buyers have to satisfied lest they get frustrated and take their money elsewhere.
But strangely everyone seems rather cool with this: Blizzard run by the policy of taking their time with their products and doing the best job possible - and they can get away with this purely out of their previous successes. More astonishingly the fans of Blizzard, of which there are many, are very understanding and accepting of this and will hold onto the undying hopes (not to mention faith in Blizzard) without question.
Geez, how good do you have to be to enable this to happen!?

But the unflinching acceptance to the long development cycle of Diablo 3 makes an interesting counterpoint to the debacle that was Duke Nukem Forever. Both games were/are being released on the premise of when it's done - yet whilst the Diablo fans quietly accepted this, the Duke Nukem fans got angered. And whereas everyone kept indefatigable faith in Blizzard, everyone made countless jokes at DNF's MIA status. When the hopes for DNF eventually crumbled, the hopes for Blizzard remain high and untouched as ever. And when everyone was so keen to put the boot into the DNF before it was released, Blizzard are still able to escape such a fate unscathed.
And whereas the constant delays of DNF was a sin beyond forgivable, Blizzard, as well as Valve, are allowed to work at their own pace and we allow it to happen without any thoughts of anger or betrayal.

We're a hard mob to please us gamers aren't we?

Green Eyed Monster

Being the massive Rock Band fan I am, I recently picked up Green Day Rock Band. I remember when I was teenager I listened to Green Day, and Dookie in particular, a lot so buying this expansion was a real no-brainer.
Of course, there are some questionable absences (where's Walking Contradiction? Waiting? Maria? Stuck With me?), and there are moments to suggest the game being a copy of Beatles Rock Band but the opportunity to include Dookie into my Music Library is still pretty sweet.

But for some reason I don't like the character models. I have mentioned before that I preferred the cartoonish models in RB2 than those in RB3 and it's the same here. In Green Day Rock band, the avatars for Billy Joe, Mike and Tre look hideous and off-putting.
Having said that it does make an interesting counterpoint to Beatles Rock Band. Now whilst I've been playing GDRB on the 360, I have however played through BRB on the Wii. And on the latter, I actually found the models far more pleasing to the eye. Maybe it was the art design or the graphical limitations of the Wii, but I really enjoyed the avatars for John, Paul, George and Ringo and prefer them to those in GDRB.

I guess this proves that the more Harmonix strives for this 'realistic' approach to their graphics, the more off-putting the finished product ends up.

Unlucky Seven

...blah blah big news blah blah Final Fantasy X blah blah PS3 remake blah blah....

Now that we got that out of the way, reaction this surprising announcement seems to be a mixture of delight and disgust. And whilst people getting irate over decisions made by SqueeEnix is nothing new, the loudest voices of disgust come from those who wanted a VII remake. Good lord are people still demanding this?

Okay firstly, FFX for the PS3 is not a remake. No, it's a straight up port only in HD.
Now we got that out of the way....
Secondly, as SqueeEnix have said before, remaking FF7 would involve starting over from scratch and a large budget. Conversely revamping FFX in HD thus seems more easier and less costly on their end.
Thirdly, no one's really missing out on anything: FF7 is still available on the PSN the last time I checked.
Fourthly FF7 is pretty much lightening in a bottle: It happened and it's probably never going to happen again - no matter how much the fans want it to nor how hard SqueeEnix try with the Final Fantasy games since. It's a standard that can't be met so why bother? Why not just walk away from it and move on?
And finally, Aerith's not going to come back. She did her job of extracting an emotional response from the player better than anyone could've hoped for so let's just let her rest in peace - and just because the PS2 revamp of Phantasy Star 2 offered the resurrection of Nei, doesn't mean FF7 has to do the same.

Really, the more I look at this notion of remaking Final Fantasy 7 the more it become clear that people are after the same experience they had when they were ten years old. That being said, let me tell you something kids: When I was ten years old, I played Pool of Radiance on the Commodore 64. I played it, loved it, and was my gateway drug to the worlds of both RPGs and Dungeons & Dragons. Years later it got a remake - but it was one many people would rather forget.

