I may as well write something about the Wii... after all, everyone else is.
My reaction can be described thus: NO. It's actually got good, solid reasoning behind it... in Japanese. Well, I don't care. A name I have to reason through is not one I want as a gamer. I don't know what I do want, but I know I don't want that.
The initial shock has worn off, so I'm sure I'll get used to it eventually. But I will never, ever like it. That name... too stupid to go with such a (potentially, of course) great system.

It's been a while since I wrote a proper essay. So, I'll write a nice new one about my take... on the success of online gaming.

No, today's rant isn't about how or why it all succeeded, just why some of it did and some of it didn't.

 

Multiplayer has always held a large place in the hearts of gamers. From the early on (Sword Fight, Atari 2600) to the more recent (Counter-Strike Source), we've always wanted to test our skills against others, or recruit others to help us in our cause (Halo). Now, in the early days, two people had no choice but to sit in the same room in order to play multiplayer. This was by no means a truly bad thing, because it gave us the knowledge that we were there, playing with people who weren't the computer. Quite a feeling.

Now, as online was introduced, we were able to play with people who were NOT beside us. This is the thing I'm concerned with, and I make my postulate:

An online game feels better if it is apparent that you are playing with a human.

 

Let's examine Counter-Strike, before people were using teamchat liberally. The game felt really awesome because everyone you were playing with, even though they had minimal interaction with you, was acting in such a way as to make you KNOW that they were people. They'd pull of gratuitous tactics (in good situations), humiliate themselves (in bad situations), or behave more bizarrely than a computer could ever behave (in most situations).

That's not to say a computer couldn't reproduce the feat, in some situations the bots in Unreal Tournament gave me the feeling of playing with real people.

One of the features that Xbox live offers is the ability to use their communicator headsets to talk to others via VoIP. Granted, most people don't have too many intelligent things to say, but it freshens the experience. You can smirk as the n00bish sniper you just assassinated swears nonstop in your ear, knowing that the jerk felt that blow over at his end of the connection.

But not every game can get it right. In my opinion, a severe offender in this regard would be Mario Kart DS. The online matches just feel like a boring bot match where your opponents are inhumanly fast. There is nothing humanizing about them at all, except perhaps a sense of spite.

In my humble opinion, a big part of multiplayer being multiplayer is the feeling of being in company. Unfortunately, in some situations, you can be alone with people.

 

On a side note:

Everyone's heard of World of Warcraft. That's all there is to it. I personally never have played it, but I've heard some very good things about it. I hear that there is a high level of interaction, as well. But I wonder... How immersive can it be to be talking to people who say stuff like "hi will u join party?" I mean, it's like being in an asylum for the mentally disabled. People should at least make a small effort to be comprehensible.

I've actually heard from quite a few people that the NPC's in Oblivion are more realistic than the PC's in WoW. This is either a testament to the greatness of Radiant AI routines, or an obituary to the intellect of gamers.

 

Notes: Sorry for giving such a cop-out article. I'm sick, and most of my intellect is being devoted towards a metroid fanfic. Also, saving Cyrrodil is a full-time job... I literally have been playing a bit of hooky in order to play Oblivion. It's just that good. It's seriously worth the time of anyone who can read or do a little math. Go get it!

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=192

I want to thank VGcats for cracking down on those horrendous commercials in a public forum. I really, really hope Sony pulls those commercials soon; because they'rte ruining my PSP. Every time I see an ad like that on the internet or a friend's TV, I feel ashamed of that lump of plastics and electronics charging in my room.
I WANT TO LIKE MY PSP, SONY!!!
Especially with all the good games coming out for it... But Sony's ruining my enjoyment with those gosh-awful commercials.

MPH! Behold, yon W00tage!
No opinion yet. It's good, but I don't think it's great.

Hi, I'm more or less back.

The following was written before the announcement of the Revolution's controller. Enjoy!

MP: Iwata-san, I'd like to talk to you about your attitude toward yours and your competition's upcoming consoles.

