Josh's Top 5 Videogames of 2013

We’re over halfway through the first month of 2014, so now would be a good time to give a list of my top 5 favorite games from 2013, right? Well, maybe I should have done that towards the beginning of the month, but whatever. Here they are after the jump: Josh’s Top 5 Videogames of 2013!

This list goes from least to greatest, and just like everything else, these are the 5 games that I enjoyed the most. I’m sure nearly everyone’s top 5 would vary, including the other contributors to The Inner Dorkdom. However, these are the games that I would recommend everybody to pick up and give a shot if they were only able to play 5 games from 2013.

5. Killer Instinct (Xbox One) – Double Helix Games
It might be a bit off-putting to include a game from the next-gen consoles on a list of greatest games from last year, but I think this one is well deserved. In my opinion, this is the best fighting game released since 2011’s Mortal Kombat. True, KI released with several missing features, but the game is tight and does its job extremely well with its fighting mechanics. It’s still the only Xbox One game that I own, and for the time being, I’m ok with that.

4. Tomb Raider (2013) (Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Soon to be PS4 & Xbox One) – Square-Enix / Crystal Dynamics
Square-Enix must be crazy. They didn’t consider the Tomb Raider reboot a financial success when it sold something like 2 or 3 million copies. I guess they were expecting Final Fantasy numbers, which even they have dwindled a bit in the past few years. Personally, I loved the reboot. I thought that adding a survivalist element, along with a much more personal and epic story, really lent itself well to a series in desperate need of revitalization.

3. The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds (Nintendo 3DS) - Nintendo
I have yet to post my review for this 3DS game, but I’ll go ahead and tell you: it got a perfect 10. I absolutely loved this throwback to my all-time favorite Zelda title (of which I consider one of the best games of all time). It just goes to show that the 3DS is the place to go if you really want to get a bang for your buck when it comes to gaming. I hope Nintendo continues to release this kind of quality throughout the 3DS’ life, but come on – can’t we get titles of this magnitude on the Wii U?

2. The Last of Us (PS3) – Naughty Dog
This is the game that most websites cited as their top game of 2013. It’s definitely deserving of that spot, as it did new things with storytelling in a videogame and, in my opinion, solidified the fact that videogames are true literature. As I noted in my review, the game mechanics are all things that everyone has played before, but the execution was excellent, weaving in with the great story like no other game has before.

1. Beyond: Two Souls (PS3) – Quantic Dream [My Personal GOTY]
Should this even really be here? I mean, it’s not really a game is it? No, it’s not. It’s an interactive movie that you play on a game console. That being said, I can’t get past the phenomenal story that just happens to be the most original thing I’ve heard, seen, or read since… Well… It’s been so long, I can’t remember.
I know I’ve said it before, but Hollywood should really start employing writers and directors from the videogame industry. Titles like The Last of Us, Bioshock: Infinite, Mass Effect, and of course, Beyond: Two Souls, show a quality and originality that the film industry seems almost incapable of producing these days. It’s because of this originality in story that I have no choice but to give it the “Josh’s Personal Inner Dorkdom Game of The Year Award.” I’m just holding out that Quantic Dream will create a sequel at some point in the future, no matter how unlikely that is.

Why Do I Do It To Myself? - Josh's Thoughts on Current Resident Evil Games

Ok, so you guys know that we here at The Inner Dorkdom don’t like to “bash” anything, but I’ve really got to get something off my chest. It’s something that has been eating away at my very soul for the past seven or eight years… Well, that’s just a big ol’ fat exaggeration, but Resident Evil kind of does that for most people nowadays.

For most fans, the series has been on a sharp decline since RE4. Personally, RE4 is one of my favorites, just behind 2 and 3. I liked the change in gameplay (the over-the-shoulder style), even if it did seem more like a side-game or “gaiden,” but I had a gut-wrenching feeling that the franchise would be forever changed after that game.

And changed, it was.

I’ll straight-up say that I HATED RE5. Like the RE movie franchise, 5 was waaaaaay too overblown, overcomplicated and action-heavy, leaving the sub-genre which Resident Evil had been known for, survival-horror, lying dead in the dust like a freshly head-shotted zombie.

