No "Top 5" for 2014?

So last year I wrote an article in which I listed my top 5 games of 2013. Unfortunately, mind-blowing games for me this year were kind of lacking. Sure, there were good games, but nothing that took my world by storm. If one were to ask me what my favorite games are right now, I’d probably say Dragon Age: Inquisition and Super Mario 3D World, but that would be biased towards what I’m actually in the middle of playing at the moment.

So what to do, then? Why not talk about what I’m currently bouncing back and forth between? As of right now, I’m probably actively playing more games at once than I ever have in my entire life.

Find out what I’m playing after the jump!

Bouncing back and forth between games is something that I don’t necessarily recommend. Lots of times, doing so will make you not really appreciate something to its fullest - something I’m hoping doesn’t happen to me. Luckily, a few of the games I’m bouncing between are ones I’ve played a gazillion times before.

With the recent addition of the iPad Air to my tech collection, I’ve gained yet another platform with which to play games. It just so happens that nearly every old-school Final Fantasy title in existence is available for Apple and Android devices, so I’ve been playing some of those. In my rotating queue are Final Fantasy IV: The After Years (a 3D remake of the 2D original), Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy VI, and the new(er) Final Fantasy Dimensions. Truthfully, I’ve spent most of my handheld/mobile time playing Final Fantasy VI, but how could I not? Like Chrono Trigger, it’s one of those classic RPGs that, once you start playing, you just can’t put it down!

Another mobile time killer that I’ve been really digging on is Angry Birds: Transformers. I’m a huge Transformers fan, and I really like Angry Birds, so the combination of the two franchises really appeals to me. The gameplay for AB:TF is quite a bit different from the traditional AB games, but it’s an absolute blast. I just really wish the game didn’t try to goad you into buying crystals (with real-world money) to keep you constantly playing. Instead, you’re forced into long periods of upgrading your Transformers that keeps you from playing the game for long stretches if you don’t want to let go of your money. Personally, when it comes to a game like that, micro-transactions are right out, so I have to sit and wait a lot with that game… But I usually just switch to FFVI instead!

On the PC front, you’d think I’d be playing a lot of games on my Mac, right? In case you didn’t read my last “Lack of Apple Hate” article, you should know that that isn’t happening at all. I found out very quickly how much the MacBook Pro is NOT good for gaming. That being said, I’ve still got my ASUS laptop, and I’ve been enjoying several recent purchases on it. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, The Sims 4, Final Fantasy XIII (again), and Final Fantasy XIII-2 are all finding their respective ways in and out of my eyeballs. A recent time card for Final Fantasy XIV will probably have me returning to that game soon, as well.

As I mentioned above, I’ve been playing Dragon Age and Mario 3D World on the consoles. I got them both for Christmas (along with the PS4 version of GTAV), and both are great games. Dragon Age is a little overwhelming in terms of content, and 3D World is shaping up to be - in my opinion - one of the best 3D Mario games yet.

There are also a few games I need to get back to on consoles. Games such as Alien: Isolation (though I still don’t know if I’ll actually go back to that one or not), Shadow of Mordor, Assassin’s Creed: Unity, etc. There is also one game on the 3DS that I really want to get back to: Bravely Default. It’s pure, old-school RPG goodness!

I’m really looking forward to doing reviews on all of these games in the future, but as you know, I like to finish the games before I do. I’m thinking, however, that I might have to change that rule a little bit going forward. As rapidly as my game collection increases, I’ll never be able to finish games in a timely manner for review purposes. So what I’m planning on doing is writing more “Thoughts” articles. With that format, I can at least let everybody know what I’m thinking about a particular game at the moment, and if I have time for a full review later on, I’ll put that out there.

So 2014 may not have blown me away with its release lineup (yet), but I’m playing more games at once than I ever have. 2015, on the other hand, will see some releases that I’m hugely excited for: The Witcher 3, Mortal Kombat X, Final Fantasy XV (maybe… probably not. I’ll believe it when I see it), and more! So there are at least three candidates for my top 5 next year!

Here’s to hoping that everyone had a great Christmas! We’ll see you in 2015!

-Josh

By the way, if I were really forced to pick a Game of the Year for 2014 right now, I’d probably pick The Vanishing of Ethan Carter. So there ya go.

Hyrule Warriors – Review (Wii U)

It’s been a while, but I’m back with a new game review! This time, I’ll be giving my thoughts on one of Nintendo’s latest big releases, Hyrule Warriors.

More after the jump!

Since the Wii U’s release in 2012, I haven’t really bought any new games. In fact, I have ONE game: New Super Mario Bros. U. Unfortunately, Nintendo hasn’t released a lot of games for the system in their major franchises; I’m pretty sure that the biggest release was Mario Kart 8 a few months back. Two years later, however, there are a lot of big games from Nintendo on the horizon – Super Smash Bros., Bayonetta 2, a new Zelda game that we got our first glimpse of earlier this year, and the list keeps going.

One of the releases that caught my attention when it was announced last year was a mash-up between Koei Tecmo’s Warriors series and Nintendo’s own Legend of Zelda franchise. I was stoked. If for nothing else, I’d finally get a Zelda game of some sort for the Wii U, and would have a new reason to boot up the system that had seen very few hours of actual game time from me. I’m a sucker for Zelda titles; what can I say?

