Closing up shop

The major piece of news that has been going around this week is the announcement that Nintendo will be shutting down the Wii Shop Channel. The proposed date for this will be January 30th 2019.
Until then, items already available can be purchased and downloaded until March 29 2018.

In a word: Disappointing. I purchased my Wii pretty much for the Virtual Console and I swear I spent more hours on the games I got off the Virtual Console than i did for regular Wii games. This is largely because the games in question are timeless and still hold up in today's environment - but that isn't the type of attitude that Nintendo will take kindly to. But this announcement seems like the ultimate act of revenge: The Virtual Console has yet to appear on any of the Wii's successors and many of the games currently on the Wii Store are unavailable anywhere else.

This could largely be laid at the feet of Nintendo having no idea how to handle downloading services but I can't help but think if this is a harbinger of things to come. While it's great we have the likes of XBLA, the PlayStation Store, Steam and GoG, one can only imagine how long they will last before the servers keeping them going breaks down completely and such wonderful and trailblazing games are lost forever.....

The SNES Strikes Back

The biggest news to emerge recently is that of the Super NES Classic. A rehash of the SNES with a wealth of classic titles built in. Namely:

Contra III: The Alien Wars
Donkey Kong Country
EarthBound
Final Fantasy III
F-ZERO
Kirby Super Star
Kirby's Dream Course
The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past
Mega Man X
Secret of Mana
Star Fox
Star Fox 2
Street Fighter II Turbo: Hyper Fighting
Super Castlevania IV
Super Ghouls 'n Ghosts
Super Mario Kart
Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
Super Mario World
Super Metroid
Super Punch-Out!!
Yoshi's Island

It's an impressive list to be sure but nearly all of these games I have on the Wii Virtual Console. That raises he question: Beyond, Yoshi's Island 2, Earthbound and Star Fox 2, is there any reaosn to get this?

Well yes but there's little point as this damn thing will most likely sell like crazy XD

Mega Drive

And we're back. Welcome to 2014 folks. And what better way to kick off the new year than with the announcement of another game struck down from my Hall of Shame!
And who's the lucky candidate this time? Why, Mega Man 2!

(yeah the PAL box art isn't that crash hot but its lameness is still worth a chuckle)

I never played any of the Mega Man games during the 8bit era. That still didn't stop me admiring it from afar. And as far as I was concerned controlling a robot guy with a cannon for an arm sounded pretty sweet to me. 

This in turn placed me in a unique position when I finally got around to play it on the Virtual Console: I've never played this game and I don't have any memories playing it to influence my opinion  So what did I think?

Well first off the bat, this would have to be one of, if not the most technically impressive game I've seen on an 8-bit system. Having grown up in the Commodore 64 era I was thoroughly impressed with this quality of the graphics: the sprites have loads of personality that I wouldn't have previously thought possible.
I also enjoyed the use of weapon upgrades and the level selection: As I've come into Mega Man blind (like all games should be approached), I was thought this was quite a neat feature and surprised that this type of thing was being implemented in it's day - particularly when player-determined paths are commonplace in games of today.
But then there is the difficulty: My God, is this game a challenge and a half. I hate how games offer cheap deaths (yes Burnout 3, I am looking at you) and I do feel that mega Man 2 belongs in this category. I've lost count how many times I yelled at the TV screen, ground my teeth in frustration and faced my will being broken.
If anything Mega Man 2 comes across as more a battle of wits between the player and the game itself with neither willing to back down to the other. And that's the thing: A game should be fun to play. And if a game is making me frustrated, angry and anything but having fun, then something has gone seriously wrong. Thus to hear people laud Mega Man 2 as one of the greatest games ever made is confusing to me.
Okay true Mega Man 2 is a product of a bygone era when games were allowed to be as nasty as they choose and anyone will go along with it. And I will admit that games of today being much easier may allow for complacency in gamers, but if a game leaves me yelling "BULLSHIT!" on several occasions then perhaps it may be better to move onto something else.

Ultimately I did find a lot to be impressed with Mega Man 2 but it hasn't really sold me on the rest of the series. I do respect Mega Man 2 for both it;s own merits and being the best in the series but I'm not in any rush to go and explore some more.

