it could have been great.
more about how later.
Friday, January 28, 2005
Monday, October 18, 2004
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
crimson sea 2 (the good one)
i just noticed that when you're walking on a metal surface, your boots strike sparks.
Damn, isn't that cool?
Damn, isn't that cool?
*zing*CRIMSON SEA 2*zing*
is the good one. Crimson Tears is the bad one. Two very similar games. With very simliar names. Yet one is fun to play and makes you want to say 'just one more', and the other is a chore and a bore. Why? Let's find out...
(it's a jazzy review today. hey, here's another thing i like about Katamari Damacy: the soundtrack! Awesome tunes, eclectic tunes)
Here's a difference i noticed: In the good one, (Crimson SEA 2) you're cool to begin with. You don't get the sense that they designed a fully tricked-out character and then removed abilities from him. Unlike certain games. You have a lot of abilities at the start, and the promise of more. You have choices in how you can fight, not just punch-punch-kick combo. Unlike certain games. Even at the beginning you have these choices. Which is good because in both games, you get the impression you're going to be doing a lot of fighting.
In the bad one, (Crimson Tears) it seems like a chore. 'i have to accumulate that many experience points until the next level-up? Sigh.'
In the good one, (Crimson SEA 2) it seems like fun. 'i wonder what that'll be like when it reaches level 3?'
How come? I think it's because of the incremental nature of the advancement system. Here's th difference:
In the bad one, (Crimson Tears) you accumulate enough experience points, you can 'buy' a skill, which is a new move you can use. Then you have to learn how to use it.
In the good one, (Crimson SEA 2) enemies occasionally drop an object, which is an experience 'point' that you can assign to either of your two guns(which is also very cool, by the way- it's like i said above- you don't feel like you're going into battle with the alien Menace armed only with a pistol) or your sword attacks. Or your Psionic attacks. It's actually more complicated than that, but in a good way- you can upgrade the individual attributes of your guns. Power, Range, and Rapid. After awhile of assigning one point here, one point there, you really feel like you've tinkered with your guns and improved them in your own unique way.
Menus. Both tackle the problem of 3-D menus in different ways.
I need to explain something. A menu is not just the 2d screen that comes up at the beginning of the game. It's anywhere you control game functions. This can be within the game. It's expressed in these two games very similarly: there is a 'home base' type area where you can run around, but there are no enemies. Instead, game functions are available. SAve/Load, choice of next mission, item shops, and the 'teleporter' that takes you to the actual missions. See what i mean? it's part of the menu.
Anyway, one is Good: utilitarian, gets the job done. Essential things are all in one room. And one is awful. In the bad one, (Crimson Tears) you have to run all over to do ordinary game functions. A simple example should suffice:
To get to the Weapons & Items Shop:
In the bad one, (Crimson Tears) you go out of the little garage you're in, (fade out, fade in-new screen) run to the right down the street a short ways and through a doorway, (fade out, fade in-new screen) To an alley where 3 people are standing. They are the Shops. You have to talk to each of them individually because they are, respectively, item shop, gun shop, and knife shop. There's no indication which is which, they're just people standing there. All to operate what's essentially a menu.
In the good one, (Crimson SEA 2) You start on the bridge of a starship. Pretty big room. In this room are: a robot that allows you to save your game, another robot who serves as the Shop, and the Teleporter that takes you to the missions. All in one room.
Do you see?
(it's a jazzy review today. hey, here's another thing i like about Katamari Damacy: the soundtrack! Awesome tunes, eclectic tunes)
Here's a difference i noticed: In the good one, (Crimson SEA 2) you're cool to begin with. You don't get the sense that they designed a fully tricked-out character and then removed abilities from him. Unlike certain games. You have a lot of abilities at the start, and the promise of more. You have choices in how you can fight, not just punch-punch-kick combo. Unlike certain games. Even at the beginning you have these choices. Which is good because in both games, you get the impression you're going to be doing a lot of fighting.
In the bad one, (Crimson Tears) it seems like a chore. 'i have to accumulate that many experience points until the next level-up? Sigh.'
In the good one, (Crimson SEA 2) it seems like fun. 'i wonder what that'll be like when it reaches level 3?'
How come? I think it's because of the incremental nature of the advancement system. Here's th difference:
In the bad one, (Crimson Tears) you accumulate enough experience points, you can 'buy' a skill, which is a new move you can use. Then you have to learn how to use it.
