Josh's Inner Dorkdom Journal - Episode 7

Haven’t done one of these in a while! So to take a little break from the recent Star Trek related articles, I figured I’d once again share some of the things I’ve been digging on lately.

1. Arrow
Have you guys seen this show?! I’ve recently had a strong re-interest in the DC Universe due to the release of Injustice: Gods Among Us. I can honestly say that this is one of the best (if not the best) superhero shows I’ve ever seen. I’ve always liked Green Arrow (I love archer characters and folks in hoods), but this show offers a much more realistic take on the character, much like the Nolan Batman films. It’s tonally based on Mike Grell’s run on the Green Arrow comic starting with, The Long Bow Hunters, with elements of the Green Arrow: Year One arc thrown in for good measure. Wednesday night was the season finale of the CW network show, and man was it awesome! I highly recommend checking this out at some point. The series starts a little slow, but by around the third episode, it really starts gaining momentum. You can either wait for the DVD/Blu-Ray release, or do yourself a favor and watch them now on Amazon Instant Video for $1.99 per episode. It’s worth it! Arrow normally airs on The CW Wednesday nights at 7pm (Central) and will start its second season this fall.

2. The New 52
Speaking of the DC Universe… I’ve started reading a lot of the DC reboot comics under the “New 52” banner. I started with Flashpoint, then moved on to the trade version of The Justice League (both volumes), Justice League Dark (One of the most awesome comics I’ve ever read, in my opinion), and then to Green Arrow. Other than the second volume of Green Arrow which was extremely weak, these comics have been nothing but pure awesome! Oddly enough since I’m a huge Batman fan, I haven’t read any of the New 52 stuff involving Batman characters (other than JL). I plan to rather soon, though. If you have a KindeFire, or any other tablet (heck, a smartphone will do) and don’t care about collecting actual paper (the digital versions are a little cheaper, too), pick ‘em up and have yourself a read of these “funny books.”

3. Defiance
The Sci-Fi Channel (ugh… ok… ‘Syfy’) has never been the greatest place to go when it comes to original programming. Most of the shows and movies are extremely low budget and don’t offer much in the way of good content. Defiance, however, is a welcome exception to the rule. The videogame crossover/concurrently-running show actually has some potential. Reminds me a bit of Firefly in some ways and mixed with a little Eureka (another decent Syfy show). It’s only in its first few episodes, but so far so good. Defiance airs Monday nights on Syfy.

4. Game of Thrones
Man, I wish I had HBO! When I went to the Mortal Kombat tournament in Atlanta, GA last year, I saw an episode of this show in the hotel room… I had no idea what was going on (it was in the middle of the season), but I thought it was great! I’ve always been a fan of medieval fantasy stuff, so Game of Thrones was right up my alley. Once the Blu-Ray of the first season was released, I had to get it. Blown away. I really like compelling television and GOT has it in spades. Political intrigue, sword fighting, brutality, awesome characters and a pretty high budget for TV… It’s all there. In a way, it’s kind of like a live-action version of Skyrim or Dark Souls. It’s hardcore, medieval fantasy. A few months ago, I bought the second season and it continued to impress. The third season is about to wrap up on HBO, but the home video release won’t happen till around September or October. I believe it airs on Sunday nights on, you guessed it… HBO - A channel I do not have, nor will I pay for because of only two shows (True Blood is awesome, too). Keep in mind, though: This show is only for mature audiences. Viewer discretion is highly advised. It’s definitely not for the kiddies.

5. The Office
I have a bad habit of getting into TV shows waaaaaaay too late. Most of the time, the show has already been off the air a couple of years before I actually get around to it (i.e. Jericho, Buffy, Angel, Quantum Leap, Firefly, etc.). Unfortunately, by the time I got into The Office, the ninth and final season was just about to start up. Thank goodness for Hulu. Turns out they have the entire ninth season available and Netflix has seasons 1-8. The show is one that you definitely have to watch from the beginning. I remember seeing sporadic episodes here and there and thinking, “Man, this is dumb.” Started from the beginning, however, you get to know those characters and feel for them pretty early on. That’s what I really like about the show: As hilarious as it is, it really has a lot of heart. The series finale airs tonight on NBC.

6. How I Met Your Mother
Another show with a bit of a twist on the normal sitcom formula. This one has a long running continuity and mythology based around Ted’s (the main character) story of how he met his children’s mother. I got into this one around the sixth season, so not extremely late. The eighth season finale aired Monday night and after eight years, fans finally got to see “the mother.” This was a humongous reveal that will have a pretty big impact on the series as it moves into its ninth and final season. There have been some comments from the show’s producers that the entire next season will take place over the course of Barney and Robin’s wedding and that all of the main characters will meet “the mother” before Ted. In a way, that sounds really cool, but on the other hand, if this is the final season, I would really like to actually see Ted’s relationship with his future wife and how that leads him to marriage. I really hope the series doesn’t end with the two of them saying hello to each other and that’s it. How I Met Your Mother airs Monday nights on CBS and will begin its (likely) final season this fall.
That wraps up another episode. Hopefully, with classes over for the semester and a summer of freedom (except for work), I’ll be able to post more episodes.

-Josh

Was J. J. Right for Star Trek?

I just finished reading something extremely interesting: An unpublished book by the late Michael Piller (1948-2005) which recounts his experience writing the screenplay for Star Trek: Insurrection. The book is titled Fade In and goes through nearly every detail of writing a screenplay, from conception, all the way to the reviews once the film is completed.

Piller, head of the writing staff for most of Star Trek: The Next Generation’s run, tells of how he got the job writing the third of The Next Generation cast’s feature films and all of the hardships that went along with it. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this process is what the film ultimately became: A disappointment in a lot of people’s eyes. Personally, I don’t share these feelings (I quite like Insurrection), but I’ve always been able to see where people have problems with it.

The biggest issue most folks have with the film is the fact that it feels like an extended episode of the television show. I’ll readily admit that it does to a certain extent. However, it’s still a good movie. Most people feel that, since it’s a more character driven work, it doesn’t come close to living up to the previous movie, First Contact, or even older Star Trek films such as Wrath of Khan. Both of those movies were pretty heavy on the action, something that, as Piller describes in his book, he never intended in the first place. He states that he wanted to have the film focus primarily on two things: Family and a hero’s journey for the Enterprise’s commanding officer, Jean-Luc Picard. Does the final film accomplish these things? Well… Sort of. The question is: Was that the writer’s fault?

Based on the evidence provided in the book, Piller started with one idea and ended up changing nearly everything he wrote on multiple occasions due to the suggestions of both Star Trek producer, Rick Berman and Picard himself, Sir Patrick Stewart. Originally, the film was about Picard having to rescue a malfunctioning Data (the android 2 nd officer of the Enterprise), which would entail Picard resigning his commission to Starfleet, while fighting Starfleet itself because of their disobedience of their own Prime Directive. The film would end on a cliffhanger, Picard being carted off by Starfleet Command because he stood by his personal convictions and those that the Federation was founded upon, leaving the audience wondering as to what would be his ultimate fate.

According to the script notes and discussions that these three guys had, their suggestions weren’t really all that bad. Berman felt as though there were things in the script which seemed a little too underwhelming, while Stewart thought that the family aspect had already been established multiple times throughout the TV show’s original run.

Understanding their concerns, Piller went through several rewrites and revisions until we got somewhere pretty close to the film we’ve all seen. But that’s the thing: Even then, it kind of wasn’t.
Piller reveals that, after a (what the studio executives deemed) bad test screening of the film, major cuts would have to be made which amped up the action. And here’s the point of the article…
Hollywood doesn’t understand Star Trek anymore.

I understand that a feature film has to be amped up to a certain degree, or at least be made on a more epic scale than an episode of a TV show. It’s when you start to lose the essence of what made the property great in the first place, you’re going to lose your audience. In my opinion, Piller’s original ideas that he conceived before the studio got heavily involved would have made a much better and more enjoyable experience for movie-goers. Particularly the hardcore fans of the franchise.
Take the 2009 reboot for example: Did Paramount make a lot of money off of that film? Absolutely. Did Star Trek fans enjoy it? There were some, but the overwhelming majority were those that went to see the newest, flashy action flick. A.K.A. non-Star Trek fans, or casual fans.

When I say things like this, I’m not trying to sound like some pompous film snob, or say that movies without substance are crap. That would be the furthest thing from the truth. What I’m trying to say is that Star Trek, as a franchise, was built on substance and deeper meaning. That’s why people like it in the first place. Another thing I’m trying to say is that (SHOCKER!!!) maybe it wasn’t J.J. Abrams’ fault for Star Trek not being very Star Trek-y. It may very well have been Paramount’s. All signs point to that very thing, especially given what’s in Michael Piller’s book.

Let’s think about it for a second. Rick Berman, the long-time producer of all things Star Trek had stepped down from his spot shortly before the new film was conceived. Paramount, not having to deal with his wanting to preserve the Star Trek legacy, were free to hire anybody they wanted to take the reins of the franchise.

“Hey, J.J. Abrams is a ‘hot’ name right now. He made Lost and that did really good on TV. He knows how to run a TV show, so he’ll probably know Star Trek!”

I imagine that Paramount’s thought process was something along these lines. However, they were wrong. I’ll admit, lens flares aside, Abrams does know how to make a good action movie. But was he right for Star Trek? I say no. I think it shows in the movie he and his writers made and the fact that he himself said, “I’m more of a Star Wars guy.”

Michael Piller, Rick Berman, and Patrick Stewart. They knew Star Trek. They understood what the fans wanted to see and how to formulate a story in that universe. Again, as I said in my article yesterday, the Abrams movie is good. There are some problems with it, in my opinion, but for the most part, it’s a good movie. There are things that are Star Trek, it just lacks the psychological subtext that the franchise is known for and comes off more as a straight-up, sci-fi action flick. So is that J.J.’s fault? I still say no. He was just doing a job he was hired to do. Paramount is the one to blame here since they probably shouldn’t have offered the job to him and his team in the first place.
All that being said, and back to one of the original points: I believe that had the Abrams movie contained more of the underlying themes that made the franchise great, its audience could have been even bigger.

While, yes, a lot of people loved the new Star Trek film, it lost a lot of long-time fans in the process. All things Trek up until that point have had a lasting impression with fans since 1966. That’s almost 50 years of longevity for millions of fans all over the world. I feel that the new movie franchise will continue to gain a completely new set of fans that dig the new “action-Trek,” but wouldn’t it have been great if those two sets of fans, both old and new, all liked Star Trek for the same reasons? It’s disappointing that fans will be separated now by pre-2009 and post-2009. Sure, you had that when The Next Generation premiered, but to my knowledge, no fans of the 1966 series hated the new one. They just “preferred” the old show, yet still loved The Next Generation.

But who knows? Maybe Into Darkness will somehow turn everybody around, myself included. Maybe there’ll be more substance added to this new version of Trek. I sincerely hope so. We’ll find out this Friday when Star Trek: Into Darkness opens in the States!

By the way, Michael Piller’s book, Fade In, was (as stated above) unpublished, so you won’t be able to buy it in stores. Unfortunately, due to Piller’s death in 2005, it probably never will be. So if you want to read it, just do a quick Google search, as it’s pretty easy to find.

See you… out there! (That’s number 1)
-Josh

Response To IGN's List of Star Trek Films

Recently, IGN ran an article that listed the Star Trek films from least to greatest in terms of quality. In this article, they list Star Trek: Insurrection as the “worst,” and Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan as the “best.” In addition, they list the 2009 “reboot” as the 3 rd best film in the franchise. Unfortunately, this ordering of the Star Trek films seems to be an opinion held by most casual fans.

The newest film, Star Trek: Into Darkness, will be released in theaters this Friday. Am I excited? Well, I want to see it, but just like the first film in the series “reboot,” I’m just a tad bit skeptical. I think that Hollywood and most of the movie-going public have lost the point (or never understood it) of Star Trek. The focus of the Star Trek franchise has always been that the more we learn about all these new species and worlds, we learn even more about ourselves as a race. Honestly, the new films are about high-octane action and little else. Visually, they look like Star Trek, but thematically they don’t feel like Star Trek.

Before I go any further: Anyone who has ever listened to any of our podcasts knows that I’m a huge fan of the 24 th century era of Star Trek. Meaning, I’m more of a fan of The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine than I am of The Original Series featuring Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc. Do I hate TOS? Absolutely not. I will admit that I enjoy the feature films dealing with the original cast more than I do the series, but I can watch TOS and not have an urge to switch the channel. It’s by no means unbearable or anything of the sort. I never liked the idea of rebooting the franchise, because here was yet another situation that didn’t warrant it. A time-traveling sequel is something that I’d be down for, but using time travel as a way to make drastic changes to a beloved franchise with a rich mythology was, in my opinion, not the way to go. The only way that I’ll ever be comfortable with that is if the characters, by the end of this series of films, eventually change the past back to the way it originally was… Honestly, that would change my opinion of the new films greatly.

Also, another quick note: I believe that Star Trek works best predominantly on television as opposed to film. The films are great and allow for more “epic” stories, but the heart of Star Trek lies on the TV screen, as probably any Trek fan would tell you. The fact that a new franchise has started on film makes it less likely that Trek will return to the small screen anytime soon. And that is one of the most disappointing things overall. People who think they like Star Trek because of the 2009 J.J. Abrams movie will probably never check out the older shows because it “feels too dated,” or because they aren’t as “cool” as the Abrams film. This is a shame because these folks are missing out on what makes/made Star Trek a really good franchise. There’s more to Star Trek than flashy action and lens flares, I just don’t think Abrams has tapped into that stuff yet, and more than likely never will. Abrams had the perfect opportunity to freshly reintroduce Trek to a whole new audience, but that audience is getting what I (and many other long-time fans) consider to be a very “dumbed down” version of Star Trek.

With all that having been said, let’s go down IGN’s list (from 1-11) and make some comments, shall we? Afterwards, I’ll give my own personal list.


1. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
This is perhaps the most overhyped film in the franchise. I like it, but I believe that it is far from the best. I personally think that most people, at the time of the film’s original release, were just ecstatic to finally have a “good” Star Trek film, as opposed to the first, which was quite a boring experience. Star Trek II actually had action, good character development and seemed like an embodiment of what the franchise stood for. It felt more like its own film rather than trying to be an extension of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Now this is one I can actually understand being in the number 2 spot. This is just a straight up great film. Part of its charm is the fact that it takes already established characters and puts them in a fish-out-of-water situation. Also, I’m always a sucker for a good time travel story.

3. Star Trek (2009)
And this is what I mean when I say that the general movie-going public doesn’t understand Star Trek anymore. There is absolutely no reason that this film should be this high on the list since there are far better, more “Trek-like” films rated worse. Yes, I enjoyed the film, but it was more so because it was good to see something that “kind of” looked like Star Trek on the big screen again. There were several problems I had with it, but it was a decent Trek movie. My biggest problem was that it was too “action/sci-fi” rather than just straight up sci-fi, which is what Trek always had been up until that point. Action in a Trek movie is fine, but when you lose the human element that the franchise is known for, it tends to become what feels like an imitation of something great.

4. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
The last film to feature the entire original cast. Not much to say other than this one can also be seen as deserving its high spot on an ordered list. Tis a great film. Also, it had Worf in it!

5. Star Trek: First Contact
The number 5 spot is much too low for this one, in my opinion. Everything that people loved about Star Trek was there: humanity, time-travel, emotion, etc. The only thing that it perhaps lacked was the exploration element. Although you could consider Picard and Data’s self-discovery as the exploration aspect of the film. Since it was a sequel to one of the most well-received episodes in all of Trek, however, I can see this lack of true exploration as forgivable.

6. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
On my own list, I’d have to put this one on the spot right below The Wrath of Khan, as the two are directly related and one is impossible to have without the other. Personally, as far as my enjoyment goes and as a whole, I like this movie better than The Wrath of Khan.

7. Star Trek: Generations
I can definitely see this one being where it is on IGN’s list. The first film featuring the TNG crew, Generations is kind of a difficult movie to watch. For one: It looks weird. The filmmakers were definitely going for a more cinematic look to the film, but what resulted was a mess in cinematography. From a story standpoint, it was ok. It’s confusing at times and hard to keep up with, but would have made for, and probably been better suited as, an excellent 2-part episode of the TV series.

8. Star Trek: The Motion Picture
Waaaaaaaaaaay too high on the list. I know we’re only a few from the bottom, but there’s no way on God’s green earth that this should be above the movies that it is. It’s certainly not better than Insurrection. Best thing about it? It featured Jerry Goldsmith’s Star Trek theme which was a radical and much appreciated departure from the Desi-lu studios-style music of TOS. Other than that, the film is boooooooooring. I love Star Trek, but not enough to sit through this beast more than a few times ever.

9. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
Why this movie gets hated on, I’ll never understand. I find it severely underrated. It’s one of the more comedic films in the series and is only rivaled by The Voyage Home.

10. Star Trek: Nemesis
I can understand why IGN would put Nemesis this low on the list. I personally don’t feel it should be this low, but I understand the hate it gets at times. It was made with a lower budget and one of the most endearing Star Trek characters of all time is killed off. I hated that as much as anyone else did, but you can’t tell me that the final scene when B4 starts whistling the tune signifying that pieces of Data’s memories remain inside him, and Picard walks away while his smile gets bigger and bigger as Goldsmith’s music swells, doesn’t make up for those two things. Plus, Tom Hardy as Picard’s “evil” twin/alternate version was absolutely brilliant. The theme of the movie, “the choices you make /environment in which you’re born can alter who you are” is, in my opinion, one of the best in the series and is executed perfectly.

11. Star Trek: Insurrection
Ok. People have officially lost their minds. I don’t think that Insurrection is the worst Trek movie, but it’s by far not the worst. The thing that really disappoints me is the fact that Insurrection truly does have everything that Star Trek is about. Exploration, humanity, emotion, action… It’s all present in Insurrection, yet most people don’t see it. Just more proof that people either don’t, or never understood Star Trek to begin with. The folks at IGN are apparently some of those people.

My personal list from greatest to “worst”:
1. Star Trek: First Contact
2. Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
3. Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
4. Star Trek: Insurrection
5. Star Trek V: The Final Frontier
6. Star Trek: Nemesis
7. Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
8. Star Trek III: The Search for Spock
9. Star Trek: Generations
10. Star Trek (2009)
11. Star Trek: The Motion Picture

So where will the new Trek film fall on this list? I’m guessing right after the 2009 “reboot.” I’ve read some spoilers about film and I think that what they’ve done is an attempt to rehash the number 1 movie on IGN’s list (which is probably why IGN will give it a glowing review). I’m going to do my best to go into the movie with an open mind, but because of my (in a lot of ways) disappointment in J.J. Abrams and his writers’ grasp on the franchise, I can’t help but remain skeptical. My opinions of the new film will continue next week in part II!

-Josh

Source: IGN

Alternate Scotty on Star Wars, Lucas, and Abrams

Simon Pegg, who I enjoyed as Scotty in 2009's "Star Trek," has made some comments about JJ Abram's involvement in Star Wars Episode VII. They strike me as a bit gushy. Essentially, JJ will make all right with the world.

Here's the IGN article.


Just a few comments I'd like to make:

1.  Switching Star Trek from science-fiction to science-fantasy was not, in the opinion of many people, actually that great of a thing. Afterall, we already had a major science-fantasy franchise with "Star" in the title. It's not like we were lacking in that area. Why take the sci-fi out of Trek?

2. One man's "mire" is another man's favorite trilogy of films.

3. Just because Lucas made the prequels the way he did, that doesn't mean he misread anything. It might be that with the prequels his aim was to tell the story he wanted to tell, not to read the public and give them exactly what they expected/wanted.

4. I cared about the things the Prequels focused on.

5. Pegg's criticism of the Prequels seem to be primarily story-based. Thus it confuses me when he says Abrams will embrace the things Lucas didn't focus on, will bring back the fun, etc. I'm confused because, well, JJ Abrams isn't writing the script to Episode VII. He's just the director. The story won't be his and his writing cadre's the way the new Trek films have been.

 - Nic


END OF LINE

Injustice: Gods Among Us - Review

Note -This review is mostly an edit of my earlier IGAU: Demo Impressions article. Since this is a fighting game, the review format will be slightly different than other reviews. Sorry this thing is so late. I've been forgetting to post it. :P

Nearly a year and a half ago, Netherealm Studios revealed that their next game wouldn’t be Mortal Kombat 10. Instead, they chose to pursue a project which would completely abandon their beloved franchise. Most fans (including myself) were disappointed with NRS’ decision… until we saw actual gameplay of Injustice: Gods Among Us, a brand new fighter that featured famous DC superheroes as selectable characters. The footage looked pretty similar to Mortal Kombat, but the fighting game community all wondered if it actually played as such.

Being a fighting game fan and having put a considerable amount of time into fully learning MK9, Injustice has some similarities, so I’ll be comparing it mostly to that game. However, it’s a completely new game with mostly new mechanics, so there are a lot of things which work differently.
Console Differences: I purchased the PS3 Battle Edition and later got the Xbox 360 standard version, so that’s all I really have to go on. The Xbox version is superior, which doesn’t really surprise me, as MK9 was the same way - both Injustice and MK9 being developed for the 360. The graphics on the 360 are slightly better and the PS3 version has a sometimes quite noticeable lag on some stages. This usually happens on stages which have a lot going on in the background. The Xbox version also has significantly better load times. The PS3’s, however, are atrocious. Unfortunately I can’t comment on the Wii U version, though I assume it’s probably closer to the PS3 since it’s also a port.

With all that out of the way, let’s break everything down:

Controls:
In MK9, you controlled the character with 2 buttons mapped to punches and 2 buttons mapped to kicks (similar to Tekken). There was a dedicated block button (which was also used to enhance special moves), a throw button, and supers/X-Rays were done by pressing block and the 2 kick buttons (or just both triggers on a gamepad). Injustice uses a very different setup which is more akin to Street Fighter’s, but slightly simpler. There are 3 attack buttons: Light, Medium, and Hard. A fourth attack button, called “Trait,” (or “character power”) is used as a character-specific move which can do things such as change fighting styles, or in a specific case such as Batman, summon floating mechanical bats which can extend combos.
Blocking is now done by holding back (or down, while crouching) and is one of the hardest things to get used to when coming from MK9. The button that used to block still enhances special moves, but is now pressed during the special’s animation, as opposed to simultaneously. Another button (R1 on PS3, RB on 360) is dedicated to interactable objects in the various stages which can be used to inflict damage on the opponent. One example is a garbage dumpster that can be picked up and thrown. These interactables deal high amounts of damage, can be used during combos, and are unblockable, so the only way to get around them is to move out of their path. Each character interacts with these objects differently, so character-specific strategies on different stages will probably come into play heavily in a tournament setting.

Mobility:
This is perhaps the most initially noticeable difference when compared to MK9. Injustice feels a little bit stiffer. Personally, I don’t really have a problem with it, but it will affect spacing and zoning options over the life of the game. Previously, to get through an opponent’s zoning attempt (i.e. spamming projectiles to force you to move forward), the player could dash-block in order to close space, but now, since dashing forward is highly unsafe, severely punishable, un-cancelable, and you have to hold back to block, new methods will have to be figured out. One method is simply to walk. Walking in MK9 was viable for some characters, but dash-blocking was the quickest way to close distance between you and the opponent. Jumping is also a way to get in, but is also very risky. In this game, if the opponent anti-airs you, you could be looking at a severe amount of damage. Some characters can do anti-air combos in the 40% range. Once people get used to the new mechanics, however, this will become much easier to deal with.

Combos:
Combos work pretty much the same as in MK9: Each character has a set of chain combos (usually 3 button presses that lead into popups) which are “buffered” before the attacks actually land and can be chained together to extend damage. Something new to Injustice is the concept of “wall bouncing.” By holding back and ‘X,’ (PS3) or ‘A,’ (360), the character will charge the attack and when released, hit the opponent, bounce them off the corner of the screen, and leave them airborne for more combo potential. These moves can be extremely hard to time during combos (the timing is different on nearly every character), but highly effective once you get the hang of it and very necessary to get a higher damage percentage. These wall bounces, when in a corner, can also send the opponent through the wall, which transitions into a different part of the stage, all the while causing damage.

New features:
Along with stage transitioning and interactable stage objects, come a couple of new features. One particularly interesting change from traditional fighting games is the lack of “rounds.” Much like the classic Killer Instinct, there are now 2 life-bars present which, after the first one is depleted, pauses the match briefly and puts the characters back to neutral ground. One thing that makes this a little odd is the fact that there is an extremely low “comeback factor.” If your opponent still has 1.5 life-bars and you only have .5, your chances of winning have gone down to about 15%. Especially if the player in the lead has more meter. This is manageable, sure, but it’s going to take a huge amount of skill to do so. The clash system, which takes the place of MK9’s combo breaker system, allows the player to spend 2 bars of their super meter to stop the opponent’s combo. This can only be done when you are down to your 2 nd life bar. Once executed, the match goes into a fancy animation, the characters say something witty to one another, and the players’ respective super meters are displayed. From here, the players “bet” their meter in an attempt to win the clash. This can range from gaining back health to dealing damage, depending on how much meter the players bet. For 1 bar of meter, you can push away an opponent if you’re blocking their attacks. This can kind of relieve some block pressure and stop your opponent from constantly being all over you. Needless to say, meter is highly important in this game and, just like MK9, should be used wisely.

Content:
Several modes and content exist for both the serious and casual player. For the tournament-goer, there is a robust practice mode which puts MK9’s to shame. Here, you can record your flashy combos, set and record the computer A.I. to different actions in order to practice setups and punishes, and check out frame-data (which you can also do in the pause menu during a match), etc. And for the casual player, there exists tons of unlockables such as concept art, challenge battles, and several other nifty elements to entertain. For anyone looking for a challenge, you can try out the S.T.A.R. Labs which offers mini-games that play out under a series of unfortunate conditions (such as, “fight Cyborg while dodging falling meteors). These become more challenging as you go along.

Online:
The online, while a bit better than MK9, still leaves a lot to be desired. The netcode is still not as good as games like SoulCalibur V and Tekken Tag Tournament 2, therefore there’s some noticeable input lag. It’s a shame, since there are some really interesting features such as an online practice mode that can’t really be realized because of lag. Hopefully, there will be some way that NRS can patch this to make it better.

For the fighting game enthusiast, this game was developed with the entire fighting game community in mind, as opposed to just MK players. The more you play, the more this becomes apparent, but there is definitely enough familiarity that MK players shouldn’t have a whole lot of problems getting used to it. It’s going to be interesting to see how the top players in the MK tournament scene measure up to the ones who will be crossing over from the various Capcom fighters such as Street Fighter IV and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. For the casual player, Injustice offers a ridiculous amount of fun. With the stage interactions, single player features, a decent story mode, and tons of unlockable content, players will find themselves busy for quite some time.

Final Score: 9/10

-Josh
Screenshots will be added at a later time.

Injustice: Gods Among Us (Demo Impressions)

Nearly a year and a half ago, Netherealm Studios revealed that their next game wouldn’t be Mortal Kombat 10. Instead, they chose to pursue a project which would completely abandon their beloved franchise. Most fans (including myself) were disappointed with NRS’ decision… until we saw gameplay of Injustice: Gods Among Us, a brand new fighter that featured famous DC superheroes as selectable characters. The footage looked pretty similar to Mortal Kombat, but the fighting game community all wondered if it actually played as such. The game is not slated for release until April 16 th , but a demo has been released, finally letting us get a glimpse into what’s to come. So what are my impressions?

