Reports have been circulating on how the PS5 is in development. So I guess its safe to say that we are advancing towards the dawn of the ninth generation, whether we like it or not.
With each passing generation, I guess it is inevitable that we will keep moving forward at a rate that is difficult to keep up. But really, the days of computer/video gaming as a niche interest are long gone. Gaming is so commonplace, across many a medium that it is difficult to find something new to say.
I grew up during the Golden Age of Gaming (as some commentators have dubbed the 16-bit era) and I know how it was: Someone gets a great idea, it becomes a massive hit and clones come charging out of the woodwork. Super Mario bros. Doom. Street Fighter 2. But whilst that practice is still in place, it is not as prevalent as it once was. Oh sure any JRPG made now would owe a considerable debt to Final Fantasy and any sandbox game is walking the path set by the Grand Theft Auto series, but now, any game is building off something else. Its harder for anything new to be said when everything is moving in a loop and forgetting what came before.
It's kind of like drawing off the John Lennon cover of Stand By Me instead of the Ben E King original.
It has been my experience that every new gaming generation has to bring something new to the table to blow away everyone;s mind. I mean, even better graphics than before can only keep you going for so long
Showing posts with label Super Mario bros. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Super Mario bros. Show all posts
Friday, December 6, 2019
Monday, April 2, 2018
Hottest 100 Redux
It seems IGN have released another list of 100 Greatest Games of all time.
Regular readers to this blog would know that my journey into game truly began when I stumbled across IGN's 2005 list of 100 Greatest games of all time. What it meant for me that after so long away from gaming, I realized that this was an attempt to come up with a definitive list and chart gaming's progress over the years. The pioneers and game-changers were given proper dues and it became clear which games had endured the test of time.
However time is indeed a ravager: Looking at this new list, it seems that many of the classics have been ditched. Granted, old games can date and newer games can be game-changers in their own right but I am interested in seeing which games from the 2005 list are still present in the 2018 list.
Thirty Nine apparently.
Not a bad showing but it does raises the issue of what makes a game...well...time resistant.
What is it makes a game like, say, Super Mario Bros an enduring game that is recognized as an undisputed classic and still enjoyed by gamers over three decades on?
There's no way around it: This is an industry that moves remarkably fast. And in some cases, too fast for anything to withstand the test of time. Consider: 2018 marks forty six years since the beginning of the First Console generation with Pong and the Magnavox Odyssey.
By comparison, with movies, it took forty six years to get from, say, Frankenstein to Star Wars - two movies that are undisputed classics in their own right and look set to endure for decades to come.
Watching both movies will reveal considerable differences in forty six years of movie-making techniques - but such differences will mean little when comparing Pong to the likes of Far Cry 5.
Still, it would be interesting to see if people will still be playing The Last of Us, let alone praising it, in 2025.....
Regular readers to this blog would know that my journey into game truly began when I stumbled across IGN's 2005 list of 100 Greatest games of all time. What it meant for me that after so long away from gaming, I realized that this was an attempt to come up with a definitive list and chart gaming's progress over the years. The pioneers and game-changers were given proper dues and it became clear which games had endured the test of time.
However time is indeed a ravager: Looking at this new list, it seems that many of the classics have been ditched. Granted, old games can date and newer games can be game-changers in their own right but I am interested in seeing which games from the 2005 list are still present in the 2018 list.
Thirty Nine apparently.
Not a bad showing but it does raises the issue of what makes a game...well...time resistant.
What is it makes a game like, say, Super Mario Bros an enduring game that is recognized as an undisputed classic and still enjoyed by gamers over three decades on?
There's no way around it: This is an industry that moves remarkably fast. And in some cases, too fast for anything to withstand the test of time. Consider: 2018 marks forty six years since the beginning of the First Console generation with Pong and the Magnavox Odyssey.
By comparison, with movies, it took forty six years to get from, say, Frankenstein to Star Wars - two movies that are undisputed classics in their own right and look set to endure for decades to come.
Watching both movies will reveal considerable differences in forty six years of movie-making techniques - but such differences will mean little when comparing Pong to the likes of Far Cry 5.
Still, it would be interesting to see if people will still be playing The Last of Us, let alone praising it, in 2025.....
Friday, February 9, 2018
This Ain't No Game
So we have a new Mario movie in the works eh? And it's an animated one?
I'm actually surprised that this is happening because, as is my understanding, seeing as the notorious Live Action Mario movie was a flop, Nintendo has kept a tight grip on their IP. But then again, Nintendo has achieved massive success with a smartphone app called Pokemon Go.
My only hope is that this new movie is better than the previous efforts at having an animated Mario...
I'm actually surprised that this is happening because, as is my understanding, seeing as the notorious Live Action Mario movie was a flop, Nintendo has kept a tight grip on their IP. But then again, Nintendo has achieved massive success with a smartphone app called Pokemon Go.
My only hope is that this new movie is better than the previous efforts at having an animated Mario...
Monday, September 5, 2016
Half a world away
I find a fascination with gaming in the Eighties. History will declare that the decade was defined by the Great Gaming Crash that took Atari under and created an opening for Nintendo to storm in with the NES. Nintendo becomes a big deal and Mario, Link, Samus, Mega Man and Simon Belmont all become icons beyond reproach.
But this scenario, which has been told many times before, is viewed from the perspective of the U.S. - and as they say, history is only told by the winners. Coming from the perspective of someone outside the U.S., a different story is told and the contrast between within the U.S. and without the U.S. is astonishing to say the least.
To begin with, being in Australia, places one riding off the coattails of what was happening in the U.K. and Europe (as is often the case in Australia). If there was anything happening in the U.S. it had little to do with us - which is surprising considering the geographical location of Australia places in between U.S. and Europe. But I digress.
So yes, the choices of we Australians made was a replication of what was happening half a world away. Thus, whilst having a NES was commonplace in the U.S., that wasn't the case in Australia. Indeed, at the time, I remember more people I knew at school had a Master System than a NES and I noticed at the local toy store that the Master System had a more prominent place than the NES (indeed, that's a funny thing to look back on when one considers how things turned out for both Nintendo and Sega). So when the SNES finally showed it's face, there was indeed a sensation comparable to descending down from atop Mount Sinai and a sign that Nintendo suddenly was a big deal. Hard to imagine I know, right?
But the true victor in the Eighties gaming arms race in Australia was neither Sega or Nintendo. Nope: It was Commodore. I've lost count on how many people had a Commodore 64 when they were young and/or knew what one was. They were more commonplace than a NES or a Master System and many people point to it as being a starting point towards their interest in computers. And, much like the U.K., the Commodore 64 had a long and fruitful life in Australia that lasted well into the 16bit era.
This, in turn, would seem strange to the those in the U.S. as we in Australia (and the U.K.) had our own gaming culture develop separately. Whereas they had a rivalry between Sega and Nintendo, we Commodore 64 users had our own mortal enemies with the Spectrum users. When they were exchanging password codes, we were applying cheat codes. When they had Mario, Link and Samus, we had Armakuni, Turrican and Rockford.
Funny thing how cultures develop independent of each other. Naturally you wouldn't have that now when everyone and everything is linked online but looking at the same era from two different perspectives is an eye-opener to say the least.
But this scenario, which has been told many times before, is viewed from the perspective of the U.S. - and as they say, history is only told by the winners. Coming from the perspective of someone outside the U.S., a different story is told and the contrast between within the U.S. and without the U.S. is astonishing to say the least.
To begin with, being in Australia, places one riding off the coattails of what was happening in the U.K. and Europe (as is often the case in Australia). If there was anything happening in the U.S. it had little to do with us - which is surprising considering the geographical location of Australia places in between U.S. and Europe. But I digress.
So yes, the choices of we Australians made was a replication of what was happening half a world away. Thus, whilst having a NES was commonplace in the U.S., that wasn't the case in Australia. Indeed, at the time, I remember more people I knew at school had a Master System than a NES and I noticed at the local toy store that the Master System had a more prominent place than the NES (indeed, that's a funny thing to look back on when one considers how things turned out for both Nintendo and Sega). So when the SNES finally showed it's face, there was indeed a sensation comparable to descending down from atop Mount Sinai and a sign that Nintendo suddenly was a big deal. Hard to imagine I know, right?
But the true victor in the Eighties gaming arms race in Australia was neither Sega or Nintendo. Nope: It was Commodore. I've lost count on how many people had a Commodore 64 when they were young and/or knew what one was. They were more commonplace than a NES or a Master System and many people point to it as being a starting point towards their interest in computers. And, much like the U.K., the Commodore 64 had a long and fruitful life in Australia that lasted well into the 16bit era.