Oh well, easy come easy go I guess....

Truly legendary

Last weekend, I had the pleasure of striking another game from my Hall of Shame: Get on your horse Legend of Zelda, you're out of here! (would that horse be Epona?)

When I say Legend of Zelda I am, of course, referring to the original on the NES. Now, unlike most people, this is not the first Zelda game I've sat down and played all the way through - that honor belongs to Link to the Past.
Therefore Legend of Zelda is going to be a tricky game to assess: First, as Link to the Past was the first Zelda I've played, it will ultimately influence my opinion through providing a benchmark. Second, Legend of Zelda is up against twenty six years of technological advancement and Third, Legend of Zelda is essentially a wellspring where many it's ideas have since been replicated by other games many times over.

So what do I think of the original Legend of Zelda? Well the first thought is that I have played other Legend of Zelda games and this strikes me as perhaps the most difficult. I say that because I do remember there were numerous moments when the enemies gave me headaches, namely the DarkNuts, Wizzrobes and the LikeLikes – the latter in particular was of particular annoyance: Believe you me, the annoyance of having your shield eaten only to go back, raise enough rupees to buy another one and having THAT one eaten as well can only be speculated upon. Granted I have had trouble with the other Legend of Zelda games but none on a level comparable to my troubles with the original – at least Link to the Past had fairies that could resurrect you when you died! In fact at one point, I felt like it was battle of wits to see who would break first: me or the game itself. But then again, this game is a product from an earlier era where difficulty was a gaming mainstay.
But what I found interesting with the Legend of Zelda difficulty is that it presents the same problem I had with the Super Mario games in that the lead-up to the end of game big-bad proved more challenging and more difficult than the final showdown itself. Indeed, after get lost, beaten and frustrated with the last dungeon, I ended up confronting Ganon and….whupped him on my first go.

And then there’s the legacy behind Legend of Zelda: This was, more or less, the first sandbox game where the player had the freedom to go anywhere and could accomplish any of the tasks necessary for ultimate victory in any order. Even more significant, the idea of extensive exploration and getting the necessary gear gave way to an eventual leveling of the playing field – but as in my defeat of Ganon showed, an eventual pushover.
Now I’m not the biggest fan of the sandbox genre (save one or two exceptions) so coming across the progenitor is interesting to say the least. Sure there isn’t a variety of things to do beyond go here/kill this guy/get this item, but it seems that a lot of the sandbox stems from the player finding clues and working things out for themselves. But to me, that creates conflict in that the Hyrule presented in NES graphics is kinda…well…… dull. The place looks barren and minimal in colour – as well as being populated by lot’s of monsters and few in actual human residents. Granted there is only so much the NES could do with its limited technology, but I still maintain the setting of Legend of Zelda would’ve made a great setting for a post-apocalypse setup with a ruined landscape, a host of monsters and only three characters (but I suppose Shadow of the Colossus as already been made).

But I digress. It is interesting to see the origins of Legend of Zelda and see how some the ideas in it were strong enough that they were reiterated in the subsequent sequels. Yes Link to the Past took those ideas and improved on them in every single way but you have to start somewhere.
So in the end, despite the gripes I had with the difficulty, I did enjoy playing Legend of Zelda. It was good fun and it’s good to finally put that game to rest.

Now about Ocarina of Time….

Battling on

This week I wanted to take a break from my hours in WoW - so I headed for the long-neglected Wii to give it some lovin'. And what did I do with it? Fire up the Virtual Console and have another bash at Ogre Battle 64.

I've spoken of playing through Ogre Battle 64 in the past and this time it's the first time in a long time. My main grip with Ogre Battle 64, that lead me to abandon it previously, was that I was having trouble with the class system: There were lot's of lovely classes on offer but I couldn't get to any of them for some unspecified reason. Lack of experience to upgrade? Not enough alignment? I don't know. Needless to say, with such weaker classes, I kept getting creamed by the enemy!
But with some patience (not to mention some leveling up with the training feature) I was able to upgrade my army in awesome fashion. More paladins? Yes please!