Cracking up

Here's something I heard on the news this morning: A bunch of online gamers have deciphered the structure of a virus enzyme. For a full report click here.

Of course this sounds exactly like something from a science fiction where scientists are baffled by something for many years - which is subsequently solved by computer geeks in a faction of the time. Guess sometimes the truth really is weirder than fiction.

Still, on the plus side this is good news: Finally gaming has actually proven to be a good thing and can contribute a lot to society - not to mention being (best of all) one in the eye for all those anti-gaming zealots.
But I can't thinking of there are some folk out there who are disappointed by this news. You know, those misanthropes that would rather that gaming remain in the realms of controversial; those who would rather it maintain the element of danger that makes people nervous, those who would rather it do away with all efforts to try and reach a larger audience and are repulsed by the thought of gaming actually doing some good.

Of course with these words I'm being satirical but there always lurks the troubling thought there may exist someone like in the world....

X-Factor

The big news at the moment has been the recent announcement that Final Fantasy X will be remade for the PS3 as a HD revamp.

Now I’ve already expressed my thoughts on game remakes and I still feel a sinking feeling in my stomach even as I typed that previous sentence out. BUT! (and this is a big but) I’m not willing to condemn remakes altogether – because I would like to see someone remake a game purely because they felt they could do better a better job the second time around.
In the thirties Alfred Hitchcock made the movie The Man Who Knew Too Much – only to be so unhappy with the finished product that he made the movie again twenty years later when he relocated to Hollywood. Similarly, Hideaki Anno is currently working on a new Evangelion anime only this time without the restrictions of budget and time – thus granting him the freedom to tell the story he wanted to tell all along.
Has anyone in the gaming industry ever used such a motivation?



So far, Final Fantasy 1-4 have all had significant revamps on various systems: More often than not with a new graphical coat of paint and some new goodies added. Not a bad idea and I suppose it’s worth giving people a chance to find out what they might have missed out the first time around (not to mention to prove Final Fantasy isn’t all Cloud and Sephiroth).
But with the progression of each Final Fantasy it does arise the inevitable question of VI and VII. VI I would like to see revamped to, if anything, reclaim the title of BEST FF EVA from it’s upstart younger brother. But I couldn’t care less about VII – Sure people may clamor for a graphical upgrade but what else can you do? True a more coherent narrative would be nice but there is little I can think of where VII could be improved – which, I have to admit, may attest to the game’s staying power fourteen years on.

But no – SqueeEnix aren’t really caring for VI and VII – instead they’re straight for X.
Now if SqueeEnix are intent on revamping their previous Final Fantasy titles, then eventually they’ll arrive to the post-VII era. Namely, VIII, IX, and XII – indeed the revamp of X may suggest they’re already there. Now these titles are important because whilst VII was a big hit that may never be replicated, everything Final Fantasy that’s followed has split opinion like never before. I have never seen people react to the post-VII Final Fantasy games with both such ruthless condemnation and such passionate defending. Whilst everyone has good words to say about many Final Fantasy 1-7 (well maybe not II), the same people have such strong opinions about 8-onward.



But here’s the point I’m trying so laboriously to get to: What if SqueeEnix remade the post-VII Final fantasy games and actually made them better? If people are willing to defend them with passionate fervour, then there must at least be a good game in there despite the walls of criticisms. So why not take the opportunity to get rid of the elements that didn’t work? Can anyone imagine an VIII with a coherent narrative, likeable characters and a less tedious management system? How about a IX with the mood from the first disc (and maybe the second) carried all the way through and better thought put into Kuja and Garland?

A remake I’ll buy is one where the makers realised what didn’t work and ditching such elements altogether. So with regards to the new X why stop at HD graphics?
Thus, in the vain hope that someone from SqueeEnix is reading this, I present some suggestions on how this Final Fantasy X can be improved:
- Get better English voice actors!
- Ditch Blitzball!
- In fact ditch the minigames altogether (or at least make them less tedious and more, oh I don’t know, FUN?)
- Bring back the open world! And maybe open up some of the towns so we can explore some more!
- Get better English voice actors!
- And how about getting rid of the laughing scene while we’re at it?
- And how about scrapping that post credits epilogue with Tidus? Kinda undermines the emotional kick to the guts that was the ending (and the less I’m reminded about X2 the better).
- Did I mention the English voice actors?