This, in turn, would seem strange to the those in the U.S. as we in Australia (and the U.K.) had our own gaming culture develop separately. Whereas they had a rivalry between Sega and Nintendo, we Commodore 64 users had our own mortal enemies with the Spectrum users. When they were exchanging password codes, we were applying cheat codes. When they had Mario, Link and Samus, we had Armakuni, Turrican and Rockford.
Funny thing how cultures develop independent of each other. Naturally you wouldn't have that now when everyone and everything is linked online but looking at the same era from two different perspectives is an eye-opener to say the least.
Monday, July 25, 2016
Everybody was Kung Fu fighting!
They say that you always remember the exact point when you encounter something new. Whilst, I do recall my first encounter with a console being the humble Atari 7800, whether it is Nintendo or Sega who got to me next is sadly lost to me. But I do remember my first encounter with a NES: My brother brought a friend around to visit and he brought this thing called a Nintendo around. And the very first game I witnessed being used on this device? A game called Kung Fu.
Looking back at this game, I have to admit that it's definitely not one of the brightest moments on the NES. My recollections of playing it involved a lot of cheap hits and insta-kills. Still, from a technical perspective, the graphics look impressive and the use of digitized speech is admirable. I will even admit that the in-game music is also kinda snappy.
But I think this game stayed with me because this was my first encounter with the 'rescue girlfriend as motivation' trope that gaming has relied on for countless times. And when compared to other instances that use this trope, ie Super Mario bros and Legend of Zelda, I think I had a greater investment in wanting the Player Character, Thomas, being reunited with the girlfriend, Sylvia. This may be attributed to that cutscene that appears in between levels commanding that Sylvia be rescued from Mr.X (man who comes up with such imaginatively named characters?!). Well, as a motivation, it certainly is effective.
Watching the video, I did finally get to see Thomas reunited with Sylvia - thus ending years of wondering XD But the ending text insists that this reunion will be short-lived. So what happened? Was there a sequel to this game? Do I even care?
Original video located here. Accessed 25th July 2016
Looking back at this game, I have to admit that it's definitely not one of the brightest moments on the NES. My recollections of playing it involved a lot of cheap hits and insta-kills. Still, from a technical perspective, the graphics look impressive and the use of digitized speech is admirable. I will even admit that the in-game music is also kinda snappy.
But I think this game stayed with me because this was my first encounter with the 'rescue girlfriend as motivation' trope that gaming has relied on for countless times. And when compared to other instances that use this trope, ie Super Mario bros and Legend of Zelda, I think I had a greater investment in wanting the Player Character, Thomas, being reunited with the girlfriend, Sylvia. This may be attributed to that cutscene that appears in between levels commanding that Sylvia be rescued from Mr.X (man who comes up with such imaginatively named characters?!). Well, as a motivation, it certainly is effective.
Watching the video, I did finally get to see Thomas reunited with Sylvia - thus ending years of wondering XD But the ending text insists that this reunion will be short-lived. So what happened? Was there a sequel to this game? Do I even care?
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
For Your Comparison
At the end of last year, I made mention of how, in 2005, I stumbled across a list made by IGN of the 100 Greatest Games. And how a new, updated list has arisen since.
This in turn got me thinking: With ten years separating these lists, how do they compare? What does this say about the games listed that have particular staying power? Is this truly the definitive list as it's made out to be?
So what I'll do for this post is to compare the lists: The 2005 original, the 2007 update and the 2015 iteration. Lets see if there are some common threads between them...
Firstly, the games that made both the 2005 and 2007 lists:
Alone in the Dark
Archon
Bionic Commando
Command and Conquer: Red Alert
Day of the Tentacle
Dragon Warrior
Dune 2: Building of a Dynasty
Fallout
Final Fantasy 4
God of War
Gran Turismo 3
Grand Theft Auto 3
Mafia
NHL '94
Panzer Dragoon Saga
Pokemon
Prince of Persia
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
Quake 2
Rayman 2: the Great escape
Rome: Total War
Sam and Max Hit the Road
Secret of Mana
Shining Force 2
Sid Meier's Civilization 2
Sonic the Hedgehog
Star Wars Arcade
Super Mario Kart
Syndicate
Ultima 7
Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution
Wave Race 64
~*~
Next, the games that made both the 2007 and 2015 lists.
Final Fantasy Tactics
Mega Man 2
Shadow of the Colossus
Silent Hill 2
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness
World of Warcraft
~*~
And finally, the moment you've all been waiting for, the games that made all three lists:
Advance Wars
Baldur's Gate 2
Battlefield 1942
Burnout 3: Takedown
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
Chrono Trigger
Contra
Deus Ex
Doom
Final Fantasy 6
Final Fantasy 7
Goldeneye 007
Grim Fandango
Half Life
Half Life 2
Halo
Ico
Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Mechwarrior 2: 31st Century Combat
Metal Gear Solid
Metroid Prime
Mike Tyson's Punch Out!!
Ms. Pacman
Resident Evil 4
Sid Meier's Pirates!
Sim City 2000
Star Wars: TIE Fighter
Starcraft
Street Fighter 2
Super Mario 64
Super Mario Bros 1
Super Mario Bros 3
Super Mario World
Super Mario World: Yoshi's Island
Super Metroid
System Shock 2
Tetris
Thief 2: The Metal Age
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2
X-COM: UFO Defense
~*~
So there you go: Forty-one games, that provide a common link between the three lists.
So what does this mean? One can imagine that these forty-one games have been influential and have proven to have considerable saying power - even compared to the more recent games listed in the 2015 list.
That's saying a lot when one considers that these games represent a nineteen year time period, with the earliest, Super Mario Bros, hailing from 1985 and the latest, Rome Total War, coming from 2004. Indeed, one can only wonder what the more current games listed in the 2015 list will look like in 2025....
This in turn got me thinking: With ten years separating these lists, how do they compare? What does this say about the games listed that have particular staying power? Is this truly the definitive list as it's made out to be?
So what I'll do for this post is to compare the lists: The 2005 original, the 2007 update and the 2015 iteration. Lets see if there are some common threads between them...
Firstly, the games that made both the 2005 and 2007 lists:
Alone in the Dark
Archon
Bionic Commando
Command and Conquer: Red Alert
Day of the Tentacle
Dragon Warrior
Dune 2: Building of a Dynasty
Fallout
Final Fantasy 4
God of War
Gran Turismo 3
Grand Theft Auto 3
Mafia
NHL '94
Panzer Dragoon Saga
Pokemon
Prince of Persia
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time
Quake 2
Rayman 2: the Great escape
Rome: Total War
Sam and Max Hit the Road
Secret of Mana
Shining Force 2
Sid Meier's Civilization 2
Sonic the Hedgehog
Star Wars Arcade
Super Mario Kart
Syndicate
Ultima 7
Virtua Fighter 4: Evolution
Wave Race 64
~*~
Next, the games that made both the 2007 and 2015 lists.
Final Fantasy Tactics
Mega Man 2
Shadow of the Colossus
Silent Hill 2
Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic
Warcraft 2: Tides of Darkness
World of Warcraft
~*~
And finally, the moment you've all been waiting for, the games that made all three lists:
Advance Wars
Baldur's Gate 2
Battlefield 1942
Burnout 3: Takedown
Castlevania: Symphony of the Night
Chrono Trigger
Contra
Deus Ex
Doom
Final Fantasy 6
Final Fantasy 7
Goldeneye 007
Grim Fandango
Half Life
Half Life 2
Halo
Ico
Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Mechwarrior 2: 31st Century Combat
Metal Gear Solid
Metroid Prime
Mike Tyson's Punch Out!!
Ms. Pacman
Resident Evil 4
Sid Meier's Pirates!
Sim City 2000
Star Wars: TIE Fighter
Starcraft
Street Fighter 2
Super Mario 64
Super Mario Bros 1
Super Mario Bros 3
Super Mario World
Super Mario World: Yoshi's Island
Super Metroid
System Shock 2
Tetris
Thief 2: The Metal Age
Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 2
X-COM: UFO Defense
~*~
So there you go: Forty-one games, that provide a common link between the three lists.
So what does this mean? One can imagine that these forty-one games have been influential and have proven to have considerable saying power - even compared to the more recent games listed in the 2015 list.
That's saying a lot when one considers that these games represent a nineteen year time period, with the earliest, Super Mario Bros, hailing from 1985 and the latest, Rome Total War, coming from 2004. Indeed, one can only wonder what the more current games listed in the 2015 list will look like in 2025....
Wednesday, August 13, 2014
A Few Good Games
And so, on last night's screening of Good Game, the list of 100 Best Games, as voted by the Australian public was released. And to the surprise of absolutely no one, Skyrim ended up on top.