In the good one, (Crimson SEA 2) enemies occasionally drop an object, which is an experience 'point' that you can assign to either of your two guns(which is also very cool, by the way- it's like i said above- you don't feel like you're going into battle with the alien Menace armed only with a pistol) or your sword attacks. Or your Psionic attacks. It's actually more complicated than that, but in a good way- you can upgrade the individual attributes of your guns. Power, Range, and Rapid. After awhile of assigning one point here, one point there, you really feel like you've tinkered with your guns and improved them in your own unique way.
Menus. Both tackle the problem of 3-D menus in different ways.
I need to explain something. A menu is not just the 2d screen that comes up at the beginning of the game. It's anywhere you control game functions. This can be within the game. It's expressed in these two games very similarly: there is a 'home base' type area where you can run around, but there are no enemies. Instead, game functions are available. SAve/Load, choice of next mission, item shops, and the 'teleporter' that takes you to the actual missions. See what i mean? it's part of the menu.
Anyway, one is Good: utilitarian, gets the job done. Essential things are all in one room. And one is awful. In the bad one, (Crimson Tears) you have to run all over to do ordinary game functions. A simple example should suffice:
To get to the Weapons & Items Shop:
In the bad one, (Crimson Tears) you go out of the little garage you're in, (fade out, fade in-new screen) run to the right down the street a short ways and through a doorway, (fade out, fade in-new screen) To an alley where 3 people are standing. They are the Shops. You have to talk to each of them individually because they are, respectively, item shop, gun shop, and knife shop. There's no indication which is which, they're just people standing there. All to operate what's essentially a menu.
In the good one, (Crimson SEA 2) You start on the bridge of a starship. Pretty big room. In this room are: a robot that allows you to save your game, another robot who serves as the Shop, and the Teleporter that takes you to the missions. All in one room.
Do you see?
Crimson Tears and Crimson Sea 2
two very similar titles released at about the same time. It's just like the 'bug movie' confluence we had a couple years back. Remember that? When 'Antz" and 'A Bug's Life' came out at the same time? Anyway, these games are about that simliar.
Story: you're a genetically enhanced futuristic cyber-assassin who fights their way through hordes of enemies stylishly. (Both)
Even the style of gameplay (genre) is the same: very similar to Diablo or Phantasy Star Online vis. you fight a great many battles, collecting experience, which you spend to increase your character's stats.
Yet one game sucks and the other is fun. Why?
Story: you're a genetically enhanced futuristic cyber-assassin who fights their way through hordes of enemies stylishly. (Both)
Even the style of gameplay (genre) is the same: very similar to Diablo or Phantasy Star Online vis. you fight a great many battles, collecting experience, which you spend to increase your character's stats.
Yet one game sucks and the other is fun. Why?
Thursday, October 07, 2004
another reason i hate pc games
"In the boxes below, type your 25-character product key"
i just want to play the game.
i also hate they way they make you put the cd in the drive to play, just like a console game. Except that there's no purpose to it. The game is on your hard drive. Basic disrespect for the consumer. Lack of desire or motivation to make things easy for your customers.
i just want to play the game.
i also hate they way they make you put the cd in the drive to play, just like a console game. Except that there's no purpose to it. The game is on your hard drive. Basic disrespect for the consumer. Lack of desire or motivation to make things easy for your customers.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
you know what bugs me about PC games?
besides installing them?
it's the interface. There's no games that feel good to play. They're all pointing and clicking. And dragging. Or godfordbid, typing.
What i mean is that, in even the worst console games, you can actually control a character . Press jump and he jumps. To say nothing of the superlative games, where you can control a snowboarder, or Spider-Man, or a giant ball of ocean liners? There's not much like that in PC games.
DOOM excepted.
it's the interface. There's no games that feel good to play. They're all pointing and clicking. And dragging. Or godfordbid, typing.
What i mean is that, in even the worst console games, you can actually control a character . Press jump and he jumps. To say nothing of the superlative games, where you can control a snowboarder, or Spider-Man, or a giant ball of ocean liners? There's not much like that in PC games.
DOOM excepted.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
oh yeah i forgot
there's a bad part though. to the game. Katamari Damacy.
it's too short. Now i don't usually think that games are too short. I actually like short games. If they're good. Which this game is. But, and here's the thing- the design of the game points out how short it is. You make stars in the game. You make the constellations. And the Moon. and the North Star. Celestial objects. So you kind of expect, like at least 12 missions. I mean, if you're making Zodiac signs like Virgo and Taurus, you kind of expect to see all of them. But you don't. Not at all. There's like four or five constellations.
if they'd only not point out an inadequacy of the game in this way, i might not have noticed it.