Being a fighting game fan and having put a considerable amount of time into learning MK9, Injustice has some similarities, so I’ll be comparing it mostly to that game. However, it’s a completely new game with mostly new mechanics, so there are a lot of things which work differently. Also, the demo (from what I understand) is based off of a several months-old build, so most of what is present in the demo may be very different in the final game.

With all that out of the way, let’s break everything down:

Controls:
In MK9, you controlled the character with 2 buttons mapped to punches and 2 buttons mapped to kicks (similar to Tekken). There was a dedicated block button (which was also used to enhance special moves), a throw button, and supers/X-Rays were done by pressing block and the 2 kick buttons (or just both triggers on a gamepad). Injustice uses a very different setup which is more akin to Street Fighter’s, but slightly simpler. There are 3 attack buttons: Light, Medium, and Hard. A fourth attack button, called “Trait,” is used as a character-specific move which can do things such as change fighting styles, or in Batman’s case, summon floating mechanical bats which can extend combos.
Blocking is now done by holding back (or down, while crouching) and is one of the hardest things to get used to when coming from MK9. The button that used to block still enhances, but is now pressed during the special’s animation, as opposed to simultaneously. Another button (right bumper on a controller) is dedicated to interactable objects in the various stages which can be used to inflict damage on the opponent. One example in the demo is a garbage dumpster that can be picked up and thrown. Each character interacts with these objects differently, so character-specific strategies on different stages will probably come into play heavily in a tournament setting. Supers are executed the same way as X-Rays were in MK9.

Mobility:
This is perhaps the most initially noticeable difference when compared to MK9. Injustice feels a little bit stiffer. I’ve heard that in the final version, this has been slightly tweaked to be more fluid, but that’s pure conjecture and may not be the case. Personally, I don’t really have a problem with it, but it will affect spacing and zoning options over the life of the game. Previously, to get through a zoning attempt, the player could dash-block in order to close space, but now, since dashing forward is highly unsafe, severely punishable, un-cancelable, and you have to hold back to block, new methods will have to be figured out. One method is simply to walk. Walking in MK9 was viable for some characters, but dash-blocking was the quickest way to close distance between you and the opponent. The problem that I see with Injustice is that there is so much distance to be covered and the walking speed is rather slow for the 3 characters available in the demo (Batman, Wonder Woman, Lex Luthor). But again, I feel that once people get used to the new mechanics, this will become much easier to deal with.

Combos:
Combos work pretty much the same as in MK9: Each character has a set of chain combos (usually 3 button presses that lead into popups) which are “buffered” before the attacks actually land and can be chained together to extend damage. Something new to Injustice is the concept of “wall bouncing.” By holding back and one of the attack buttons (depending on which character you’re using), the character will charge the attack and when released, hit the opponent, bounce them off the corner of the screen, and leave them airborne for more combo potential. I found these moves extremely hard to time during combos, but highly effective once you get the hang of it and very necessary to get a higher damage percentage. These wall bounces, when in a corner, can also send the opponent through the wall, which transitions into a different part of the stage, all the while causing damage.

New features:
Along with stage transitioning and interactable stage objects, come a couple of new features. I’m not exactly sure on how the new Clash System actually works, so I won’t comment on it too much. All I know is that you bet your super meter against the opponent’s and are rewarded with either health boosts or physical damage if you win. That’s my extent of knowledge on the subject. I’m not entirely sure as to the purpose of the whole thing, but it is what it is. Push-block, however, is something that I do understand. For 1 bar of meter, you can push away an opponent if you’re blocking their attacks. This can kind of relieve some of the block pressure and stop your opponent from constantly being all over you. One particularly interesting change from traditional fighting games is the lack of “rounds.” There are now 2 life-bars present which, after the first one is depleted, pauses the match briefly and puts the characters back to neutral ground. One thing that makes this a little odd is the fact that there is an extremely low “comeback factor.” If your opponent still has 1.5 life-bars and you only have .5, your chances of winning have gone down to about 15%. This is manageable, sure, but it’s going to take a huge amount of skill to do so.

My personal opinion of the game so far:
I like it, but it’s going to take a lot of getting used to. Not to toot my own horn, but my skill level in MK9 was to a point where I could probably take a few games off of any top player in a casual setting (and have taken in a tournament), but Injustice is another story completely. I’ll have to practice just as hard as I did for Mortal Kombat to get that good at another fighter, but that’s part of the fun in playing these kinds of games. As of right now, the only way I can practice is by setting the game up for 2 players to get the hang of combos, which is severely frustrating since I can only do so much before the opponent is knocked out and I have to go back to the character select screen to try again. Once I get my hands on the final game and training mode is available, I’m sure my enthusiasm will increase greatly.

Overall, this game was developed with the entire fighting game community in mind, as opposed to just MK players. The more you play, the more this becomes apparent, but there is definitely enough familiarity that MK players shouldn’t have a whole lot of problems getting used to it. Once the final game is released, it’s going to be interesting to see how the top players in the MK tournament scene measure up to the ones who will be crossing over from the various Capcom fighters such as Street Fighter IV and Marvel Vs. Capcom 3.

Hopefully, I’ll have an actual review of the final game shortly after its April 16 th release. For now, the demo is available on both PSN and Xbox Live!

-Josh

Bioshock: Infinite - Review (PC)

Ah, Bioshock. I got into the series a little late, having gotten hold of the first game about 2 years after it was originally released. I had no idea what I’d been missing.


Bioshock was a beautiful, fast-paced, action-packed first-person survival-horror game (that’s a lot of hyphens!) with a story that could rival Hollywood’s finest. That being said, I never played the second game in the series, Bioshock 2. During my playthrough of the first Bioshock, Bioshock: Infinite was announced. I had seen screenshots of the second game, but it looked near-identical to the first. Infinite, however, was on a completely different plane of existence (quite literally, as it would turn out). I decided to skip Bioshock 2 since Infinite supposedly had no, or very little, connections to the upcoming Infinite.
The game was announced nearly 3 years before it was actually released, with multiple delays plaguing its development. Finally, in March of 2013, we finally got our hands on it. So how is it? Bioshock: Infinite is a great game, but there are some things that knock it down several notches from what I was expecting.

PC vs. Console:
Before I go into this, and just to let it be known what I’m using to do these PC reviews, these are my system’s basic specs –
Intel – i7 2600 3.4ghz Quad-core
32g RAM
Nvidia Geforce GTX 680 w/4gig of dedicated VRAM.
For the most part, Bioshock: Infinite is the same on all platforms: gorgeous. The only notable differences are better resolution overall and on textures for the PC. All the great lighting effects are present across all systems and everything runs at a smooth and consistent 60fps. There was some slight stuttering whenever the game would load something new, but Nvidia released new drivers shortly after release which eliminates this problem.

Breakdown:

Story: 10/10
Just like the original Bioshock, Infinite’s story is what makes the game truly shine. Taking place in an alternate version of 1912, you play the role of Booker Dewitt, a man tasked with finding a girl (Elizabeth) who is being held captive in a city above the clouds called Columbia. It becomes immediately apparent that something is slightly “off” about the city. The patrons appear to be religious fanatics and not to mention, racists. As Booker eventually meets up with Elizabeth, he finds that she has been held captive for most of her life and contains some kind of strange power which the leader of Columbia, a man named Comstock, wants to harness.
The story gets stranger and stranger as you progress and more and more is revealed about what Elizabeth’s true role actually is and how Booker connects to it. Since the story is such a mystery and one that absolutely must be experienced, it’s really hard for me to talk about without spoiling it. Just trust me, the story is why you should own the game.
I will comment on the ending, however. I’ve been seeing a lot of people complaining about it online and how it wasn’t very well thought out, or that it didn’t make any sense. These people are, quite simply, stupid. The ending makes total sense, but you have to pay attention to every detail of the story leading up to it. Personally, I think the ending was brilliant.

"You truly belong with us here among the clouds."

Visuals: 8/10
The graphics are good, don’t get me wrong, but they were only “jaw-dropping” 3 years ago when Infinite was originally announced. Now, the graphics are just standard compared to everything else, which is not a bad thing at all. What sets this game apart from others is its art style. With the setting of the early 20^th century, the developers took extreme love and care when it came to replicating the feel of the era. Based on the architecture of the 1893 World’s Fair, the game has a pretty distinct steam punk vibe in its presentation, something that was also present in the original Bioshock. Columbia absolutely bustles with life. All of its citizens go about their business independently and seem as though they’re actually alive. No detail was spared in the visuals while making Columbia look and feel like a living, breathing world.

Sound: 10/10
Excellent. As far as sound effects and immersion go, Infinite excels. All of Columbia’s citizens converse with one another in a natural way, enemies’ location can be determined from the echoes of their voices, and weapons sound authentic.
It’s the music that really lends itself well to the overall game design. Infinite uses its music to tell story and offer clues as to what is actually going on within the screwed up world Booker finds himself in. Several classic songs are redone in a way that makes you think, “How is this song from the 1970s being played in 1912?!” Word of advice: Pay attention to things like that, as they’re vitally important to figuring out the mystery.

...but gameplay-wise, this is all she's really good for.

You actually grow to care for Elizabeth...

Gameplay: 7/10
Here’s where the game loses several points. As you’ll see from the final score at the bottom of this review, I’m probably going to get scoffed at and flamed pretty harshly, but just like any other review, these are just opinions. Everybody’s got one. Everybody else just happened to review it with scores of 9 or 10.
The gameplay of Bioshock: Infinite is pretty bland. There’s really no difference between this one and the original, with the exception of skylines and Elizabeth. Skylines allow Booker to hook onto them and ride a virtual rollercoaster from place to place more quickly. While this idea is neat, and pretty necessary to the game’s plot, it’s really just a form of quick movement. In all fairness though, it’s pretty cool to watch. Elizabeth is your A.I. partner through about 90% of the game. She replenishes you with weapons and money and, fortunately, takes care of herself during combat, leaving you free of worrying about her getting killed. While from a gameplay perspective, she’s kind of unnecessary (except for lock-picking, which could have easily been adapted into Booker’s abilities), but her being with you makes you truly care about her wellbeing in a way not seen since Telltale Game’s The Walking Dead adventure game last year.
Everything else is just standard, first-person gameplay. You have gunplay, a special power, ammo to pick up or buy… you know, pretty standard nowadays. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, I just expected more from a game that had been in development for so long. But, as the old saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” and the original Bioshock accomplished these things extremely well.

It's pretty, but it's literature. Not a game.

Bioshock: infinite is a great game, I just hoped for a slightly more innovative experience versus the original Bioshock. But if you’re looking to experience a highly detailed world that immerses you into its story with solid (though standard) gameplay mechanics, then Bioshock: Infinite is definitely worth your $60. Personally, I would suggest waiting until the price comes down to around $40 or so. I highly recommend a playthrough of Infinite, but only if you’re craving an extremely well done story and don’t care so much about the next “fun game.”

Final Score: 7.5/10

Now flame away!
-Josh

Screenshots courtesy of The Inner Dorkdom

 

  

Tomb Raider - Review (PC)

I’ve always enjoyed Eidos’ Tomb Raider series, but it would be a falsity to lead one to believe that the series hasn’t had its fair share of pretty bad titles.


For some reason, the first game was the only one really worth its salt. In my opinion, this is because the other games were just a bit ahead of their time and couldn’t - due to the technology of late 90s-era gaming - properly advance the gameplay mechanics which the developers wanted to implement. That being said, once Crystal Dynamics took over developing duties, the adventures of Lara Croft really began to come into their own.
In 2011, it was announced that after 3 highly successful entries (TR: Legend; TR: Anniversary; TR: Underworld), Crystal Dynamics would be rebooting the franchise. Like I’ve said many times before, I’m not exactly gung-ho when it comes to reboots/remakes, but this one looked like it could be a good thing for the franchise. By telling a sort of origin story for Lara and making her a character that you actually care for, Crystal Dynamics has created what is, in my opinion, the best Tomb Raider game ever made.

Vistas like this and even more impressive are what you can expect.

Differences between the PC and Console versions:
Unfortunately, the PC version was released with some problems due to the graphics tech wars that are going on right now between AMD and NVIDIA. A new realistic hair physics technology called TressFX which the PC version of TR uses was built for AMD video cards. Therefore, NVIDIA cards have trouble anytime the effect is on screen, taking about a 15-20 fps dip. I have an NVIDIA card, so I was a victim of this shot to the PC community. Luckily, NVIDIA is currently working on new drivers that should fix the issue.
*EDIT - The drivers have been released and these problems have been completely remedied.*
From what I’ve seen, the standard PC advantages exist in this port. You have better frame rates, better resolution, etc. However, the console versions do not have the TressFX feature. Apparently, this is PC exclusive. Is it going to hinder your gaming experience one way or another? Absolutely not. Tomb Raider still looks great regardless of the system you choose to play it on, with the obvious, yet slight, PC advantages.

Breakdown:

"This old guy won't stop hitting on me..."

Story: 9/10
Since this is a reboot and an origin story, the Lara that we’re presented with in this iteration is very different from the Lara of the previous games. In fact, the only real similarities are the facts that she’s British and has a love for archeology. Lara is less a female Indiana Jones-style treasure hunter, and more just a girl who wants to check out ancient ruins for the simple wonder involved.
Part of a crew which is taking a ship-ride to find the lost island of Yamatai, Lara finds herself shipwrecked and alone once a large storm overtakes the ship. After being captured by some unknown locals and eventually escaping, she meets up with a few of her crewmates which begins to lead Lara into a dark world of not only survival, but cult-inspired mystery.
The thing that is perhaps the most impressive about the plot is its use of naturalism. In a game, this is something that isn’t the norm. At every turn, Lara is halted by something that doesn’t want her and her crew to leave the island. There are a lot of moments where she will be so near to her goal that it - even from the player’s point-of-view - can be tasted, only to be snatched away by yet another huge problem. It’s almost as though for every 3 steps Lara takes, she is always pushed 2 steps back. While this may sound like a frustrating narrative tactic, the game’s writers really pulled it off beautifully.