Sarcasm aside, two of the three games I voted for made the list (Metal Gear Solid at 52 and Baldur's Gate 2 at 46) so that's not a bad effort.
What is worthy of note though is that, looking at the list, it is dominated by 7th generation and 6th generation games. Granted that may be a product of a large number of gamers younger than me casting their vote but it is kind of interesting that Skyrim comes out on top whilst Super Mario Bros, without question one of the most important games ever made, is relegated to the opposite end of the list.
No doubt about it: Gaming is a platform that is continually advancing at an incredible rate - thus there is something to said about a game having staying power. True Ocarina of Time may exemplify that notion through being at no.3, but many games of the previous generation have been relegated to the first half of the list.
Indeed, one can only wonder if a similar list is done up in thirty years from now - and whether or not Skyrim will still be the king. ......
Sarcasm aside, two of the three games I voted for made the list (Metal Gear Solid at 52 and Baldur's Gate 2 at 46) so that's not a bad effort.
What is worthy of note though is that, looking at the list, it is dominated by 7th generation and 6th generation games. Granted that may be a product of a large number of gamers younger than me casting their vote but it is kind of interesting that Skyrim comes out on top whilst Super Mario Bros, without question one of the most important games ever made, is relegated to the opposite end of the list.
No doubt about it: Gaming is a platform that is continually advancing at an incredible rate - thus there is something to said about a game having staying power. True Ocarina of Time may exemplify that notion through being at no.3, but many games of the previous generation have been relegated to the first half of the list.
Indeed, one can only wonder if a similar list is done up in thirty years from now - and whether or not Skyrim will still be the king. ......
Monday, June 23, 2014
A Tail and a half
When I was kid, I'd play Super Mario bros with my older brother. He didn't have to but he did.
And, as befit the older brother, he'd choose Mario and leave me with Luigi. It's the same story that may sound familiar to many other people and it's a tradition that continues to this day.
Strangely, whenever we played Sonic 2, my bother would always opt to play as Tails - which i found kinda odd as out of Sonic and Tails, Tails was clearly the younger of the two XD
And, as befit the older brother, he'd choose Mario and leave me with Luigi. It's the same story that may sound familiar to many other people and it's a tradition that continues to this day.
Strangely, whenever we played Sonic 2, my bother would always opt to play as Tails - which i found kinda odd as out of Sonic and Tails, Tails was clearly the younger of the two XD
Friday, May 9, 2014
Minor changes
Well this is depressing:
Original video located here. Accessed 5th May 2014
One gets the feeling this is theme to Mario being beaten.
Monday, July 15, 2013
Two's Company and Three's a Crowd
An age-old debate: 2d platformers or 3d platformers?
Honestly this question isn’t something I really need to think about: 2d all the way. I grew up with eight bit and 16 bit games and, as far as I’m concerned, they did the job nicely and still do today.
My experience with 3d platformers has been varied: I recall the first time I played Super Mario 64 on the N64 and, having enjoyed both Super Mario World and Super Mario Bros 3, experiencing some kind of culture shock: I had no idea what I was supposed to do with Mario or where I was supposed to go. Consequently much of my time in Super Mario 64 was spent running around like a headless chook. Latter still I found many 3d platformers seemed unclear as to not only where to go but how to get there: At times my experience with 3d platformers was awash with difficulty in distinguishing what was a ledge and what was scenery – And anyone who tells me they haven’t slipped up a complicated jumping onto something they thought they could hang onto is a liar.
I also didn’t appreciate the fact that much the graphics looked really ugly – a fact not helped years later as many fifth generation games have not aged well in the graphics department. And matters were not helped by a wonky camera that seemed to refuse to go where the player wanted it to.
And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards 3d platformers: Unclear paths, hideous graphics and a resentful camera. Major problems that, to me, was more than enough as a deal-breaker. And having come from the 16-bit era, these flaws came across as being a major regressive step – why try and ruin that which was working so well already? Indeed, these problems were, and still remain, the reasons why I loved 3d platforms: The screen moved with the PC, they looked nice (some even hold up really well today) and it was always clear where the player was meant to go (not to mention the thrill of finding new paths to get to the exit). That and they were tremendous fun to play.
Now that’s not to say that I’ve found 3d platformers that I’ve enjoyed – Prince of Persia Sands of Time comes to mind – but that had a great narrative and a fun time-rewind mechanic to back it up. In fact I’ve found that when a 3d platformer is offering something else, I will latch onto the ‘something else’ and lo and behold, I find I can really enjoy the game itself (ie Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, NiGHTS and God of War).
As for the 2d platformers, I love them and I still do. And I suspect I’ll still be enjoying them ten years from now. I still finding some being made today (Eversion anyone?) and they are still as compelling as ever. I think that is how I feel about the conflict between 2d and 3d – I’ve become so accustomed on 2d so for 3d to grab my attention it had better offer something else on top.
Your move 3d platformers
Honestly this question isn’t something I really need to think about: 2d all the way. I grew up with eight bit and 16 bit games and, as far as I’m concerned, they did the job nicely and still do today.
My experience with 3d platformers has been varied: I recall the first time I played Super Mario 64 on the N64 and, having enjoyed both Super Mario World and Super Mario Bros 3, experiencing some kind of culture shock: I had no idea what I was supposed to do with Mario or where I was supposed to go. Consequently much of my time in Super Mario 64 was spent running around like a headless chook. Latter still I found many 3d platformers seemed unclear as to not only where to go but how to get there: At times my experience with 3d platformers was awash with difficulty in distinguishing what was a ledge and what was scenery – And anyone who tells me they haven’t slipped up a complicated jumping onto something they thought they could hang onto is a liar.
I also didn’t appreciate the fact that much the graphics looked really ugly – a fact not helped years later as many fifth generation games have not aged well in the graphics department. And matters were not helped by a wonky camera that seemed to refuse to go where the player wanted it to.
And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards 3d platformers: Unclear paths, hideous graphics and a resentful camera. Major problems that, to me, was more than enough as a deal-breaker. And having come from the 16-bit era, these flaws came across as being a major regressive step – why try and ruin that which was working so well already? Indeed, these problems were, and still remain, the reasons why I loved 3d platforms: The screen moved with the PC, they looked nice (some even hold up really well today) and it was always clear where the player was meant to go (not to mention the thrill of finding new paths to get to the exit). That and they were tremendous fun to play.
Now that’s not to say that I’ve found 3d platformers that I’ve enjoyed – Prince of Persia Sands of Time comes to mind – but that had a great narrative and a fun time-rewind mechanic to back it up. In fact I’ve found that when a 3d platformer is offering something else, I will latch onto the ‘something else’ and lo and behold, I find I can really enjoy the game itself (ie Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, NiGHTS and God of War).
As for the 2d platformers, I love them and I still do. And I suspect I’ll still be enjoying them ten years from now. I still finding some being made today (Eversion anyone?) and they are still as compelling as ever. I think that is how I feel about the conflict between 2d and 3d – I’ve become so accustomed on 2d so for 3d to grab my attention it had better offer something else on top.
Your move 3d platformers
Friday, July 12, 2013
Come Out and Play
So with a new Nintendo console comes the announcement that a new iteration of the Super Smash Brothers is on it's way.
The Super Smash Bros series and I have something of a weird history. I became aware of the series through the first title on the N64 - but the first game I played in the series is Melee. But I could not get into it: I've played many fighting games and enjoyed them - even if I've been relying on the time and tested tactic of button mashing. But the Super Smash bros is a series that will have none of that: As such I was both flattened time and time again and puzzled by how the game works (how many hits can this asshole take?! Oh so being knocked out is instant death....). As such it's kind of embarrassing for me to see people who have every character worked out and mop the floor with me.
Still I did end up obtaining Brawl for my Wii and whilst I did have a hard time getting into the swing of things, I did enjoy it (even if I'm no more wiser as to what the hell I'm doing). In addition I also acquired the original Super Smash Bros from the Virtual Console but somehow it didn't really make an impression on me.
Yet somehow it is kind of telling that Brawl, the maligned of the series, is the one that did indeed make a connection with me....
Anywho, with the latest Super Smash Bros, more and more cast members are being teased out as 2014 draws nearer. Yet this is coming in the wake of Brawl which featured a large character roster and reports are indicting that said roster will be trimmed of the less unique characters for the new game. Reports also indicate that deciding which characters get the flick is not a decision made easily.
Personally I'm in two minds over this: On one hand the shortened roster will be easier to keep track of certain faces and remove any duplicate characters. But on the other hand I've used each and every character in Brawl and I don't mind them (except maybe Wario) so somehow having a familiar face been given the boot would be disarming to say the least.
