And so we reach the end of another year of Game Tumour. The festive season has come around again and it's time to step away from this blog.
2016 has been a quiet year for this blog - although some of the cynically minded would say that 2016 for Game Tumour ended months earlier. I guess Real Life got in the way for a bit there. Still, at least I can say I beat Legend of Heroes: Trails in the Sky. And by playing Don Bradman's Cricket I've gained a new appreciation for the sport. Oh and Xcom. Xcom Enemy Unknown is an excellent game.
So in the end, a quiet year is not without successes.
However, maybe a quite year may pave the way for a more active year in 2017.
So, in that sense, Game Tumour is done for 2016 and I hope to speak to you all again in 2017
Monday, December 5, 2016
Wednesday, November 30, 2016
Just a little Dota
I learned something new this week: The letters in DotA actually represent something! It's Defense of the Ancients!
Well it's new to me: I thought DotA was just some random letters thrown together, that represented nothing and nobody bothered to wonder what they represented or to question it XD
Well it's new to me: I thought DotA was just some random letters thrown together, that represented nothing and nobody bothered to wonder what they represented or to question it XD
Friday, November 18, 2016
Back to the store Wii go
Recently, on a bit of a whim, I decided to fire up my aging Wii and see if the store is still going.
And much to my surprise, it still is. The games are still there and even the Wii points I have attached to my account.
I suppose this would come to a surprise to me as I've lost track of Nintendo in recent years. I figured the services provided by the Wii would've been cast by the wayside with the advent of the Wii U but no: Apparently, the Wii Shop Channel is still going - seems that whilst the Wii U offers backward compatibility in the form of Wii Mode, not all games featured in the Wii Shop Channel are also on the Nintendo eShop. Hence the Wii Mode acts as a method of taping into those missing games.
It does seem amusing to me to have this service still providing games when it has been, to some extent, forgotten by Nintendo. Nevertheless, considering the divided nature of the Nintendo's online services, as described above, there seems to be something of a time limit attached to the games available to the Wii Shop Channel. Will they be eventually be absorbed by the Nintendo eShop or will they discarded for good? And how will this work with the looming Nintendo Switch?
It may be a romantic idea that I will continue to use my Wii to play the games I want but, like most thing's it has an expiry date. And the question rests on what Nintendo, who are the type to reluctant to admit that there did exist people purchased the Wii for the Virtual Console, will do once that dates rolls around....
And much to my surprise, it still is. The games are still there and even the Wii points I have attached to my account.
I suppose this would come to a surprise to me as I've lost track of Nintendo in recent years. I figured the services provided by the Wii would've been cast by the wayside with the advent of the Wii U but no: Apparently, the Wii Shop Channel is still going - seems that whilst the Wii U offers backward compatibility in the form of Wii Mode, not all games featured in the Wii Shop Channel are also on the Nintendo eShop. Hence the Wii Mode acts as a method of taping into those missing games.
It does seem amusing to me to have this service still providing games when it has been, to some extent, forgotten by Nintendo. Nevertheless, considering the divided nature of the Nintendo's online services, as described above, there seems to be something of a time limit attached to the games available to the Wii Shop Channel. Will they be eventually be absorbed by the Nintendo eShop or will they discarded for good? And how will this work with the looming Nintendo Switch?
It may be a romantic idea that I will continue to use my Wii to play the games I want but, like most thing's it has an expiry date. And the question rests on what Nintendo, who are the type to reluctant to admit that there did exist people purchased the Wii for the Virtual Console, will do once that dates rolls around....
Wednesday, November 16, 2016
There's no U in Wii
Recently it has been announced that Nintendo will cease production of the Wii-U. No doubt it is to make room for the upcoming Nintendo Switch.
Speaking as someone who had little attachment to the Wii-U, this news is meaningless to me. But in retrospect, it does however inspire some mixed feelings. On one hand, the sales of the Wii-U, especially when compared to those of it's predecessor, seem poor by Nintendo's standards. But on the other Nintendo were forging their own path independent from the trends Microsoft and Sony were cooking up. And whilst Nintendo should be commended for trying something new with game tech, the outcome wasn't really that successful. And whilst there were some resurrected franchises (hello Bayonetta) rubbing shoulders with the familiar, one of them really pushed the boundaries like they did before.
