An Ode to Ico

Something I put together in anticipation for Good Game's greatest game special:

Favorite game? Ico. On the PS2
No joke: you’ve heard exactly what I’ve said
Not for me Portal, Halo and Wow too

No, give me a lad with horns on his head
Who meets a princess in a big fortress
Who can open doors and make black shapes dead

Both doomed to die: A fate to readdress
So an escape Ico and Yorda plan
Hand in hand through the castle they progress

Contending with: puzzles, solved as they can
And bashing, with a wood stick, black shadows
And, worse of all, Yorda’s attention span

Under bloom lightening the game flows
Showing Legend of Zelda how it’s done
Along with a loneliness this game knows

Oh Ico, you poor selling ball of fun
Father of Shadow of the Colossus
Now on the PS3 for everyone
Ico: Who does so much more with so less
Who proudly passes the ‘game as art’ test
And a real tear jerker I must confess

Yes, my favorite game’s Ico. It’s the best!
Mood, emotion: There’s nothing quite like it.
Even though it’s one big long escort quest

Take a Straight Line

For Christmas my brother got me a new game for my 360: Spec Ops the Line. You might have heard of this: Spec Ops the Line has been creating a stir in the gaming community through it being a deconstruction of the shooter genre. That was my first impression at least and being rather sick and tried of shooter games & the 'must kill fifty guys to get it up' players that flock to them, I thought having game that would challenge it all would require a lot of balls. Well, apparently someone at Yager had the balls so that is worthy enough for my attention. Mind you, my brother noted of my 360 games, with the presence of Bishock, Mass Effect, Gears of War, Halo and the Orange Box, a preponderance of shooters so would Spec Ops the Line be an upset of this?

Well, I like my shooters to be Doom: Fun, exciting and unafraid to place the player in desperado situations against near-impossible odds. That being said I have little to no time for Call of Duty, Battlefield and the like as I find their rigid seriousness/self-importance unappealing beyond basic familiarity. Thus one would I think I would be perfect for Spec Ops the Line.
Well the first thing that struck me about Spec Ops the Line was the use of the menu music: Jimi Hendrix's famous rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. Then there was the unnerving sight of my XBLA name included in the opening credits - obviously this is a game that isn't fucking around.

At time of writing I had made it to Chapter 4 and already some signs have been detected of the game's deconstructive intentions: The shouts made by characters during the fighting, clues made out via the intel drops, use of sixties metal music, and being led on in a linear fashion. There have already been some unsettling moments but not enough to put me off completely. Sure the gameplay may be a bit broken but somehow one suspects that may have been the point...

So I will continue playing Spec Ops the Line and it would be interesting to see what happens next...

Kart up about it

Recently I've been having a go at the classic game Super Mario Kart for the first time in years.

I remember this game when it was first released in 1992 - it was a big deal as it replicated the Mario formula into a racing game and was a blast in multiplayer (the Halo of it's day if you will).
What I also remember was that Super Mario Kart pretty much established the Karting genre of gaming which pretty much followed the same formula: A cast of colorful characters engaged in wacky racing. I do recall seeing so many clones throughout the rest of the nineties and they grew so numerous and so detestable: It was blatantly obvious that the makers of these games were trying to replicate the success of Mario Kart but there was little to improve on: Super Mario Kart was one of those rare kind of games where the formula worked so well the first time that no one - not even Nintendo themselves in the subsequent Mario Kart sequels -  has been able to better it (although I did enjoy Diddy Kong Racing when it was released).

So to come back to Mario Kart now is a bit odd seeing as what it inspired. Now I did recall playing Mario Kart during the glory days of the SNES but, surprisingly, I didn't enjoy it. I found problems with the computer AI being difficult to catch up with, trying to handle turns whilst maintaining a decent speed and the powers up doing....ermm.... not much. Plus, considering the many clones this game has inspired, Super Mario Kart has a lot to answer for.

And what did I think of it this time around? The same problems I had before have arisen again - but at least this time around I've managed to place well against the computer - as opposed to consistently coming last. I did play with some other people this time and I had some success there.
Still, I did enjoy Super Mario Kart this time around then compared to when I did some sixteen years ago. Not sure why though - maybe it was playing against real people, maybe I knew what to expect, maybe the whole Kart genre has kinda dried up at the moment. I'm not sure at all.
Still, I found Super Mario Kart now to be more fun than when i did back in the nineties. And I suppose that's what counts.

Going Backwards

These past few console generations have had success with reverse compatibility. And it makes sense: No one would buy a new console only to have nothing to use it so to use the same software from the last console on the new console is a smart move. Thus, through reverse compatibility, the PS2 was able to steam ahead of the Dreamcast (among other reasons) and Gamecube games still get some mileage on the Wii.