Funny thing with playing Ogre Battle 64 is that problem of quantity vs quality. Currently I have a large army consisting of thirteen units - but only half of them are any good. There are some I always use and always kick a lot of arse but the rest perform under par. More often than not, these stragglers either a) have low levels, b) get flattened in combat with little effort from the opposition or c) suffer from me not having a clue what to do with them. Indeed, some of my lesser performing units are the one's I really want to improve (one such unit is one of dragons).
I've tried to find answer to build the best unit through numerous internet searches but most of them concentrate on building a singular unit rather than several. But perhaps there is no proper answer to that question - and if there is one it is something I would need to find for myself....

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.......

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?

We can only Dreamcast

The rumor mill is rumbling with whispers that Sega may make a comeback. It's theorized that the once great rival to Nintendo will be making a successive console to the long-gone Dreamcast - spearheaded by this video:



It's compelling evidence - maybe not much in the way of concrete evidence but it does make a reasonable case for Sega to make a comeback.

However whilst it's a nice idea that Sega can make a comeback, it does raise the question of what can they do? During the Megadrive/Genesis era it offered soemthing of an alternative to the 'kiddy' fare on the SNES. And even the Dreamcast offered something of an opportunity for budding developers to work with. But now? Nintendo are relying their own IP and heeding little attention to fans, Sony are riding high on technical prowess and exclusives and Microsoft seem to have a whole lotta shooters at their command. So what can Sega bring to the table? A lot of their IP are on other consoles, many bedroom developers are finding homes on XBLA and sport games aren't going to get any better.

But here's what I want to know: Are comebacks readily accepted in gaming? Everything happens so quickly in gaming as it's a constant race to produce more powerful technology and utilizing that technology to wow all the potential buyers before they get distracted by something else - a tall order seeing as the people who buy this games have been raised to have ten second attention spans.
Thus, it is far too easy for some IP to get discarded and never returned to. Some titles may sell due to the nostalgia valuer or to entice the interest of those who missed out the first time around. But so often a game that someone loved then can be despised in the now - usually through seeing things with older wiser eyes and accompanied with remarks of "What the hell was I thinking?' and 'Man was I a dumb kid'. Many Sega games I've picked up off the Virtual Console have fallen into this trap so maybe Sega's time has come and gone and it's a fool errand to try and get back into the console race.

Personally, what I would like to see Sega do is dust off some games from the Mega CD and the Saturn and give them a new lease of life. If they seem intent on making some of their Megadrive and Dreamcast games more readily available then they can do the same for their failed consoles - oh wait....

Time Machine

Still making my way through Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. Whilst I've been intimidated before, I'm actually enjoying how things are going so far. Indeed, if people hailed this upon release and are still enamored of it some thirteen years later then it's usually for good reason.

Although I never played them, I remember being aware of the Legend of Zelda throughout the days of the NES and SNES. Indeed, it was only years later that I was able to connect Link to his likeness. And for reason the non-existent romance between between Link and Princess Zelda had some appeal - sure their actual relationship is more speculative but I liked the idea of an elf rescuing a princess. Indeed, much like his Nintendo brother in arms Mario, Link can maintain attention as a character due to that everyman quality.

Many people would've played the Zelda games in their childhood days, having grown up with Nintendo and their various console incarnations - thus much of the love for the Zelda games usually stems from that wide-eyed wonder of discovering something new for the first time. Indeed, many people now can point to Ocarina of Time as being a key moment in their childhood.



Not for me though: Tales of my childhood usually involved playing games on the Commodore 64 and playing various iterations of the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons - Pool of Radiance being one such title. Thus in that sense, maybe seeing the Zelda games through adult eyes may make for an interesting experience. Indeed, one thing I love about Nintendo is that many of their games have a timeless quality that can be enjoyed by both children and adults.
Now, I played the original Legend of Zelda and Link to the Past when I was well an adult (ages 27 and 25 respectively) and I thought they were great. Of course I could dismiss them for having an appearance that many would consider childish but why the hell would I want to do that? I loved exploring the world of Hyrule, finding various tools and building up a character that grew stronger with each step. And most satisfying of all, playing these games helped me in banishing memories of watching that wretched eighties cartoon.