There's a lot of replay value in the levels. Secrets in the levels and clothes that you can wear to customize your character. So like i said, the game's shortness is not a bad thing, but...
it's too short. Now i don't usually think that games are too short. I actually like short games. If they're good. Which this game is. But, and here's the thing- the design of the game points out how short it is. You make stars in the game. You make the constellations. And the Moon. and the North Star. Celestial objects. So you kind of expect, like at least 12 missions. I mean, if you're making Zodiac signs like Virgo and Taurus, you kind of expect to see all of them. But you don't. Not at all. There's like four or five constellations.
if they'd only not point out an inadequacy of the game in this way, i might not have noticed it.
There's a lot of replay value in the levels. Secrets in the levels and clothes that you can wear to customize your character. So like i said, the game's shortness is not a bad thing, but...
katamari damashi (PS2)
This game is amazing. Utterly mind-expanding. Anyone who's interested in what video games can be, in the potential of games, owes it to themselves to check it out. it's really good.
You know what's the mark of a really good game? One where you you find yourself playing it when you're not playing it. When you see the game world overlaid on the real world. You see falling tetris blocks in your dreams, You imagine what it would be like to deathmatch in any open space that you see, You imagine grinding and tricking off every railing that you see.
Some of you know what i'm talking about.
That's a good game. So believe me when i say that i've been seeing giant balls accreted of buildings, bridges, giant squid, and rainbows rolling down the street in the city. So, yeah, good game. and if that description interests you at all, let me also add that the game is ten times wierder that that.
You know what's the mark of a really good game? One where you you find yourself playing it when you're not playing it. When you see the game world overlaid on the real world. You see falling tetris blocks in your dreams, You imagine what it would be like to deathmatch in any open space that you see, You imagine grinding and tricking off every railing that you see.
Some of you know what i'm talking about.
That's a good game. So believe me when i say that i've been seeing giant balls accreted of buildings, bridges, giant squid, and rainbows rolling down the street in the city. So, yeah, good game. and if that description interests you at all, let me also add that the game is ten times wierder that that.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Friday, September 24, 2004
Friday, September 10, 2004
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
well, what i mean by that is...
it wouldn't work earlier today. and i thought that my stuff had gotten lost. But there it all is. great.
Tuesday, September 07, 2004
astro boy for PS2
my god it's bad. it's so sad. Sonic Team really misstepped on this one. Did Mr. Naka even look at this game?
i can't believe i just watched text that described a scene. They didn't even attempt to show what was happening.
And this "battle"... with this possessed woman... I know it's supposed to be a reference to old-style Japanese console RPGs. i don't care. That doesn't make it fun to play. It's just awful.
I declare this game to be... Unfinished!
i can't believe i just watched text that described a scene. They didn't even attempt to show what was happening.
And this "battle"... with this possessed woman... I know it's supposed to be a reference to old-style Japanese console RPGs. i don't care. That doesn't make it fun to play. It's just awful.
I declare this game to be... Unfinished!
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
"How High can You Go?": the Games of Shigeru Miyamoto
Shigeru Miyamoto is the designer of many of the world's most popular games. Games that started genres all their own. Games like Donkey Kong. Super Mario Bros. Mario 64. The Legend of Zelda.He rides his bike to work every day and plays acoustic guitar and banjo for fun. Who is this guy?
To begin at the beginning, he was born in 1952 in Sonebe, a rural village near Kyoto, Japan. Not having any video games, young Shigeru grew up running, playing and exploring in the fields and forests outside his house.
"And whenever we are making this kind of thing, what we always keep in mind is 'what was important for us when we were children'? What was fun then? That is the core of many of my games."
He did programming, art, and music on his first game for Nintendo, Donkey Kong. Not really that uncommon at the time, games being as small as they were. Donkey Kong is a game structured like a story- a goal, a protagonist, an antagonist, and obstacles to that goal. In 1980, Nintendo of America had released an arcade game called Radarscope, which was a flop. And so they had all these arcade consoles they didn't know what to do with. Young Miyamoto, with his freshly minted degree in industrial design, was assigned to make a game on the existing hardware. He consulted with Nintendo's engineers to figure out the hardware, but as mentioned before, he did everything himself. The results made video game history. Interesting that his first game was intended for the American market, with a villian modeled on an American movie(Kong), and an Italian carpenter (Jumpman, later renamed Mario (and retrained as a plumber)after the landlord at Nintendo's American headquarters).
