Before I invested in an XBOX 360, I was starved for core games as a Wii-only owner. I was going through a drought in games to play, and the Wii version of The Godfather was starting to pick up buzz. I had never watched a Godfather movie or played a Grand Theft Auto game before, the promise of being able to point my Wii remote as a gun or beat thugs down with swinging fist motions seemed really cool. Also, when you don't have that many options to choose from, you're more willing to step outside your comfort zone for some satisfaction.
I picked this up on day one, not quite knowing what to expect really. I had read the reviews and seen this trailer, but not having played this style of game before didn't give me any real context to base my own opinions from.
If you haven't played this, or have played the non-Wii versions of the game, you're probably wondering how the controls perform. While they are not perfect, I thought they were very satisfying, especially in combat. I loved the ability to aim the gun with my hand and beating guys down by actually throwing punches did add to the experience. In particular, I liked all the things you could do when you grabbed a guy. Most famously among my high school friends, I grabbed a prostitute in the game and threw her off a balcony. Yeah, that wasn't the most gentlemanly thing of me to do.
At the time, I thought the game was really fun. I can't really speak on how closely the story followed the movie, but there weren't any missions that stood out to me as annoying, boring or bad. I liked the side stuff where you could shake down local store owners to take control away from rival gangs. This process was kind of repetitive, but I enjoyed it enough to shake down every store and bar owner in New York. Having played a number of GTA games since then, I thought The Godfather: Blackhand Edition stacks up fairly well. It's ultimately not as good, but if you're looking for more open-world goodness, it was a good game to check out.
The only glaring flaw I remember clearly about the game were its visuals. Unfortunately, the graphics aren't the greatest, especially when playing on an LCD or plasma TV. One weird thing though is that I found the game to look just fine on a CRTV. Regardless of what TV you have, the art style does not cover up the technical deficiencies put on the system due to the large open-world.
If you're still looking for core games to play on the Wii, I recommend you check out The Godfather: Blackhand Edition. I'm sure you can pick this one up for dirt cheap used.
Due to the varying interests and skill levels, finding games for my girlfriend and I to enjoy on the same level is difficult. Every now and then she'll play one of "my" games and I'll play "her" games, but I can only really think of one video game series that we can really call "ours". That series, is Boom Blox for the Wii.
If you're not familiar with the critically acclaimed and lukewarm selling Boom Blox series of games, I'll give you a very quick rundown of what it's about. Boom Blox has a number of different game types, all of which revolve around interacting with blocks. This includes throwing baseballs at a stack of blocks, skillfully removing blocks Jenga style, hitting blocks into multipliers and more. Sure, that description sounds really lame and even watching videos of the game doesn't sell the game that well. But when you get that Wii remote in your hand and you knock down a giant stack of blocks to the chagrin of your opponent(s), you'll get it.
Your girlfriend will too. Well, at least mine did. And a few other girls I know with boyfriends got it as well. Heck, pretty much everyone I've put Boom Blox in front of has loved it. It's a shame that Boom Blox has not caught on with the masses, because it's awesome for everyone. But I'm not here to talk about everyone. This post is just about Steff and I.
What makes this game universally appealing is the gameplay. It is extremely easy for anybody to figure out almost instantly, but tricky to master. Most of the game modes also do not require twitch reflexes, which takes out another layer of difficulty. Where it lacks in twitch gameplay it makes up for in strategy. During that moment when you've figured out the absolute best way to handle your situation and the reward is watching a hundred blocks fly off into oblivion, it just feels good.
As a competitive multiplayer game, both Boom Blox games are a blast to play. They're almost as easy as Wii Sports in terms of universal pick-up-and-play appeal with a steeper learning curve for anyone looking to take it to the next level. My girlfriend and I often duel in Boom Blox and the competition is always heated. Unfortunately for me, she wins more than I do. Even as a single player game though, it can be fun to work out levels together. One person can be in charge with the Wii remote and together you can form a plan of action.