SI: Of course! What do you want to ask?

MP: Let's start with Sony. How do you feel about their competition?

SI: Sony is a good company, but they are sticking to the old formula for success. Same with Microsoft. I think both companies have lots to offer, but they simply aren't following the new formula for success. That's where I feel that those otherwise excellent companies are going wrong.

MP: Speaking of that, I see your company is saying it's defined the formula for success. Some people think that's a bit presumptuous of you.

SI: Let the skeptics think. We don't intend to stop there.

MP: What do you mean by that?

SI: We intend to re-write a few more formulas. Do you know how old the Pythagorean theorem is? It's antiquated! Our engineers are working on a replacement right now to that and hundreds of other outdated formulas.

MP: But wouldn't changing them make them not work?

SI: Of course not! With genius, innovation, perseverance and enough delays, people can make any new idea work. We assure you that you will be more happy with the new versions.

MP: I hope so. Speaking of not that, despite complaints about no HD support and the lack of information about the Revolution among a host of other whines, you continue to claim that you are giving the customer what he wants. How is that?

SI: I feel that the average person does not know what they want. They don't realize that what they want isn't the next Halo or Dead or Alive (Even though they are great games, to be sure), but something entirely new and different. Look at the DS. When you thought of the next Nintendo portable, did you think that you wanted a touch screen?

MP: Yes. I've always been a PDA owner and I thought that a touch screen on a gaming handheld would be pretty cool.

SI: You must be one of those above average people that knows what they want. You will be very happy with the Revolution.

MP: But you feel perfectly justified in defining what people want?

SI: Of course! I'll bet you want some okonomiyaki right now.

MP: Yes, but-

SI: See? Not only am I justified in assuming what you want, I'm qualified.

MP: Right. Uhhh... thank you for your time.

SI: You're welcome.

This isn't a full blog update, just a little nudge to let you know I'm still here.
I've been very, very busy, both in real life and online. I find very little time to actually update this column.
I'll be back with part 2 of the interviews very soon.
Sorry for this neglect!

I know, I know. Anyone who reads this blog comes here for opinions and facts, for essays and similes. But I'm not going to do that today.

Most blogs are full of stuff about what the author feels, what they want, what they ate for breakfast... I frankly find such distasteful. I resolve to never fall that way.

On a lighter note, I have some things that I've wanted to show the world.

A while ago, I decided that the big three (Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony) were somewhat laughable in their attempts to convince us to buy their next-gen systems. This was before the Xbox 360 came out, and before the Revolution controller was announced.

I did my research, read every interview with them, and decided on a course of action: I would take each side's attitudes and idiosyncrasies and compress them into a single, fabricated interview. I think I got them pretty accurate.

This, unfortunately, will have to be a two-part series instead of a three-part series, because... well, J Allard (Microsoft) kinda makes fun of himself. You want laughs, go read a real interview with him.

So, without further ado, I would like to present our first interviewee... Ken Kutagari from Sony!

 

Ken Kutagari

Sony Computer Entertainment

MP: Mr. Kutagari, I'd like to talk about your attitude towards your and your competition's next-gen consoles.

KK:Mutenpika-san, we are confident going into the next generation. We feel that the Playstation product line has become a part of everyday life. I think that our Playstation 3 will sell well, and we will make tons of money- oops, I mean we will make tons of customers happy. Heh heh heh.

MP: I heard that the Playstation 3, due to the variety of its seven processing cores, would be difficult to program for and buggy. Is this considered an acceptable trade-off for the supposedly blazing fast technology?

KK: When I said that I was sure the Playstation brand was entrenched in everyday life, I meant it. Playstation is just like cocaine. You can't kick the habit, but it makes you very, very happy. Connecting to the topic of your question, the Playstation brand is so integrated into our fan's substandard minds that they'll buy our next product no matter what problems there are with it. All we have to do is give them pretty prerendered demos and the promise of incredible graphics.