The fanbase for the Warriors games has always been pretty divided. On one hand, you have people that love the strategy/hack ‘n slash series – on the other, you have folks who claim the series is boring and monotonous. I fall in the former category. While I never played the series’ main entries, Dynasty Warriors, I was a HUGE fan of the spin off, Samurai Warriors. I loved the frantic nature of the game, and how it’s very “real-time,” in that stuff is constantly going on, no matter what you do.

The Zelda/Warriors mash-up is a strange one to say the least. It’s definitely something I never thought I would see, and never knew that I actually wanted. From my point of view, the colliding of these two franchises works pretty well.

Breakdown:



The game's antagonist, Cia

Story: 8/10
As I said in my A Link Between Worlds review, trying to explain a Zelda game’s story is extremely hard to do and, on paper, doesn’t really sound all that engaging. Most of the time, you’re dealing with two objectives: Save the princess and recover the Triforce. Occasionally (most often in recent years), it gets a little more nuanced than that, but that’s the basic gist. Combine those objectives with the fact that you have to figure out where whatever game you’re playing fits in the series’ timeline, and you’ve got yourself a right mess at times!
Hyrule Warriors expands on the traditional Zelda story (though the Triforce is still the main focus), in favor of one that incorporates some of our familiar games’ timelines and, like the titles’ very nature, mashes them up to tell what is (to me, at least) one of the most “interesting” Zelda stories to date.
My only complaint with the story is that, given the frantic nature of the Warriors series, a lot of it is told during gameplay.
“What? Isn’t that when you want the story to play out?”
True, most games’ stories are told during gameplay, but the Warriors series (this entry included) is all about constant combat and completing objectives on the battlefield while doing so. With that in mind, some of the story can occasionally get lost as dialogue pops up on the screen while you’re trying to take out hordes of enemies. This becomes very frustrating when you miss a key bit of dialogue that might help you with an objective, all because you’re trying to keep your troops safe or fighting some of the tougher enemies.   



The game's pretty, and you'll be doing stuff like this... a lot!

Visuals: 9/10
 As you all know, I’m a stickler for resolution. I have no idea what resolution Hyrule Warriors is running at, but it’s gorgeous! I have to attribute some of that (if not all of it) to the game’s art style. The only thing I could possibly say on the negative side of things is that the framerate chugs occasionally as the Wii U’s hardware struggles to keep up when there are a lot of enemies on screen at once. This isn’t something that happens all the time and is, in fact, pretty rare. But when it does, it’s fairly noticeable.

Sound: 7/10
The music in this game, quite literally, rocks! Quite a few familiar Zelda tunes are present and reworked with a metal flavor. Since the game is pretty fast-paced and all about action, a metal-influenced score is perfect. The only piece of music that I really wish was included is the Dark World theme from A Link to the Past. Sadly, I never heard it if it’s in there, and it would have been a great one for a game like this.
While the music may be great, I’ve got to dock it several points for one reason: the lack of voice acting. It’s been a staple of Zelda games since Ocarina of Time to not have spoken dialogue. Instead, all games have featured a “Sims-like” approach by having the characters start their dialogue with some kind of unintelligible gibberish. This was fine for the 64-bit era, but it really is time to start having voice acting in Zelda titles. Want to have Link remain the “silent protagonist?” That’s fine. In fact, I prefer it that way. But when it comes to the other characters, Nintendo should really start making an effort to give them a voice.
I mentioned earlier how you might miss some of the dialogue in the game, or miss an important cue related to an objective. This could have been easily remedied by including voice acting.
The other thing I docked points for: “Hey! LISTEN!” Ugh. That should have never been included, and should never be again, as it was one of the most annoying things about Ocarina of Time. It seems like you’re interrupted by it nearly every five minutes towards the beginning of the game.



All the characters play and handle differently. Lana is a prime example.

Gameplay: 8/10
Being outnumbered, swiping your sword through 100 enemies in one blow, and mild RPG and RTS elements have all been staples of the Warriors series. This entry is no different. It can be a little repetitive, but I would be hard-pressed to find anyone who didn’t get a thrill from wiping out an entire regiment of enemy troops by charging up Link’s sword and unleashing his spin attack!
To increase the replay value, as has been done in previous Warriors games, Hyrule Warriors allows you to select several characters throughout the game besides just Link. These characters all play differently and have different abilities and move sets that will keep you playing. Also, a friend can join in for some good, ol’ fashioned local co-op throughout all of the game’s various modes. Nic and I played co-op for several hours, and it was a blast! 

Controls: 8.5/10
Opting to dock the controls a few points was kind of difficult. It’s not really the controls of the game itself that I had problems with, but the design of the Wii U gamepad and pro controller. Basically, it all boils down to the fact that I don’t like the right analog stick being placed above the face buttons. Not only does it take getting used to, since it’s been below the face buttons on every controller since there were dual analog sticks on controllers, but I think it would serve this style of game more if it were placed where I’m used to (for camera controls sake). Just my personal take on it.

Closing Statements:
All in all, I loved Hyrule Warriors. Again, I never knew that I wanted a Zelda/Warriors hybrid, but I’m glad it happened. Sure, it’s going to be one of those games that people either love or get bored with quickly, but it’s definitely worth trying out. It’s action-packed, has great visuals and music, and it will definitely feed your need for a Zelda fix until the next full-fledged game in the series is released.

Final Score: 8.1/10

-Josh

 

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag (Review)

Platforms: PS4, PS3, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Wii U, PC

Another year… another Assassin’s Creed. Is that a good or bad thing? Find out after the jump!