Whether we're battling to the death for Boom Blox champion supremacy or working together to solve crazy block puzzles, the Boom Blox series of games are awesome to play together.
Yesterday at the Game Developer Conference, Sony finally announced the name and some more details about their new motion controller. The controller (and sub-controller) are now known as the Playstation Move. I'm not going to go into details about how the thing works, or what games were just announced to support it, but I'll be happy to direct you to places that have thattype of information.
What I wanted to do is use this announcement as a jump-off point for my current perceptions of motion control. Back in 2006, I was all aboard the motion control train. With Nintendo - my favourite game company - backing this technology, there was nothing that could go wrong, right? Wrong.
I bought my Wii on launch-day and had a blast with it. For the next few weeks that winter, every party with family and friends was a Wii party. While motion controls did bring something new to the table, Nintendo's initial stab at motion controls brought with it a number of problems.
For anyone that has played a Wii, you've figured out by now that the Wii remote doesn't translate your movements 1:1 into the game. Rather, it reads a gesture you make and then plays out the action on screen if you've done the gesture properly. What happens in most Wii games is that you end up not truly simulating the motions you try to do. Instead, the remote doesn't read your motions correctly and does something you don't want it to do, or you end up doing "short-cut motions" that work just as well as the full motion, which kills any immersion the game was supposed to provide. Flicking your wrist to throw a bowling ball works just as well as a full-body throw.
The lack of buttons, poor game translations from regular controls to "Wii" controls, games going crazy when the remote isn't pointed at the screen and a sudden shift in focus towards casual games made a lot of what the Wii was supposed to be about not that fun for me. I have tried the motion plus attachment, but having to constantly reset the controller to work properly is a pain. Within a few months of buying the Wii, I caved and bought my first non-Nintendo system since the Atari 2600 because I wanted to play games that controlled with buttons, d-pads and analog sticks. I still love me some Wii Bowling and Boom Blox, but most of my gaming time is now motion controller free.
Regardless of how I feel, the Wii has basically won this console cycle, leaving Sony and Microsoft floundering to try and capitalize on the success of motion control. Sony has taken a very "me-too" approach with the design of their Move controllers, and Microsoft is going way out in left field with the controller-free Project Natal. While they both claim to have better solutions to motion control, I have my doubts. Watching the Playstation Move in the video below only further fueled my doubts, as the person in the video punches wildly in the air and the game does nothing to respond to his movements.
I'm not even going to get into the myriad of other challenges Sony and Microsoft have specifically in trying to launch these products into the marketplace. I just want to talk about how these control mechanisms work and what it'll take for me to fully buy into them as a main form of input. I'll break it down into three key points:
In my 20+ years of gaming, I've never had problems inputting a command with a button press. The game only has to decipher whether or not the button is pressed down or not. With motion control, there are so many more variables involved, and therefore, a higher percentage of error. It's so frustrating to play games like any Wii boxing game and see your physical energy go to waste when you throw a real-life hay-maker and see that my character is standing still.
The Playstation Move looks to be better than the Wii remote, but still appears to suffer from some accuracy quirks. With the Natal, we have no idea how accurate that setup will be when it hits living rooms around the world. I know it's a lot to ask, but I will always prefer pressing a button to doing a gesture if the gesture isn't accurate enough.
2) Purpose
Very early on in the Wii's life-cycle, a lot of third-party developers thought they could cash-in on the Wii hype train by shoehorning motion controls into traditional games. Time and time again, we've seen this strategy fail miserably. Often times in the case of motion controls, developers simply substitute a button press with a gesture, which usually doesn't feel good, doesn't accurately reflect the action on the screen and takes you out of the action more than brings you in.
Motion control games need to have a clear purpose for being in the game or don't bother. Developers need to create experiences that work with the strengths and weaknesses of the interface in mind and not force the player to flail their arms to substitute a button press. Throwing a baseball at a stack of blocks in Boom Blox feels awesome. Having to draw a star on the screen to activate slow-motion in Trauma Center feels awful and makes no sense.