So far we have mainstays Mario, Link, Donkey Kong, Samus, Kirby, Fox and Pikachu. Bowser, Pit and Olimar are also making a return. But in the terms of newcomers we have Mega Man, Villager and Wii Fit Trainer - the latter of course being an odd choice.
Still this is but the early stage - what more will eventuate between now and the release date would be interesting to say the least...
The Super Smash Bros series and I have something of a weird history. I became aware of the series through the first title on the N64 - but the first game I played in the series is Melee. But I could not get into it: I've played many fighting games and enjoyed them - even if I've been relying on the time and tested tactic of button mashing. But the Super Smash bros is a series that will have none of that: As such I was both flattened time and time again and puzzled by how the game works (how many hits can this asshole take?! Oh so being knocked out is instant death....). As such it's kind of embarrassing for me to see people who have every character worked out and mop the floor with me.
Still I did end up obtaining Brawl for my Wii and whilst I did have a hard time getting into the swing of things, I did enjoy it (even if I'm no more wiser as to what the hell I'm doing). In addition I also acquired the original Super Smash Bros from the Virtual Console but somehow it didn't really make an impression on me.
Yet somehow it is kind of telling that Brawl, the maligned of the series, is the one that did indeed make a connection with me....
Anywho, with the latest Super Smash Bros, more and more cast members are being teased out as 2014 draws nearer. Yet this is coming in the wake of Brawl which featured a large character roster and reports are indicting that said roster will be trimmed of the less unique characters for the new game. Reports also indicate that deciding which characters get the flick is not a decision made easily.
Personally I'm in two minds over this: On one hand the shortened roster will be easier to keep track of certain faces and remove any duplicate characters. But on the other hand I've used each and every character in Brawl and I don't mind them (except maybe Wario) so somehow having a familiar face been given the boot would be disarming to say the least.
So far we have mainstays Mario, Link, Donkey Kong, Samus, Kirby, Fox and Pikachu. Bowser, Pit and Olimar are also making a return. But in the terms of newcomers we have Mega Man, Villager and Wii Fit Trainer - the latter of course being an odd choice.
Still this is but the early stage - what more will eventuate between now and the release date would be interesting to say the least...
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Fit for a King
Another post, another game struck down from my Hall of Shame. Once again, it was something I played over my Christmas break: Kings Quest 6.
Once upon a time, Sierra had a substantial reputation for their Adventure games. They had several series that featured over numerous installments and enjoyed much success during their heyday. I myself never really bothered much with them. Yes I played about two installments of the Leisure Suit Larry (keep in mind I was ten/eleven at the time), and I had seen the first Police Quest being played but was largely unfamiliar with the Sierra adventure games.
In the years since, time has not been kind to the Sierra adventure games with most of them being dismissed for obnoxious difficulty, game-killing puzzles (one slightest slip up and it's game over), cheap deaths and solutions to problems that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Still I was interested to take a look so I may as well try one of the best: King's Quest 6.
Now coming into Kings Quest 6 I had absolutely zero knowledge about the series beforehand - thus leaving me with little idea as to what to expect. And the first thing that struck me about this game was that it was genuine attempt to build a fairy tale within game - something that doesn't happen very often. Okay so the Super Mario and Zelda games may have taken their inspiration from fairy tales whilst Braid and Shadow the Colossus seek to deconstruct them, but for me King's Quest 6 feels genuine in it's attempt to present a prince going around a fantasy world to rescue a princess.
But at the same time, one feels this was trying to deconstruct the fairy tale genre whilst celebrating it. Thus the prince, Alexander, comes across as committed to his quest to the point of tunnel-vision that one starts questioning his mental state. Likewise the princess, Cassima, is revealed to be practical and hardly the type to sit around waiting to be rescued.
In fact a lot has to said for the writing: The characters are well written and likeable, there are some interesting allusions to other fairy tales, the puzzles actually make sense, the humor is well handled (ie the Chess Piece queens) and the climax is actually really exciting.Okay the amount of deaths were stupid but the setting and characters that inhabited it were compelling enough to see me through.
Also, I particularly enjoyed the voice acting - I'm still trying to wrap my head around Alexander being voiced by the same guy with did the Beast from Disney's Beauty and the Beast. And special mention must go to that guy who voices Saladin - He's great!
But I'm not quite sure what to make of the ending theme though ("Girl in the ToWAAAAHHH!!!").
Now considering Sierra's reputation this game didn't cause an epiphany to inspire me to check out more Sierra games. Still, I enjoyed it a lot and its fun to see a genuine fairy tale in gaming - I mean you can't keep shooting zombies forever....
Once upon a time, Sierra had a substantial reputation for their Adventure games. They had several series that featured over numerous installments and enjoyed much success during their heyday. I myself never really bothered much with them. Yes I played about two installments of the Leisure Suit Larry (keep in mind I was ten/eleven at the time), and I had seen the first Police Quest being played but was largely unfamiliar with the Sierra adventure games.
In the years since, time has not been kind to the Sierra adventure games with most of them being dismissed for obnoxious difficulty, game-killing puzzles (one slightest slip up and it's game over), cheap deaths and solutions to problems that make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Still I was interested to take a look so I may as well try one of the best: King's Quest 6.
Now coming into Kings Quest 6 I had absolutely zero knowledge about the series beforehand - thus leaving me with little idea as to what to expect. And the first thing that struck me about this game was that it was genuine attempt to build a fairy tale within game - something that doesn't happen very often. Okay so the Super Mario and Zelda games may have taken their inspiration from fairy tales whilst Braid and Shadow the Colossus seek to deconstruct them, but for me King's Quest 6 feels genuine in it's attempt to present a prince going around a fantasy world to rescue a princess.
But at the same time, one feels this was trying to deconstruct the fairy tale genre whilst celebrating it. Thus the prince, Alexander, comes across as committed to his quest to the point of tunnel-vision that one starts questioning his mental state. Likewise the princess, Cassima, is revealed to be practical and hardly the type to sit around waiting to be rescued.
In fact a lot has to said for the writing: The characters are well written and likeable, there are some interesting allusions to other fairy tales, the puzzles actually make sense, the humor is well handled (ie the Chess Piece queens) and the climax is actually really exciting.Okay the amount of deaths were stupid but the setting and characters that inhabited it were compelling enough to see me through.
Also, I particularly enjoyed the voice acting - I'm still trying to wrap my head around Alexander being voiced by the same guy with did the Beast from Disney's Beauty and the Beast. And special mention must go to that guy who voices Saladin - He's great!
But I'm not quite sure what to make of the ending theme though ("Girl in the ToWAAAAHHH!!!").
Now considering Sierra's reputation this game didn't cause an epiphany to inspire me to check out more Sierra games. Still, I enjoyed it a lot and its fun to see a genuine fairy tale in gaming - I mean you can't keep shooting zombies forever....
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Raptr Preservation
Yeah it's Halloween so what have I got up my sleeve for this evening? Something completely unrelated! Ha!
Anywho, it's been a week since I started using Raptr. In that time I've notched up over a thousand hour of game time.
Of course, this is only through me going back over my game files, over several consoles, and adding them to my Raptor profile. Thus the 1000+ hours is the product of seven years not seven days (so you can kindly cease typing out that email denouncing me as a loser).
Why go to all this trouble? Well I like the idea that this, Raptr, is there to serve as a record for one's gaming achievements - and not just XBLA achievements/PSN Trophies. I like the idea of Raptr being evidence of doing such things and it serving as a record that may last for years to come. Of course that may not turn out that way but I do like the idea of it being set in stone. Who knows? You come back in several years time and think: Yep, I did that :)
However me going back over my old gaming files does ultimately defeat the purpose of the reward system that Raptr is plugging. The rewards system seem more focused on more recent games not on the classics. There there is really nothing really gained from me putting in so much hours for classic eighties/nineties games. Still I must admit that it's kinda nice to be ranked the no.1 player for Adventures of Lolo, Final Fantasy 1, Secret of Mana, Super Mario Bros 3, Ogre Battle 64, and Burnout 3.
Of course the 1000 hours are the time-frames that I've been able to recover on my PS2, Wii and 360. I have invested many hours in other games on other gaming platforms but they're sadly lost to time. Indeed, I'd like to know how many hours I've blown in Baldurs Gate. However I don't WANT to know how many hours I've sunk in World of Warcraft....
Anywho, it's been a week since I started using Raptr. In that time I've notched up over a thousand hour of game time.
Of course, this is only through me going back over my game files, over several consoles, and adding them to my Raptor profile. Thus the 1000+ hours is the product of seven years not seven days (so you can kindly cease typing out that email denouncing me as a loser).