**WARNING!! There may or may not be spoilers for the game contained in the review. Do not read if you don’t want to have anything revealed too early!**

I’ve finally gotten around to finishing Assassin’s Creed IV on PS4. The review may seem late, but I really don’t like to review games that I haven’t finished. Some sites do that, but The Inner Dorkdom likes to give a bit more time for games to gestate, rather than throw up a review for the sake of having it available during the game’s release window.

In fact, here’s my process for writing a review:

1. (Obviously) Play the game.
2. Start writing the graphics, sound, and gameplay/control sections, as the game doesn’t have to be completely finished in order to get a handle on these.
3. Finish the game.
4. Write the story section and final thoughts.
5. Publish the review.

In order to review Assassin’s Creed IV fairly, I have to come at it from two different angles. On the one hand, I have to review it as someone who reviews videogames on this website. On the other hand, I have to review it as someone who is a massive fan of the Assassin’s Creed franchise. For the most part, I’m pretty torn about what I think of the series’ latest entry. From a game standpoint, well… it’s got a lot of problems. From a fan’s perspective… I’ll just save it for the breakdown.

Breakdown -

Like every AC game, historical figures make appearances. Anne Bonny is pictured here with main character, Edward Kenway.

Story:  6/10
Like most games, the story and mythology behind Assassin’s Creed have always been the main things I enjoyed the most about the series. I love how Ubisoft has been able to dig themselves out of seemingly impossible situations when they run into the brick walls that they create during nearly every game. I’m not being sarcastic here. I honestly think they’ve handled the series well in terms of story.
…Until AC4.
At first, I thought that the pirate themed story was going to be hugely epic, and for a while it was. After the first 10 hours or so, however, things started to become extremely boring and just plain ol’ uninteresting. I enjoyed the character of Edward Kenway (a lot more so than Connor of AC3) and hope a few more games are released to flesh his character out, but the other characters (mainly the villains) were sort of flat. None of them really grabbed my attention.
Questions that were raised in AC3 were very quietly answered, but never really talked about all that much – particularly the cliffhanger we were all left on for a year. Do we find out what happened to Desmond Miles? Yes, but it’s a pretty brief explanation. Do we find out what’s going on with Juno? Kind of, but it’s more like we find out what’s NOT going on with Juno, due to a very not-so-cleverly-devised way of continuing the series and setting up future sequels.

(SPOILERS!!!)
My biggest complaint with AC4’s story was the fact that it’s only “kind of” an Assassin’s Creed story. The main character isn’t even an assassin for about 95% of the game. Maybe I missed something while playing, but I don’t think that Edward Kenway actually EVER became an assassin during the story. One could tell that he was on his way to doing so. For about half of the game, I thought this was an interesting angle, but (again, unless I missed something) his joining of the order is never actually shown. And from the epilogue in the middle of the game’s ending credits, we’re still given no clear indication that he “took the oath.” We know from Oliver Bowden’s novel, “Assassin’s Creed: Forsaken,” that Edward was an assassin and adhered to the creed, but are the novels considered canon? In this case, and for the sake of AC4’s story, I certainly hope so.
(END SPOILERS!!)

In summation, I felt that the story of Assassin’s Creed IV was just really lazy and was only somewhat of an afterthought when Ubisoft decided to make a game with a primary focus of ship-based combat (more on that in a bit). It really didn’t have the “umph” that previous games have had, and seemed more like a side game that was only somewhat related to the series.

(Just as a side note: When I finished the game, I actually said, “What the crap? That’s it?!” The game kind of ends without warning and doesn’t really build towards an ending.)

Visuals: 8.5/10
I have to pretty much score this one in the same way I did for Assassin’s Creed III, since it looks as though it uses the same engine.  The thing that perhaps stands out a bit more for ACIV as opposed to III (and what gives it an extra ‘.5’ edge) is the beautifully rendered Caribbean setting. It’s much better looking and immersive than the colonial setting of the previous game. Though the scenery is prettier to look at, the character models in-game are a bit stiff looking – at least for the NPCs. At times, the NPCs look as though they were pulled straight from a PS2 or original Xbox game. I’m really interested to see what an Assassin’s Creed title will look like next year, when Ubisoft develops one (hopefully) specifically for next-gen hardware.

Sound: 7/10
The sound design is great, effects-wise. Gulls and other birds, ocean waves, and cannon fire all sound extremely authentic. The voice acting is pretty good, too. Unfortunately, the area in which ACIV’s sound lacks is the music. Personally, I thought that Lorne Balfe’s score for ACIII was excellent, as was Winifred Phillips’ score for AC: Liberation. It’s a shame that Brian Tyler couldn’t capture the same magic. The score is not bad by any stretch; I just thought the themes in ACIII and Liberation were much better and more memorable. I’m really surprised that, with as much critical acclaim as she received for her soundtrack to Liberation, Ubisoft didn’t give the scoring duties to Phillips. I’d really like to see what she would do with a main, numbered title.

Way too much of this....

Gameplay: 6.5/10
Black Flag goes back to the exploratory greatness of ACII-Revelations and brings back an almost overwhelming sense of things to do in the Caribbean world they created. From assassination contracts to finding buried treasure, almost everything you could think of to do in a pirate game is here.
That being said, I don’t like ship combat. To me, it feels extremely clunky and I found myself absolutely hating anytime a ship-related sequence would start. The ship combat was something that was praised (for some reason) in ACIII, so naturally, Ubisoft had to implement it into the newest iteration (plus, the fact that this is a pirate game, ship combat and travel makes since). I didn’t like it

...not nearly enough of this for my tastes.

then and I don’t like it now.  I also don’t like that so much emphasis is put into Edward’s ship, the Jackdaw. Having to constantly upgrade your ship, as well as your character, just seemed like a bit much. But I have to admit, disabling an enemy ship, boarding it, taking out its crew and looting its cargo are very fun and rewarding experiences.