So how does Ocarina of Time look through an adult perspective? Well some of graphics look dated (but being a fifth generation game that's hardly surprising), I the player have no control whatsoever over the camera and there are some elements that point towards 'kiddie' game. But everything else is good fun: The mini-games are amusing, the combat is great, the exploration factor is as strong as ever and it's really fun using various items, not least the Ocarina, at various points and seeing what happens.

So yeah, I'm enjoying Ocarina of Time - And so far so good....

Link! He come to town!

Well it's finally happened: I got off my arse and sat down to play Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time on the Virtual Console.
It may have been a long time coming but, truth be told, I'm something of a newcomer to the Zelda games: I never played them during the respective heyday of the NES/SNES/N64 and the only way I heard of Link and Princess Zelda was through write-ups, artwork and that lousy cartoon in the eighties (not the best source but still...).

So it's only been in recent years that I've become a fan of the Zelda games: I played Link to the Past and it was pretty much all over. Since then, I've played the original LoZ, Twilight princess and have cosplayed as Link - I even managed to persuade my partner to cosplay as Zelda to match! However there was the issue of Ocarina of Time....

Why is that an issue? Simple: it was a case of intimidation. In the time since my proper introduction to the Zelda series, Ocarina has grown in status as one of, if not THE, greatest games ever made. People younger than me now recognized it as an integral part of their childhood. Personally, I downloaded Ocarina (and Majora's Mask) back in 2009 but it is only now I actually committed myself to beating this game.
Again, it's a simple matter of discovering things in my own time, knowing the reward will be sweeter for it. And in the case of Ocarina, people revere it on a level comparable to Jesus so that knowledge is indeed enough to put one off. Indeed, this is not the first time I've been intimidated by game only to have the experience soured by other people telling me how it's going to be.

Grumbling aside, how's the game going insofar? Actually it's quite enjoyable. Sure the controls are bit disagreeable at times and the camera is utter rubbish but all in all, Ocarina of Time is turning out to loads of fun. And it's aged quite well which is more than can be said for other games of the fifth generation *coughMario64cough*.

So from here - who knows? Guess I'll have to go deeper into Hyrule to find out...

Red Dead Trigger

I've been playing a lot of Red Dead Redemption this past weekend and I'm finding it very much to my liking. Strangely, I've played other open world games but I won't call myself a fan. Yes I've enjoyed Okami, Legend of Zelda Link to the Past and Sid Meier's Pirates! but the Open world gaming carries with it a sense of intimidation that I've never quite overcome. Maybe I could go over it in a future post but for now, let's say that Red Dead Redemption is one game that slipped through the cracks. :)

Also, I've been playing Chrono Trigger - Yes it would seem that my prayers have been answered and Chrono Trigger has finally shown it's face on the Virtual console - It didn't come on the SNES and the PS1 in Australia but it's finally come (you think waiting fourteen years for Duke Nukem Forever was annoying? Mate, you don't know nothing about nothing!).

I don't know how it came about but I was indeed surprised to see Chrono Trigger finally available - and sitting comfortably on the VC best seller list. So well done to Nintendo and here's hoping they're paying attention still....

There can only be one

Last week, I posted a rant on the absurdity of tribes in gaming. Personally I find it silly. I enjoy games the console can have and feel, in some cases, dismissing one console altogether can result in the sod missing out on something substantial completely.

All in all, there is no reason for the 'tribal' element to exist. Yet in retrospect, I can, however reluctantly, see one thing this tribal sense has going for it:

A sense of focus.

True people with two or more consoles is becoming increasingly commonplace but it does raise some questions:
Firstly, where does one get the money to get consoles? Consoles aren't cheap, accessorises and games don't come easily and even buying a decent TV still burns a hole in one's wallet. Having lived in the real world and knowing what it's like paying bills and rent, I know for a fact that a couple of hundred bucks isn't something that can be simply thrown away.
No matter what the generation, games will continue to be costly affairs - If I remember correctly twenty years ago certain Megadrive/SNES games cost the same as top of the line 360 games do today. The only difference is, back then it was the children pestering their parents for this gear. Now, those children have become adults and are paying for it with their own money (or even buying for their own children). Ultimately it is those former children who are now facing what they put their parents through.