While this particular point applies to all motion controllers (even you, Tony Hawk: Ride skateboard), I'm most concerned about the Natal on this one. Microsoft has hyped this up as the most natural gaming experience ever, but I don't see what's natural about flailing your limbs around to hit balls that are projected at you or driving a car by pretending to hold onto a steering wheel and pretending to hit pedals with your feet that aren't there. The big promise of motion control is the ability to give players a more realistic and immersive experience. Poor motion control implementation just feels even more awkward and out of place than any button press would.
While I am currently not much of a fan of the current implementation of motion controls in today's consoles, I'm reluctant to write them off completely. I know that motion controls are here to stay and will improve with time. By the time these things work as planned, maybe I'll warm up to them more. I'm still not sure if I'll ever be ready to let go of sitting on the couch and pushing buttons, but we'll talk about that when motion controllers finally come of age.
A few weeks ago, I vented my thoughts on the possibility of me purchasing Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars. I was interested in the game, but maybe not enough for me to buy it. However, it was also an opportunity as a core Wii owner to show the world that I will buy hardcore games if companies put them out on the platform. This moral dilemma also hit me shortly before I lost my job. With all of the things stacked against it, Tatsunoko vs. Capcom seemed out of my grasp for the time being.
With my final severance check arriving in the mail a few days ago, I figured that I owe it to myself to have one last hurrah. Was it worth all the fuss that went on in my head, or did it just leave me salty?
As someone who didn't really get into Marvel vs. Capcom 2, it's a bit of a surprise to me how well I've transitioned into Tatsunoko vs. Capcom. The MvC 2 experience just felt excessive for me. There were too many characters to learn, too many characters you have to manage at once, too many gameplay systems, the game was too fast and combos required too much twitch skill for me to pull off. There are many people who play MvC 2 on a much more casual level, but playing it that way didn't feel very satisfying for me. TvC is toned down just enough for me to grasp without losing the frantic fun. Instead of 3-on-3 matches, they're 2-on-2. The game's pace is slightly slower. For me specifically, I can pick this up and still feel like I'm doing something. Right away, I got a general feel for the fighting system and was able to perform some decent combos and hyper combo set-ups.
Playing TvC made me realize that the TvC style of play is what I was really looking for in BlazBlue. BlazBlue is a pretty good fighting game in its own right, but the barrier to entry for me is far too high because of all the command inputs you have to learn. Every single character has unique button commands for every single special move, which is a lot more effort than I would like to put into a fighting game at this time. TvC sticks to the standard Capcom control conventions so that players that played the original Street Fighter II can jump right in.
I don't say this very often about Wii games, but the graphics are gorgeous. The art style does a lot to overcome the inherent weaknesses in the Wii's graphical capability. Backgrounds are well done and the cell-shaded characters look and move great. Hyper combo animations in particular are about as zany and flashy as you would hope for in a "Versus" game. On my 42" plasma, the characters look a bit jaggy up close, but if I sit about 10 feet away from my TV, it looks awesome. The only other downside is that I feel the game could look a bit sharper. While there are a lot of colours, the colours don't pop out as I think they should.
I respect the fact that Capcom put in support for all the "main" controller options Wii users have at their disposal. You can play this Wii remote only, Wii remote and nunchuck, Gamecube controller, classic controller or with a joystick. If you want to play for real, then a joystick or classic controller are your only options. I can only imagine how much of a train-wreck this would be to play with Wii remote and nunchuck or Gamecube controller, as neither of those control setups are optimized for fighting games. If you want to play it like Smash Bros., the Wii remote only option changes the controls so that it sort of plays like it. One button is dedicated to all your normal moves and the other is dedicated to special moves. For my younger cousins who want to try this out, I think it's a great way to ease them in.