Control: 4.5/10
I already mentioned the ship combat, but what about control of Edward himself? Remember in my ACIII review when I talked about Connor running up walls or jumping off things I didn’t want him to? Yeah, that hasn’t been changed. In fact, it seems like it’s worse. There is a chase scene about midway through the game that frustrated me to no end with how many times I had to do it just to get it right. The scene wouldn’t have been all that difficult if the controls were better, but the game forces you to do everything perfectly in order to succeed. I really hope the developers go back to the original “puppet-style” controls from pre-ACIII for the next game, or that they at least try and tighten up some of the controls.

I’m a fan of the Assassin’s Creed franchise, so of course I liked ACIV. I’ll continue buying new entries in the franchise for many years to come. I mainly just felt that there was “too much pirate in my assassin game.” For new players, though, a lot of the game’s flaws might end up being a huge turnoff. That’s actually what I remember thinking while playing: “Man, if I’d never played an AC game before, I’d probably hate this one.”

So is it worth $60? Personally, I don’t think so. I’d say that around $30-$40 is a bit more reasonable, given the quality of the game. A mediocre and lazy story, average music, frustrating ship combat, and poorly implemented control features rank Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag as one of the lowest in the series for me.

Final Score: 6.5/10

**NOTE: I have played and completed the singleplayer DLC, Freedom Cry. In my honest opinion, if that would have been the basis for AC4’s plot, I think I would have enjoyed the game much more. Unlike the main game, it seemed to have more emphasis on actually being an assassin. I award Freedom Cry a score of 8/10.

 

-Josh

 Screenshots taken from Google Images.

Head-To-Head: The Newest Round of The Console Wars

All three next-gen consoles are now on the market. The Wii U, Playstation 4 and Xbox One are all set to have another near-decade of life in the gaming world, but which one should you own? Is there one console that is the definitive gaming machine? Do they all suck eggs? Make the jump and find out!

The console wars and videogame company competition have both been around since the option of home gaming was available back in the 70s. While I wasn’t around back then (80s kid, here), I do remember seeing commercial after commercial and print ad after print ad detailing jabs from Sega at Nintendo. However, I don’t remember Nintendo ever firing any shots back… but there was a reason for that: Nintendo’s products spoke for themselves. From 1985 to around 1996, Nintendo ruled the world and Sega desperately wanted a piece of the pie, trying to convince people that their inferior console was the way to go.

See what I did there? Even I referred to Sega’s products as inferior. Does that make me a Nintendo fanboy?

The simple fact is, I’ve always been able to set fandom aside in favor of a realistic outlook. At the time, Nintendo’s products WERE superior to Sega’s. A simple Google search of the Super NES and Sega Genesis’ technical specs will tell you that. But it hasn’t always been about tech, has it? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.

In the 32 and 64-bit era of gaming, Nintendo was dethroned by Sony and their PlayStation console (Sega was no longer a threat due to the Saturn’s lack of popularity and the downfall of the Dreamcast would mark their last adventure in the console market). Which one was technically superior? The Nintendo 64. Which had more games, more companies developing for it, and ultimately sold more hardware and software? The PlayStation. Did this have anything to do with those commercials of Crash Bandicoot trashing Nintendo? I highly doubt it. Let’s just say that Sony owes Squaresoft (now SquareEnix) and Final Fantasy VII a humongous favor.

During the 128-bit era, Microsoft entered the fray with the original Xbox. Technically, it was on par with Nintendo’s Gamecube, both of which were more powerful than Sony’s Playstation 2. Which was the more successful console? The Playstation 2. Again, developers had chosen Sony in favor of everything else. I think that here, it had more to do with Sony being the first out of the gate and having a significant head start on their competition.

A similar situation could be seen with the previous generation’s console market. The Xbox 360 was the first console released this time around; therefore most developers went with the “new” tech, just as they had with the Playstation 2. Nintendo’s Wii was, indeed, the highest selling console, but the company chose to market the system as something the whole family could enjoy, rather than something strictly for gamers. This led to a good number of people buying the system so that they could play Wii Sports Bowling, not really caring whether they played the newest The Legend of Zelda or Super Mario title. As a result, software sales suffered and Microsoft continued to rake in the money off of the Xbox 360 software and its $80 million consoles sold.

Sony also saw an initial decline in sales due to trying to push their Blu-Ray format through their Playstation 3 and overcharging for the console. Over time (and a few price drops), however, the PS3 began to reach neck and neck with the Xbox 360.

So here we are in the present. Three new consoles from Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are on store shelves once again. Fanboys the world over will lock in heated battles filled with hyperbole and idiocy as they try to determine which plastic box is “better.” It remains to be seen how this “console war” will turn out, but I thought it would make for an interesting article to compare the three and see how they measure up with one another by using categories common to all three systems.
Just to let you know, I’m writing this for gamers who only care to own one system per console generation as they try to judge which one they might consider picking up. As I stated with my console reviews, these are MY OPINIONS. I’m not trying to take sides here; I’m just trying to offer an objective viewpoint from the way I personally see things in the console world/videogame industry. Remember, I HAVE NO FAVORITES! I own all three. They didn’t get sent to me for free by Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft for review purposes. I bought them with my own money; therefore it would be foolish to say I spent money on something I knew I was going to hate.
(And yes, I saw the video of that kid who bought a PS4 on launch day just to smash it on the sidewalk, so I know stupid people like that exist. What an idiot. Trust me; I’m not like that guy. I value my dollars.)