Secondly, where does one get the time to play these games? Having a large collection of games may look impressive but how many of them have actually been beaten by the player? Granted, games is a luxury item (as described above) and one must contend with other important things like work, family and maintaining a healthy social life. Sure it can be done but given time, one may find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having far too many games left unbeaten. By having a small number of games, one can realistic arrange their time accordingly - I mean what's the point of having a large of number of games when really you're only playing a small number of them? (particularly in this achievement-based era of gaming we find ourselves in?)

So in the end, these Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony loyalties do seem pretty pointless on paper but if it has persisted for years, since the days of Sonic's Megadrive heyday, then it must've for a damn good reason.
But I'm not bothered. True I have blown a lot of money on games - and half of which are going unplayed on my Virtual Console but I chose the games not the system. I chose games I thought were interesting and/or was unable to play them in their respective generations.
And for that reason alone, I feel no shame or any regrets with this decision.

Thank you and good night

Choose your tribe

Tribes - are they still prominent within gaming circles?

Being a child of the eighties I can remember quite vividly growing up in the early-to mid nineties. This period is often looked fondly by gamers as The Golden Age of 16 bit gaming. And one of the key elements of that period was the rivalry between the big two: Sega and Nintendo. And as such, one had to pick one side, stick with it and keep defending it no matter how much crap comes from people telling you otherwise.
Of course, now it's changed. Now it's a three way race: Sega has fallen and Sony and Microsoft have stepped into challenge the almighty Nintendo.

So what I want to know is does the rivalry that happened back in the nineties still persisting.
And if so, is it still as intense as it used to be?

I really found the passion of these console debates rather puzzling. I mean, back in the day I played both Mario and Sonic and found them both great games in their own right. I swore allegiance to no console (and still do) favoring the games instead. Thus it is indeed peculiar that the way some fans react. Particularly the Nintendo mob who laughed at Sega fans and treat the Sony fans with the same venom usually reserved for some scum who sleeps with one's wife.



One compelling argument is that when you're a child, your parents can only afford to buy one console. Thus it is a challenge in order not to pick the wrong one. But that argument doesn't really have weight - at least from my perspective because I'm an adult and, like most gaming veterans from the Golden Age, I have the money to obtain more than one console. Thus I have a PS2, a Dreamcast, a 360 and a Wii. But again there is no loyalty - because the games rule.

I can understand a human need to find people with similar interests and band together in groups but the same thing is happening is more war-torn regions in the world today. Conflicts that make these console debates feeble in comparison, dealing with race, territory and an inability to co-exist
Compared to the console debates which are ultimately based on forms of entertainment.

I honestly feel that loyalties can have a drastic effect on gaming in general. Some people may refuse to play anything but the games on their console of choice but in some cases they may be missing out on something good. After all, that goes against something that drives any game: Exploration It is this single drive that makes people pick up games. It makes us keep coming back. It makes us go hunting down everything from every last corner in the game. It makes us to invest so many hours into a game itself. Thus, shunning a system really goes against one of the foundation stones of gaming: Both as a game and a gamer.
I liked the Sonic games, in their heyday, but I wonder how many Nintendo fans overlooked it in passionate (and ultimately futile) disgust. They were great games and at least worth a look. And indeed, I still think it's a delightful irony that the Megadrive Sonic games are now accessible on the Wii Virtual Console.

So to summarize, loyalties may exist but I don't care. I'm only interested in the games.
As we all should.

Wii can do it 2!

Apparently it's official: Nintendo have a successor to the Wii heading our way: Project Cafe Thus I present some thoughts on the matter:

- With a new console (reportedly more powerful than the 360), it's fair to say that the eighth generation of consoles is on the horizon. After all, it's been five years which, as history has proven, is the usual time for a new one. Strangely, I thought this current one would be lasting longer than before: We have HD, we have awesome visuals that probably aren't going to get any better, we have stacks of games available and we have embraced the potential of downloaded material. Where can we possibly go from here?

- I must admit I was surprised by the announcement of a successor: I would've figured that Nintendo would abandon the console concept altogether in favor of putting all their weight behind the 3DS. But it would appear not...

- Backwards compatibility is fine with Wii software but is that it? What about the Gamecube games i have? What about the Virtual Console titles I downloaded (of which they've been plenty)? I like how the 360 is arranged with profiles and how it recalls everything downloaded to the hard drive. This system it seems set to be implemented into the new Xbox (when/if it comes...) without too much trouble.
So how would Project Cafe this effect my DLC for my Wii?