Why go to all this trouble? Well I like the idea that this, Raptr, is there to serve as a record for one's gaming achievements - and not just XBLA achievements/PSN Trophies. I like the idea of Raptr being evidence of doing such things and it serving as a record that may last for years to come. Of course that may not turn out that way but I do like the idea of it being set in stone. Who knows? You come back in several years time and think: Yep, I did that :)
However me going back over my old gaming files does ultimately defeat the purpose of the reward system that Raptr is plugging. The rewards system seem more focused on more recent games not on the classics. There there is really nothing really gained from me putting in so much hours for classic eighties/nineties games. Still I must admit that it's kinda nice to be ranked the no.1 player for Adventures of Lolo, Final Fantasy 1, Secret of Mana, Super Mario Bros 3, Ogre Battle 64, and Burnout 3.
Of course the 1000 hours are the time-frames that I've been able to recover on my PS2, Wii and 360. I have invested many hours in other games on other gaming platforms but they're sadly lost to time. Indeed, I'd like to know how many hours I've blown in Baldurs Gate. However I don't WANT to know how many hours I've sunk in World of Warcraft....
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Ladies Man Luigi
I've always had a soft spot for Luigi. Whenever I played a Super Mario Bros. game with my brother, I always somehow ended up playing as Luigi (and still do) - a situation that many younger brothers would somehow find familiar...
Anyway, there are plenty more ramblings by other people here on the Internet about Luigi being eternally in the shadow of his brother so here's some thing I've been pondering on: Is Luigi a ladies man?
Much has been theorized about Mario's relationship with Princess Peach - Peach has been kidnapped so much to a point where it doesn't her at all and she seems hardly adequate as a head of state whilst Mario goes through so many dangerous areas in order to rescue her for the rather flimsy promise of cake - but what about Luigi? He's always being dragged into his brother's quests so how does he feel about this? What does he think of Peach? He may have been established as being of a cowardly nature but that at least suggests he may have some degree of common sense.
I heard that Luigi may have some degree of attraction to Princess Daisy but he's too shy to act upon it. But I'm not buying that - Instead, I like to think that whereas Mario seems willing to play the hero, perhaps to the point of obsession, Luigi is of a more easy going nature and far more interested in enjoying his surroundings than getting into danger.
Sounds like a bizarre scenario yes but somehow I find support for it in this image:
This was the title screen to the NES golfing game NES Open. I remember seeing this as a kid and even it kinda struck me how Luigi looks relaxed and Mario seems intent on striking a pose - the faces of their retrospective female companions - presumably Peach and Daisy - supports this theory. As exemplified here, Luigi seems to appreciate the company of (maybe) Daisy whilst Mario seems uninterested in (maybe) Peach in favor of being heroic and doing heroic things leaving his companion looking shocked/appalled.
Whilst Mario's relationship with Peach may be a subject of speculation, sometimes I wonder about Luigi. Is there something we're not being told? Is he doing things unbeknownst to everyone else when his brother gets all the glory? Is Luigi more a ladies man than Mario?
It's always the quieter one's you gotta watch out for...
Anyway, there are plenty more ramblings by other people here on the Internet about Luigi being eternally in the shadow of his brother so here's some thing I've been pondering on: Is Luigi a ladies man?
Much has been theorized about Mario's relationship with Princess Peach - Peach has been kidnapped so much to a point where it doesn't her at all and she seems hardly adequate as a head of state whilst Mario goes through so many dangerous areas in order to rescue her for the rather flimsy promise of cake - but what about Luigi? He's always being dragged into his brother's quests so how does he feel about this? What does he think of Peach? He may have been established as being of a cowardly nature but that at least suggests he may have some degree of common sense.
I heard that Luigi may have some degree of attraction to Princess Daisy but he's too shy to act upon it. But I'm not buying that - Instead, I like to think that whereas Mario seems willing to play the hero, perhaps to the point of obsession, Luigi is of a more easy going nature and far more interested in enjoying his surroundings than getting into danger.
Sounds like a bizarre scenario yes but somehow I find support for it in this image:
Original image located here. Accessed 4th July 2012
This was the title screen to the NES golfing game NES Open. I remember seeing this as a kid and even it kinda struck me how Luigi looks relaxed and Mario seems intent on striking a pose - the faces of their retrospective female companions - presumably Peach and Daisy - supports this theory. As exemplified here, Luigi seems to appreciate the company of (maybe) Daisy whilst Mario seems uninterested in (maybe) Peach in favor of being heroic and doing heroic things leaving his companion looking shocked/appalled.
Whilst Mario's relationship with Peach may be a subject of speculation, sometimes I wonder about Luigi. Is there something we're not being told? Is he doing things unbeknownst to everyone else when his brother gets all the glory? Is Luigi more a ladies man than Mario?
It's always the quieter one's you gotta watch out for...
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
The Prince is in another castle
Here's something I've been pondering recently: There have been numerous games where the player character has to rescue a princess but has there been a game where a lass rescues a prince?
I don't about the rest of you but since the first Legend of Zelda games and Super Mario bros. 1, the idea of rescuing princess as the game goal has some how been ingrained into the gamer consciousness. Sure it may a tried and tested trope but somehow we're keen to go with it. We're becoming used to control some guy rescuing a love interest and/or some gal using her wits to escape some sort of imprisonment. So why no gal-rescuing-prince? Well, the way I see it, this is such a familiar scenario then any attempt to mess with it is going to be challenged on multiple accounts. Therefore:
1) As the saying goes, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. Sure the 'rescue princess' scenario may have worked a gazillion times before but there's no reason why additions can be made to the formula and have sime suitable characterization. Hence, in the case of Princess Zelda, we see her assisting Link in various forms, embodying the Triforce of wisdom and even taking up the mantle of Shiek. It also helps that the player character and princess (both Link and Zelda) are made to look beautiful, thus ensuring the attention of both male and female gamers alike.
2) Speaking of looking beautiful, it seems to be a defining element of 'rescuing princess' formula. I mean, the word princess is practicality synonymous with being young and beautiful - thus, it becomes clear that the rescue attempt must undertaken on the strength that it'll be worth it. Thus, conversely, the thought of rescuing a princess seems to establish the notion that if he was hopeless enough to get captured then he isn't worth jack.
3) Female player characters are indeed prevalent but they're always characterized as tough and independently minded - hardly the type that would go rescuing some prince. I mean can anyone think of Samus Aran or Lara Croft going out of there way to rescue some significant other? Of course not.
And besides, if the princess was cunning/fighter, she would rescue herself and there'd be no game to play!
4) In fact the only princely character I can think of in gaming would have to be Alister from Dragon Age Origins. But it would seem that to be a video game prince carries for too much stigmata - as a result, Alister is far from royal material - He's a bastard, uninterested in royal responsibilities, and a dope. Still there is the thought that if he didn't receive such necessary characterization, Alister would come across as a lot less interesting.
But now that I think about it, Dragon Age Origins had the option of being a female player character and romancing Alister - and thus the option of ending the game as King and Queen of Ferelden. So maybe there is some value in developing an attachment to a video game prince....
I don't about the rest of you but since the first Legend of Zelda games and Super Mario bros. 1, the idea of rescuing princess as the game goal has some how been ingrained into the gamer consciousness. Sure it may a tried and tested trope but somehow we're keen to go with it. We're becoming used to control some guy rescuing a love interest and/or some gal using her wits to escape some sort of imprisonment. So why no gal-rescuing-prince? Well, the way I see it, this is such a familiar scenario then any attempt to mess with it is going to be challenged on multiple accounts. Therefore:
1) As the saying goes, 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'. Sure the 'rescue princess' scenario may have worked a gazillion times before but there's no reason why additions can be made to the formula and have sime suitable characterization. Hence, in the case of Princess Zelda, we see her assisting Link in various forms, embodying the Triforce of wisdom and even taking up the mantle of Shiek. It also helps that the player character and princess (both Link and Zelda) are made to look beautiful, thus ensuring the attention of both male and female gamers alike.
2) Speaking of looking beautiful, it seems to be a defining element of 'rescuing princess' formula. I mean, the word princess is practicality synonymous with being young and beautiful - thus, it becomes clear that the rescue attempt must undertaken on the strength that it'll be worth it. Thus, conversely, the thought of rescuing a princess seems to establish the notion that if he was hopeless enough to get captured then he isn't worth jack.
3) Female player characters are indeed prevalent but they're always characterized as tough and independently minded - hardly the type that would go rescuing some prince. I mean can anyone think of Samus Aran or Lara Croft going out of there way to rescue some significant other? Of course not.