1. Power/Graphics

Wii U –
Unfortunately, Nintendo, with its last two consoles, has been one generation behind. The Wii wasn’t up to technical snuff with the Xbox 360 or PS3, and instead was more on par with the company’s previous console, the Gamecube. The Wii U, while more powerful than the original Wii, is on par with the Xbox 360 and PS3, only ever so slightly more powerful. While games look a ton better than they did on the Wii, the Wii U still uses what is now considered “outdated” tech from around 2006/2007-ish.

PS4 –
More powerful than the PS3, the PS4 is the first console that I know of which outputs natively at 1080p (I had thought this about the Wii U at one point, but found out otherwise). As I’ve mentioned before in other articles and reviews, resolution may not be that important to some people, but resolution is also kind of like one of those hidden picture puzzles – once you see it, you can’t “unsee” it. The PS4 also offers graphical capabilities more comparable to visuals which can be found in newer PC hardware. Still not quite on that level, it’s a pretty large step up from the 2006 technology which the PS3 used for 6 years.

Xbox One –
If it wasn’t for the fact that the Xbox One doesn’t output natively at 1080p, there probably wouldn’t be a discernible difference between it and the PS4, since what’s under the two systems’ hoods are nearly identical. Though, I have to wonder: Is it that the Xbox One CAN’T run 1080p properly on certain games, or is it that no games support it right now? If no games support it, I have to ask, “why not?” This is something that really doesn’t make that much sense to me.

The Winner: PS4
Graphics aren’t everything - that’s a given. My favorite consoles of all time have been the Super NES, Gameboy Advance, and the DS/3DS, all three of which weren’t/aren’t capable of the stunning visuals seen on next-gen consoles. But in order to keep with the theme of looking at the console wars realistically, I believe that graphics ARE important nowadays to the success of a console. Games should always be fun; you’ll get no argument from me there, but games that look as good as they play can be a turning point for a lot of people. That being said, at these early stages of these new consoles’ lives, the PS4 seems to have the upper hand in the graphics department.

2. The Controller/How You Play

Wii U –
Rather than focus on graphics aspects and capabilities, Nintendo has chosen to put their efforts into the way we play games. When reading that sentence, you might think, “Well that’s good, right?”
I’m down for experimentation when it comes to game consoles, but Nintendo, in my opinion, hasn’t quite gotten it right yet. The motion controls of the Wii were neat, but that’s all they were – neat. It won over a casual fan-base, but the Wii-mote’s design was a little too off putting for some gamers, myself included.
The Wii U introduces yet another controller design, this time with more traditional features integrated into a tablet. I’m not a huge fan of the tablet for games. Instead, I use my touchscreen Wii U gamepad to navigate menus and my Netflix queue. Having a second screen for something like the DS or 3DS, a handheld system where you only have to shift your eyes to see the second screen is great, but having two visuals going on in my hands AND a television can be quite a bit distracting. I will say, however, that the ability to play some games on just the gamepad is a neat feature, though it neither makes nor breaks the controller or system design.
One problem that I believe Nintendo experiences with these radically different controllers is that developers feel like they need to add controller functionality to their games in order to support it. Apparently, this is why the Tomb Raider reboot never showed up on the console. Rather than develop something with an easily mapped control scheme across all platforms, developers know that they need to do something which will, at least in some way, show off the features of the gamepad. It’s my opinion that developers would rather take the easy route and not develop for the Wii U. Is this the best decision? Probably not, but at the same time, it’s kind of understandable. Why make a port of a game with features that just seem tacked on?

PS4 –
This is the first major redesign of the Playstation controller since the Dual Analog version on the original PS1. Built with comfort in mind, Sony also added a touchpad in the center for menu navigation with the possibility of game integration.
While I’ve never been the biggest fan of the controller’s analog stick placement, I admire Sony for keeping a familiar approach each time it releases a new controller. It’s not the most innovative way to go about things, but it’s also not too much too soon. The Playstation controller has slightly evolved with each new iteration, getting us used to new things rather than putting it all out there at once.

Xbox One –
Microsoft also took a familiar approach this time around, with some improvements made on the Xbox 360 controller. I still think they could have done a better job with things like the d-pad, but features like the rumble triggers are a neat addition. There’s not really that much to praise or curse about this controller.

The Winner: PS4 & Xbox One
How we play our games is, indeed, important. I think Sony and Microsoft get this one simply because they’ve given us something which we’re familiar with.
In the grand scheme of things, the Wii U gamepad is really not that far behind in this category. It does have the ability to play some games without the need of a television, and its button layout is more along the lines of what we think of now as a traditional console controller. I just really don’t see the touchscreen thing ever really taking off when it comes to consoles and it can, at times, become a hindrance in both the gamers who play and the developers who make games for the system.