- And while we're talking about the Virtual Console, how about expanding the concept? I want to see Saturn titles appear. Nintendo can't really deny (as much as they'd like to) that the VC has been a key asset in the Wii's success and there's no reason to discontinue it. Indeed with the competition catching up, in the form of the PSN and XBLA, Nintendo would be a fool to abandon this idea.

- And if the Wii is starting on the way out, does this mean we'll finally see a drop in price for Super Mario Galaxy? >:(

Ultimately though it's too early to form an opinion on Nintendo's new beast so most of this is speculation. And I doubt such a large corporation would pay any attention to grumpy bloggers like myself.
Oh well....

Shining in the Dragon Force

Ask any gamer which out of the many games they've played is their favorite and they'll struggle to come up with a decent response. I'm no different but I must profess a soft spot for the Megadrive (Genesis) game Shining Force 2.

Sure it may look childish (at least from an adult perspective), but there is still a a lot going for this game: Large battles, a big cast of characters (even if half of them are hopeless), fun with class changes and a big world to explore. It's a shame that the SRPG genre is kinda dead at the moment but Shining Force 2 (and it's comrade in arms Ogre Battle 64) still holds seem appeal to me that keeps calling me back.

Mind you, the only bone of contention I have with Shining Force 2 is the music: Good Lord, does it get VERY irritating VERY quickly. No I'm bagging the Megadrive's music capabilities but compared to many of the SNES' efforts, the music of many Megadrive games have dated quite horribly (although I do find the Sonic games and Phantasy Star 4 being an exception). And Shining Force 2 is indeed a casualty in the transition of time.

Thus, I've found the game can be massively improved by muting the sound completely and putting on some Dragon Force instead. It's amazing how such fast paced metal (or, as my friend put it, Battle music) can really fit in the game itself. It brings more excitement to the game itself and really fits the massive battles that make up SF2's gameplay. Indeed hearing Valley of the Damned in the middle of fighting a battle is an experienced that has be done to be believed.

So to all of you with SF2 on your Virtual Console: Try it! Drop the sound and put on some DragonForce. And trust me: Once you do, you'll never be able to go back.
Not that you'd want to anyway ;)

Moving Forward

If history has taught us anything is that every five or so years a new console generation comes into. As gaming is pretty much a consumer-driven culture, nothing can really stay stable as long as people are willing to throw their money away.

Now that we are five years, going on six, into the seventh generation one has to wonder: Where do we go from here?
I see motion controls gathering interest. I see downloadable services like the Virtual Console and the PSN preserve games from obsolete platforms. I see sequels being made, old IP being dusted off and franchises being run into the ground. I see WOW players far easily willing to forget they have life. I see bedroom developers being given a lot of chance to come forward and show what they can do. I see a lot of invention but far less innovation. I see a lot of businesses and educational facilities taking notice about gaming where previously they showed little to no interest.

So yes, games are now more popular than ever and with such a victory, there is a lot of good and, at the same time, a lot of bad. But for me, I’m wondering where do we go from here? Gaming technology is always moving forward but is there anything left to do?
If anything, I believe that the current generation has proven that gamers have sense of preservation and will gladly keep on playing the same thing.
Examples:
- With the Virtual Console/PSN/XBLA, it is proven that people will gladly pay out for games they already have/had.
- Having Rock Band DLC compatible with future titles.
- Having XBLA profiles where people can share scores and what games they play seems more like a long-term move (kinda makes you wonder what scores will be like in ten years from now…….)

I see nothing wrong with preservation: After all if a game works then it can keep on working. Yet, with the idea of looking backwards, it kinda makes you wonder if so much has accomplished before, then is there anything left to do?

Ten years ago, Sega and the Dreamcast were on the way out, the Xbox was but a distant speck on the horizon, and the Playstation 2 had gotten off on a rocky start drawing more attention as a DVD player than a games console. Mass media attention was given to the development of a game called Metal Gear Solid 2, Everquest was ruling the MMPRG roost and the hundredth million Gameboy was sold.