Having written down a few hundred words already without mentioning the cast is a bit of a miracle. One of the biggest points people will hold against this game is the fact that half the roster is comprised of Japanese anime characters, which you probably won't know unless you're an otaku. For me, I came into it not knowing any of the Tatsunoko people, and not even a lot of the Capcom cast. If you really need that character recognition to get into the game, then maybe this isn't for you. However, I've dabbled with all of the characters at least a bit and everyone is fun to play if you play them right.
My biggest beef with the game so far is a point of contention among many fighting game fans. Some people like to play their fighting games over and over to unlock all the characters. I hate it. You have to beat this game more than a dozen times to unlock all the characters and beat it under particular circumstances. While they're not as crazy as the stipulations in Street Fighter IV, it doesn't do anything positive for me. I don't care that I'm playing this game longer, and it doesn't really lend itself to trying out new characters. I just put the difficulty down to one star, pick Ryu and whoever I need to beat the game with and thrash the computer until the final hit of the last boss, where I bring in the other character to finish the job. Having to unlock characters just makes the first few hours of playing the game a chore to me.
I am thankful that Capcom also incorporated online play into this, which was not available in the Japanese version. Does it work as well as Street Fighter IV on XBOX Live, which isn't the greatest experience to begin with? No. When it does work, it's fine. However, I've run into a number of connection problems that I think are not so much the fault of the game, but the fault of Nintendo's poor online support. When it doesn't work, I can spend 15 minutes or more just trying to find a match, only to end up getting cut off before we can even get to the character select menu. I've also experienced matches with really unfair lag. In Street Fighter IV, I've noticed that both players are equally affected in a laggy match. However, I felt like I was at the complete mercy of lag and my opponent was playing just fine when lag did hit. Button presses would take seconds before finally being registered way too late, while my opponent beat me to a pulp.
While I would much rather tie the release of Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars to a more joyous occasion other than me receiving my final severance payment in the mail, the game offers a great fighting experience for anyone willing to give it a chance on the Wii. Nintendo loyalists haven't received a good 2D fighting game on the platform since Super Street Fighter II in the early 1990s, and if this bombs like how I think it will, it may be the last one you'll get for a long time. For the love of fighting games and all that is left of "hardcore" on the Wii, pick this up.
Happy Valentines Day! For those of you in love, out of love, or in-between love, I hope that your Valentines Day turns out to be a good one. Up until recently, the majority of my Valentines Days were horrible, but this isn't the right forum to discuss that.
Anyway, I thought today would be a good day to start what may become a series of entries from me that pertain the role video games have in a relationship with a significant other that I call "Girlfriend Gaming". I don't mean to exclude the GLBT community, as some of my best friends are GLBT, but I would not be able to speak well on the intricacies of that dynamic. In any case, I'm sure that anyone with a significant other can find something to relate to here.
Over the last few years of checking out video game message boards and podcasts, I've seen this one particular topic pop up over and over again: How do I get my girlfriend into gaming? Often times, this question is brought forth by a guy who is a core gamer who is in a relationship with a girl who is only into "causal" games or isn't into video games at all. These discussions usually goes into talks of easing her in with the DS or Wii until she "graduates" into becoming a hot-shot Modern Warfare 2 player.
As someone who is a die-hard fan of video games, I can see their perspective. They love games and would like their significant other to share in that experience with them. There may be some disconnect in their relationship due to their gaming differences and they may want to close that gap. Maybe I'm an idealist when it comes to love, but the whole concept of converting your girlfriend into a gamer kind of goes against my beliefs in love.