3. User Interface and Features

Wii U, PS4, Xbox One –
Honestly, I think all three consoles are struggling a bit in this category, the PS4 less so than the Xbox One and Wii U, but not by much at all.
I think that the Xbox 360 had the best UI on a console to date. It was simple to use, I didn’t have any problems finding anything, and could basically pick it up straight out of the box and know where everything was located. When the Wii U came along, I was hoping that Nintendo had taken a page out of Microsoft’s book and created an interface which would at least make getting to your friends and engaging in multiplayer easier. In a way, they made it easier to get to your friends list (doing away with the horrid “friend codes” system), but everything now basically uses an app.
Want to look at your friends list? Open the app. Want to check your messages? Open the app. Then wait entirely too long for it to load. True enough, the time spent waiting for the app to load is only a matter of seconds, but this is, in my opinion, a step backwards from the instantaneous and effortlessness social features of the Xbox 360.
However, Microsoft isn’t innocent in this situation either. The Xbox One now has the same sort of setup, requiring you to open an app for almost everything you do. So does the PS4, only I noticed that it isn’t quite as bad on Sony’s system. It’s still not great, and doesn’t put it enough ahead of the competition to amount to anything, but it’s true nonetheless.
Some of the other features of the PS4 and Xbox One include internet streaming directly from a console to either TwitchTV or Ustream, cable box integration on the X1 and Game DVR (also on X1). These are all neat features, but I’m a gamer. I like to play games. These are all things that I personally have little to no interest in. Game DVR is pretty cool, but I could live without it. Streaming might be neat, but if I wanted to stream, a capture card is relatively inexpensive nowadays.

The Winner: Wii U & PS4
This one is tough to award a winner since all three have problems, but I have to give it to the Wii U and PS4. For some reason, the Xbox One’s interface just seems too cluttered. The entire thing being designed to function predominantly with Kinect is also a negative. It takes longer than what should be needed to figure out where everything is and how everything works, while the Wii U and PS4’s UIs are pretty straightforward, though still not exactly easy to navigate.

4. Games

Wii U –
It’s been no secret that the Wii U has been struggling over the past year in terms of games. I don’t believe that has anything to do with their quality or lack thereof, but instead the problem lies in Nintendo not releasing games from their big franchises on a regular basis. At this point, with a dip in exclusive 3^rd party support, Nintendo is having to rely on 1^st party titles in order to stay afloat – titles that they haven’t released. Don’t get me wrong, there are some interesting games in the pipeline, but by this point, a year after the console’s release, we should have seen some by now. Especially franchises like Zelda, Metroid, or Starfox. So far, we’ve only seen one game that I would consider a “triple-A” exclusive: Super Mario 3D World. All the really interesting games have been coming out on the 3DS. The new Legend of Zelda title being the most recent. And honestly, there’s really no reason that couldn’t have been successful on the Wii U.
Rest assured, there are a lot of people out there who love Nintendo franchises, myself included. The Wii U is the only place you’re going to get them. The question is, “when will Nintendo release them?”

PS4 –
I’ve already talked about what I thought of the launch lineup, so there’s no need to get into that. The only thing we can really do here is speculate on the future. Will there be new games from Naughty Dog on par with The Last of Us? A new Uncharted game has been announced, so I’m sure we’ll see new IPs. What about Quantic Dream? Probably.
I could go on and on about what games are probably coming out for the PS4.

Xbox One –
Microsoft could probably call their console “The Halo Gear Box” and it would be a more fitting title. The Halo and Gears of War franchises are pretty much what the system is known for. There’s no question that these two series will end up on Xbox One at some point. Other than sporadic exclusives, I really don’t see the Xbox One’s game library being any different than the PS4’s. One only needs to look at the PS3 and Xbox 360 for reference.

Winner: PS4 & Xbox One
When it comes to games, you won’t be able to go wrong with these two consoles. It all really boils down to (between those two) if you want your games to look slightly prettier or not.
Nintendo has gotten the reputation of being a “kiddy,” or “family friendly” company, which is probably true. Or at least, it’s more family oriented than the other two big names. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it kind of limits Nintendo in terms of diversity. The Xbox One and PS4 (and by relation, the PS3 & 360) will have a selection of all types of games from adults to younger children, whereas the Wii U’s games are usually centered around “all ages” with a focus on younger kids. The games that will be available for Wii U will be predominantly Nintendo franchises and have a more (for lack of a better term) “child-like” quality about them. There’s nothing wrong with that, but again, I can see where it’s kind of limiting to some degree.

Overview & Final Thoughts –
The only real way to run the gamut on gaming is to own all three consoles (and a PC, to a certain extent), but I understand that’s not always feasible. So after all is said and done, which console should you buy as you move forward into the future of gaming?
(Here’s the part where everyone who was expecting me to award an overall winner groans and gets extremely disappointed.)
I can’t answer that.

Just like this article and the opinions expressed in it, what you choose to play and the types of games you enjoy are for YOU to decide. All I can say is this: If I were going to have just one console of these 3, I would probably go with the PS4, with the Wii U at a close second. The PS4 performs just fine for me and the Wii U is the only place I’ll be able to play the Nintendo franchises I enjoy.
If you like diversity, the PS4 is probably for you.
If you want a console that is built to showcase new titles in classic Nintendo franchises with a more family friendly emphasis, go with the Wii U.
If you enjoy the competitive multiplayer scene and really like shooters, you’ll probably feel right at home on the Xbox One.

Personally, I enjoy all these types of games. So in all honesty, one is really no better than the other when you get right down to it. Games are games, fun is fun, and what we enjoy is what we enjoy. All three systems offer a varying degree of fun, each catering to a certain style. While that may impede or help a console manufacturer’s product sales, it shouldn’t have any bearing whatsoever on the fun that these consoles can bring you.

-Josh
 

 

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

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

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

Nic's Response to Josh's Recent Wii U Article

Josh is a fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.