(seriously, get these guys: They seem pretty good!)

Burning up again

Recently I returned to a game I played a lot of over the past few years: Burnout 3.

Hooooboy, has there ever been a game that has, for me, inspired both loving and loathing in equal amounts. I know a lot of people love this game (and the Burnout series for that matter) but for me it is that catch 22 game: You know it's fun and enjoyable but that enjoyment is tainted with some issues - issues of the 'throw controller through the screen' variety.

I'm not saying Burnout 3 is a bad game: Indeed it's fun to ram one's opponents into the wall and it's kinda cool to partake in the kind of dangerous driving that would be unattainable in real life. Now normally I'm not one for racing games but I have to admit that, much to my surprise, the races often turn into intense affairs. And I particularly enjoyed the Road Rage events.

But get past that and you realise just how maddening the difficulty can get - particularly late in the game. Now I understand the crashes are an integral part of the game but in the later stages I crashed so much that it wasn't even funny. I swear there was one point where I'd come to a particular turn and I'll crash automatically! Sometimes crashes would happen right out of nowhere and leave me scratching my head in disbelief.
Indeed, I find this emphasis on crashing kind of puzzling when ultimately, the only way to succeed is to drive as carefully as possible. Thus I get points of particular crashes but I gte points for doing a perfect lap? What sense does that make?

And then there's the AI: Never before have I come across an AI that could only be described as brutal! Forget what I said last week about Rock Band 3 resenting the player - no the hatred Burnout 3 has for the player knows no bounds.
Firstly the burnout feature is a good idea but soon it becomes clear that it is necessity: Using it is the only only hope in hell the player has to keep up with the AI. And, going back to the crashing, why do the AI cars seem to escape the crashes? I've lost count how many times I've crashed only the have the opposing cars make the narrowest of escapes.
And don't get me started on my crashing: They happen out of nowhere and make it impossible to recover from. You know what I mean: You'll be driving along with a good lead and suddenly you'll crash for some reason only to fall back down to the last position. And you opponents would rush on ahead with speeds you can only dream of. And it's funny how my crashes, through the gloating cinematic, seem to last far longer than that of my opponents.
Granted a game should provide a challenge to the gamer but this is just ridiculous. Challenging is okay but brutal/gloating/impossible challenging isn't.
Indeed, no other game has made me scream "BULLSHIT!" and other curses as loudly as possible (much to the horror of my partner)

For this reason, many of the courses in Burnout 3 remain unfinished. But they ever will be finished. True it's fun to cause some destruction on the road but to face against an unforgivably evil AI is another.
Oh well...

Romantic Link

Last year I posted a love letter to Tidus and Yuna of Final Fantasy X. Surprisingly, this has become the most visited post to this blog (or at least that's what my stats say). I'm not sure why though - perhaps I'm not the only hopeless romantic gamer in this world....

...But I'd be a fool to believe such bollocks. Seeing as games these days seem to rely on escapism, the kind involving killing dudes and doing the type of thing that would unattainable in real life mind you, it seems that actual romance seems rather quaint, reserved for the likes of Bioware RPGs and the games of a previous era (Final Fantasy 8 anyone?).
Are there any hopeless romantics in the gaming community? Has the idea of rescuing a princess been cast aside? Has gaming grown up up to the point where fairy-tale idealism has been ditched completely? Did strong independent women like Lara Croft, Samus Aran and Jill Valentine make the damsel in distress obsolete? Or have many gamers realised that real women are in fact, more fun than pretend ones?