MP: Promise of incredible graphics? Like how you promised that the PS2's emotion engine could do everything from full-scene antialiasing to making the deaf hear and the lame walk?

KK: Exactly. Gaming is like politics. All you need to do is promise anything and the masses will follow you. You don't need to actually deliver on any of those promises.

MP: But won't people get mad when you don't deliver on your promises?

KK: As long as we can buy out all the developers, we're safe. If fans see a lot of games, they'll forget our system's inadequacies. As I said, most of our fans have fairly substandard intellects.

MP: I grant that that's probably true, but why do only idiots buy Playstation products?

KK: Oh, it's a side effect of our brainwashing- I mean, marketing strategy. Heh heh heh.

MP: Ooooookay. So, how do you feel about your competition's products?

KK: Products? Like in the plural? Oh! Microsoft must be making a portable. I wonder how I missed the press release.

MP: No, I mean the Microsoft Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Revolution.

KK: Uhhh... what's Nintendo?

MP: You know, your other major competitor!

KK: I don't recall having any serious competition called Nintendo. Maybe on our other electronics lines?

MP: *sigh* never mind. How do you feel about the competition from the Xbox 360?

KK: Microsoft is like a bee. And we're like an elephant. If they succeed in their attack, we'll hurt a bit. And the bee will die.

MP: From the way things are looking up, I might be more excited about the Xbox 360 than the PS3-

KK: Infidel.

MP: -What would you say to me to sway me your way?

KK: Let me try our marketing strategy. Give me a second to get this out of my pocket...

MP: What's that pendulum for?

KK: You are getting sleepy... You will buy a Playstation 3 and defend your purchase to the grave...

MP: Sorry, Kutagari-san. I'm immune to hypnosis.

KK: I'm warning you, fool. Those terrible, subhuman people who resist the Playstation brand will be destroyed.

MP: Is your middle initial K, by any chance?

KK: Why do you ask?

MP: Never mind. Goodbye, and thank you for your time.

KK: Wait! Muten... Join the Playstation side. There is much power there.

I certainly hope that you've heard of Theodore Geigel. In case the name does not ring a bell, remember that his pseudonym was "Dr. Seuss." If you're still struggling, remember that his literary works include "How the Grinch Stole Christmas", "Horton Hears a Who", "Green Eggs and Ham", "Red Fish, Blue Fish", and countless other favorite children's books.

It is to one of these books, "The Lorax," that I allude to now. "The Lorax" is in itself a book commenting on the destruction of an environment for industrial purposes. While this message lends itself to eager and heated discussions, it is rather a tiny portion of the book, in fact one line, that I base my column on today.

The situation is thus: The Once-ker (the profiteering, industrialist protagonist of the story) cuts down a truffala tree in order to create the item he calls a "thneed" from the truffala's crown. As he begins creating this item (with a pair of knitting needles) an orange creature who calls himself "the Lorax" makes an appearance and demands to know what gave the Once-ler cause to cut down the tree. The Once-ler promptly explains the uses of this "thneed" item, describing it as "...A Fine-Something-That-All-People-Need! It's a shirt. It's a sock. It's a glove. It's a hat. But it has other uses, yes, far beyond that. You can use it for carpets. For pillows! For Sheets! Or curtains! Or covers for bicycle seats!"(Seuss 25).

The Lorax expresses how he feels this is unnecessary.

The parallel I am attempting to draw here is a question that was brought up at the time of the PS2: Convergence. We all know that gaming systems are including more and more features. We know that Sony and Microsoft are glorifying this effect, and Nintendo is fighting it at almost every turn. We know that some people like convergence, and others scowl or even rage at it. I have no real stand on the issue, so therefore will present a point-counterpoint self-argument on the issue.

Point: Convergence can only be a good thing for the industry. It ushers in convenience and ultimately cuts costs.