Check out the detail!

Visuals: 10/10
I couldn’t praise the visuals of this game anymore than they already have been. Other than something like Crysis 2 and 3, Tomb Raider has the best graphics I’ve ever seen. One thing that you don’t see every day in games is a well done, outdoor, open-world, jungle setting. Sure, there were games like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and Assassin’s Creed III (though that was more forest, less jungle), but Tomb Raider actually looks and feels like a real jungle. Light shafts flow naturally through trees, animals scurry about, and the game’s water looks like water.
The character models and animations are truly astounding as well. Just like I wrote in my Assassin’s Creed III review, developers continuously get better with model design. I’m just glad that characters in games now look less like creepy dolls and more like actual human beings. Plus, creepy dolls freak me out.

The sounds in caves even bounce off the bones on the ground! Not really, though.

Sound: 9/10
The sound design works very well for the immersion of the game. The ambient sounds of the jungle are present in full force. Bugs, animals, etc. are all there. Another thing that impressed me was the reverb used. Sounds and voices - particularly of enemies  - seemingly echo off of trees, rock walls, and caves just as they actually would in the real world.
There isn’t that much music in Tomb Raider, and what little it does have is mostly forgettable, but it’s not exactly needed either. The ambiance carries the game and gives a constant feeling of isolation, which is what I believe Crystal Dynamics intended.

Sure, Lara... Use your pickaxe instead of the shotgun on your back.

Gameplay : 10/10
Everything about the gameplay is perfect. Tomb Raider, like most games nowadays, utilizes RPG elements to allow the player to level up Lara throughout the course of the game. You have the option, upon earning points, of leveling Lara’s various abilities which help her become a better treasure hunter, and a more skilled combatant.
The combat is some of the most well done I’ve ever seen in a 3^rd person action game. It melds the best elements of games like the contemporary Resident Evils and Gears of Wars into something unique. You have to use cover, stealth, and your various weapons to get through the crazy cult members that block every objective. While a lot of games get boring with these mechanics, Tomb Raider never does and combat remains enjoyable all the way to the end.

Archery with Lara Croft. Sounds like a good time to me.

I love this game. I’ve enjoyed nearly every Tomb Raider title (Angel of Darkness… ugh. Horrible.), but this game perfects the series in every possible way. Lara is now a character that players will actually care about and have a boatload of fun while guiding her through this excellent reboot. Is it worth $60? Absolutely! I can’t recommend it enough. If you haven’t picked it up yet, go get it. Now. I guarantee you won’t regret it and you’ll get your dollars’ worth.

Final Score: 10/10

-Josh

Screenshots courtesy of The Inner Dorkdom

 

 

Dear IGN: Millions of People Like the Prequels. Get Over It

At the beginning of the month, IGN published an article by "Sydney-based freelance copywriter and screenwriter" Robbie Boland entitled "8 Things Star Wars Episode VII Can Learn From Episodes I-III." Now, this will probably surprise you, but despite what you might be thinking from the title the article does not in fact discuss 8 positive things the Prequels brought to the world of Star Wars, things the new trilogy would do well to incorporate. No, this article engages in something that's quite rare on the Internet: it cracks on the prequel trilogy, and in a condescending "everyone knows this" manner.

As Inner Dorkdom Prime Directive 3 teaches us, Mr. Boland is free to like or dislike whatever he wants. But, at the same time, others (like myself) are free to like or dislike whatever we want.

And, personally, I'm kind of tired of all the bashing on the Prequels, especially when it's done (as it usually is) in that "it's not just that the films didn't meet with my expectations or preferences, it's that they are objectively bad" way. This article is no exception. Note one of the first sentences:

"Whether you think the Star Wars prequels were a cinematic marvel or a crime against humanity, we can all agree that they had their share of high and low points. Okay, more than their share of low points."

Seriously? Was that second sentence necessary?

Anyway, the purpose of this article is not merely to point out that someone is being completely awesome by acting like they're better than the Prequels. Rather, I want to look at Mr. Boland's points and respond to them. So, if you haven't read his article, please go check it out.

Back? Ok, let's go.




Lesson #1: Please Don’t Make it About Intergalactic Trade and Taxation Laws

He argues that such topics are boring, and that no one wants to see a Star Wars movie about them. He also offers what would have been better (in his opinion, though he doesn't acknowledge this point): Anakin’s quest to “Bring Balance to the Force” by finding and confronting Darth Sidious, a mysterious virus decimating the Jedi, an uprising staged by a malevolent sentient potted plant named Frank would have been more entertaining.

My responses:
1. The Prequels weren't actually about trade and taxation laws. At most they are part of the background to the events of Episode I. But even that film

2. George Lucas was entitled to make the Prequels about whatever he wanted to (ID Primary Directive #4). If he wanted them to have a political aspect to their story, then that was his prerogative. If he, Kathleen Kennedy, and whoever else in charge of Ep VII (incidentally, that list doesn't ultimately include Mr. Abrams) want it to also have a political angle, again, that's their right.

3. I actually enjoyed the political aspects of the Prequels. So, apparently, I'm no one.

4. The political aspects strike me as pretty essential to the story being told. A story that had similar mythic qualities to that of the Original Trilogy, but with added layers of content and meaning. The OT, it seems to me, is about good and evil on the individual level (Luke's journey from thrill-seeking farmboy to noble self-sacrificing Jedi Knight, Han's challenge of growing into a better person than the selfish smuggler he is when we first meet him, Darth Vader's redemption, etc.) The Prequels deal with this as well, but also deal with good and evil on the societal level. (how a free society becomes a dictatorship, the corrupting nature of evil on entire societies, etc.). It is partially these added levels of commentary and meaning that cause me to like the Prequels more than the Original Trilogy. So, far from being hindered by the political aspects, I think Eps I-III are improved by them.

5. I let Josh read the draft of this article, and he pointed out something very much to the point: how are you going to tell a story about a guy (Sidious) rising to power (from Senator to Chancellor to Emperor) without dealing with politics?


Lesson #2: The Comic Relief Should Actually Be, You Know, Comic

He says that the idea of including comic relief in the films for kids was a good idea, it's just that Jar Jar wasn't funny. Not just that he didn't find him funny, mind you. But that no one, including presumably the kids, found him funny. He says, "When every single person who watches The Phantom Menace for the first time wonders, “Why doesn’t Qui-Gon just stab him to death with a lightsaber?” you probably haven’t nailed the comedy sidekick bit."

My responses:
1. I didn't wonder why Qui-Gon didn't stab Jar Jar. So, clearly not every single person thought that.

2. Even if I'm not annoyingly taking his words literally, I just don't think his claim holds up. There were many people, not just me, who had no feelings of hatred, animosity, or contempt for Jar Jar on their initial viewing of Episode I.

3. Mr. Boland concedes that Jar Jar was included as comic relief for kids, yet refuses to acknowledge a rather relevant objective truth. That is, kids did find Jar Jar funny. So...yeah.

4. Jar Jar's goofiness is, it seems to me, essential to one of the messages or points of the Prequels, Episode I especially. That is, be careful about judging people superficially. The annoying, weird looking goofball who you might write off as just a pathetic lifeform that would be served well with a lightsaber to the back might turn out to be a loyal friend and just the person you need when the going gets rough. He's the Wicket, and the Gungans the Ewoks, of the PT.


Lesson #3: Sometimes Less (CGI) is more

He says there was too much CGI in the Prequels. CGI is good when "used somewhat sparingly, or to enhance practical effects and real world settings." But too much is bad. In particular he refers to the boredom brought about from watching two CGI armies featuring CGI characters you don't care about fight. CGI armies going at it can be found in all the Prequels, but his reference to CGI characters you don't care about suggests he's thinking of Episode I again.

My responses:
1. It's possible to have too much CGI for my tastes also. So I don't think this point is completely devoid of any merit.

2. The thing is, the "too much" line is going to vary from person to person, and will depend on a number of factors, including what their threshold of "realism" with CGI is.

3. Same goes for what constitutes "sparingly."

4. Enhancing practical effects and real world settings? I'm sorry, but this is Star Wars we're talking about. A franchise with exotic unrealistic locales populated by strange creatures and amazing machinery. Given that, I'm not sure his request is doable. Is he saying they should have built a real working General Greivous robot, and then just CGI'ed in some greebly bits or his beating heart or something? Should they have built actual droid factories, and used CGI to add in extra conveyor belts? Do you put a feathery-lizard suit on a horse, take it to your Utapau set, and tell Ewan McGregor to "just hold on tight"?

5. I'm glad the Prequels used CGI. Certainly some effects shots hold up better than others. But the pioneering work done by ILM on those films had led us to where we are today. And besides, without the extensive CGI work found in the PT we wouldn't have been able to see many of those new places, creatures, and vehicles.


Lesson #4: Do, or Do Not (Act). There is No Try.

Predictably, like many cool people before him, he criticizes the acting. He even calls it wooden. However, he does include a bit of a twist that I don't recall encountering before. He argues that part of the reason for the bad acting, besides George Lucas' directing, was due to poor casting. For example, he loves Samuel L. Jackson, and would loved to see him as a bounty hunter or rogue Jedi who swears a lot (I'm not kidding) and plays by his own rules. But he was dissappointed with Mr. Jackson as "a venerable Jedi Master who sits on a chair and offers sage wisdom." He contends that J.J. Abrams needs to "cast the right people in parts where he can get the most from them."

My responses:

1. Have you not seen Episodes II or III? You do realize that the Prequels consist of more than just Episode I, right? I say this because Ep I is the only film where Mace Windu does nothing but sit in a chair and offer advice. In Eps II and III he's involved in giving orders, conferring with Yoda, fighting droids and decapitating bounty hunters, leading armies, not trusting Anakin, and attempting to arrest Darth Sidious.

2. I liked Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu. He brought to the character a great mix of stoicism with quiet intensity just under he surface that I don't think we would have gotten with another actor. And, maybe this is just me, but everytime I see Mr. Jackson in a movie, I don't expect/demand him to just reprise his role of Jules in a different wardrobe. "What ain't no planet I ever heard of. They speak Bocce on What?"

3. In general I thought all the casting in the Prequels was great.

4. I really don't think JJ Abrams by virtue of directing Ep VII is going to be in charge of casting.

5. Just a point about the general claim of "wooden" acting. What I think people fail to see and/or acknowledge, is the possibility that the mannerism of these characters are purposeful decisions, not the results of bad acting. Perhaps the Jedi, being a peace-keeping spiritual order, don't talk and act like the Avengers. Perhaps people who have spent half of their lives in political office likewise don't act like our next-door neighbors.

6. Samuel L. would play a great bounty hunter, no doubt. But the Prequels weren't about bounty hunters. They were about the fall of the Republic, the extermination of the Jedi, and the fall of Anakin. Thus, if Mr. Jackson is going to have a prominent role in the Prequels, it's not going to be as a bounty hunter.

7. A swearing rogue Jedi? I figure this, as well as much of the rest of the article is embellished for [sic] comedic effect. But really? Do some people have no understanding of what the Jedi are supposed to be?


Lesson #5: Use the Force (Better), Luke!

Apparently so. He was disappointed that the Jedi in the Prequels didn't wow us with their amazing Force-powers. What we saw in the OT was supposed to be, "the tip of the iceberg." But the Jedi in the Prequels didn't do anything new or overwhelming. It was "the same old Force pushes or Force chokes." My suspicion is that he was expecting/hoping for something along the lines of the way Jedi are presented in the EU.

My response:
1. The EU has not portrayed Jedi in a manner consistent with what George Lucas envisioned them to be. In the EU they do indeed have these amazing powers, like superheroes. But that's an area where the EU simply got it wrong. It's unfortunate that people read the EU and then were disappointed that the Prequels didn't gel with it. But, it is what it is.

2. I'm glad that the Jedi aren't all Superman, or even the X-Men. The balance of their abilities and their limitations makes them interesting, and actually relatively unique among fiction.


Lesson #6: We Need Heroes We Can Invest In

He says the characters of the Prequels are not of the sort that audiences can invest in. Everyone has favorite characters from the Original Trilogy, but not from the Prequels. Nope. None of those characters were, "believable," with, "real problems and personalities." Also, he says that the Prequels didn't have a clear protagonist throughout all three films.

My responses:
1. Obi-Wan. Followed by R2-D2, Yoda, Anakin, Mace Windu. And, I know you can't see me, but coming up with that list did not involve me making poop faces.

2. "Believable" is apparently in the eye of the beholder, because I didn't find the characters of the Prequels any less believable than those of the OT.

3. As for the "no clear protagonist," 1) Just because you don't meet Anakin until 35 minutes into Episode I doesn't mean he can't be the protagonist of that film. 2) Just because Qui-Gonn dies at the end doesn't mean he can't be the primary protagonist of the film. 3) Even if it were the case that the Prequels have no clear protagonist, I would say to that, "....and?" I don't get how this is a criticism, per se. The story of the Prequels is a bit more nuanced and complex, and it ends with a major tragedy. That often doesn't lead to a film series with one clearly defined hero from the first scene to the last.


Lesson #7: And Bad Guys Who Actually Kick [Butt]

He complains that Maul was the only cool villain in the prequels (wow, I've never heard this before). The battle droids were too awkward, Dooku was too old, and the 4-armed cyborg (wait, that sounds kind of cool) had a tendency to cough (that's better, everything is fine now because coughing is so lame). Vader was so intimidating, which was cool in itself, plus it implied that the Emperor must be super bad-news. When Luke lost to Vader on Bespin, he was outmatched.

My responses:
1. What about Sidious? You know, the guy who later, when he was older (and British), would be Vader's boss? Yes, he didn't pull out a lightsaber until Ep III. But the guy was able to take over the entire Republic, convince the public that the Jedi were evil and their extermination a necessity, and manipulate Anakin Skywalker, the Chosen One, into severely injuring his wife and turning his back on her, his mentor and best friend, and the only life he'd known for 13 years. Maybe that's not butt-kicking in the literal sense. But I'd say that it is butt-kicking all the same.