Last weekend on Steam, I downloaded Resident Evil 6 and Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City, of which I played RE: ORC to completion and the Ada campaign in RE6. My thoughts? Capcom just really doesn’t know how to make a 3D action game. Forget about the series not being “survival-horror enough”; the games just aren’t good anymore. Frustrating controls, poorly implemented quick time events and a story so convoluted that it makes the Highlander film franchise blush, have effectively killed Resident Evil.

Controls
A game should be fun to control, right? You should be able to “feel” as though you’re playing through the game, not “making the game work properly.” While Resident Evil has never been critically acclaimed because of its control scheme, the series post-Code Veronica has been an utter mess. Originally, the series had what has been referred to as “tank controls.” Basically, the directional pad on the controller always corresponded to the direction your character was facing on the screen. In other words, “up” was ALWAYS forward, no matter where your character was. Combined with the games’ pre-rendered backgrounds (polygonal character models on a drawn background), this took players some time to get used to, though once they did, it started to feel like second nature.

Starting with RE4, Capcom felt that they could improve on the series’ most loathed feature, and switched to an over-the-shoulder perspective. Some fans who liked the original scheme complained, but the general consensus was that the new style was a welcomed change. I liked it. The franchise was trying something different and they succeeded. Unfortunately, it wasn’t the control scheme that Capcom thought everybody liked – it was the “action.”

After RE4, the fifth entry amped up the action elements considerably and put more enemies on the screen, making the new control scheme virtually useless. Suddenly, controlling your character felt like a chore and making them try to get away from a large horde of enemies (which had shifted back in RE4 from shambling zombies and manageable monsters to running, half-humans) just didn’t work very well.

For RE6, the action has been pumped even more, making the game even more frustrating to play. Several, respawning enemies get cramped up into tiny rooms with you and knock you down, only to have you get up and knocked down immediately thereafter with no chance of escape. In my opinion, the game is just an absolute nightmare to control... and not in a good, survival horror-y way.

QTEs
Ah, the quick time event. I hate QTEs. I don’t mind them in a game that’s designed around them (as you’ll see from my upcoming Beyond: Two Souls review), but during an action game, they make me mad… real quick-like.
QTEs are essentially button presses during a cutscene which are intended to make you feel a part of the game at all times. When they were introduced in RE4, I’ll readily admit that I liked them. They didn’t seem forced, they were easy to perform and they gave you a bit of an adrenaline rush at times. In RE5 and 6, however, they’re cumbersome, forced and add absolutely nothing to the gameplay experience except frustration.

My main gripe with RE5 and especially 6’s QTEs, is their poor implementation. I cannot stand how the game designers give you literally 3 seconds to figure out what you’re supposed to do during a QTE. This usually results in cheap death, after death, after death, until you finally figure out that you’re supposed to press a certain combination of buttons or move the analog sticks in such a way as to not be immediately killed.

Story
The Resident Evil story started so simple: A demented pharmaceutical company, Umbrella, who secretly creates biological weapons has had an accident in their facility under a mansion out in the woods. A military specialist team, S.T.A.R.S., comes in to check the place out, only to find that it’s overrun with zombies, monsters, and at one point, undead sharks. That was it. It was just a simple, easy to understand concept that has been expounded upon for nearly twenty titles to date.

With every game, Capcom leads its players to believe that the one they’re playing will be the last one. They don’t do it in the same way the Eagles do when they go on a farewell tour every two years, but every game wraps itself up nicely… or at least, it used to. After RE3: Nemesis, though, it was apparent that Capcom had another franchise, the likes of which had not been seen since Megaman, which could carry on for years. I commend Capcom for at least trying to keep the series moving forward canonically, but it’s just getting stale, needlessly complicated and soap opera-ish. I mean seriously, how many more times can Umbrella cause some country-wide disaster and get away with it?  How many more times can Albert Wesker come back? What’s this crap about Wesker’s son? Oh, so there are about 9 million viruses that Umbrella created?

It’s just getting ridiculous.

Fortunately, Capcom has seen the error of their ways, due mainly to the poor sales of RE6. After playing 5, I was pretty much done with the series, but I eventually did it to myself once again and bought RE6 on sale for $10. In my opinion, the game is worth about that much… maybe less. Don’t get me wrong, I hate to hate on something, but this series really has declined, is in need of going back to its roots in survival horror, and nothing shows it more than RE6. If you like Resident Evil or videogames in general, don't play it.