So a lot can happen in ten years – I wonder what’s in store for the next ten…..?

Eternal Arcadia

In this modern age, it's fair to say that the arcade machines are pretty much antiqued: It's hard to compete with home consoles which boast DLC and online gaming.
Still, whenever I have the chance, I like to spare the chnage to play the odd game of Virtua Cop 2. Sure I have memorized a lot of areas where/when the baddies show up but it's still loads of fun. I don't mind looking at graphics from the mid-nineties - in fact I actually find a lot of mid-nineties arcade graphics look a lot better than some fifth-generation console games.

Of course arcades may be dead but they are still around in the form of arcade parlors (Galactic Circus in Melbourne's Crown Casino comes to mind) and, in Japan, public places where they generate a decent revenue (train stations being one such example). It does present something that not many games have:

Staying power.

As I mentioned above, I'm still keen to have a shot at Virtua Cop 2. And Daytona USA is still heaps of fun to play with a group of people (8-way game FTW!). Thus, it becomes clear why arcade games persist: If it's a good game, people will continue to play it. This is what Nintendo realized with the virtual console and may also explain why old games are being revamped in HD.
Many of the games I see in my local arcade are pushing fifteen years which is an absurdly long amount of time in an industry where major developments happen in third of that time. Granted, I have seen some innovative things being done to arcade games elsewhere - like Namco & Nintendo joining forces to present Mario Kart as an arcade game - but as said, if a game works well then people will keep playing it until the end of time.

Now there's a thought to ponder: Would we still be playing Starcraft if Blizzard didn't keep pumping out updates for it on a regular basis?

Showing one's age

I use my Wii almost exclusively for the Virtual Console (and I swear I'm not the only one who does so). For me, it is the means of catching up on stuff that I missed out on the first time around - Indeed adulthood certainly makes way for a whole lot more freedom than one's teen years.

However, it is interesting to note that looking back, some games that may have seemed ace at the time haven't really aged well. The greatest offender here is Super Mario 64. Now, I've played Super Mario 64 many times and actually find it quite enjoyable. I recall when it was released it was universally praised and many people crediting it (and even now) as being the game that took the then new technology of 3d environments and made it fun. HOWEVER! Looking back at it now, the problem of the crummy camera functions are glaringly obvious - Indeed, this has been such a problem you have to wonder how Nintendo, who have prided themselves in game design, could have gotten away with it. And how many people can overlook this problem to, then and now, dub Super Mario 64, the Greatest Game EVAH.



Indeed, it is interesting to consider how many games can be loved on their initial release only to be condemned (with venom) years later. The backlash is interesting indeed, exhibit the kind of betrayal one would think they are dealing with Marcus Brutus, Benedict Arnold or Judas. Sure nostalgia may play it's part but I don't buy that: Nostalgia only provides a positive experience that people are trying to find every since but as such an experience is a unique one, such a quest is a doomed mission. And if the first few games one plays had such an important part in one's perspective I'd be playing the Commodore 64 version of Double Dragon over Beatles Rock Band but this is not the case.

It is interesting to note how many games have staying power within an industry where everything moves so quickly: Technological advancements get developed quickly and, as such, gamer's attention is quite limited and fickle. I still enjoy games from obsolete consoles (give me Secret of Mana over any recent JRPG any day) and for good reason: They work. They have great ideas, attention to detail, efficient design and a technical spark that makes the game enjoy a lifespan far longer than it's parent console.

It makes me wonder what people ten or fifteen years from now are going to think of the games going around at the present time. Compare Super Mario Galaxy to Super Mario World: they may look like they've come from different planets (pun most certainly intended) but that's fifteen years of technological advancement right there. So when you consider Gears of War 2 you have to wonder what things are going to look like in in 2025.....

Go you good thing go

Those who follow my blog will note I have been a champion for the Virtual Console for, if anything, providing me the opportunity to try out substantial games that I missed out on the first time around. But the thing is I've recently been disappointed with releases for the VC.

To me, there are a lot of great games available on the VC, but they share space with a lot of other games that are just rubbish - thus leaving a lot of more deserving games out in the cold. If the VC is offering gamers like myself a second chance why doesn't this prospect extend to the other side of the console? If the VC is built on the promise of gaming preservation, why have a lot of good games been overlooked?