And besides, if the princess was cunning/fighter, she would rescue herself and there'd be no game to play!
4) In fact the only princely character I can think of in gaming would have to be Alister from Dragon Age Origins. But it would seem that to be a video game prince carries for too much stigmata - as a result, Alister is far from royal material - He's a bastard, uninterested in royal responsibilities, and a dope. Still there is the thought that if he didn't receive such necessary characterization, Alister would come across as a lot less interesting.
But now that I think about it, Dragon Age Origins had the option of being a female player character and romancing Alister - and thus the option of ending the game as King and Queen of Ferelden. So maybe there is some value in developing an attachment to a video game prince....
Monday, April 9, 2012
Do the Mario
This weekend, I had the pleasure of striking another game from my Hall of Shame. This time it's Super Mario Bros. 3.
I remember many games I played as a kid but this is one I recall more than others. For this game was hailed as the greatest of it's day. It was the game every NES had to have and everyone had to play. I myself didn't have a NES but my brother had a friend who did so thus I was able to see, and eventually play, this game of near monumental reverence.
Yet it is only years later through the Virtual Console, that I'm able to play SMB3 and see it through to the end. So what did I think of it?
Well, firstly I tell a lie: I didn't see it all the way through: I used the infamous Warp Whistles to skip the worlds 5-7 and take the fight straight to the last world with a bundle of power-ups in tow. But that counts: I trounced Bowser and saw the ending - and believe you me it does make a lot of difference getting there yourself as opposed to seeing someone else do it.
But what of the game itself? Well the legendary reputation of this game does carry an enormous amount of intimidation with it but I still had fun with it. It's interesting to see implementation of the open world map and the mini-games but, in a way, it does some rather quaint seeing as many other games have added mini-games and non-linear approach many times since. It's interesting to see new features to the Mario series added but some have left me wondering why they haven't reappeared since (Hammer suit anyone?).
And then there is the difficulty: I've often found the Mario games to be quite fiendishly tough when they want to be and SMB3 is no exception. The lack of a save feature is infuriating particularly when using a continue essentially forces the payer to go back over levels they tried so hard to get through - and, more often than not, on the hope of never repeating again. Indeed I encountered the same problem I had with Super Mario World: I had trouble with the tough levels that by the time I got to Bowser I defeated him in one go thus rendering the whole encounter one big anti-climax. Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder that if the minions give the hero more trouble than the Big Bad, then he isn't much of a threat...
Still I enjoyed playing SMB3 and it was good fun. It certainly has a level of addictiveness and, despite my grumbling about the difficulty, the challenge was one to rise up to. So yeah: Super Mario Bros 3 is one game that certainly holds up years later and I'm glad to have finally beaten it.
Now if I could only get my hands on Super Mario Galaxy.......
I remember many games I played as a kid but this is one I recall more than others. For this game was hailed as the greatest of it's day. It was the game every NES had to have and everyone had to play. I myself didn't have a NES but my brother had a friend who did so thus I was able to see, and eventually play, this game of near monumental reverence.
Yet it is only years later through the Virtual Console, that I'm able to play SMB3 and see it through to the end. So what did I think of it?
Well, firstly I tell a lie: I didn't see it all the way through: I used the infamous Warp Whistles to skip the worlds 5-7 and take the fight straight to the last world with a bundle of power-ups in tow. But that counts: I trounced Bowser and saw the ending - and believe you me it does make a lot of difference getting there yourself as opposed to seeing someone else do it.
But what of the game itself? Well the legendary reputation of this game does carry an enormous amount of intimidation with it but I still had fun with it. It's interesting to see implementation of the open world map and the mini-games but, in a way, it does some rather quaint seeing as many other games have added mini-games and non-linear approach many times since. It's interesting to see new features to the Mario series added but some have left me wondering why they haven't reappeared since (Hammer suit anyone?).
And then there is the difficulty: I've often found the Mario games to be quite fiendishly tough when they want to be and SMB3 is no exception. The lack of a save feature is infuriating particularly when using a continue essentially forces the payer to go back over levels they tried so hard to get through - and, more often than not, on the hope of never repeating again. Indeed I encountered the same problem I had with Super Mario World: I had trouble with the tough levels that by the time I got to Bowser I defeated him in one go thus rendering the whole encounter one big anti-climax. Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder that if the minions give the hero more trouble than the Big Bad, then he isn't much of a threat...
Still I enjoyed playing SMB3 and it was good fun. It certainly has a level of addictiveness and, despite my grumbling about the difficulty, the challenge was one to rise up to. So yeah: Super Mario Bros 3 is one game that certainly holds up years later and I'm glad to have finally beaten it.
Now if I could only get my hands on Super Mario Galaxy.......
Monday, January 23, 2012
Come to SAVE! The Princess Zel-Dah!
It’s been well documented on this blog that I really like the character of Princess Zelda. Okay sure it may be fool’s errand to say so seeing that it’s a different character with each Zelda game, her role and usefulness within the games varies, and a romance with Link that is more based on speculation. But the appeal of Princess Zelda is the mystique in that little is seen of her but much is made of her - not least, of course, in the title of the series.
When the Legend of Zelda series began, Princess Zelda herself was the goal: She was a princess and it was Link’s role to rescue her from the clutches of the antagonist Ganon. It may have worked then but years of gaming advancements have happened since. Thus it is now customary to have well-realised scripts and characters the player can relate to. So whilst the formula may have persisted in the lead games since, it’s interesting to note how said formula has been tampered with and how Princess Zelda has done significantly more than just sit around, waiting to be rescued. In Ocarina of Time, she provides help and assistance to Link and even gets into the thick of it through her alter ego Sheik. In Wind Waker, Princess Zelda adopts the persona of the sassy pirate captain Tetra. In Twilight Princess, Zelda is shown to be a ruler who is deeply concerned for the well-being of her people and even plays an active role in helping Link defeat Ganondorf in the final conflict. In Skyward Sword, Zelda finally gets some romantic interplay with Link which makes her assertive whilst leaving him something of a dope (or so I’ve heard). And, as established many times over, Princess Zelda forms a trifecta with Link and Ganondorf as they each represent the three aspects of the Triforce in Wisdom, Courage and Power respectively.
All of this begs the question of why isn’t there a Zelda game where we get to control Princess Zelda herself. She has her fans and many of them would like to see her as the player character. But no – the games tell the story of Link’s adventure, not hers. What is particularly frustrating is that whilst the character of Princess Zelda has had some care and work gone into making her something a bit more than damsel in distress, at the end of the day she still fulfils that function within the game itself! Such a move does bother me in that Nintendo could make really a really great heroine but seem unwilling to make the final step. Why, I heard that the makers of Spirit Tracks paid attention to the demands of wanting to use Princess Zelda as a playable character but the end result struck me more of a squandered opportunity: Yes it was nice to finally see Princess Zelda and Link working together but to have that Zelda being dead and assisting Link only in spirit does leave a rather nasty taste in the mouth.
But ultimately, the balking out may be there for good reason: For there does lie the notion that if a damsel in distress is a strong, practical and capable of looking after herself then she would’ve already rescued herself. Thus having Princess Zelda the player character may upset the afore-mentioned trifecta: If it’s Princess Zelda going out and taking Ganondorf down then what’s left for Link to do? He is the embodiment of the Triforce of Courage so thus it looks kinda silly for him to be placed in such a redundant position (which may explain how Princess Peach got her own game on the DS).
There is indeed weight to make Princess Zelda a playable character and, with enough thought, it could be made to work. If Zelda is setting up things beforehand for Link to walk into, then why don’t we see it happen? How about a Legend of Zelda game which features bonus content showing Princess Zelda going around and setting things up for particular points in the game (by way of example, consider the Ada missions in Resident Evil 4)? Or how about a Legend of Zelda game where the player can switch between both Link and Princess Zelda and show the latter using her magic and mind to overcome problems to assist Link in his quest?
Still, I personally like to think that Princess Zelda could do everything but she’s smart enough to get someone else, Link, to do it. After all, she isn’t the embodiment of the Triforce of Wisdom for nothing…
When the Legend of Zelda series began, Princess Zelda herself was the goal: She was a princess and it was Link’s role to rescue her from the clutches of the antagonist Ganon. It may have worked then but years of gaming advancements have happened since. Thus it is now customary to have well-realised scripts and characters the player can relate to. So whilst the formula may have persisted in the lead games since, it’s interesting to note how said formula has been tampered with and how Princess Zelda has done significantly more than just sit around, waiting to be rescued. In Ocarina of Time, she provides help and assistance to Link and even gets into the thick of it through her alter ego Sheik. In Wind Waker, Princess Zelda adopts the persona of the sassy pirate captain Tetra. In Twilight Princess, Zelda is shown to be a ruler who is deeply concerned for the well-being of her people and even plays an active role in helping Link defeat Ganondorf in the final conflict. In Skyward Sword, Zelda finally gets some romantic interplay with Link which makes her assertive whilst leaving him something of a dope (or so I’ve heard). And, as established many times over, Princess Zelda forms a trifecta with Link and Ganondorf as they each represent the three aspects of the Triforce in Wisdom, Courage and Power respectively.