It’s cases like these that I become a proponent for rebooting a franchise. When it starts getting way out of hand or stale, you need to hit the reset button and it seems that’s at least one of the options Capcom is considering when going forward with Resident Evil. 

-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

 

  

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

WiiU Thoughts and Concerns

Now that I’ve had some time with the system and the initial excitement over the fact that it’s new has worn off, I feel like I can give an honest opinion. Away we go…

For the most part, my initial impressions remain true. Everything that I wrote and posted on the site after I unboxed the system still holds water. It’s the functionality of the system and some of its features that slightly concern me at this point.

1. Where are the games?
Ok, I realize that the WiiU has/had an extremely strong launch library. At least it seemed that way. Truth be told, its strongest titles that were available at launch, or shortly thereafter, were nothing more than ports of games that had already been released on other consoles. There were also games that were releasing at relatively the same time across all 3 consoles (Assassin's Creed III, Black Ops 2), but my question is: Where were the unique to WiiU third party titles? As far as I could tell, there was only 1 title that was both exclusive and would appeal to the “core gamer (man, I hate that term. I’m working on an article about how much I hate it):” Zombie U.
My initial impressions of Zombie U are not that great. I’ve played the demo and, quite frankly, I’m unimpressed. In fact, there were things about the game that I found atrocious, one of them being the controls. They’re extremely slippery most times and for some reason I found it very hard to aim my weapon, or even engage in melee combat properly. I don’t know what it is about the game, it just feels… off.

The thing about the game that is the most disappointing is that every game Zombie U is similar to is actually better than Zombie U itself. I know that sounds like a purely subjective statement, but I can’t help it. And this is going to sound like hyperbole, but I couldn’t help but think while playing the demo, “Man, this is like a crappy version of Dead Island. I’d rather just play that game.”

So, all that to say the only exclusive “core (3 rd party) game” for the WiiU is pretty underwhelming.
One thing that really concerns me is that Nintendo hasn’t really released any info regarding future titles. There have been small droplets of news such as that GTA-style Lego game… But, and I’m not trying to sound like a jerk here, not many people care about that game, myself included. I’m sure it will be a decent game, it’s just that if I want to play GTA, I’ll play GTA. In other words, GTA-Lego is not a “big” game. I’m sure that there will be bigger titles in the future, but right now, it’d probably work in Nintendo’s favor to at least start to let everybody in on some new, big game news. Third and first parties, alike.

2. The Gamepad
I’ll admit, I love the Gamepad… just not really for playing games. I’m not talking about the screen swapping features (that’s really cool), I mean having to use it during gameplay. For an example, I have to go again to Zombie U.

Your inventory in Zombie U is controlled by hitting a button and looking down at the Gamepad screen. Here, you can manage your items by using the touchscreen. The thing is, the game doesn’t pause, so you’re still vulnerable to attacks until you come back from looking in your bag. I understand that the purpose of this is to create a sense of realism like, “Oh no, son! You ain’t pausin’ this game! You better be quick with gettin’ stuff out yo’ bag,” but to me, it just makes gameplay frustrating. If I were in a real-life situation in which a zombie was coming after me and I needed something quickly from my bag, I’d be able to reach into the bag, feel around and pull out whatever it was I needed and keep running. Or heck, I could even feel through my bag WHILE running. Not so in Zombie U. If you press the inventory button, your character goes into a squat and starts rummaging through the bag. If you’re in a heavy spot with several zombies, forget it… you’re dead!

For something like ACIII which uses the touchscreen as simply a convenience, i.e. displaying your map, that’s fine. But actually making me have to play part of the game while looking down at my hands makes me feel like an amateur guitar player that can’t play without looking at the frets. I’m sure that at some point Nintendo and other companies will figure out new and unique ways to integrate the use of the controller, but for right now I’d rather use it to navigate menus and scroll through my Netflix que.