Back when some people didn't have DVD players for their televisions, and the PS2 was new, it must have been a no-brainer for customers to decide on either a DVD player or the PS2 itself. The PS2 would play the movies they wanted to see anyway, and could play games to boot. And since DVD players were the same size as the PS2, you could have double the functionality in the same space. It could act as everything you needed to have in your entertainment center, in one place. You only needed to turn one thing on!

Of course this was a good thing. And the Xbox 360 just makes it better. It networks with absolutely everything, and can practically act as the entertainment hub of the house, going above and beyond anything the PS2 can do. It plays all your MP3's, lets you watch all your DVD movies at their full 800x600 resolution, lets you chat online, and of course it lets you play games.

The PSP does almost all that, and you can take it anywhere. It lets you take your movies and music AND gaming on the go like almost nothing ever before.

How can you argue with this, Mutenpika? It's clear that this is progress, and of course, convenience. Why just play games, when you can do so much more?

Counterpoint: Convergence swings the focus of the industry from games to the extras, and dilute the experience.

Mutenpika, your bastions of progress are less than the positive examples you think they are. Just look at the PSP. If you examine it, why do most people own PSP's? not for the meager collection of games, that's for certain. Most people use their PSP's for almost solely multimedia purposes, having already played Lumines and WipEout Pure to death. The focus of this system is completely and totally to its multimedia functionalities.

What about the Xbox 360? It offers up the finest online experience anywhere. But one can't help wondering whether Microsoft's obsessive focus on online will cause them to neglect Single-player or even split-screen multiplayer. Developers might make the single-player component of their new FPS or racer less complex or long in order to focus on the online component. Some developers might not iron out technical difficulties arising from displaying graphics on two or more screens. Thus those who aren't playing online get the short end of the stick, to quote the trite saying. After all, not everyone is playing with a broadband connection. Some people don't even have access to the networking tools to connect their console to the internet! And in that contingency (which is more common than you might think), which also happens to make the media sharing technology useless.

When game systems do "so much more," the more drowns out the gaming. The best thing for the industry is to stay on the path that leads from games and to more games.

Well, there's my point/counterpoint. It's my arguments, and I may have missed some glaringly obvious things either side might have said, but I enjoyed writing it.

Boring Stuff:

My Xbox 360 froze for the first time on Monday, January 16. It was an isolated incident, and it happened in Need for Speed Most Wanted. I'm not worried, because the PC demo I downloaded had serious stability issues, and the Xbox 360 version froze at almost the exact same place that the PC demo would've. Ah, well.

Next: And Now For Something COMPLETELY Different

 

 

...Been a while.

Some games are funny. I think we can all agree on that. Some games can hit you with humor so hard and so often that you have to stop holding your side in order to hit a button. Some games make you chuckle a bit and get back to shooting.

I can think of some fine examples of the former class. Most of the Lucasarts adventure series, for one. Grim Fandango was fully voiced-over, but you needed to have the subtitles to know what the characters were saying. Why? Because you were laughing way too hard to hear the voices! And don't get me started on the nonstop silliness of the Monkey Island games. Some games took this route to less of an extent, including the excellent RPG Mario & Luigi. Most of the time, you're focusing on the game, but hardly a cutscene went by where I didn't chuckle a bit. Humor was really what made those games for me. This was the only time in the history of gaming where the presentation made the most impact on me.

I'm not advocate that some games abandon gameplay for humor, I'm just saying that if it is done well enough, the humor can have a lasting and positive impact on the memory of the game. I don't remember Mario and Luigi's battle system. I'm not even sure I remember the plot. I just know that the jokes and nonsensical gibberish of the plumber brothers cracked me up. I don't really remember the story too much, but I remember most of the jokes made. The humorous presentation was what stuck with me the most.

These are examples of games that had humor as a main part of the game. In them, it's completely unmistakeable and unmissable. But then there's the other class of games.