All of this begs the question of why isn’t there a Zelda game where we get to control Princess Zelda herself. She has her fans and many of them would like to see her as the player character. But no – the games tell the story of Link’s adventure, not hers. What is particularly frustrating is that whilst the character of Princess Zelda has had some care and work gone into making her something a bit more than damsel in distress, at the end of the day she still fulfils that function within the game itself! Such a move does bother me in that Nintendo could make really a really great heroine but seem unwilling to make the final step. Why, I heard that the makers of Spirit Tracks paid attention to the demands of wanting to use Princess Zelda as a playable character but the end result struck me more of a squandered opportunity: Yes it was nice to finally see Princess Zelda and Link working together but to have that Zelda being dead and assisting Link only in spirit does leave a rather nasty taste in the mouth.
But ultimately, the balking out may be there for good reason: For there does lie the notion that if a damsel in distress is a strong, practical and capable of looking after herself then she would’ve already rescued herself. Thus having Princess Zelda the player character may upset the afore-mentioned trifecta: If it’s Princess Zelda going out and taking Ganondorf down then what’s left for Link to do? He is the embodiment of the Triforce of Courage so thus it looks kinda silly for him to be placed in such a redundant position (which may explain how Princess Peach got her own game on the DS).
There is indeed weight to make Princess Zelda a playable character and, with enough thought, it could be made to work. If Zelda is setting up things beforehand for Link to walk into, then why don’t we see it happen? How about a Legend of Zelda game which features bonus content showing Princess Zelda going around and setting things up for particular points in the game (by way of example, consider the Ada missions in Resident Evil 4)? Or how about a Legend of Zelda game where the player can switch between both Link and Princess Zelda and show the latter using her magic and mind to overcome problems to assist Link in his quest?
Still, I personally like to think that Princess Zelda could do everything but she’s smart enough to get someone else, Link, to do it. After all, she isn’t the embodiment of the Triforce of Wisdom for nothing…
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Princess Peach vs Yorda
It's been established many times over in this blog that I'm a big fan of the game Ico and I'll be first in line to defend it to the death. And so, for lack of a better segue, this is what I intend to do for today's post.
One common complaint I've heard about Ico is the ineffectual nature of Yorda - so I would like to address this aspect through inviting comparison to another gaming damsel in distress. That's right, I'm talking about Princess Peach.
Now much has already been written questioning Peach's mental state and how greatly she contributes to the Mario games so rather than go over well-trodden ground, I'm going to compare Peach and Yorda together in several areas. Hopefully I may be able to provoke a rethink to all the Yorda haters - and maybe Anne Hathaway will turn up on my doorstep demanding sex from me.
The Damsel in Distress
Yorda: Like Ico, Yorda is a prisoner in the fortress - this is immediately apparent through the first time we see her being in the predicament of being confined to a cage suspended up a tower.
Peach: Right from the very first game, Peach has provided something of a goal to the player in rescuing her from the clutches of Bowser. But since then, the same scenario has been repeated a gazillion times and yet she oddly doesn't seemed that fazed at all. This seems to present the rather unsettling suggestion that Peach may not be all right in the head....
The Setting
Yorda: Throughout the game, it is established that the fortress is the only world Yorda has known and the outside world would be a horrible place to be. But when the fortress is a monstrous creation towering above Ico and Yorda and seems to be one step ahead of their escape plan, getting away from it sounds like a damn good idea.
Peach: Is Princess Peach really a head of state? We never see her parents, the king and queen of the the Mushroom Kingdom, she doesn't seem to take on board any responsibilities as a ruler and the only interest she shows towards her subjects is getting them to do work for her! It seems she is far more content to have loads of money and little no responsibilities (insert obligatory Paris Hilton joke). So it begs the question: is this really a princess worth saving?
Appearance.
Yorda: Right from the word go, it is made clear that Yorda looks completely different form Ico - The deathly-pale skin was a dead giveaway and she's a world apart. Yet the ethereal quality is compelling enough.
Peach: Maybe it's me but this character design does little for me. I've seen faces that have kick-started many a damsel-in-distress saving quests but this isn't one of them. And those wide, vacant-looking eyes speak volumes. One would think Mario, a man of Italian nationality, would know a better-looking woman when he saw one.
Relationship to the player character
Yorda: Whilst Yorda does rely heavily on Ico, she is however bonded to the fortress and can open the sealed doors to other places that Ico would be otherwise been unable to access. Thus the relationship between Ico and Yorda is less an escort mission and more co-reliant.
Peach: Exactly what is the relationship between Peach and Mario? He goes through so many levels of danger and is constantly putting himself at risk but for what? The promise of cake?! Their relationship isn't really properly defined in the game and for all we know, Mario could be doing all this for having nothing better to do. In addition, considering Peach's afore-mentioned unfazed reaction to her abductions, brings forth the possibility that maybe Mario's efforts are going unnoticed and to waste. Seriously, is the promise of cake really that big a deal? (insert obligatory Portal joke)
Helpfulness to the player character
Yorda: This scene:
Peach: Apparently she does play a more helpful role in the Mario RPG with her being part of Mario's party and taking on a healer role. But I haven't got that far in that game yet so I can't comment. But if she truly is capable of self-defense then why doesn't she do it more often?!
But alas, nothing since has come of this change of pace and apparently the Mario RPGs are considered non-canon. So close and yet so far....
Facing a legitimate threat
Yorda: Yorda's role is ultimately to serve as a vessel to the Queen/Witch. The evil bitch intends to do this as her won body is nearing it's end and possessing her own daughter is as good excuse as any.
Peach: Whilst Bowser does present a threat, and indeed an imposing presence, it is however suggested that all he wants is some lovin'. One would wonder why don't Peach and Bowser hang out together (Stockholm Syndrome anyone?) but no, she still summons Mario to come to the rescue to save her from..... something that isn't really that big a deal.
Role in gaming
Yorda: Yorda is the product of a reinvention of the whole damsel-in-distress scenario that has been with gaming for nearly forever (a reinvention that, may I add, predates Braid).
Peach: Peach pretty much started this whole damsel-in-distress scenario - nowadays it's all played for laughs but honestly? The joke has pretty much been run to the ground....
Well I've said my case. But at the end of the day this my opinion and here on the internet differing opinions run rampant. I know there are some people who will put in the boot into Ico but you know what? I'm really not that bothered by it. I know I like Ico and that's all I need. And besides: Just because someone has a different to me doesn't mean it's the end of the world (very good advice that is).
Still, I shall expect the flames arriving in three....two....
One common complaint I've heard about Ico is the ineffectual nature of Yorda - so I would like to address this aspect through inviting comparison to another gaming damsel in distress. That's right, I'm talking about Princess Peach.
Now much has already been written questioning Peach's mental state and how greatly she contributes to the Mario games so rather than go over well-trodden ground, I'm going to compare Peach and Yorda together in several areas. Hopefully I may be able to provoke a rethink to all the Yorda haters - and maybe Anne Hathaway will turn up on my doorstep demanding sex from me.
The Damsel in Distress
Yorda: Like Ico, Yorda is a prisoner in the fortress - this is immediately apparent through the first time we see her being in the predicament of being confined to a cage suspended up a tower.
Peach: Right from the very first game, Peach has provided something of a goal to the player in rescuing her from the clutches of Bowser. But since then, the same scenario has been repeated a gazillion times and yet she oddly doesn't seemed that fazed at all. This seems to present the rather unsettling suggestion that Peach may not be all right in the head....
The Setting
Yorda: Throughout the game, it is established that the fortress is the only world Yorda has known and the outside world would be a horrible place to be. But when the fortress is a monstrous creation towering above Ico and Yorda and seems to be one step ahead of their escape plan, getting away from it sounds like a damn good idea.
Peach: Is Princess Peach really a head of state? We never see her parents, the king and queen of the the Mushroom Kingdom, she doesn't seem to take on board any responsibilities as a ruler and the only interest she shows towards her subjects is getting them to do work for her! It seems she is far more content to have loads of money and little no responsibilities (insert obligatory Paris Hilton joke). So it begs the question: is this really a princess worth saving?
Appearance.