It seems likely that the title of defining game for the console would bestowed to Super Mario Maker. It was a clever idea and certainly made a lot of YouTube videos (even if Nintendo didn't take too kindly to it) but did it arrive at the right time? Was it several years too late? Or was it just the act of a company throwing in the towel and demanding players make their own creativity as they themselves couldn't be arsed?
Ultimately though, I do admire the Wii-U for what was trying to do. It was offering a duel screen and a new way of playing games. True the tech wasn't as well utilized to it's full potential as it should've been but the heart was in the right place. By way of comparison, would we have used optical disks if it wasn't for the Mega CD's attempt at it?
But what interests me is what Nintendo are going to do next. The success of the Wii gave them a necessary shot in the arm and saved them from oblivion. So what did Nintendo follow up such success with? A console that wasn't that big a deal and an obliviousness towards the current trends in gaming. And so, as the Nintendo Switch rolls around, along with Nintendo's furtive steps into mobile gaming, it remains to be seen whether this would mark a success strong enough for the company to continue hanging on.
Speaking as someone who had little attachment to the Wii-U, this news is meaningless to me. But in retrospect, it does however inspire some mixed feelings. On one hand, the sales of the Wii-U, especially when compared to those of it's predecessor, seem poor by Nintendo's standards. But on the other Nintendo were forging their own path independent from the trends Microsoft and Sony were cooking up. And whilst Nintendo should be commended for trying something new with game tech, the outcome wasn't really that successful. And whilst there were some resurrected franchises (hello Bayonetta) rubbing shoulders with the familiar, one of them really pushed the boundaries like they did before.
It seems likely that the title of defining game for the console would bestowed to Super Mario Maker. It was a clever idea and certainly made a lot of YouTube videos (even if Nintendo didn't take too kindly to it) but did it arrive at the right time? Was it several years too late? Or was it just the act of a company throwing in the towel and demanding players make their own creativity as they themselves couldn't be arsed?
Ultimately though, I do admire the Wii-U for what was trying to do. It was offering a duel screen and a new way of playing games. True the tech wasn't as well utilized to it's full potential as it should've been but the heart was in the right place. By way of comparison, would we have used optical disks if it wasn't for the Mega CD's attempt at it?
But what interests me is what Nintendo are going to do next. The success of the Wii gave them a necessary shot in the arm and saved them from oblivion. So what did Nintendo follow up such success with? A console that wasn't that big a deal and an obliviousness towards the current trends in gaming. And so, as the Nintendo Switch rolls around, along with Nintendo's furtive steps into mobile gaming, it remains to be seen whether this would mark a success strong enough for the company to continue hanging on.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Warcraft is over if you want it
Well Blizzard have announced that they aren't interested in doing a remaster for both Warcraft 1 and 2 purely because they feel that the games are dated and "not fun" (Source).
I find this reaction somewhat puzzling from Blizzard. On one hand, they acknowledge their past works and have previously made them readily available (ie Lost Vikings and Blackthorne) but on the other hand, any game that's on the Battle.net launcher and isn't Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, Overwatch or Hearthstone, doesn't have a hope in hell.
The latter is a particular sore point for me: What, I can't use the Battle.net launcher to play other Blizzard games? Well then you're not much competition for Steam or GoG Galaxy then are you? Sorry but I like my Game launchers to, you know, launch games.
But I digress.
I maintain that there is value for games to be preserved and make them accessible, both for historical and educational purposes. After all, without preservation, history is but a fading memory. This is why I value GoG so much.
You'd think Blizzard might be better off handing off Warcraft and Diablo to CD Projekt but nooooooooo.....
Granted I will admit that Warcraft 1 may have aged the worst of the lot but I have played Warcraft 2 all the way through and still think highly of it - even when this was back in 2002 and everyone was going nuts for Warcraft 3. It has a lot of charm and a humorous tone that unfortunately Blizzard seems to have forgotten about (seriously, where were the bi-intelligent Ogres in WoW?).
But hey as long as Blizzard still keeps pumping out updates for WoW they can do whatever they want, amirite?