2. Anakin was clearly outmatched on Geonosis. Dooku cut off his hand, just like Vader would do to Luke. So why doesn't that count? Why is he not a butt-kicker because he's old and has a British accent? I personally thought Dooku was a great villain.

3. I also thought Greivous was pretty impressive as a bad guy. In fact, that's one of my few disappointments about The Clone Wars. It showed us that Grievous wasn't as all-that as we initially thought.

4. As Josh read the draft of this article, he pointed out how the totally awesome Darth Vader was sometimes a little on the underwhelming side in the OT (case in point: the duel between him and Obi-Wan on the Death Star).


Lesson #8: I’ve Got A Bad Feeling About This Dialogue

He says the dialogue was awkward, pointing to the Anakin and Padme "love scenes" as prime evidence. He says that the new films don't need to rehash the OT's Han/Leia, or the "same will-they won’t-they Luke/Han bromantic vibe" (again, I'm not kidding). But there needs to be more quotable banter, a believable love story, and a legitimate spark between the characters.

My responses:
1. I don't think anyone can deny that the style of dialogue that is predominate in the Prequels is of a different style than the OT. There's more formality and less snarkiness.

2. Again, I don't know why people chalk it up to 'George Lucas can't write dialogue' and don't even consider that the characters of the Prequels are of a much different sort than those of the OT. In the original films we had farm boys, smugglers, gangsters, bounty hunters, and a princess who was one by (adopted) birth, not choice. In the Prequels we had Jedi, lifelong politicians, reclusive aliens, and a couple of bounty hunters. Different characters speak in different ways. Maybe people don't like the way characters in the Prequels speak. But that doesn't make the dialogue bad.

3. I also don't know why people chalk it up to 'George Lucas can't write dialogue' when he wrote Episode IV.


And there it is. Eight supposedly horrid things about the Prequels and my take on each one. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Until next time, I am,

 - Nic


END OF LINE

Nic's New Roundup - March 1

March 2013 has arrived. Here are some new stories from the world of dorkiness over the past few days that I've found particularly interesting.


1. Tim Curry is the new Palpatine - Folks who keep up with the world of Star Wars: The Clone Wars know that the voice actor who first played Palpatine on the show, Ian Abercrombie, passed away last January. After lamenting his death, fans started wondering who Filoni, et. al. would choose to replace him as the voice of the most sinister politician and Sith Lord that galaxy far, far away ever knew. But episodes of The Clone Wars take a long time to produce. Tellingly so, the last episode Mr. Abercrombie worked on just aired a few weeks ago (having some great moments for the character). So now here we are, the last episode of season 5 is about to air--an episode that features an appearance by Palpatine. Via the Huffington Post Lucasfilm has revealed that the future Emperor will henceforth be voice by none other than Tim Curry. I won't try to summarize his career here, as that would take quite a while. Suffice it to say, the man has experience playing villains. Here's a preview clip of tomorrow's episode, which, incidentally, looks to be a great conclusion to what has been a great multi-part season finale.

There's no doubt, at least to my ears, that Mr. Abercrombie was a better voice double for Mr. MicDiarmid (the OG Palpatine) than Mr. Curry. The tonality is much closer. But, that having been said, I love his delivery in this scene. It's just a few quick lines, and Palpatine is the supposedly kind-hearted Supreme Chancellor Palpatine in this scene. But nonetheless, it makes me look forward to future episodes, episodes where Dath Sidious is able to be himself. I have a feeling that Tim Curry will knock it out of the park.


2. Transformers Prime coming to an end - IGN reports that, according to The HUB, the upcoming season 3 of Transformers Prime will be the last - I only recently finished watching season 1 of The HUB's flagship animated program. Prime, for those who don't know, is set in its own continuity, though it is clearly influenced by both the live action film series and the previous Transformers TV show, Transformers: Animated (which Josh and I really liked). I personally enjoy the show. It does lack the fun found in some (if not most) previous incarnations of Transformers, but it does have Peter Cullen and Frank Welker. In fact, here's a great Optimus Prime moment from the end of the premiere 5-parter.

I got chills just now watching it.

So, a three season run. That seems short, but for Transformers it's actually pretty good. The original show ran for three seasons. The "Unicron Trilogy" consisted technically of three separate shows, but they were all set in the same continuity, so it's reasonable to think of them as one show (one unenjoyable show from what I saw, which is all the more disappointing since apparently Takara's original idea for the show would have been a continuation of the G1 continuity, but it was the Americans at Hasbro who thought that a reboot to garbage was a better idea....ok, calling it garbage was a bit much...I apologize). And Animated ran for three seasons, although they weren't all full-length.

So I guess the big question is: what will the next series be?


3. Turtles on the march - IGN also reports that Nickelodeon has renewed Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for a third season -- and it's currently only in its first! While that might ultimately be a premature decision, at this point I say, "right on." I'm really enjoying the new incarnation of TMNT. It brings in some of the design sensibilities of the most recent Turtles film (the excellent animated one), the sense of fun from the original show, the original show's theme song, and it's own original charm. Booya-kashaa!!


I may post a few more later today. We'll see.

 - Nic


END OF LINE

Josh's PS4 Thoughts

Console hardware is becoming increasingly difficult to discuss. As of right now, the Wii U has already been released and the PS4 was revealed only recently. How do the two compare and how will they stack up to Microsoft’s new Xbox? It’s really hard to say given the fact that no one outside the gaming industry has actually played anything other than the Wii U.

Some of the features revealed to be capable of the PS4 are kind of neat, but will they be enough to make the system sell? It seems as though Sony is going down the same road as Microsoft did last generation with more of a focus on social networking features. Stuff like being able to share gameplay videos across various media outlets such as YouTube and Facebook, or being able to spectate and take over the control of a friend’s game are cool ideas, but how much of that will simply be a novelty that will quickly wear off?

One thing about Sony’s presentation that I noticed was the very odd balance contained within. On the one hand, Sony was taking the Nintendo approach of, “this will change the way you play games,” but on the other, there was a focus on the PS4’s raw power, likening it to higher-end gaming PCs. While for most it would seem as though the presentation contained a good balance of the two, I felt like Sony is finding it hard to market this new console to consumers that have grown accustomed to current-gen hardware. More like, “how do we sell this thing? Is it the features, or the power?”
At least the “used games lockout” rumor proved to be false.

Going off pure features other than those mentioned above, it looks like there won’t be much more to offer than the PS3. The idea of playing games streamed to the Vita is ok, but it is a feature that requires one to actually own a Vita. Sony could possibly move a few more units by implementing this kind of connectivity, but given the Vita’s lackluster library, that’s highly doubtful. The PS4’s lack of backwards compatibility could also be problematic for some gamers. The Wii U succeeds here given the fact that it will play previous generation titles, as opposed to the PS4 which will not play PS3 games. In my opinion, every console should at least be capable of playing games from the previous console. I was disappointed that the Wii U can’t play Gamecube titles, but at least you can still boot up Wii software. In the final days of a console’s life, being able to play previous-gen titles on the new machine can keep the last generation alive for just a bit longer and ease people into the transition of a new box. Odd that Sony opted not to do so.

On power, there’s no question that the PS4 is in the lead so far. True enough, we don’t know what the exact specs on the Wii U are (which I’m getting really tired of saying, by the way), but then again, we probably never will. Nintendo has never been forthcoming with its system specs, something which Sony had no qualms with in their presentation. The PS4 will make a pretty big jump in improvement over PS3 architecture, making it a much easier system to develop for (according to developers, themselves), given its new, “not-cell” processor and various memory improvements.

In the graphics department, who can really say? It’s highly doubtful that the Wii U is capable of the near-PC quality visuals displayed by the PS4 demos, but you never know. As Nic and I talked about on the most recent episode of the podcast, we’ll never truly know until Nintendo develops and releases a game specifically built for the Wii U. But Nintendo’s system’s true power could possibly make itself known even further down the road seeing as how Nintendo has only just started experimenting with shaders and lighting effects.

So how does all this stack up to the new Xbox? There’s really no telling at this point since there has been no official news on anything pertaining to Microsoft’s new console other than a reveal event, similar to Sony’s, which is just around the corner. Judging by the rumors, the new Xbox will have nearly the exact same hardware that’s stuffed inside the PS4. Unfortunately, there are still some terrible rumors such as having to be constantly connected to the internet in order for the console to function and forced Kinect integration.
A lot of people ‘round the internet are already seeing the PS4 as the “one to beat” this generation, but I really think people are underestimating Microsoft. This is a company that has built a gaming empire with its Xbox Live online service. With comparable hardware under the hood and the consistent online features of the Xbox 360, there’s still a lot that remains to be seen. Also, there’s no doubt that Microsoft will take the same extreme measures in securing 3 rd party support as they did last generation. Sony has seemed to take similar measures, which will make the whole thing very interesting to watch.

Overall, I think the PS4 reveal was a good one, I just wasn’t overly impressed. The thing is though; I wasn’t really expecting to be. I remain skeptical that consoles will bring new things to the table that become mainstays of gaming, but I won’t know for sure until they’re hooked up to my television/monitor and the controllers are in my hands.

Sony has been the first to show what next-gen console gaming is capable of, something that Nintendo has yet to do, and Microsoft’s plans are still unknown. That being said, this year’s E3 will probably be one of the most interesting in recent history. E3 will give Nintendo a chance to reveal new games which will start to show the direction they want their console to go and the new systems will have a chance to build hype. I think that once the new Xbox is revealed and there is much more of a chance to compare and contrast all 3 systems, perhaps my excitement level will increase. All that can be said at this point is, “we’ll see….”

In order to wrap up, this brings me to something that people really need to realize: None of what you’ve just read, or what Nic has already written, or even what websites like IGN have written, really matters at this point because of 3 things:

1. The PS4 and Xbox HAVE NOT been released yet. No one has actually played the 2 consoles, aside from the aforementioned gaming industry (developers).
2. We don’t know how popular these features might eventually be. The PS3 was the first console to truly implement integration features (web browsing, streaming video, apps, etc.) and at first, they were services that nobody thought they would use from a videogame system. Now, these features have become the standard across the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii U. A year down the road, a “share button” could be what turns the tide for consoles. That’s highly doubtful, but entirely possible given consumer’s mindsets these days.
3. All these “impressions” are based off of how well Sony presented their product. Did these features make you want to buy their console? Based solely on a presentation, that’s really hard to determine. Just like point #1 states, we have not actually used the console yet. I remember my initial impressions of the original Xbox as not being that great, but after I actually bought one, I ended up enjoying it. You know what made me want to get a Nintendo 64 initially instead of a Playstation? Playing Mario 64 for hours on end at Wal-Mart. Until one can actually review the console, then these impressions are, for the most part, meaningless.

After E3, when perhaps journalists will be able to spend some hands-on time with the PS4, these impressions will take on a bit more validity. Even then, however, the features that Sony has revealed of the PS4 won’t be known until one buys the console, plugs it in, and starts to play. Remember, “Knowing [about a console] is only half the battle.”
“G.I. Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooe!”

-Josh

Nic's PS4 Thoughts

Last week, after weeks of anticipation, Sony unveiled their next home console, the Playstation 4. So what do we here at The Inner Dorkdom think of all this?

Well, I'll give you my take. I'm going to do this in two parts. First, my attempt at an objective assessment, and second, my personal feelings.




My Objective Assessment
Though I try to be objective and unbiased in assessing and analyzing the world of gaming, I will again readily acknowledge that I'm the closest The ID has to a Nintendo fanboy. I've had all of their home consoles, and a good number of their handhelds. I love their software, and the sense of fun they still, to this day, bring to the world of video games. On the other hand, though I don't really have the desire for Sony or Microsoft to go down in flames or anything, I'm not always their biggest fan. Their competitive approach to the gaming industry, particularly in the realm of PR, just doesn't sit well with me. But I believe I am still capable of looking at things in a way that is at least pretty close to objective.

Here's my nutshell objective analysis: While there are definitely some nice features to the system, the challenge that Sony faces is that except for the Vita stuff, the Move/Eye stuff, and first party titles, there's nothing about the PS4 that couldn't be done currently, as in right now today, on a high quality PC.

Let's break that down.

The Vita Stuff
Streaming from the PS4 to the Vita isn't a bad feature at all. It has a strong convenience factor, and it allows the distinctive (when compared to a dual shock) controls and features of the Vita, particularly the touchscreen, to be brought to bear on console games. It increases control options, not diminishes them. I, and many others, already enjoy the similar functionality of the Wii U Gamepad. And given the rise in general popularity of touchscreen gaming thanks to tablets and smartphones, Vita control, like Wii U Gamepad control, has the potential to be popular with the mainstream. So bringing in a second screen, loosing the console from the moors of the television, can be a good thing.

But the thing is, we don't know (at least as far as I know) if the PS4 Vita connection will allow for unique second-screen content (like, main game on the TV, inventory and map on the Vita). It's possible all you'll be able to do is duplicate the main screen onto the Vita. I tend to think Sony will try to make unique second-screen possible, because without it much of the potential of 2-screen gaming goes out the window.

But even assuming they do have unique second-screen functionality, there's a major business and developer problem with how it will be implemented in the world of Playstation. That is, unlike the Wii U's Gamepad, the Vita will not be included in the box with every PS4. This is huge. Given the Vita's currently low sales numbers, and even allowing that PS4 connectivity may spur them a little, it's likely to be the case that only a small percentage of PS4 owners will also have a Vita. As I say, this is a problem from both a business and a developer side of things.

And it's the same problem Nintendo faced during the days (literally) of the Gamecube/GBA connectivity push. The concepts were intriguing. And, as Josh and I can attest, Zelda Four Swords Adventure was a ton of fun. But it never really caught on. Few games ended up utilizing the connectivity option. Of those that did, most used it for an option side-quest side-game type of thing (like the Tingle Tuner in Wind Waker). As far as I can recall, only two games made it front and center (Four Swords Adventure, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles). It didn't catch on, due in large part to the fact that, compared to the total install base, few Gamecube owners had the necessary hardware.