Most games I've played got a laugh from me at some time or another. Most of the time it only happens once or twice a game. In Halo 2, the marines yell stuff like "Hey aliens! How about you, like, turn down the suck?" In Metal Gear Solid, the game throws humor your way every now and then ("Snake... Trust your instincts as a soldier... as a gamer..."). Even WipEout Pure contains a joke or two in the ship/course descriptions. Meteos had that "galactic fork" ending. Almost every game has some humor in it, to lighten the experience. For me, this is a good thing. Some may disagree; for example, I know of a person who loved Metal Gear Solid, save for the out-of-game style of humor, which he considered abrupt and detrimental to the immersive experience.

Whether you like or not, games will try to be funny. It's not a trend I can see no end to in the future, and truth be told, it's older than gaming itself.

Next:

Point-Counterpoint: You Need a Thneed!

 

Note: The author may have missed some press releases because he's too busy re-playing Icewind Dale and KotOR.

Second Note: This entry applies to fans of Bioware RPG's. Non-fans may get lost. (Sorry, guys... hope you like the next entry better!)

Blog Entry Start!

I really like Bioware.

Let me rephrase that: Bioware is the best development company to currently manifest their near-holy presence in this unworthy universe.

Yeah, I like them. In my opinion, Square Enix has nothing on them (Even though Square currently holds second place on my list). On my top 10 favorite games list, they hold 4 of the spots. They made Dungeons and Dragons accessible and fun for everyone. They also did the impossible: they made Star Wars fit into a D&D system. Their d20 system RPG's actually were what hooked me into the game of D&D, more so than previously. Baldur's Gate was the first real step on my path to becoming a hardcore gamer. Bioware Games are the only games that I can play for more than 8 hours straight, something only two other games have accomplished for me.

Truth be told, I really, really like Bioware. My brother, a PC-exclusive gamer, is infuriated that they seem to be switching to consoles exclusively (he's taken to referring to them as "that developer"), but they seem to have switched platforms just in time, just as I started using Microsoft consoles.

I have another gripe with them. Jade Empire, a game I have yet to play, is not based on the d20 system by any stretch of the imagination. Given Bioware's track record for programming engines (KotOR framerate bugs, anyone?), having a completely action-based combat system seems like a risk. It will feel weird as well, seeing how I'm used to pausing every three seconds and handing out orders.

I dearly hope that Bioware will make KotOR 3, and won't be too busy with Mass Effect. Sure, Obsidian is fine. Given what kind a job they did on KotOR 2, I'd still be okay if they ended up doing KotOR 3. In fact, they occupy slot 4 on my favorite RPG developers list (after Namco's Monolith Soft). But there is no doubt whatsoever that KotOR 1 was superior. But, unfortunately, Bioware is busy with Mass Effect.

Mass Effect. A shooter RPG. I don't have to think very hard to realize that the d20 system won't work in this case. Has Bioware decided that all their new IP's (can anyone tell me what that stands for? Am I using it right?) will be based on systems other than d20? I hope beyond hope that this is not so. Bioware, please hear my plea. Give us some more of the RPG's that made you great! Perhaps you could give us an RPG in Forgotten Realms on the KotOR 3 Engine... please?

 

In recent news:

KotOR 1 falls before my lightsaber. I'm going through it pretty quickly, and having a lot of fun. Otherwise, nothing else is new. Anticipation for Metroid Prime: Hunters fills my mind, and I've taken to playing the demo a lot more. I still am the best player in the school (21 games won, 129 kills, 0 deaths. 6.14 average kills per game. All matches were 1-on-1) and I hope the online mode will bring me a challenge. Sorry, if I sound like I'm bragging, I'm just trying to be honest here.

And yes, I have little or no life. And yes, I am mentally dependent on Metroid for survival. I have beaten every Metroid Game in existence, and Metroid Prime 2 is the only one I've beaten less than 4 times. And here's a REAL brag: I've beaten Metroid Fusion without being hit (except for that one time where you have to get hit by the Omega Metroid as part of the story).

Sorry for the bragging. Have a nice day!

Next: Laughter where it is and isn't supposed to be.