I find this reaction somewhat puzzling from Blizzard. On one hand, they acknowledge their past works and have previously made them readily available (ie Lost Vikings and Blackthorne) but on the other hand, any game that's on the Battle.net launcher and isn't Diablo 3, World of Warcraft, Overwatch or Hearthstone, doesn't have a hope in hell.
The latter is a particular sore point for me: What, I can't use the Battle.net launcher to play other Blizzard games? Well then you're not much competition for Steam or GoG Galaxy then are you? Sorry but I like my Game launchers to, you know, launch games.
But I digress.
I maintain that there is value for games to be preserved and make them accessible, both for historical and educational purposes. After all, without preservation, history is but a fading memory. This is why I value GoG so much.
You'd think Blizzard might be better off handing off Warcraft and Diablo to CD Projekt but nooooooooo.....
Granted I will admit that Warcraft 1 may have aged the worst of the lot but I have played Warcraft 2 all the way through and still think highly of it - even when this was back in 2002 and everyone was going nuts for Warcraft 3. It has a lot of charm and a humorous tone that unfortunately Blizzard seems to have forgotten about (seriously, where were the bi-intelligent Ogres in WoW?).
But hey as long as Blizzard still keeps pumping out updates for WoW they can do whatever they want, amirite?
Friday, October 21, 2016
The Magnificent Seven Ride
As was promised earlier in the week, the trailer to the sequel of Red Dead Redemption:
Well, like pretty much every teaser trailer ever made, this trailer doesn't say a lot about the game. It just has enough scenery shots and brand recognition to generate buzz. Sure Rockstar could do with the buzz but buzz won't mean a lot if there isn't a game to go with it.
At the present time, popular opinion suggests that this game will be a prequel and focus on John's days as a member of Dutch's outlaw gang. All I can say is that I hope this does turn out to be true as a) that's pretty much the only direction you can go with this sequel and b) with everyone favoring this option it would a disappointment not go down that path.
Original video located here. Accessed 21st October 2016
Well, like pretty much every teaser trailer ever made, this trailer doesn't say a lot about the game. It just has enough scenery shots and brand recognition to generate buzz. Sure Rockstar could do with the buzz but buzz won't mean a lot if there isn't a game to go with it.
At the present time, popular opinion suggests that this game will be a prequel and focus on John's days as a member of Dutch's outlaw gang. All I can say is that I hope this does turn out to be true as a) that's pretty much the only direction you can go with this sequel and b) with everyone favoring this option it would a disappointment not go down that path.
Wednesday, October 19, 2016
One last shot at redemption
Well it's official: there is a sequel to Red Dead Redemption on it's way.
I'm actually surprised that Rockstar actually manged to get a sequel out of the original seeing as the original was about the end of the Old West. Unless of course, this game turns out to be prequel - which is pretty much the only route Rockstar can take with this new game. And the notion of a prequel seems suggestive in this image:
From the looks of it, this new game does seem to resemble a prequel and it looks like it will focus on Dutch's gang. The four men from the left resemble, in order, John Marston, Javier Escuella, Bill Williamson and Dutch.
I like the idea of a 'Magnificent Seven' vibe Rockstar have got going here and it would be interesting to see the background of these characters (not to mention the three newcomers) but would it be enough to sway me back to the console camp........?
But of course, all of this is speculative. As always, once the trailer is revealed details may become a little clearer. But knowing what trailers are like, they might not.
I'm actually surprised that Rockstar actually manged to get a sequel out of the original seeing as the original was about the end of the Old West. Unless of course, this game turns out to be prequel - which is pretty much the only route Rockstar can take with this new game. And the notion of a prequel seems suggestive in this image:
Original image located here. Accessed 19th October 2016
From the looks of it, this new game does seem to resemble a prequel and it looks like it will focus on Dutch's gang. The four men from the left resemble, in order, John Marston, Javier Escuella, Bill Williamson and Dutch.
I like the idea of a 'Magnificent Seven' vibe Rockstar have got going here and it would be interesting to see the background of these characters (not to mention the three newcomers) but would it be enough to sway me back to the console camp........?
But of course, all of this is speculative. As always, once the trailer is revealed details may become a little clearer. But knowing what trailers are like, they might not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)