Yorda: Right from the word go, it is made clear that Yorda looks completely different form Ico - The deathly-pale skin was a dead giveaway and she's a world apart. Yet the ethereal quality is compelling enough.
Peach: Maybe it's me but this character design does little for me. I've seen faces that have kick-started many a damsel-in-distress saving quests but this isn't one of them. And those wide, vacant-looking eyes speak volumes. One would think Mario, a man of Italian nationality, would know a better-looking woman when he saw one.
Relationship to the player character
Yorda: Whilst Yorda does rely heavily on Ico, she is however bonded to the fortress and can open the sealed doors to other places that Ico would be otherwise been unable to access. Thus the relationship between Ico and Yorda is less an escort mission and more co-reliant.
Peach: Exactly what is the relationship between Peach and Mario? He goes through so many levels of danger and is constantly putting himself at risk but for what? The promise of cake?! Their relationship isn't really properly defined in the game and for all we know, Mario could be doing all this for having nothing better to do. In addition, considering Peach's afore-mentioned unfazed reaction to her abductions, brings forth the possibility that maybe Mario's efforts are going unnoticed and to waste. Seriously, is the promise of cake really that big a deal? (insert obligatory Portal joke)
Helpfulness to the player character
Yorda: This scene:
Peach: Apparently she does play a more helpful role in the Mario RPG with her being part of Mario's party and taking on a healer role. But I haven't got that far in that game yet so I can't comment. But if she truly is capable of self-defense then why doesn't she do it more often?!
But alas, nothing since has come of this change of pace and apparently the Mario RPGs are considered non-canon. So close and yet so far....
Facing a legitimate threat
Yorda: Yorda's role is ultimately to serve as a vessel to the Queen/Witch. The evil bitch intends to do this as her won body is nearing it's end and possessing her own daughter is as good excuse as any.
Peach: Whilst Bowser does present a threat, and indeed an imposing presence, it is however suggested that all he wants is some lovin'. One would wonder why don't Peach and Bowser hang out together (Stockholm Syndrome anyone?) but no, she still summons Mario to come to the rescue to save her from..... something that isn't really that big a deal.
Role in gaming
Yorda: Yorda is the product of a reinvention of the whole damsel-in-distress scenario that has been with gaming for nearly forever (a reinvention that, may I add, predates Braid).
Peach: Peach pretty much started this whole damsel-in-distress scenario - nowadays it's all played for laughs but honestly? The joke has pretty much been run to the ground....
Well I've said my case. But at the end of the day this my opinion and here on the internet differing opinions run rampant. I know there are some people who will put in the boot into Ico but you know what? I'm really not that bothered by it. I know I like Ico and that's all I need. And besides: Just because someone has a different to me doesn't mean it's the end of the world (very good advice that is).
Still, I shall expect the flames arriving in three....two....
Friday, January 13, 2012
To the Extreme
I have this friend (hey Aef!). He’s a major fan of Lara Croft and he also thinks highly of Talis (of Dragon Age fame) and Jack (Mass Effect 2). Personally I see them all belonging in the same camp of extreme-strong-independent-borderline-psychotic-woman characters so I’m a bit worried about him….
Seriously though, I don’t find anything wrong with female game character being strong and independent – hell, I wrote a massively long, post about it – but what bugs me is that many female game characters are written in two extremes. The first being a character that serves as no other function than being a damsel in distress, ie Princess Peach. But the second is the afore-mentioned strong to the point of being psychotic type. The type defined by characteristics such as a constant need to prove one’s self, violent to the point of being neurotic, no conscience whatsoever, a near rejection of human emotions, an almost tunnel-vision determination to beat their male counterparts at their own game (so to speak) and the necessity to surround herself with male characters who can only be described as hopeless.
I mean I can understand the second type being a reaction to the ineffectualness of the second type but so easily can the second type come across as being a caricature as opposed to a legitimate character. I can understand that the female gamers may want a champion to cheer for and aspire to but I’m not convinced that having a character with near-psychotic traits is the way to go about it. True the ‘damsel in distress’ may be a stereotype but the ‘sassy action girl’ could also be considered a stereotype. And no less obnoxious.
Okay so there’s nothing wrong with women being inspired by the likes of Buffy or Xena but at the end of the day, one thing I do object about the 'sassy action girl' is when they are shown doing 'action' things and little else! As an aspiring writer myself, I know for a fact that the best characters need a mixture of strengths and oddities to keep them interesting - after all, once you identify the unusual about a character you're pretty much on your way.
One thing that bothers me about the second type characters is that they seem to convey the idea that it’s wrong to be…well…..feminine. You know, a female character can’t be passive or dress up – no they have to be in everyone’s face and take control of situations! Thus the only time the sight of Lara Croft in a cocktail dress would be acceptable would be if she was holding an assault rifle or something.
Seriously, what’s wrong with being feminine? By way of experience, Kathleen spent her teen years as a tomboy military chick and years later I managed to convince her into a dress on numerous occasions without too much difficulty.
Ultimately I’m not interested in either the powerful/independent women (and thus evil) stereotype or the powerless/male-reliant women (and thus virtuous) stereotype. No, what I think game writers should be striving for is a middle ground: A strong independent woman who has at least has emotions, a softer side and not afraid to do feminine things. Why not? Surely such ingredients would make for a champion worth cheering for, no? Some would think such traits would create an inconsistent conflict but I call BS on that: What it does is create a character who is, oh I don't know, interesting.
I’ve made mention of instances when this balance has been achieved but at the end of the day they are few. Ultimately it’s hard for the middle ground to get heard when two extremes dominate.
Still it is puzzling why the middle ground can’t be embraced seeing as it does the best of both worlds. Indeed, I've seen several game characters - both male and female - loaded with both strengths and enough charm to win over a player - but no visible character flaws or actual depth to balance it out. And still the character is lauded for it!
Honestly one would think that to add flaws or depth to a player character is a crime punishable by death....
Seriously though, I don’t find anything wrong with female game character being strong and independent – hell, I wrote a massively long, post about it – but what bugs me is that many female game characters are written in two extremes. The first being a character that serves as no other function than being a damsel in distress, ie Princess Peach. But the second is the afore-mentioned strong to the point of being psychotic type. The type defined by characteristics such as a constant need to prove one’s self, violent to the point of being neurotic, no conscience whatsoever, a near rejection of human emotions, an almost tunnel-vision determination to beat their male counterparts at their own game (so to speak) and the necessity to surround herself with male characters who can only be described as hopeless.
I mean I can understand the second type being a reaction to the ineffectualness of the second type but so easily can the second type come across as being a caricature as opposed to a legitimate character. I can understand that the female gamers may want a champion to cheer for and aspire to but I’m not convinced that having a character with near-psychotic traits is the way to go about it. True the ‘damsel in distress’ may be a stereotype but the ‘sassy action girl’ could also be considered a stereotype. And no less obnoxious.
Okay so there’s nothing wrong with women being inspired by the likes of Buffy or Xena but at the end of the day, one thing I do object about the 'sassy action girl' is when they are shown doing 'action' things and little else! As an aspiring writer myself, I know for a fact that the best characters need a mixture of strengths and oddities to keep them interesting - after all, once you identify the unusual about a character you're pretty much on your way.
One thing that bothers me about the second type characters is that they seem to convey the idea that it’s wrong to be…well…..feminine. You know, a female character can’t be passive or dress up – no they have to be in everyone’s face and take control of situations! Thus the only time the sight of Lara Croft in a cocktail dress would be acceptable would be if she was holding an assault rifle or something.
Seriously, what’s wrong with being feminine? By way of experience, Kathleen spent her teen years as a tomboy military chick and years later I managed to convince her into a dress on numerous occasions without too much difficulty.
Ultimately I’m not interested in either the powerful/independent women (and thus evil) stereotype or the powerless/male-reliant women (and thus virtuous) stereotype. No, what I think game writers should be striving for is a middle ground: A strong independent woman who has at least has emotions, a softer side and not afraid to do feminine things. Why not? Surely such ingredients would make for a champion worth cheering for, no? Some would think such traits would create an inconsistent conflict but I call BS on that: What it does is create a character who is, oh I don't know, interesting.
I’ve made mention of instances when this balance has been achieved but at the end of the day they are few. Ultimately it’s hard for the middle ground to get heard when two extremes dominate.
Still it is puzzling why the middle ground can’t be embraced seeing as it does the best of both worlds. Indeed, I've seen several game characters - both male and female - loaded with both strengths and enough charm to win over a player - but no visible character flaws or actual depth to balance it out. And still the character is lauded for it!
Honestly one would think that to add flaws or depth to a player character is a crime punishable by death....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)