On the developer side of things, if you as a developer know that the Vita specific game features you'd have to work so hard to devise and include will only be enjoyed by only a small fraction of folks who play your game, you may be less likely to even bother with them.

And from a business standpoint, if Vita connectivity costs more money but isn't something for which there's a large demand, it makes no business sense to spend the money on it. (Unless, of course, Sony pays you big bucks to do it anyway.)

"But hey," you might say, "as you just conceded, these connectivity features might drive Vita sales." Indeed, that is a possibility. But given the rumored pricetag for a PS4 (which isn't unreasonable by itself), and the fact that Sony has said it is only dropping the price of the Vita in Japan, the initial investment a consumer would need to make in order to get these features might be more than many will be willing to make.


Move/Eye
I don't say this as a Nintendo fanboy, but as someone who's paid attention to trends in gaming over the years. Let's be honest, Kinect and Move coming to market, if not their initial development also, would not have happened were it not for the Wii. When Nintendo unveiled the Wii remote and first announced that their new system would employ motion controls, the collective 'gaming' world laughed. "You have to move your hands? That's like a baby's toy." And then the Wii came out, turned into a mainstream phenomenon, and then lo and behold Microsoft and Sony introduce the world to their own motion control systems. Kinect went a slightly different route, what with the "you are the controller" body sensing technology and all. But Sony, well, at the risk of oversimplification, they inverted the Wii's camera and emitter configuration, added in tech similar to what Nintendo would later bring to the Wii in the form of Wii Motion Plus, and called it a day.

Sales of Move have been, well, honestly I find it difficult to find the right descriptive word. They haven't been pathetic, but they haven't been overly impressive. As of this past November, Sony had sold worldwide 15 million Move units. Total PS3 sales are approx. 77 million units as of last month. So, roughly, one in every 5 PS3's out there has a Move setup. Not too bad. (Although the Wii has sold approx 99 million units, with 99 million of them having a motion control setup.)

What's my point? My point is that motion gaming was huge. It was especially so for Nintendo, but Sony and Microsoft had some success with it also. But that's the past. What about motion controls now, and in the future? Are they going to continue to be big sellers? We just don't know. Maybe they will, and upgraded motion tech will really help Sony. On the other hand, it may end up that the folks who are game savvy enough to notice and appreciate the upgrade do not now and will continue to not give a rear end about motion control, and the folks who like motion control won't be able to appreciate the upgrade enough to want to go out and plop down the money for a PS4.


First Party Titles
If the quality is there, this can be a good thing for Sony. A gaming system is only as good as the games for it. And in a climate where the console market is increasingly in competition with the getting-less-expensive-every-day PC gaming market, where the line between consoles and PC's is increasingly becoming fuzzier, anything Sony can do to differentiate themselves in a positive way is a good thing.

But I don't think this is their ace in the hole. Josh and I were talking about this phenomenon on the podcast. And if you recall he argued that a situation where there's a greater emphasis on, a greater need for first party titles, while an opportunity for all three console makers, is one that really only benefits Nintendo. I'd say that while Sony and Microsoft do have the ability to produce good first party content, he's right. This best helps Nintendo, the company most known for their quality first party software.


Everything Else Is Possible On a PC
Sony revealed the PS4 specs right out the gate. They read like current high-end gaming PC specs. And while that does mean PS4 games will look nicer than PS3/XBox360/Wii U games (a point I'll come back to in a minute), it also highlights what I was just talking about: the line between console and PC is not what it once was. Gone are the days when a PC version of a game was invariably inferior to the console version(s). Gone are the days of console makers creating and tweaking their own gaming-dedicated computer systems...making their own custom hotrods, as it were. What we have with today's consoles are actually slightly customized non-user-upgradeable PC's running custom operating systems. And really, this is something that's been happening since the days of the PS2, XBox, and Gamecube.

So...


Integration with Existing Social Networks : Some people will eat this up. Others will just not care about it either way. And others will think it silly. "I don't want to be blowing up people's Facebook news feeds with a bunch of updates about my progress in Little Big Planet," they'll say. "And I don't want my news feed similarly blown up by other people with their gaming accomplishments. I mean, let's face it, Facebook is already growing more annoying and pointless by the day. Just a bunch of stupid pictures, political rants, and hashtags #imsosickofhashtagstheyreallyaregettingonmynerves. It won't be enriched in any way by adding realtime updates on what type of tires people are selecting in Gran Turismo. Besides, it won't be long before we reach critical mass, the bubble bursts, and folks abandon Facebook faster than they did MySpace, current home of digital tumbleweeds." Either way, this can also be done on PC fairly easily.

Gaming on a big TV: HDMI has rendered this difference between PCs and consoles a thing of the past.

The Share button: A cool feature in the eyes of many gamers, no doubt. But, except for the convenience of having a dedicated physical button on the controller for it, this is also something that can be done right now on PC's.

Nice PS4 graphics: These also can currently be done with a powerful PC. And as far as the advance from the PS3 to PS4, I think Colin Campbell of IGN put it well in his relatively positive review of the PS4 reveal event:

It dawned on me, even as I sat enjoying the games, that PlayStation 4 is going be just as neat as we’d all hoped. But also that the incredible PS1-PS2 jump is never going to come again. Nor the enormous PS2-PS3 leap.
The astonishing visual fidelity being shown in New York, is quite a bit nicer than the gorgeous fidelity I can find on my PS3 at home. These are lovely-looking games. But they are not so much greater than PS3 that my tongue is lolling around my curly chest-hair.

I'm not trying to say that the PS4 won't be capable of great game imagery. And I'm not trying to underestimate this jump in tech because I'm a Nintendo fan and the Wii U isn't nearly as powerful. I have no doubt that many folks, game players, developers, and publishers alike are excited about the power of the PS4. And as well they should be.

But 1) we are reaching a point of diminishing increases, as Mr. Campbell points out. Videophiles can tell a difference between PS3 and PS4 graphics. But will the more mainstream market be able to? And, perhaps relevantly, will the parents of kids who want their parents to fork over several hundred dollars for a new Playstation be able to? (The Turbografx 16 was more powerful than the NES, but my friend David Harmon's dad couldn't tell a difference.) And in the end how much will this increase in horsepower translate into better games? All unknowns.

And 2) the specs on the PS4 will, presumably, be static for the life of the console. But, PCs can be upgraded incrementally. As PC prices come down, more and more people are starting to realize that.

None of what I've said means I think Sony is doomed. Not at all. But they, like the other two console makers, do face challenges in this new generation of console gaming.



My Personal Take
I own a PS2. I bought it many years ago, several years after I bought a Gamecube, at the suggestion, some might even say pressuring, of one Mr. Josh Shaw. He enticed me by pointing out all the games I'd previously been missing out on that owning a PS2 would now allow me to enjoy. Indeed, a back catalog of PS1 games, in addition to PS2 exclusives. That's quite a few games.

I have four PS2 games (Dragon Quest VIII, Final Fantasy X, the Friends Trivia Game, and Simpsons Road Rage. I have two PS1 games (Blaster Master, Chrono Cross).

So as you can see, my past gaming history has not made me predisposed to get all fired up about the reveal of the PS4. It's not that I hate Sony's games division and all that they stand for. I just don't really care about Playstation as a brand. I have no brand loyalty. And, for me personally, the games and franchises I really enjoy and feel like I gotta have aren't Sony first party games and franchises. I'm not saying I hate their games. Indeed, many of them I haven't even played, which makes it impossible for me to have an informed opinion about them. So it's not a matter of hatred or dislike. It's, again, a matter of ambivalence.

So when, before the PS4 reveal, they put out Internet ads that say, "Oh, yay, another Mario game. Step up to Playstation," it does nothing for me. At least, nothing positive. I don't get excited just at the mention that Sony is making a new Playstation. I'm neither insecure enough, nor manipulable enough, nor gotta-have-cutting-edge enough to be persuaded by them telling me that getting a Playstation is "stepping up." Yes, I understand that the PS4 is going to be more powerful than the Wii U is. But in my mind getting a more powerful system isn't necessarily "stepping up" to something better. Horsepower is important to me, no question. But in the end what I care about are games, games that match my tastes. "Stepping up" to me means getting a system that delivers the games I enjoy playing. Computing horsepower doesn't guarantee the existence of such games. Which brings me to the first part of their ad. See, I'm one of those folks, like millions of other people, who look forward to new Mario games. So a new Mario game actually does make me say, "yay" (ok, not literally, but you know what I mean).

So I went into the reveal without any hype in my heart. If I had any emotional predisposition going in, it probably was one of skepticism, and a hope that whetever they had wouldn't just blow Nintendo out of the water, since 1) I like Nintendo and want them to be successful, and 2) I can't stand all the machismo and adversarial urination contest-style attitude people on the Internet tend to approach videogame discussions with.

I didn't get to watch the presentation itself, as I was busy with other things. But I did read all about it, watch some of the demo footage, etc.

My personal feeling is still best characterized by a lack of enthusiasm. The PS4 is a great PC that will only run games and video applications, no doubt. But for a bit more money I could build a comparable PC now, one that will do more than just play games and run Netflix, one that will run games not available on the PS4 (like Star Trek: Online baby!), and one that I can upgrade as I go along.

As for the games, I've lost confidence and interest in the Final Fantasy brand. So a new FF game does little for me. Watch_Dogs looks like it could be really interesting, even if it skews close to the "dark and realistic" ends of my gaming preference spectrum. But I'll be able to get it on Wii U, with some fun Gamepad functionality probably thrown in. So no worries there. Knack looks ok. Beyond that though, I don't remember anything jumping out at me one way or the other.

And, again, the franchises I care most about, from big-budget-retail to download-only, for the most part either come from Nintendo or will be available on Nintendo systems. (As a side note, there were several download-only titles this generation that I was interested in that weren't available on the Wii. Given that the difference in tech between the Wii U and PS4 is not nearly as large as that between the Wii and the PS360, I'm hoping that situation will occur less in this generation.)

The PS4 won't play PS3 games (whether disc or downloaded), and it is not compatible with the Dual Shock 3. Since I don't own a PS3, this doesn't mean much to me either way. But I completely understand the disappointment current PS3 owners are feeling over this.

I have a 3DS, and with a large number of good games available for it both now and in the coming months, I just don't see me feeling the urge to want a Vita. So the Vita stuff doesn't entice me.

I seldom feel the desire to share my gameplay videos with the world. So although I understand that many folks do, and although I realize that if sharing was as convenient as pushing a button I'd probably be more likely to give it a try, it's a feature that doesn't really grab my attention. 

And, well, that's my take. I don't think the PS4 is stupid. I don't think people who are excited about it are stupid. And I don't feel like I have to throw either it or them under the bus as a part of being a fan of another console maker (in my case, Nintendo). People are entitled to their gaming preferences (ID Primary Directive #3). But for me, the PS4 currently doesn't do anything for me.

Until next time, Gamepad firmly in hand, I remain,

 - Nic


END OF LINE

Star Wars Prequel Discontent?

IGN recently interviewed Lawrence Kasdan about his involvement in the new Star Wars trilogy. I'm excited that he's going to be a part of it, so I gladly read the interview. Over the course of the discussion, Mr. Kasdan had this to say:

I was pleased that there would be new ones, that there was a chance to capture some of the spirit of the original trilogy that I’d worked on. I thought there’s an audience out there -- my grandchildren, lots of original Star Wars people -- and there always will be. It’s only good that we try to do some more great ones.

Am I reading into things too much, or does it sound like Mr. Kasdan didn't like the prequels all that much?

A few days ago, Mark Hamill was being interviewed about his involvement with the new films. Among other things, he said this:

 "I said to George that I wanted to go back to the way it was, in the sense that ours was much more carefree and lighthearted and humorous – in my opinion, anyway....hope they find the right balance of CGI with practical effects. I love props, I love models, miniatures, matte paintings -- I'm sort of old school. I think if you go too far in the direction of CGI it winds up looking like just a giant a video game, and that's unfortunate. … If they listen to me at all, it'll be, 'Lighten up and go retro with the way it looks.'"

Now, I agree with his assessment about the differing tone of the two trilogies. But, now I can't help but wonder if the unstated part was, "and the tone of the originals was better."


Come on famous people who were heavily involved in the first Star Wars trilogy! Don't be haters!

What say y'all?

 - Nic


END OF LINE

The Inner Dorkdom Podcast - Episode 10

It's the big throwdown! Welcome to "Josh vs Nic: A Battle For the Ages!"

OK, it's not that much of a throwdown. But it is a nice long podcast in which Josh and Nic discuss their takes on both the history and the current state of home console video gaming. So please, enjoy.


DOWNLOAD
Runtime: 3 hours, 47 minutes, 6 seconds

Aliens: Colonial Marines – First Impressions

I’m a xenomorph fan and like most xenomorph fans, I was excited for Aliens: Colonial Marines. When the game broke its street date and was released a few days early, reviews and opinions started pouring in. Most of what I read was negative. Of course, I was pretty shocked. From everything I had seen on the game, it looked like it would be really good and close to the feel of the Alien films, but all these opinions were saying the opposite along with other negative criticisms about various aspects. Ignoring these early impressions, I decided to take the plunge and proceed with purchasing the game for PC.

In a word: I like the game. Is it the best thing I’ve ever played? No. Does it show signs of being in development limbo for several years? Yes. But from the 3 or 4 missions I’ve completed, I can say that it’s a good game. At this point, I’d probably give it a 7/10. The only thing I could agree with from these impressions is the fact that some of the AI is kind of dumb at times, but mainly on the part of the human characters.

After the game was actually released, official reviews started pouring in, most of which were horrible. IGN’s review stated, “You don’t ever actually feel like you’re actually in danger. You don’t feel overwhelmed. In fact, over the course of its six hour campaign the game never gets even remotely close to replicating the genuine feelings of fear and dread that simmer throughout James Cameron’s cinematic classic, simply because its xenomorphic enemies are so mindless.”
I have to disagree with almost every bit of that.