Where am I going with this? Well, are you familiar with the phrase, "I love you for who you are?" The majority of the time that expression is said, it's a pile of crap. I hate it when I see/hear/experience this in a relationship of my own or the relationship of someone else, where the other person says that expression, but then they try and change you. They tell you one minute that you're perfect, but then they want you to dress differently, hang out with different friends, eat differently and ultimately change you into what they want you to be rather than who you want to be. I don't hype myself up much as a person, but if there's anything I'm good at, I am good at being me. I have a very strong sense of self that I do not like anyone trying to change. Not to say that I'm stubborn to change or that I don't listen to others, but if something is going to change who I am, it's going to be me that does it. In return, I respect other people's sense of self as best I can. Within the context of a relationship, I'm only in that relationship because I really do love that person for who they are and I try hard to make sure my significant other maintains her own identity.
To bring it back around to video games, trying to convert her into a gamer when she isn't a gamer goes against my ideals of love. By doing this, you're trying to change the person you fell in love with in the first place, even though I bet you told her you love her just the way she is. The pain that could come from that could be the equivalent of her saying she loves you, but would like you to be less nerdy. If video games are important enough to you that you need to date a gamer, then go date a gamer rather than make one. It'll be a lot more successful to you in the long run and less hurtful if your current significant other isn't buying what you're selling.
For me, it's not about being with someone that necessarily likes what I like. Having commonalities is great, but it's not necessary for me when it comes to my hobbies. All I ask for is respect of them and in return, I will do my best to respect your hobbies and interests. As long as she doesn't think condescendingly of me because of my association of the medium, then we'll find something else bond over. Even after this long rant, if I still haven't convinced you that your girlfriend is good the way she is, then maybe it's time to go on a quest for a new one rather than force your agenda on your current girlfriend.
I'm not going to go into detail as to why Sonic has sucked, but I'll summarize most of it in once sentence.
"The core ideas that made Sonic fun in the first place didn't translate well into 3D."
With that said, the Internet is losing it after Sega just announced the upcoming release of Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode 1, which returns to the classic Sonic-only 2D style that popularized the hedgehog in the first place.
I was never the biggest Sonic the Hedgehog guy, but I have a soft spot in my heart for the first two games. Also, he's one of the most recognizable figures in this medium I love. It was downright tragic to see Sega drag the franchise down into the gutter. Even when the fans vehemently asked for a return to the series' roots, Sega would completely ignore their cries and graft on another stupid gimmick to an already bad 3D game.
Sonic the Hedgehog 4 doesn't guarantee us much of anything, other than it being a 2D Sonic game that will be downloadable in episodic form. It could still suck. It could still feature some of the elements that made the more recent Sonic games awful. But I am glad to see Sega finally care about the people it makes games for and at least attempt to create a product with them in mind. Will Sonic rise to prominence on par with Mario like he did back in the early 90s? Maybe that's a bit much to ask. Let's see if we can get a good Sonic game first, then we'll talk.
In many parts of the world (my own included), Boxing Day is on now. Normally, I don't flinch at the opportunity to tear up the mall or other retail outlets, but for the past few days I've been wrestling the thought of purchasing a Playstation 3. For many years, I wouldn't have entertained the thought of owning a Playstation product even if you put a gun to my head due to my once-rock-solid loyalty to Nintendo. However, thing's change, people change and platforms mature from their $599 giant enemy crab roots. There are a number of places here that have PS3 bundles that come with three good games for free, which has made the possibility much more tempting.
For your entertainment, I thought I would go the various points and counter-points crossing my head as I try and justify whether or not I should invest in one.
POINT: "It Only Does Everything"
For $299.99, you get a lot of bang for your buck. In terms of a straight-up comparison for what you can get with a $299.99 PS3 and a $299.99 360, the PS3 has it beat. Free wi-fi out of the box, Blu-Ray capability and an overall more powerful system makes the system the better buy if you're comparing spread sheets.
COUNTER-POINT: It does a lot of things I'll never use
I don't watch movies. I don't need a multimedia hub. I don't need something to interface with a PSP I don't have. It would basically be a system I buy only for PS3 exclusives.
POINT: It has some great first-party support
Not to short-change those PS3 exclusives, but I will admit that games like Uncharted and Little Big Planet have piqued my interest in the platform. I'm sure there are at least a few more PS3 exclusive games I haven't even thought about playing that I could totally get into.