What bothers me is that Nintendo have a lot of great games on the VC but an equal amount of crap games - that and the N64 games conspicuously the only console of it's generation available. It begs the question: If Nintendo have a wide access to games on obsolete consoles, why not take it further? I for one would like to see some of the Sega Saturn games released for the VC, namely DragonForce, Nights into Dreams and Panzer Dragoon Saga (sure demand will never end for a re-release of PDS but if it can be done, even if it is a straight up emulation, THEN DO IT). Sure the Saturn was a disaster in it's day but, as time tends to heal old wounds, maybe it is time to look at what did work with new eyes.
Granted the video game industry is driven by profit (like any other form of entertainment) but why not take some risks? Sure the original Final Fantasy can't compete on a technical level to it's successors, but the fact that it's appeared on the VC bestseller list says something. As the saying goes, fortune favors the brave. And the worst thing a gaming company can do is shut itself off from it's fanbase.

All in all, Nintendo have got something great going with the Virtual Console, in gaming preservation and offering second chances. It would be shame to have such potential squandered with decisions not being seen through out of timidness.

Wii Keep the Pace

I haven't had much to say this week: I've been on a Mass Effect 2 binge - brought about by obtaining all the DLC available and getting access to a High-Def TV.

Anyway, I recently heard that Nintendo's profits have taken a turn for the worse. Yep, the company that wrote the rulebook on gaming, traveled with many gamers from childhood and beyond is now in a rather uncomfortable position - the type of which is quite surprising considering the near untouchable nature Nintendo has enjoyed.

Sure the Wii has sold well and done a lot to introduce people to games, but what Nintendo do now is indeed a good question. With regards to the Wii, Xbox and Playstation have now embraced Motion Controllers, the console itself is being outclassed by it's technological superior rivals, first-party games like Super Mario Galaxy and Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess have yet to drop in price, many of the 'hardcore' crowd are unimpressed and defecting to Microsoft and Sony, and one potential ace-in-the-hole, I am of course referring to the Virtual Console, seems to have been abandoned.

I do admire that Nintendo were trying to come up with new ways to play games than compete in the technological race. I give credit to the efforts Nintendo put in to grab attention of people who don't normally play games. However these two feats may have ended up working against Nintendo. The problem I find with Motion controls is that it essentially removes the connection between player and console. People play games as a leisure activity - you know, to relax - and incorporating motion controls takes that away through demanding the player to be off their seat and active.
Also, whilst I despise the distinction between the 'casual' and 'hardcore' gaming, I must grudgingly admit that it's inescapable with the Wii. Sure it may have tied up the casual crowd nicely, it has however lost a lot of the hardcore crowd to the PS3 and Xbox 360 - many of whom would've been weaned on the NES, SNES and N64.

Another problem with the Wii is the Virtual Console. One of it's major selling points, I myself was one of many sold over, it now seems to have been abandoned by Nintendo. No updates have appeared in a while and many longed-for titles have yet to show their face. I myself have championed the Virtual Console for the longest time and felt it was a real advantage for Nintendo. It's just a shame the idea wasn't taken to it's full extent. I would like to see more previously exclusive titles appear on the Virtual Console (Chrono Trigger for example) and more from obsolete consoles (I can think of more than a few Sega Saturn titles I would like to see dusted off). Come on Nintendo, it's not too late to turn around!

At the end of the day, the Wii may have managed to keep Nintendo financially stable, but ultimately, I'm not willing to deem it a successful console. Call it a combination of ideas not pushed to their full extent, ideas that just didn't work and being outpaced by Nintendo's rivals.
So what can Nintendo do from here? Company survival may well be the order of the day. Whilst Nintendo may have been unstoppable in the past, in recent years things have taken a rather uneasy turn. Indeed, one too many wrong moves can prove fatal in this business - just ask Sega. Of course, now Nintendo are investing a lot into the DS and it's successor - does this mean they're giving up on the home console business altogether? Abandoning what they've built a business around?

But, as history has a tendency to repeat itself, one would think that Nintendo may do what Sega did all those years ago: Introduce a new console thus inspiring a new generation just to remain ahead.