3. Technology
This is perhaps the biggest one. Graphics capabilities are something that constantly changes every single game in the tech world. Buy something awesome today, 2 weeks from now it’ll be outdated unless you buy the absolute top-of-the-line equipment. And even then, you never know. As it stands right now, the WiiU is on par with the PS3 and Xbox360 for the most part. I still believe that, just because it has the capability to run at 1080i (so does the PS3, oddly enough), it has the potential to best its competition in this department. The problem comes in when you try to figure out how long Nintendo will be able to hold its dominance if it ever obtains it.

It’s no secret that Microsoft and Sony are set to reveal their newest consoles at some point within the year. I figure we’ll at least see the new Xbox at E3 this year. How far advanced will they be? If the tech demos that have been shown are any indication, these things are going to be absolute monsters when it comes to graphical capability.

I own a gaming PC that is pretty much maxed out and is one of the best money can buy. I can run the 2 most graphically demanding games on the market (The Witcher 2 and Crysis 2 [And my rig far exceeds the recommended specs for Crysis 3]) with every video setting maxed out and still maintain a smooth, 60 frames per second. I don’t say this to brag, but to bring up a point: Again, if the tech demos for the next gen consoles are any indication, they will blow away my PC gaming rig. How will the WiiU stack up if that’s the case?

As we’ve seen happen in the past, 3 rd party developers tend to go where the tech is. Will third party developers stick by the WiiU, or will they quasi-abandon it as they’ve done with Nintendo’s last 3 home consoles?

In all fairness, the WiiU is only about 2 months old. The tides could turn on all fronts at any time during the rest of this year. Maybe those tech demos aren’t all they’re cracked up to be? Maybe the new Xbox and Playstation will only be on par with the high-end gaming PCs of today? Or maybe… just maybe… the WiiU has some kind of hidden power that Nintendo can unlock by simply releasing a downloadable patch. If this happened, it’d be the coolest thing in the history of gaming!
One way or the other, 2013 is going to be an interesting year for the future of video games!

-Josh

Josh's Inner Dorkdom Journal: Episode 2 (The Wii-U)

I know I said I'd probably update this article/journal every Monday, but I'm just too excited about this to wait until then...


So after very little convincing, I caved and bought a Wii-U. Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan!!!!

To answer one simple question, "Is it good," the answer is no... It's amazing! Not since the days of the Super Nintendo have I fallen instantly in love with a console. Sure, you have to do ALOT of waiting around upon first booting up the system due to a massive update, but it's well worth your time. As soon as I took the gamepad out of the box, I knew there was about to be some major magic goin' on. The thing was weighty. It felt as though it were well-built, something that can't, in my opinion, be said about the last few Nintendo consoles. When I picked it up, I felt more like I had just bought the most monstrous hand-held ever built... and this was just the controller!

I bought New Super Mario Bros. U as my first game and man is it nice to finally see Mario in glorious HD quality! Not only does the system display HD visuals, but it displays TRUE 1080p resolution, something of which the other two consoles cannot say. Even though both consoles claim to support 1080 resolutions, they, in fact, don't. 720p is the standard when it comes to gaming on consoles. The consoles only really "support" 1080, for movies (Blu-Ray / high-def cutscenes) and things like that.

As I mentioned in the last episode, I've been buying lots of games off of Steam for my PC, alot of which are games that I already own on either Xbox360 or PS3. The differences between The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim running at 720p on the Xbox and 1080i on a pretty high end PC are astonishing.  People who have never experienced a videogame in 1080 are truely missing out. Colors are more vibrant, black levels are... well... "blacker" and the overall image is just alot smoother than what console gamers are used to. This alone puts the Wii-U at the head of the pack when it comes to being THE console to own this generation.

Only problem is... this generation is almost over. It's been rumored (rumors that are highly likely) that the next systems from Sony and Microsoft will be revealed sometime in 2013 and release in 2014. If Nintendo would have released the Wii-U back in 2006, there would be no question that they would be back on top of the the console market, which is where they should have been all along. I seriously hope that the Wii-U does well, but how well it will perform when the next two powerhouses are released remains to be seen.

That's about all I've got for now, folks. I'm gonna leave it to Nic to write up a full-fledged review on the console itself. Just remember, kids: If you buy a Wii-U, you'll be playing with power! Wii-Power!