Let’s take these one by one, shall we?

1.       “You don’t ever actually feel like you’re actually in danger.”
Apparently IGN didn’t play the mission where you have no weapons, are being chased by some sort of giant xenomorph (not a queen), and have to move slowly throughout the underbelly of Hadley’s Hope in fear of waking up the sleeping “acid-filled exploding” new aliens. I was genuinely creeped out by this section. I felt like I was in plenty of danger as I didn’t want to die by waking one of those jokers up; when one did wake up, I had to remain perfectly still since these new xenomorphs operate completely off of sound. When it came right up to me, slowly circled, and eventually trotted off, I breathed a huge sigh of relief. Plenty of danger, indeed.

2.       “You don’t feel overwhelmed.”
There are a ton of xenomorphs that show up all the time which you have to fend off, sometimes having to protect a squadmate as they complete some kind of task. How do you not feel overwhelmed?

3.       “…the game never gets even remotely close to… the genuine feelings of fear and dread that simmer throughout James Cameron’s cinematic classic…”
Excuse me? Did you guys even watch Aliens? If we were talking about “simmering fear and dread” in the original Alien film, I could get behind your point, but we’re talking about Aliens. Aliens was a high-octane, action/sci-fi flick. Ninety percent of the movie was spent blasting xenomorphs and another five percent was Ripley fighting the queen with a loader. There were some “fear simmering” moments (which accounts for the remaining 5%), like the infamous turret scene, but the majority of the film was action oriented.

4.       “…the xenomorphs are so mindless.”
While I don’t completely agree, I can see where they’re coming from. The xenomorph AI isn’t as complex as it was in the most recent Alien’s Vs. Predator title, but it’s not terrible by any stretch. I wouldn’t go so far as to call them “mindless,” though. Less advanced than AvP, sure.

Another thing related to the AI (which seems to be one of the game’s largest criticisms, including IGN) I don’t agree with is when IGN writes, “The problem lies with the aliens themselves; they’re not smart enough to hunt in packs or take you by surprise; they just willfully hurt themselves in front of your short, controlled bursts.”
Again, the xenomorph AI isn’t the greatest in the world, but really, when has AI in a game ever been smart enough to “hunt” the player? The only thing I can think of is in AvP when the xenomorphs will sometimes try to get behind you rather than attack you head-on, but I wouldn’t call that “hunting.” Like I said before: That’s something that shows the AI in this game isn’t as advanced as it was in AvP. But in all fairness, AvP and A:CM are two different types of games. They’re both first person titles, but AvP had varied game types by being able to choose between the 3 species… Two of which you had to play as hunters. Here, you’re stuck with the marine and only the marine in a story that needs to be a little faster paced like the film it claims to be a sequel to.

Also, everyone needs to be aware that this game is pretty old and has been in development for quite some time. It has switched developers more times than I have fingers and toes. No matter what Gearbox (the last developer) did to the game, the only thing that would have “fixed” the outdated features in the game would be to rebuild it from the ground up, which would have delayed the game even further. That being said, the game is pretty good for having been a complete and utter disaster when it comes to developing software.

Once I finish the game, I will give my full review of it. But as of right now, I’m really enjoying it and, for me at least, Aliens: Colonial Marines is mostly a success so far.

-Josh

Source: IGN

DmC: Devil May Cry - Review (PC)

I never really got into the original Devil May Cry series. I played a majority of the first game and a little bit of the 3^rd and 4^th ones, but it always seemed as though the series was a fairly good one; I was just involved with other games at the time. Apparently, Capcom felt the need to reboot the franchise, so they contracted UK developer Ninja Theory to handle the reset. Previously an action/puzzle solving hybrid, DmC (No, that doesn’t stand for DeLorean Motor Company) strips away most of the puzzle elements and relies on straight-up, over the top, demon-slaying action.

Differences between the PC and console versions:
I played the PS3 demo and downloaded the PC version on Steam a few hours later. The demo may not be indicative of the finished PS3 game, but what I played was pretty close to the PC version for the most part. The game runs at around 60 fps even on the console, but the PC version benefits from higher resolution, better lighting effects, and other various optimized features. No matter what platform (Xbox 360, PS3, PC) you choose for DmC, it’s going to look fantastic; although the PC version does contain advantages.

Breakdown:

Dante speaks with "Kat," the mysterious guy's personal witch.

Story: 10/10
DmC tells the story of Dante, a half angel, half-demon hybrid who must travel back and forth between the real world and what the game calls “limbo.” Dante is enlisted by a mysterious stranger and his assistant/witch to help fight back demons that are trying to force themselves into our world. Dante also wishes to exact revenge upon the demon king Mundus who killed his demon father and angel mother. The story may sound extremely simple, but that’s because it is. DmC, with its highly-steeped Christian mythology, never tries to take a religious standpoint of any kind and keeps things unquestionably fictional and easy to follow.  

The things that can happen in Limbo.

Visuals: 10/10
Every bit of this game is gorgeous. The real world and Limbo have distinct visual styles apart from Limbo just looking “really messed up.” The real world looks a bit grittier, while Limbo has very saturated colors and truly looks otherworldly. One thing in particular that stands out is the character models and their facial motion capturing. Developers are really getting good at this technique and DmC is no exception. Facial expressions are very well captured and the character models look more like actual actors and less like CG dolls whose mouths kind of match their words.
Animations are extremely fluid, lighting is great and the overall look of the game is pure eye-candy.

Beatin' down some demons at the beginning of the game.

Sound: 9/10
All of the slashing, shooting, and bone crunching is all accompanied by some mostly great music. I’m not too fond of dubstep, but its use here fits the game’s situations rather well. I much more prefer the metal-style tracks during combat. Every time Dante engages in combat, the metal starts and you can’t help but feel pumped up as you play. The reason I have to dock it a point here, and this may be more of a writing thing, is because of the excessive cursing used throughout the game. Cursing isn’t something that bothers me, but its use here is, a lot of the time, unnecessary and downright corny. That being said, the voice acting is fantastic and some of the best I’ve ever heard in a game. Coupled with the facial capturing, the characters feel more alive than in most titles.

Bosses are usually on the 'large' side.

Gameplay: 8.9/10
There is no way that you could play this game and not have fun. Whether you want to “button-mash,” or actually learn the combos and various moves, there’s mass fun to be had here. You can’t help but feel awesome as the game informs you that you’ve taken out a crowd of enemies and achieved an “SSS” ranking. These rankings reward you with points which you can spend on upgrades for your arsenal, or more moves and powers. I did, however, feel that some of the moves were a bit unnecessary. Usually, you’ll only need a few key moves in order to progress throughout the game, but these extra abilities do add to the visual appeal and overall awesomeness of combat.
The boss battles are excellent. They’re not terribly difficult, but unlike most bosses in games which are strictly difficult, these are actually a joy to play. Most involve not only hacking at whatever huge demon you’re up against, but using platforming elements to avoid their various attacks.
The only real complaint I have with the gameplay is that it can be a little repetitive during the game’s final levels… and I’m talking like, maybe the last 2 or 3.

Controls: 10/10
Like the overall gameplay, the controls are fluid, yet relatively simple. Combos are easy and you’ll be demon slaying like a pro in no time. As you progress, you gain more and more abilities, but the game eases you into them gradually rather than unloading all at once. By the end of the game, you’ll be taking out swarms of enemies as if it were second nature. 

Dante says, "Don't buy this game for children. I curse alot."

Other than Portal 2, DmC may be one of the best games I’ve played in quite some time. Normally, I’m not that big a fan of “beat-em up” style games, but this one transcends all of the clichés associated with the genre. Is it worth $60? Definitely. No question about it. This is a must-have game for any gamer. Only keep it away from the kids; There’s a reason it’s rated ‘M’ for mature.

Final Score: 9/10

-Josh

 

Update

Sorry for the delay in posts. I was sleepy Wednesday night and forgot. And last night I got distracted by Netflix, watching the first part of Treasure Planet, which I'd never seen, and the first episode of the 2002 He-Man show, which I also never seen. They were both good, and I highly recommend.

The plan right now is to record our Nic vs Josh Nintendo and videogame podcast episode tomorrow night. If you have any opinions, feel free to write in.

Until then, I remain,

- Nic

END OF LINE

Gaming News Roundup and Opinion

Here's a round-up of some recent videogame news, with my take thrown in.

1. Wii U Specs
We'll start with what many consider to be a big one, as it relates to 'the console wars.' Eurogamer came out with a story the other day about the system specs of the Wii U. Nintendo has not released detailed information on the GPU of it's new console, leaving people to wonder and speculate. Some folks over on NeoGAF decided to do more than that, and so they collected money to have extremely-magnified pictures of the GPU taken, as this would allow people to actually gain some facts about how it works. The people at Eurogamer's Digital Foundry have analyzed the data, and have concluded that the Wii U is an incremental improvement over the PS3 and 360. They made some waves with the article when they said "...we can now, categorically, finally rule out any next-gen pretensions for the Wii U - the GCN hardware in Durango and Orbis is in a completely different league."

In other words, the Wii U isn't "next-gen." This has gotten a lot of attention because the term next-gen is often used not just in a descriptive manner, but also with connotations about value (i.e., saying something isn't next-gen is often a way of saying it's bad, or junk, or no good, etc.), and Digital Foundry as made a categorical statement that the Wii U is not next-gen.

My take:
First, I think the term "next-gen" is fraught with problems, given that it is so subjective. What constitutes a new generation? Is it some computing power benchmark? Is it an advance to the controls used with the system? Is it a certain level of increased functions and services provided through the system? Or is being a new system with any increased computing power that is released at roughly the same time as other new systems enough? Some people will think it's the first, others the second or third, and so on. But there is no definitive universal objective standard.

It's like with people. What differentiates one generation from the next, given that people are being born all the time? There is no natural and/or decisive cut-off.

And so some people will look at a system like the Wii U, with new features, new controllers, and some increased in computing power as certainly being next-gen, while others, who define it in their minds differently, will look at it and say it isn't.

No one is objectively right. So it's a silly thing to argue over.

Second, the case is not nearly as open and shut as some of The Digital Foundry's comments make it sound, for a number of reasons.

Incomplete scans: It's not as though the entire GPU has been photographed. Apparently only 18 of 40 logic blocks were used in DF's analysis. That means over half of the GPU's logic is unexplained. The folks at NeoGAF appreciate this, and their analysis is thus still ongoing.

Custom GPU: The folks at DF seem to be assuming it is a rather standard Radeon processor, and so the incomplete data isn't an issue. What they have looked at must be similar to what they haven't. But, there's no reason to assume that. As a lot of people are pointing out, if the GPU is custom (and it is), then its performance can be significantly different from a standard one.

And so, given these two facts, there just isn't enough data for The Digital Foundry to make "categorical" statements.

And on some level they know it, because they oddly qualify some of their statements. Case in point: "Chipworks' shot is still being analysed, but the core fundamentals are now seemingly beyond doubt." Analysis still on-going, but the fundamentals are beyond doubt...well...at least seemingly. Huh?

I'm not suggesting the Wii U will prove to have magic in its unexplored parts and will be on the same footing at the new PS and XBox. What I am saying is that Eurogamer's conclusions are premature.


2. Nintendo is just learning about shaders

Here's a quote from Shigeru Miyamoto about Nintendo's work on Wii U software:

"Lighting is an inevitable factor to make use of high-definition images. We did not actively use technologies to render high-end graphics in real time for software development for Wii and previous consoles. Therefore, although the name "Wii" was handed down from Wii to Wii U, we needed to hold many workshops to learn about such technologies. We already went through this initial learning phase and are now tackling how to take full advantage of high-definition graphics. In this sense, retraining our developers used to be a great hurdle."

So, Nintendo developers are just now learning about shaders. On the one hand, a pessimist or critic could say, "See, they haven't even been trying. What losers." But on the other, let it sink in. The folks at Nintendo, game designers who many would say are brilliant in everything from character design to music to gameplay, have heretofore not focused their attention and considerable talents on creating graphics using 'modern' techniques. (And yet they've made visually appealing games like Skyward Sword and the Mario Galaxy games.) Imagine what they'll come up with now that they're starting to.


3. Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge not to be exclusive for long.

At least in Japan, the "Wii U exclusive" updated, tweaked, and enhanced version of NG3 will be coming to the PS3 and 360. Of course off-tv play won't be avaiable in those versions. But otherwise it appears to be a straight back-port.

While this isn't catastrophic, it isn't the best news for Nintendo. Exclusives are designed to be system sellers, either by themselves or in concert (i.e., this system has three or four games I really want but an only play with on it). When an exclusive is revealed to be timed, it takes away the major point of exclusivity. Sure, some people will buy a system just to play a game earlier. But many folks will just wait it out and save the money they'd have spent buying the new system.

Of course, Nintendo, being a major software creator, isn't reliant completely on 3rd parties for their exclusive titles. They also make their own. So it's not a question of "if" the Wii U will have a good number of solid exclusives, but of "when."


4. Why Microsoft got into the console business.

IGN has a story up. Really it's more a tease for a longer article they'll be posting on Friday. In any event, in it they quote Joachim Kempin, a VP of sales at Microsoft from 1983 to 2003. He says that the main reason Microsoft got into the console business, "was to stop Sony. You see, Sony and Microsoft…they never had a very friendly relationship, okay? And this wasn’t because Microsoft didn’t want that." Apparently Microsoft believed it would be good for them to cooperate with Sony on a lot of things, but Sony wasn't interested. "...As soon as they came out with a video console, Microsoft just looked at that and said 'well, we have to beat them, so let’s do our own.'”

So it was a strategic decision, based on business rivalry.

Fair enough. Businesses are businesses. Competition is a part of it.

But at the same time, it seems kind of lame. 'Let's make this device, enter this market, in order to stick it to another company. ' To have your console gaming division begin with such an adversarial mindset...I don't know, is disappointing to me. And it's little wonder that the same competitive mindset permeates gaming culture these days...except that from gamers it's even more pointless.