OK, that may be a bit much. But hey, that's sort of the point of sensationalism, isn't it?

In truth, I think Josh makes some good points in his article. But there are a few areas where I think there's either room for difference of tastes or interpretations, or where I think some context would be helpful. So this is my response to (or smack down of) Josh's article. If you haven't read it then this article won't make sense. So go and read it, then return.

Alright, caught up now? Groovy.

I'd like to publicly thank Josh for giving his article numbered points, as it makes it easier for me to respond. So, get ready Josh, here we go...


1.  Although "strongest" is a relative term, subject to personal subjective preference, there's no doubt the most high profile launch titles, especially from the point of view of the 'core' market, were ports of games either already available on the PS3 and 360, or launching almost simultaneously on them.  But let's do two things: get specific facts in front of us as opposed to generalities, and put this in historical context.

The Wii U launched with 23 titles (both retail and eshop). Of them, 11 are third-party exclusives (games not available on another home console): Scribblenauts Unlimited, Tank Tank Tank, Rabbids Land, Nano Assault Neo (eshop), Game Party Champions, ESPN Sports Connection, Your Shape Fitness Evolved 2013, Chasing Aurora (eshop), Mighty Switch Force Hyperdrive Edition (eshop), Little Inferno (eshop), and ZombiU. No doubt there's some varying quality here (a.k.a., some of these games are good, some are so so, and some are straight up stinkers). And in the case of ZombiU, people have widely differing takes on it (some folks, like Josh, aren't that impressed by it, while others really seem to like it...it seems to be a "love it or hate it" kind of game).

From the perspective of someone who is exclusively a 'core' gamer, there is indeed not much here. Most of these titles don't fit that rather narrow mold. But for someone who is simply a gamer, one who likes games if they are enjoyable without requiring them to be of a certain genre, art-style, or tone, there are some worthwhile titles here. Scribblenauts Unlimited (which I have, and am really having fun with, especially due to the object creator), Mighty Switch Force (which I also have, and find to be a great mix of platformer and puzzler, with great art style and music thrown in), and Nano Assault Neo (which I don't have, but hear is good) all jump out in particular.

Of the remaining 12, half of them (Ninja Gaiden 3: Razor's Edge, Batman: Arkham City Armored Edition, Tekken Tag Tournament 2: Wii U Edition, Trine 2: Director's Cut, Warriors Orochi 3 Hyper, and Darksiders 2) are enhanced in some way over other versions, either with tweaked gameplay (NG3), new game modes, characters, levels, or character abilities (Batman, Tekken, Warriors, Trine 2), or previously released DLC being included at no extra cost (Darksiders 2, NG3).

As for some historical context, let's examine the launches of the past generation. The PS3, which came out last, launched with 15 games, 3 of which were 3rd party exclusives (Genji: Days of the Blade, Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire, and Ridge Racer 7). The Wii, the middle child as it were, launched with 21 games, 6 of which were 3rd party exclusives (Red Steel, Super Monkey Ball: Banana Blitz, Tamagotchi: Party On!, Trauma Center: Second Opinion, GT Pro Series, and Rayman Raving Rabbids). The 360, which came out first, launched with 28 games, 9 of which were 3rd party exclusives (Amped 3, Call of Duty 2, Condemned: Criminal Origins, FIFA 06: Road to FIFA World Cup, Perfect Dark Zero, Quake 4, Ridge Racer 6, Tetris The Grandmaster ACE, and Bankshot Billiards 2).

So the Wii U numbers aren't that dissimilar, and in fact hold up pretty well.

Something else worth noting. The Wii U and XBox360 have something in common: they were the first system of their generation to be released. Looking at the 360's launch lineup, one finds that, much like the Wii U, a large portion of it (at least 9 titles) consists of games that were also available on the systems of the previous generation. Being first out of the gate seems to do that to you.

I point out all of this not to say Josh is somehow delusional for wanting more 3rd party games on Wii U, but to remind us all that console launches aren't usually overly-impressive. A lack of mind-blowing exclusive 3rd party games at launch does happen with some frequency. And the launch titles are usually not a reliable indicator of what will happen over the system's launch title.

That having all been said, Nintendo seems to agree that it would be good for them to start letting folks know about upcoming games. Hence, Wednesday's Nintendo Direct. Perhaps I'll do a little article dedicated to it in a day or so. But suffice it to say, Nintendo pleasantly surprised people with their presentation. It only lasted 35 minutes, and only focused on 1st party titles, with a spotlight on 3rd party apparently coming relatively soon. And yet, it got people's attention. During the video presentation, new footage was shown for two upcoming games (The Wonderful 101, Bayonetta 2). Five previously announced titles were mentioned (LEGO City Undercover, Pikmin 3, Wii Fit U, Game and Wario, and Super Smash Bros), with most of them coming out in the first half of this year (the exception being SSB, though it was confirmed that the first footage of the game will be shown at E3). Eight new titles were announced, some expected and others complete surprises: a new 3D Mario (playable at E3), a new Mario Kart (playable at E3), Fire Emblem X Shin Megami Tensei, a new RPG from Xenoblade's Monolith Soft, Wii U Party, a new Yoshi platformer, a new Legend of Zelda game, and The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker HD (coming out by Fall of this year). And they confirmed that the Wii U will have a Virtual Console service (with the ability to play the games on the gamepad), officially coming in April but really beginning now (through the Famicom 30th Anniversary promotion).