No matter, I'm a hopeless romantic and I feel no shame in saying so. And if there other people who share the same mindset then so much the better. So, in the hope that such people exists and are reading this I want to talk about another of the great gaming couples. It’s one of the longest running romances in the history of gaming and hands down one of the most recognisable. The faces may change but all in all, it still has the power to entice the interest of gamers everywhere.
That’s right, I’m talking about Link and Zelda



This is a strange couple to say the least: They see little of each other as the game(s) progresses and the worlds & persona they inhabit keep changing with each new addition to the series. Yet, in spite of it all, this is one relationship that keeps standing strong no matter the changing perceptions of the two involved.

When I look at the Zelda series, the more it becomes clear that it is a throwback to the fairy tales we are read to when we're kids: Those which involve a princess in some sort of danger and a prince/heroic figure stepping in to save the day. Also, like a fairy tale, Link, abides to the tried and tested formula of undertaking an adventure that begins at a humble level before achieving extraordinary success and recognition at the end of it. The only difference is that this isn’t a fairy tale that one is being read to – this is one where one is actually an active participant! They say people find comfort in familiarity and it’s the tried and tested formula that hooked a lot of young people in with the very first Legend of Zelda and still maintain their attention many years later (also, the exploration element and excellent gameplay didn’t hurt either).



So in a way it’s not hearing about rescuing a princess – no it’s actually actively doing things that result in the rescue of the princess. And a princess who, unlike Princess Peach, doesn’t send the player on a seemingly never-ending wild goose chase into the wrong castle.
Indeed, it is that notion of fairy tales that makes Link and Zelda compelling. Much like fellow Nintendo stable-mate Mario, Link is an everyman, coming from a humble background only to, as the game progresses, grow stronger with experience and the acquisition of a range of helpful items and power-ups. Indeed, it is that everyman quality that endears him to the player and builds a connection that makes the quests one that demands to be seen through to completion.
Zelda, meanwhile is shrouded in mystique. As stated before, we may not know much about her but it is that tantalizing sense of mystery that holds the attention and urges the player onward to, if anything, find more about this enigmatic princess. The sense of mystery that surrounds Zelda may have come across in different manifestations but ultimately, her beauty and her status make the quest of rescuing her from Ganon/dorf truly a battle worth fighting for. And, unlike her Nintendo stable mate Princess Peach, Zelda is shown to be a wise and capable ruler who is shown to be able to make major decisions and being deeply concerned with the welfare of her subjects.



Ultimately, I think the appeal of Link and Zelda lies in the fact they are both blank slates. Link may not utter a word but through his actions and his body language, he shows admirable virtues such as determination, intelligence and courage. As for Princess Zelda she, as stated before, maintains a degree of allure due to her long-standing sense of mystique: She may not be the player character but it is consistently her name in the title. In addition, Zelda may be a damsel in distress but she assists in Link in many, mostly subtle, ways.
And, in a strange way, that’s enough. Because of such little information been provided to the player, it is enough to propel the appeal of this relationship forward. True much of it is left up to player speculation but through the subtlest of indications, in the form of facial expressions and body language, we can see something come to the forefront. Thus, Link rescues Zelda, Link protects Zelda, Link blushes upon hearing Zelda’s name, Zelda protects Link in her many disguises, Zelda shows concern for Link’s safety and assists him in the final confrontation with Ganon/dorf.
And that for me is the appeal of Link and Zelda: The romance is presented within a real subtle manner. Indeed, its little moments like those I’ve described above that ultimately count for so much. It may not be obvious but the fact that it can capture the mind of the player, without them realising it, is a feat indeed. Sure the Zelda games may put forward some complications like Midna or Marin but honestly, the Hero of Time being without the Princess will just be unthinkable.

So that’s why I like the pairing of Link and Princess Zelda: It is practically a gaming take on the tried and tested fairy tale concept and it is furthered by subtle moments that really count for so much.



And, it would seem, my partner agrees with me.

Reality called

It's a funny thing looking back at the past: More often than not, one will recall a new innovation/technology that was supposed to change the world..... only to do the exact opposite. Indeed it's funny to see how things were marketed as revolutionary when in, the present, we have other things that do the exact same thing only better.