5. New XBox rumored to require an Internet connection

Edge is reporting that, according to their sources, the new XBox will indeed require an internet connection to function, and that, among other things, this will preclude the use of second-hand (i.e., used) games.

I'm not sure how smart this is. I know that most of the people in the new XBox's potential market probably have an internet connection. But to require it for the system to function? I mean, I don't think it was overly smart of Nintendo to ship Wii U's that require a massive downloaded update upon first startup. But to require that any time you use the system you have a connection? The truth is, sometimes connections go down. And what better time to play a videogame than when your internet isn't working?

And the locking out of used games...I really hope there's a backlash in the gaming community over this. But we'll see.


Well, I think that's all I have for now. Stay tuned for our podcast on the current state of Nintendo and gaming in general, which should be up next week.

Until then, I remain,

 - Nic


END OF LINE

My History of Thoughts on Nintendo (A disclaimer for the upcoming "Nic vs. Josh" debate)

First off, I just want to say that I consider myself a Nintendo fan. Am I a fan of their hardware? I would say yes, but I’m more so a fan of their software. Growing up with franchises such as The Legend of Zelda, Mario and Metroid kind of makes it hard to not eagerly anticipate the newest titles in their respective series.

Second, and most importantly, I think that Nintendo, in more recent years, has made some rather poor choices when it comes to hardware design and business in general. This doesn’t mean that my fandom has diminished or that I hate Nintendo, it just means that I’m sort of disappointed in their lack of willingness to compete with the rest of the video game world.

Here we go…


During the 8 and 16 bit eras, Nintendo ruled the entire planet. Sure, there was competition from Sega with the Master System and Genesis (maybe a little with the TurboGrafx 16), but Nintendo always seemed to 1-up (like that?) them in some fashion. Whether it was graphics, sound, or quality titles, Nintendo always seemed to have the bigger dog in the fight.

Around the 32/64 bit era, things started to change. Previously, CD-ROM based add-ons were met with mostly negative results. The Phillips CDi didn’t do well, the Sega CD was mostly horrible, and even Nintendo canceled a partnership with Sony during development of their own SNES CD add-on. Unfortunately for Nintendo, they created a monster that would prove to be much more competitive than Sega ever thought possible.

The Sony Playstation was released on American shores in 1995, but wasn’t exactly the most popular piece of hardware ever created. A year later, Nintendo released the Nintendo 64 (previously known with the much cooler, Ultra 64 moniker), a much more powerful system. There was one problem, though: The system still used the cartridge format for games.

Now let’s step back and think for a second: Could Nintendo really be at fault for that? From Nintendo’s perspective, every CD-based add-on/console had failed up to that point. Why would Nintendo ever think to release a console with its primary form of media being the Compact Disc? Nintendo probably thought that they were doing the right thing, a thought with which I can mostly agree. The only thing one can really chalk it up to is timing. The time was just right for a CD-based console.

The one thing that really hurt Nintendo during that time was the announcement that Final Fantasy VII would be released for the Playstation rather than the Nintendo 64. By this point in history, RPGs were starting to become slightly more mainstream. Games for the SNES like Final Fantasy III (VI, as it would later be known) and Chrono Trigger were "must-have" games for 16 bit gamers. Because of the rise of RPGs and their ever expanding scope, Square decided to release FFVII on a console that could handle the larger demands of the game. There would be a hit taken when it came to visuals, but FFVII could be a much larger game with the CD format.

The quality (or lack thereof) of the game aside, FFVII was a monster title. The thing sold a ridiculous amount of copies and, (again) unfortunately for Nintendo, a LOT of Playstations. Because of the growing Sony console market and the ability to reach a much larger scope with the CD format, most of the previously "Nintendo loyal" third party developers jumped the Nintendo ship and began producing games on a near exclusive basis for the Playstation. While Nintendo was still successful during this period, due mainly to relying on their brand name and first party titles, the 128 bit era would start to see things change drastically.

Sony, still riding high as the dominant console when it came to software sales, released a more powerful console in March of 2000 dubbed, "Playstation 2." Sony would continue its dominance throughout this era as well, facing off against competition from Nintendo’s newly released "Gamecube" and newcomer to the console market, Microsoft and their "Xbox."

The Gamecube was a great system, don’t get me wrong. It was technically more powerful than the PS2 and more on equal footing with the more powerful Xbox. The problem was software sales and name recognition. The PS2 was not only the first out of the gate in the new generation of consoles, it also carried a more recognizable name this time around. Most third party developers were already on board with the Playstation brand previously, and with sold out preorders around the world, were more than willing to develop for the new system. The Gamecube was left out in the cold and the Xbox was just starting to gain steam.

Nintendo still had their first party titles which were, and still are, top-notch in terms of quality, but perhaps Nintendo’s shining decision was securing exclusive rights to Capcom’s Resident Evil franchise. This was a huge move for Nintendo, but the exclusivity of one franchise couldn’t make up for the ridiculous amount of third party franchises on the PS2. Also, Capcom’s exclusive contract must not have been a very long one. Shortly after the Gamecube release of Resident Evil 4, there was a port of that game (with huge additions), Resident Evil: Outbreak File 1&2, and Dead Aim all released for the PS2. Outbreak and Dead Aim being PS2 exclusive, I might add.

The only thing bad that can be said from a technical standpoint about the Gamecube is its choice of format: Mini-DVD. Other than wanting to preserve the small (size-wise) nature of the console, this is a decision that I honestly can’t understand to this day. Did this hurt the console? To be honest, I’m not really sure. It’s possible, because rather than have games cost roughly the same across all three consoles to produce physical copies, publishers perhaps had to pay a little extra for Mini DVD. I can’t really say for sure, simply because I don’t know how much it cost back in the day to produce that particular format.

In the current generation, things got even more hairy for Nintendo. Microsoft was the first company on the floor with their Xbox 360 in 2005. With more of a focus on multiplayer/networking and graphics that were a noticeable improvement over the previous consoles, it’s no wonder that the 360 gained popularity as quickly as it did.

A year later on November 11th, 2006, Sony released the Playstation 3. Unfortunately for them, Microsoft had mostly blanketed the market with the 360, so the PS3 was marketed as more of an entertainment "do-all" than a straight-up video game console. Sony also used the PS3 as more of a marketing tool to sell their new High Definition format: BluRay. While I commend Sony for wanting to integrate new features into home consoles, they were a bit ahead of their time. Video streaming services had not reached the popularity that they are in 2013 and neither had the advent of the "app." It was good to know the PS3 was capable of doing these things, but in 2006, people found it hard to care enough to drop $500 on the console.

Nearly a week later, Nintendo released the Wii. The problems that I had with the system are shared amongst most gamers, so I’ll break down some of those opinions:



Motion Controls -
When the Wii was first revealed, I remember seeing images of the controller and thinking, "What the crap is that thing?!" The design was so far removed from what gamers were used to that it was somewhat unrecognizable. There were a few familiar elements like a d-pad, a few face buttons, and an analog stick, but you were supposed to hold separate pieces in each hand and point it at the screen in order to interface with whatever game you were playing. On paper, the ideas for gameplay sound pretty cool, but in actuality, they become somewhat frustrating. First person games were tedious because movement was a lot more difficult; platformers mostly required you to turn the wii-mote portion on its side in a somewhat uncomfortable fashion; and having to point the controller at the screen constantly became quite tiring after extended periods of play.
I, like most gamers, like to "vedge out" while playing a video game. I don’t really care to wave my hands about just to make my in-game avatar turn around to look behind me, or have to point the controller constantly on screen to make sure my character moves in a particular direction. These actions are made much simpler by the use of dual analog sticks.
A "classic" controller was released with a more conventional design, but it was only compatible with a few regular Wii games and mostly used for downloadable (Virtual Console) titles.

Graphics -
High Definition graphics and imagery were becoming the standard before the Wii was released. I understand Nintendo’s focus on gameplay, but graphics immerse me in the experience as well as gameplay. When I’m having to deal with frustrating/tiring controls AND graphics that are nowhere near what they COULD be, the immersion is lost. Immersion is clearly what Nintendo was going for with the introduction of motion controls, but is it really that hard to have both graphics and gameplay? I don’t think that a game has to be pretty to be fun, I’m just saying that there’s no excuse for releasing a console that is underpowered when compared to its competition just for the sake of in-game controls.

Lack of Third Party Support -
This is the main problem with the Wii. I can’t blame anyone but Nintendo for this one. With the Gamecube, even though developers were attached to the PS2, they still knew that Nintendo could release a quality piece of hardware. Games COULD be ported, they just weren’t because of the popularity and large user install base of the PS2. I believe that had Nintendo released an equally powerful console like the Xbox 360 (and perhaps dropped the motion controls), they would have seen more third party developers gravitate towards them. Releasing a drastically, technically speaking, inferior console than what technology was capable of, made developers scoff at the Wii and mostly avoid it. Also, motion controls would HAVE to be integrated into the game since not everyone had the classic controller or "nunchuck" peripherals. These extra controller options, and added motion controls in general, take more time and therefore cost more money to implement. I honestly can’t blame third party companies for wanting to pass on the Wii. I don’t say that out of spite; I only say it because it’s the most realistic viewpoint.

Catering to the "Casual" market -
I’ve been talking about how I’ve been writing an article about this for a few weeks now, but I’ll go ahead and address part of the subject.
A casual market does, indeed, exist. The thing I get sick of hearing is the "core gamer" term. I think that the term is used in most cases to put a stamp on gamers who like games like Grand Theft Auto, etc. Most of the time, it’s used in some kind of derogatory manner, or to separate certain games from others that shouldn’t be separated in the first place.
I look at games in 2 different styles: Casual games… and EVERYTHING ELSE. There is no in-between. Grand Theft Auto is no more "core" than Super Mario Bros. A casual game is something like Angry Birds. Most of what you’ll find in an app store for your particular smartphone can be considered casual games. These games are defined by the fact that you can pick them up for 5 minutes and put them down. Basically, games you play when you’re bored or waiting in the doctor’s office.
Most gamers, just like we all did back in the 80s and 90s, take video games seriously. The video game market EXISTS because we take them so seriously. Not only do consumers take them seriously, but so do developers. Gone are the days when a game was developed over the course of a couple months with a team of 5-10 people. Nowadays, games usually have 40-100 people working on them and sometimes take up to 2 years to produce. With that kind of production, developers want to deliver the absolute best experience possible, which is something most of them didn’t feel was possible on the Wii. Just like developers want to deliver the best experience possible, gamers want to receive the best. Being a platform which caters predominantly to gamers who only want to pick a game up, play it for 5 minutes and then go to work, the Wii was not the platform to go to for most third party companies.
With the Wii, Nintendo based their marketing strategy around roping in the casual gamer… and they did it in spades. People who normally wouldn’t dare pick up the latest Nintendo console were actually making it a point to do so. One particular example that’s always used is that of someone’s grandma playing Wii Sports. Did this actually happen? Yes, it did. The problem is that a grandma is still a grandma. Because grandma enjoys bowling on Wii Sports, that doesn’t mean she’s going to be beating down the doors of her local Gamestop to preorder the next Mario or Zelda game. For grandma, it begins and ends with Wii Sports. My question is: What was the point in Nintendo doing this? The answer: To sell more systems. But system sales are only half the battle. If a company doesn’t have the software to back it up, then that company doesn’t get any back end off of titles sold and the console sits and collects dust. Such was the case with a great many Wiis that were sold in 2006 and onwards.

All that being said, the Wii DID have some solid titles, but those were few and far between. I realize that that’s subjective given to one’s tastes, but can’t that be said no matter what console is the subject of discussion? I believe the games that were the strongest were ones that were developed by Nintendo themselves… which were few and far between. Nintendo didn’t have the "next killer app" down the pipeline from month to month. Sometimes strong titles would release with 6 months to a year between them as opposed to the PS360 which had a new, large-scale title available nearly every month. But when you’ve only got one company releasing consistently, top-drawer games, what do you expect?

I’ve already made my recent opinions known about the Wii U, so I won’t go into that again. I’ll only say that Nintendo has a lot of catching up to do to win back all the gamers that they’ve lost to the other two big companies in recent years. I still love Nintendo and will probably continue to buy their hardware for as long as they continue to produce it. But when two other guys carry around bazookas and you’re still carrying around a pistol, it’s easy to see how the fight’s going to end.

Ok, I was done with the article and then I thought of this analogy to sum up the whole thing and expound upon that last line:

Nes = Pistol; Everything else at the time = BB-gun

Snes = Machine pistol; Everything else at the time = Pistol

N64 = Upgraded machine pistol; PSX = Regular machine pistol with more bullets

Gamecube = Assault rifle; Xbox = Assault rifle; PS2 = Slightly less powerful assault rifle with more bullets

Wii = 2 assault rifles duct taped together; Xbox 360 = Machine gun with buckets of bullets; PS3 = Machine gun you can play BluRays on, but has the same kind and amount of bullets as the Xbox 360, but sometimes misfire.

Wii U = Machine gun; Next Xbox = Bazooka of some sort; PS4 = Bazooka of some sort that will probably play BluRays.

Yeah, the analogy is a little bit ridiculous (and using the bazooka to represent the unknown was probably extreme), but it illustrates how Nintendo’s consoles are viewed by the majority of the gaming public (myself included) and that recently Nintendo has seemed to be behind in recent years. At times, being behind in a somewhat costly fashion.

With that, I release you!

-Josh

The Inner Dorkdom Podcast - Episode 9

Sorry for the lack of content this week. In order to make it up to you, we present you with this new episode of The Inner Dorkdom podcast! Listen in as Nic and Josh talk about the big news in Star Wars, the announcement of J.J. Abrams as the director of Episode VII. They also talk about Star Trek (big surprise).

DOWNLOAD
Runtime: 2 hours, 24 minutes, 57 seconds