Wow, that really doesn't work. It was alot better back in the 90s when you could say, "SUPER power!"

-Josh

!?! E=E3 Squared Times Pi, Plus The Square Root Of Metroid... Ah, Forget It!?!

Has anyone ever heard of E3?? What a great idea. Why have they not done this before??

Ok, I was being sarcastic there. Most of you, if you have been paying attention of course, know that E3 is the "Electronic Entertainment Expo (or E3 for short)". It is held currently at the Los Angeles Convention Center in California and it is the place to go if you want to find out what the next cool thing is in the video game world. You have all the heavy hitters in the video game community including the Big Three (Nintendo, Sony, and the all powerful Microsoft). If you didn't know, now, you know (and knowing is half the battle).

Anywho, I am not the video game guy. No sir, I am not. Don't get me wrong, I love video games. I just no longer have time to devote to endless hours of sitting on a couch, drinking Mtn. Dew, and screaming at the top of my lungs at an inanimate piece of hardware. Games, that are rated mature, and small children do not go well together. So, my playing of video games has dwindled to very little. If you want the real scoop on the state of video games, you would be better served by talking to Josh (All things Microsoft and Playstation) and Nic (all things Nintendo). But, like any self respecting Internet commentator, I still have an opinion on the trends in the industry (I like da way dat Plummer steps on them there tortoises, Uh-Huh). So I will attempt to put my cent and a half (I'm a little short on cash) into the pot and see if I can provide my prospective on the video game landscape and give you a little news along the way.

First up is a topic that is near and dear to me personally. Video Games that have a storyline. I could care less if I get to play with some loud mouthed stranger (under the age of 15) on some online server somewhere. I got very little use for online death match play. Playing with people I know is great and I If I had my way we would all be in the same room when that happens. That is probably not realistic, but I like to know and see the people I kill with my BFG. So, from my perspective, I am more interested in the experience and story than I am multiplayer. I have always thought that one day video games could become something akin to an interactive movie experience. They could immerse you fully into the fantasy of the silver screen and add a whole new dimension to our entertainment business (no matter what Roger Ebert says, hack). So it is with no small amount of interest that I saw two video game debut Footage at E3 that blew me away.

The first comes from the studio that gave us the Resistance and Uncharted franchises, Naughty Dog. Their new property called "The Last of Us" may bring an entirely new aspect to the gaming landscape. Naughty Dog has always valued story above all else and they look to be pushing the envelope to it's limit. This report at IGN contains the first gameplay footage that we have seen from the title. To say I'm floored, is an understatement. This looks like a movie and the fight/shoot out moment is jaw dropping in not only its brutality but also it's execution. The ability to be this fluid in a video game is amazing. Yes, you could just run and gun your way through, but it appears that would be an unwise decision. From what I gathered from the footage is that you have a limited amount of supplies, including weapons and ammunition to use. This makes finding different ways to dispatch your enemies that much more important (plus it looks really cool when you see it on screen). This is pushing the visual and narrative boundaries to the breaking point. This thing looks great and I can't wait to play it (really late at night when my children are in bed).

Second, is a new title from the makers of Heavy Rain, a story based game from the studio Quantic Dream. They call it "Beyond - Two Souls". Not only do you have a very cinematic looking game, it also stars a film actress (the very cute, Ellen Paige) as the title's main character. Again, my words fall short of the actual viewing of the trailer so head over here and check it out for yourself. Computer graphics are never going to completely replace human actors, but this makes a case for the continued use of them as a storytelling medium. Neither one of these games are new innovations, we have already seen this type of game before in titles such as Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, the Shenmue series, and Resident Evil, but they are a giant step forward in the way games tell stories.

While your at it check out the new trailer for Halo 4. It looks like the quality of the game has not tanked since Bungie handed over the series to Microsoft and 343 Industries. I am happily optimistic that we will have another great game on our hands.

Well, thats what I got for now. I'll try to be back with more updates from E3 and beyond as the need arises. If you want to check out all the E3 news and videos, head over to IGN at the link below (shameless plug for a great site) and then come back here for more of our meaningless ramblings (come on, you know you love us). Stay Frosty or Toasty for you Mortal Kombat freaks.

Todd "all your base are belong to us" B.

[IGN.com]