That being said, I remember Virtuality. Based upon the then new technology of Virtual Reality, it was a product of the early-to-mid nineties that was built on the promise of taking the immerse nature of games to a whole new level.
How it worked is that people step into a confined playing space, don headsets and grab a controller. Once the game kicks in, the player's movements correspond to the game characters: Thus it is possible to move and look around in a rendered environment.



I remember this product being hyped as being the next advancement in gaming technology and the promise of a full immerse experience in a full created world (not to those words but still....). As a result, these began appearing in arcade parlors complete with screens to pull in a crowd - of course, these weren't cheap to play but they certainly garnered a lot of interest in the 16-bit era.

The only games I remember were two: Zone Hunter and Dactyl Nightmare.



This was Zone Hunter: You control two giant space marines going through a futuristic environment blowing up anything dumb enough to stand in your way.
This might of looked mind-blowing twenty years but two decades is a long time. Whilst I never played it, I have however spoken to people who have and from I could gather, this game doesn't really deliver on the promises made by the hype. The main problem is that the player character can only move in one direction: Forward! Thus one can't go anywhere else or admire the scenery - and, gameplay wise, one can't duck behind cover: No they're just continually marching and getting shot.

Here's another video on Zone Hunter, whilst demonstrating the Virtual Reality in action:



Still, this is a far cry from Gears of War - another game involving Space Marines blowing shit up. Side by side, one wonders how we ever got by without the necessity of cover.

The other game I recall was Dactyl Nightmare. This was the more well known of the two as it was heavily featured in many a promo video. Here, players could fight each other in an open environment whilst being harassed by a giant pterodactyl who could pick up players and drop them, thus subjecting them to terminal velocity.



Compared to Zone Hunter, this game was going for a one-on-one/deathmatch approach with a horror theme. But again, through a modern eye some baffling design choices come to light. Why is the gaming map so limited in size? Where is it all out in the open? What are you supposed to do when the pterodactyl picks you up?

Looking back, it seems that Virtuality promised a lot but didn't really deliver. Granted a fully rendered gaming environment was a bold step for it's time but what good is it if the player is restricted about where they can go? The deathmatch nature did indeed predate Doom but what good was it when it's played in an open environment?
Indeed a lot of the promise Virtuality has been achieved by the enemy of the arcade parlor: console gaming. Twenty years later, what Virtuality promised has been surpassed in ways that are mind-boggling. Fully rendered worlds are now commonplace and immersion has been accomplished in ways without the use of a headset. Indeed, when one considers the hype that went into Virtuality, one has to wonder what the fuss was all about.

Ultimately, Virtuality seems more a product of the arcade parlors: Sucking people in and then stacking the odds against them just for the purpose of making them cough up money just to keep playing. And it seems the general public thought so too. Because by the time I got to play Virtuality, it was the mid nineties and Zone Hunter and Dactyl Nightmare had been replaced with Doom. And what do you know, it was good fun. So there is an irony that the game that worked best for the Virtual Reality Headset was game made for a home computer.

In researching this post, I recently learned that, surprisingly, the technology for Virtual Reality is still in use - only it's for simulations and training scenarios like Flight training and medical procedures. But it is interesting to see this technology succeed in areas whereas it failed as a gaming machine.

I guess there's no substitute for a wide-screen TV.

I want to Rock n Roll all night

With the recent purchase of Lego Rock Band, I've made return to the Rock Band series. I've downloaded more songs, my music library was expanded and dusted off Rock Band 3 after some time away.

But having played Rock Band 1, 2 and Lego, my once glorious perception of RB3 has changed. Whereas I was singing it's praises months ago, now an ugly side has revealed itself.

Rock Band 3 a game that hates me.

Yes it's true: Playing Rock Band 3 now makes it clear that this a game that wants me to do things it's way and resents me for doing things other wise.
Allow me to elaborate: First there's the unlockables. Not a bad idea but it's problematic that nearly all of them can only be done through the the disc songs. One can use all the DLC they like but at the the end it's the disc songs that yield the rewards - whether or not the players likes them or not. That seems a little unfair.