But here's what I want to know: Is any of the business people in the gaming industry, soulless bastards that they are, taking any notice? Sure it may ensure that people automatically upgrade to the new console without question (a smart business move to be sure) but it does place the rather awkward position that no one will be interested in the new stuff because they're attention is focused on the old stuff. Thus, both Sony's insistence on the PS3 being non-backwards compatible and Nintendo's dwindling interest for the Virtual Console makes sense. Now I've said time and time again that the Virtual Console really was a good idea but people like me who bought a Wii just for the Virtual Console may not sit well with Nintendo who, in the end, are trying to run a company.

There is indeed wisdom in the notion that a great game shall forever remain a great game: One only needs to see the 3D revamp of Ocarina of Time and the various HD reworkings that found their way onto the PS3. Thus it becomes clear that people will still gladly play the same thing again or, in my case, come across it for the very first time. So are the right people paying attention?

But the point I'm trying laboriously to get to is this matter of what will happen to the backwards compatibility. The ruthlessness in how the PS3 shuns it seems to a sign of things to come in that video game companies aren't really the type to dwell on the past.
However I do like the idea of games from obsolete consoles being available for download with the PSN, XBLA and the Virtual Console - this serves as a great method for both preservation and making them readily available. And this does seem to have lasting power - why even the Virtual Console has been announced to be workable with the Wii-2 and have Gamecube games on the way.
Of course, whilst a downloadable service is a good idea it does not mean every game will be considered. By way of example, I've enjoyed Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic but it does not seem available yet on XBLA - and whilst it may work on the 360, there is always the nagging thought that it may not for Microsoft's next console.

Ultimately, I like having these 'old' games being within easy reach but, if history has taught us anything, the technology is always moving at such an absurd pace that it is all-too easy for ideas to get discarded and forgotten.
So it would be interesting to see if the XBLA/PSN/VC, let alone it's contents, will have the power to last well into the future.

Can anyone imagine Halo, a decade-old game, being downloaded off the XBLA and enjoyed ten years from now?

Did Not.....Flabbergast?

Well it's been less than a week since Duke Nukem Forever was finally unleashed on a suspecting world and already the knives are out. Common criticisms range from loading times, a structure made from an incoherent jumble of ideas, inane jokes, nothing new to offer the FPS genre and being outpaced by it's older brethren (Half Life and Halo being two such examples)
I've read quite a few negative reviews and it seems everyone is more than willing to put the boot in. Indeed, the only good positive review I've seen came from Good Game - and I was indeed waiting for Bajo and Andrew Hansen to suddenly turn around and say "Just Kidding: THIS is what's really like."

It may be too soon to deem the eventual product/conclusion of the DNF saga to be a complete failure but, for the purposes of this post, I'm going to do it anyway. You see, looking at the divisive opinions of DNF it seems that everyone is angry by the fourteen years of inaction and, as a result, can't escape that fact - thus leaving many critics more than willing to put the boot in. It's as if the development time was more important than the game itself - but me, conversely, I find the fan reaction more important than the game itself. I'm intrigued that people can feel so hurt and betrayed that they are ready to dismiss the game before it has a chance to prove itself. I'm fascinated with the idea that people can make jokes for so long about this game and can get angry with the idea of their joke being taken away from them. I'm enthralled that people can get so worked up about a game. I'm amazed that people can be delighted that it turned out rubbish and get so infuriated with the idea that it might actually be good (and before you say a prolonged development couldn't possibly yield a great game then I suggest you retreat back to the bosom of Team Fortress 2).
Indeed, I myself will admit I have yet to play DNF - becuase in all honesty I find the venomous fan reaction far more entertaining. And if the fans garner more attention than the game itself then something has gone very wrong.

That being said, with this saga coming to such an anti-climatic ending, who are the real winners here? Is it 3d Realms? No, they had a hit with Duke3D but the momentum afterward fell apart. Is it Gearbox? No, they just took, what seems to be, a mess and tried to make it go. Is it Duke himself? No, he seems now more like an anachronism. Is it the franchise? No, it seems it won't go any further following this debacle and it's unlikely an attempt to be a better job the second time around a sequel will emerge.
No, I think the real winners are the fans: Those who felt betrayed to a point where they were more than eager to dismiss the game as rubbish. Those who got their wish of an irredeemable disaster. Those who refuse to forgive and forget. Those who have been shouting "I told you so", are shouting "I told you so" and, I suspect, will continue to shout "I told you so" for the next fourteen years. And those who are no doubt waiting eagerly to hear Yahtzee tear into it with the next Zero Punctuation.

Personally, considering the troubled development DNF had, I wanted it to get a happy ending - but there's always the thought of how many people genuinely wanted it to fail.

Hate the Final not the Fantasy

On the TV show Good Game, they're currently calling for people to contribute to the latest Fanboys Vs Haters debate. There, a franchise is selected and the lovers/loathers have to defend their case to the death (or something).

With the latest franchise for debate being Final fantasy I thought I might share my two cents (curse the limit of 300 words!):

Whilst I’ve enjoyed the FF series in the past, I must however join the haters.
To me the FF series can be divided into two halves: the Nintendo era and the Sony era. The Nintendo era is the series at it’s most pure: When Square were tying out new things, taking risks and seeing what the medium of video gaming could actually accomplish. Whilst not all of the games on the NES and SNES were successful, it’s interesting to see well thought out characters, compelling stories, unforgettable music and making great video games – all of these aspects reaching their zenith with FFVI.