COUNTER-POINT: Everything else I can play on my 360
Third party games 99.9% of the time end up on both the PS3 and 360. Often times, the 360 version is better, not because it's a more powerful platform, but because it's easier to develop for. If the majority of games I purchase are from third party publishers, then I might as well stick it out on the XBOX.
POINT: Free online
Having to pay a subscription fee for something every other system lets users have for free sucks. If I were to start buying everything I could on the PS3, maybe I could bypass the $60 a year for XBOX Live.
COUNTER-POINT: XBOX 360 online is better
There are a number of objective and subjective reasons for this. No cross-game party chat is a huge downer for the PSN, and Playstation Home looks awful. Most people don't have headsets on PSN, because they don't come standard in the box like the 360. The big reason XBOX Live is better to me specifically? Most of my friends are on XBOX Live and only a handful of my friends are on PSN. I'm normally not one to join everyone jumping off a cliff, but it makes for better Modern Warfare 2 matches, so be it.
POINT: I'll finally won't miss out on great console games because I own all three major platforms
COUNTER-POINT: I don't have the time to keep up with Wii/360
With a full-time job and a social life, gaming has been very difficult to squeeze into my schedule, even though my love for the medium has never changed. I have an ever-growing list of "Pile of Shame" games that are still waiting for me to play them. Would I just make things worse by having to support another platform?
POINT: I kind of want one
At the core of my desire for a PS3 is something very impulsive and gut-feeling. Regardless of how I spin it in my head, I kind of just want one.
COUNTER-POINT: Do I really need one?
Right now, the answer is, "No." I have a lot of gaming to be had on my Wii and 360 and the content I can get through those platforms is more than enough to keep me satisfied. However...I'm still kind of jonesing for a PS3. Maybe someday I will be able to rationalize it.
Today, my brother picked up a copy of the latest installment in the Rock Band series. Around the time this was rumored, I thought this was just a stupid joke cause the idea of mashing Lego up with Rock Band seemed too ridiculous to be true. Well, so much for that.
Unlike the other entries in the Rock Band and Guitar Hero series, Lego: Rock Band is clearly skewed towards the kids. While the core mechanics are the same, everything from the set list, to no-fail on all the time, to a "super easy" mode for all instruments aims to make this fun for the tykes and their parents.
As hardcore Rock Band junkies, we picked this up as a means of bolstering our Rock Band 2 set-list. Being able to export all the Lego: Rock Band songs is a great feature, because you might not always want to play "Fire" by Jimi Hendrix with Lego dudes all the time. There are some great songs in here, such as the aforementioned Hendrix track, two Queen songs and the Ghostbusters theme song. However, for every great recognizable song, there seems to be two mediocre tracks from no-name bands. Taste in music is subjective and maybe you'll get more mileage out of it than I will.
What is disappointing without question is what you can transfer over to Lego: Rock Band. Due to ESRB ratings, only songs that classify as E10+ from Rock Band 1 and DLC can carry over. For me, roughly half of my DLC carried over and less than half of the Rock Band 1 songs carried over as well. Currently, there's no way to import Rock Band 2 songs. Bummer.
The other major shortcoming to Lego: Rock Band is the lack of online functionality. I know that parents probably don't want their kids to play online with strangers, but that's something you could control without having to remove the option from the game completely for others. Also, the lack of leaderboards is just lazy. What would you have to lose from putting them in?
The game has a few other weird quirks, too. Load times are longer than in Rock Band 2, and for some reason the ability to hit the green button during save screens can lend itself to making annoying noises during a time of silence.
Even as a die-hard Rock Band fan, I have a hard time recommending this right now. The song list isn't as strong as it could have been and it lags behind Rock Band 2 in a number of key places. If you can pick it up on the cheap, it's a decent way to add a bunch of new songs to your Rock Band 2 stash. Otherwise, I'd pass.