"For me, game creation is like expression through music. When I am working as a director on a game, while I always try to hit upon new plots, I place great importance on the tempo of the game and the sound effects. I feel that those directors who have been able to incorporate rhythm and emotional stimuli in their games have been successful."
Super Mario Bros. was the first game franchise. Not a sequel, but an entirely different game from Donkey Kong, using the same player character- Mario. It was the first side-scrolling, platform-jumping game. It was much copied, so much that it became its own genre. It was also specifically made for the home system, the Nintendo Entertainment System(NES). It had long levels and many more of them, as well as the elements of exploration, discovery, and breaking of boundaries. It was meant to give much more play time than an arcade game, where time is money. I don't need to say that it was wildly successful.
"but of course, with the evolution of the technology, the graphics will get even better, clearer, and yet that's not the only cause we should aim for. Rather, we should put more emphasis on the ideas-- new ideas-- unprecedented, unique ideas. Ideas that aren't connected to the available technology. I would like to encourage everybody to think that way, otherwise we will not find a new way to further explorer and adventure in this unprecedented media called video games."
Miyamoto again defined where the industry was to go with Super Mario 64, the first Mario game in 3-D. Controlling a character in a 3-D world was entirely novel, and the techniques used to control Mario were easy to learn, yet had depth and complexity to them. I've noticed that no two people control Mario alike. Simply going from place to place in the world is fun and expressive. Every 3-D action game since takes at least some paradigms from Mario 64, but no game since has duplicated the sheer fun and complexity-in-simplicity of this pioneering title. It's still fun today.
How is he able to do it? How does he make games that are both original and popular, games that transcend time? I don't know, but I'll close with a final Miyamoto quote that may shed some light:
" I have never created a game that has been of a level that I could be satisfied with."
To begin at the beginning, he was born in 1952 in Sonebe, a rural village near Kyoto, Japan. Not having any video games, young Shigeru grew up running, playing and exploring in the fields and forests outside his house.
"And whenever we are making this kind of thing, what we always keep in mind is 'what was important for us when we were children'? What was fun then? That is the core of many of my games."
He did programming, art, and music on his first game for Nintendo, Donkey Kong. Not really that uncommon at the time, games being as small as they were. Donkey Kong is a game structured like a story- a goal, a protagonist, an antagonist, and obstacles to that goal. In 1980, Nintendo of America had released an arcade game called Radarscope, which was a flop. And so they had all these arcade consoles they didn't know what to do with. Young Miyamoto, with his freshly minted degree in industrial design, was assigned to make a game on the existing hardware. He consulted with Nintendo's engineers to figure out the hardware, but as mentioned before, he did everything himself. The results made video game history. Interesting that his first game was intended for the American market, with a villian modeled on an American movie(Kong), and an Italian carpenter (Jumpman, later renamed Mario (and retrained as a plumber)after the landlord at Nintendo's American headquarters).
"For me, game creation is like expression through music. When I am working as a director on a game, while I always try to hit upon new plots, I place great importance on the tempo of the game and the sound effects. I feel that those directors who have been able to incorporate rhythm and emotional stimuli in their games have been successful."
Super Mario Bros. was the first game franchise. Not a sequel, but an entirely different game from Donkey Kong, using the same player character- Mario. It was the first side-scrolling, platform-jumping game. It was much copied, so much that it became its own genre. It was also specifically made for the home system, the Nintendo Entertainment System(NES). It had long levels and many more of them, as well as the elements of exploration, discovery, and breaking of boundaries. It was meant to give much more play time than an arcade game, where time is money. I don't need to say that it was wildly successful.
"but of course, with the evolution of the technology, the graphics will get even better, clearer, and yet that's not the only cause we should aim for. Rather, we should put more emphasis on the ideas-- new ideas-- unprecedented, unique ideas. Ideas that aren't connected to the available technology. I would like to encourage everybody to think that way, otherwise we will not find a new way to further explorer and adventure in this unprecedented media called video games."
Miyamoto again defined where the industry was to go with Super Mario 64, the first Mario game in 3-D. Controlling a character in a 3-D world was entirely novel, and the techniques used to control Mario were easy to learn, yet had depth and complexity to them. I've noticed that no two people control Mario alike. Simply going from place to place in the world is fun and expressive. Every 3-D action game since takes at least some paradigms from Mario 64, but no game since has duplicated the sheer fun and complexity-in-simplicity of this pioneering title. It's still fun today.
How is he able to do it? How does he make games that are both original and popular, games that transcend time? I don't know, but I'll close with a final Miyamoto quote that may shed some light:
" I have never created a game that has been of a level that I could be satisfied with."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