Conversely, the FF of the Sony Era is more about show: Characters you’d rather punch in the face, flashy graphics, dumb plots leaning more towards melodrama, character designs more intended to challenge cosplayers, and an opening designed to grab attention but not to maintain it throughout the whole game. And more importantly, little thought to what constitutes as a video game.
True I have enjoyed VII and even IX and X but as the series continues, the FF series is more like a golden goose: It’s makers trying to figure what worked before and trying to replicate it (Lightening is the female Cloud? Hrmmm…..). It is indeed a telling sign that every FF that’s followed VII has people willing to condemn and defend it in passionate fashion.

To me FF is in the same camp as Sonic the Hedgehog: A series whose glory days have come and gone. A series that a) belongs to an era long gone, b) no longer has the people that made it good and c) keeps pumping out titles to the point of becoming embarrassing. Maybe it’s time to put the Final Fantasy series to rest? If Bungie did so with Halo….

Reach Out

So Halo Reach is, reportedly, the last Halo game from Bungie? I sure hope so. I think it's fair to say that everyone is pretty sick of Halo, it's devoted-to-the-point-of-downright-weird fans and the over-saturation of it all. I personally don't mind Halo but I find it interesting that Bungie decided to move on.

You hear so many people complaining about how gaming franchises are run into the ground and no one seems keen to try something new. I personally find it interesting that anyone who has the balls to genuinely try something new is swallowed by gamers and shat out as yet another franchise. Case in point: God of War. It came when action games were running out of puff and presented a compelling anti-hero along with a deconstruction of Greek mythology. Also, it presented a proper story with a well-realised resolution. As such, I have no idea why the God of War sequels exist or there is any need: Sure the action is still there but the plot just gets silly plays off of Kratos being a total jerk - thus ruining a lot of what originally made him so interesting.

So I give Bungie credit: They are obviously closing the book on successful franchise and moving onto something different. You don't see that much in the gaming these days becuase such a move requires a large amount of balls to do so. I can only think of only one other case where a franchise was deliberately put to rest and that was Phantasy Star 4 on the Sega Genesis/Megadrive.
Indeed, I'm interested to see what Bungie does next, and whether they will stick to their guns in the face of greedy business types and fans who will eat up anything with Halo written on it. It takes balls to do unconventional things with an established franchise (Leisure Suit Larry 4 comes to mind) so yay to Bungie.

Of course there is talk of doing ANOTHER Halo game only this time by fans but to me, in this franchise-driven, fan-pandering era, there's nothing sadder.

Your DreamWeb is just about to fall

Continuing on with that rant I made earlier this week about subtlety, I am reminded of a game that came out in 1994, for the Commodore Amiga (and later PC).
For the unfamiliar, Dreamweb is a adventure game where you control a dude named Ryan. Through a series of recurring dreams, he is informed by a group of monks that seven evils are in the city he lives in and whose continued presence will eventually bring about a global calamity. Thus, Ryan is assigned to hunt them all down and kill them, in the name of restoring the balance and saving the world.

Sounds familiar? Not this time: You see whilst the game itself may run through a tried and tested gaming plot formula, it soon becomes clear that something about this game just doesn't sit well. A quick peek into the manual reveals a diary kept by Ryan which reveals a lot about his mindset: He has problems with his girlfriend, he's been lacking sleep and he is showing signs of paranoia. Ultimately, Ryan is losing his marbles.
Thus whilst the game is a standard kill-dudes-to-save-world-scenario, the manual, and hints throughout the game, tell a different story: Is Ryan deluded? Is he a serial killer? Is he using the rationale of the Dreamweb as an excuse to gun down people in cold blood? Ryan is not all bothered by motives - and if the player questions them, progress through the game is stalled.



At first, Ryan is in a kill-or-be-killed scenario. That changes, in the second mission where Ryan has to gun down an innocent person, a security guard no less, simply because they are in the way. This unfortunate adds more to the questionable morality of the game, simply through having no function beyond being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Yet there a few clues that suggest that the DreamWeb is real and Ryan more not be deluded. Indeed, by the end of the game, the player has to arrive at a conclusion about Ryan and the state of his character.

Dreamweb as a game inspires many questions - all of which are never resolved by the game's end. That it does so, is a masterstroke - adding further to the punch this game provides. Indeed, the strength in this game is in it's story-telling and the way it challenges it's audiences. So much so, it makes me wonder why no one else has tried to replicate this scenario (maybe they're too scared of subtleties. Or too busy trying to match Halo's thunderous success). It's been sixteen years - we could do with some more ways of telling the story, addressing key themes and, indeed, something to point to to verify a maturity in gaming.

You know, to hell with Prince of Persia: They should a game-based movie out of this!

References:
http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/dreamweb/dreamweb.htm
http://www.ntsc-uk.com/review.php?platform=ipc&game=Dreamweb