Second, there's the DLC. Maybe it's just me but the game seems to resent me using the DLC. Whereas I was scoring on particular songs really well in previous Rock band titles, now I'm unable to match such efforts. I appear to be scoring well but the game seems really picky on what classifies as an 'Awesome' rating. Indeed I tried a DLC song and did it really well but somehow falling short of the five star ranking. Then I tried a disc song and, I swear this true, I seemed to make more mistakes but somehow the game didn't penalize me too much.
What, doesn't the game like me for using the DLC? Sorry but I was enjoying having more control over how I played the game - is it any wonder why I skipped over the pre-selected playlists in story mode for the make-your-own-setlist?

Indeed, I've been trying to replicate the gold-star ratings I've scored in previous Rock Band titles but the more I do it the more it seems clear that RB3 seems to change it's mind as to constitutes as a successfully scored portion of the song. Now in the past I have preferred Rock band over Guitar Hero because I felt the former was a bit more generous to newcomers than the latter. So to have an erratic difficulty like this in RB3 doesn't really sit well with me.

So if Rock Band 3 resents me using DLC then it begs the question of what the point in it is....

We built this city on Rock N Roll

Recently I picked up Lego Rock Band. It may seem an odd choice but I like the Rock Band series and any excuse to add to my music library is welcome enough. That and it was going for $10 at my local Big W.

Beyond using the export feature I didn't have any plans of actually paying it. But when I realized that there were some cheap Achievements I thought I might have a bash. After it is Rock Band - only populated with smiling yellow dudes.

And then, much to my surprise, I actually found myself enjoying it.
I never played the Lego games because I found them quite a strange concept but this one won me over. True Lego Rock Band will most likely never escape the label of 'kiddie' game but it's still Rock Band. Sure the Lego theme may be a bit puzzling at first but it has some charm to it that can even amuse an adult like myself. Sure there are some odd additions but those that work are quite fun - I quite enjoyed customizing my band HQ and my entourage.

And then there is the soundtrack: It may be catered for younger tastes but there are some diamonds (A-Punk, Breakout, Passenger, Ruby) in amongst the schlock (Real Wild Child [*], Check yes Juliet, Swing Swing, Final Countdown, Walking on Sunshine). Summer of 69 is fun to do (although I'm still not certain how I got a gold star rating for it) but there's far too much emo material for my liking (ie more than zero). And the presence of Korn's cover of Word Up is baffling. Is the only way Korn will get played on Lego Rock band - a sterilized version of the angry Korn of before? [**] Still the continued presence of DLC is welcome and it is indeed fun to see the Lego men performing songs that aren't really kiddie fare (Bad to the Bone, I fought the Law and Charlene).

All in all, Lego Rock Band was indeed a surprise and quite an enjoyable game to play - The additions to the Music Library didn't hurt either.
And hey, I've spent worse $10




[*] Seriously? Johnny O'Keefe must be spinning in his grave
[**] Never heard this cover before playing Lego Rock band but now I wish I hadn't.

Staking a Claim

Anyone remember the game Carmageddon? I certainly remember the controversy it generated what with dangerous driving and running people with gleeful and bloody abandon. Funny thing is I remember very little of the game itself – which goes to show that it’s often years later that people wonder why such a big deal was made of something in the first place.
More so when one considers the tagline that was used to promote Carmageddon: The Game They Tried to Ban! Of course this was back in the nineties and in the years since banning games has happened to the point where it’s nothing unusual.

In fact back then I was fascinated by this bold claim. It suggested that they, the censors, tried to ban but failed. Thus this claim got me thinking: Was it possible to go one better? Saying what if there was a game that frightened them into not even trying? Carmageddon's claim suggested an effort was made but what if the censors didn't for wetting themselves?
Say something along the lines of: The game they didn’t even try to ban!?
But, unlike Carmageddon’s claim, this new one doesn't work for it a) seems unwieldy, b) doesn’t really have the danger of the original and c) suggests that if it got past the censors then it must’ve pretty wimpy. Thus Carmageddon succeeds for making a bold claim that no one since has ever been able to match.

Even if I can’t remember the game itself.

Still maybe the claim The game they didn’t even try to ban! might work for the upcoming HD revamp of Ico…..