And, outside of the Nintendo Direct presentation, in recent days Capcom has revealed that the port of Resident Evil: Revelations will be coming to the Wii U along with the PS3 and 360.

One last thing on point number one. I think Josh is somewhat overstating the case when he says not many people care about LEGO City Undercover. It may be true that not many in the "core only" audience are looking forward to it. And Josh, who is not in that audience by the way, is perfectly within his rights to also not care about it. But the LEGO games are quite popular. They tend to be reviewed favorably, and they sell very well. This game in particular is looking to take the LEGO video game concept in some slightly new directions, and many of the folks who've gone hands on with it (like the folks at IGN) say it's shaping up to be a lot of fun. (They also say it's less like GTA than it might at first seem. Yes, there's an open world, and the gameplay is mission based. But they say it's actually more like a detective game, with investigating, tracking, and apprehending. They say it isn't trying to be GTA, but something unique.) Based on their comments, the concept for the game, videos and screens I've seen, the quality of previous LEGO games, and my general enjoyment of the LEGO brand, I'm excited about it. In fact, I've already pre-ordered it at Target and gotten my free Chase McCain (the hero from the game, not to be confused with John McClane, who they're clearly referencing) LEGO minifigure.

That having been said, the LEGO games certainly have a different sensibility to them than, say, Grand Theft Auto. No one can deny that. Not a lot of prostitute punching going on in LEGO games. And not a lot of Shawshank Redemption parodies in GTA games. And, perhaps as a consequence of their light-hearted style and easy-to-play game mechanics, the LEGO games apparently aren't typically "system sellers," nor are they must-haves for the "core" audience. I'm not here pretending like they are.

So I'm not saying LEGO City Stories is going to move tens of thousands of Wii U systems and Josh can circuit. Nor am I saying that its existence should be enough to satisfy any gamer who is wanting more games for their Wii U. I'm just saying its impact may not be as minimal as Josh seems to think.


2.  As for Zombi U, I think Josh makes some good points about how the purported realism of using the gamepad as your survival pack isn't actually that realistic. Indeed, if you were really trying to get something out of your pack in an effort to survive the zombie apocalypse, it doesn't seem you would always have to stop and kneel down in order to do so. As for not even needing to look in the bag, I think that would depend on what you're looking for.

I've only played the demo of ZombiU once, for about three minutes. So I need a bit more time with it before I can even begin to develop an impression of the game as a whole and the use of the gamepad in particular. But I will say using it as a scanner was fun, and having the voice of the guy who's helping you out come from just the gamepad and not the TV is a nice touch of immersion.

Recently Ron Gilbert, the guy who gave us Monkey Island 1 and 2 and then fortunately stepped away so Larry Ahern and Jonathan Ackley could give us Monkey Island 3, expressed the same kinds of general concerns about use of the gamepad as Josh did, although he did speak with some optimism. He said the that he doesn't think developers have yet really figured out how best to use the second screen, and believes it will be about a year before we see games that completely nail it.

I'm curious to see what uses developers and designers come up with. I think we'll be impressed.


3.  The question of system power (how the Wii U will stack up against the new Playstation and XBox, and what that will mean for the Wii U going forward) is, it seems to be, the big unknown, for at least three reasons.

1. We don't really know the specs for the Wii U. The hacker who released some specs a few weeks ago obtained them while running the system in Wii mode, and we just don't know if the system performance adjusts depending on whether the system is in Wii mode.

2. We don't know how powerful the new Playstation and XBox will be. All we have is speculation, and the beginnings of rumors. For example, just the other day some possible specs for the PS4 were released onto the internet. Four dual-core processors, etc. etc. But who knows if there's any truth to it.

3. We don't know certain economic factors, like how much of an increase there'll be in production costs for new PS and XBox games, and how, if at all, those increases will be passed on to the consumer.

I don't think there's any real question about it. The Wii U will in all likelihood be the least powerful system this generation from a raw hardware standpoint (barring Josh's "turbo-boost" speculation turning out to be true). But what does that mean for Nintendo? Nothing conclusively, it would seem. The last two generations of consoles have demonstrated that being the least powerful doesn't necessarily lead to the lowest hardware sales. Wii was the least powerful and yet it outsold its competitors, and the same was true of the PS2. Having the most power wasn't the deciding factor. For the PS2 it was the system's diverse software library. And for the Wii, it was the appeal it had with more mainstream everyday consumers, those who might typically have been described as "non-gaming."

Because it wasn't its diverse software library, that's for certain. Even though it sold large numbers, and even though it did have a number of quality titles in a variety of genres that fans of gaming would do well to partake of, even Nintendo will now acknowledge that the library of games for the Wii was not as diverse as many game players would have wanted. Under normal circumstances a deficient software library is disconcerting news both for the console manufacturer, and for the owners of said console.

Two things that gamers care about: One, what games they can or cannot play on their systems. And two, even more so, whether the game companies they like will still in business in the future. Given how well Wii and the line of DS's were selling, there was no reason for that smaller range of games to have caused Nintendo or Nintendo gamers to worry about whether the big N was about to go the way of the dodo. So with that concern off the table, they were free to focus on something else: just the fact that the Wii didn't have a broad and wide range of titles, and notably missed out on many of the big name titles from that time period. Although there was a bit of snowball effect to blame (it didn't have a wide range of games, so many gamers didn't purchase it, so developers didn't often put their AAA titles on it, thus it didn't have a wide range of games, so many gamers didn't purchase it, etc.), the factor that got the ball rolling in the first place was likely how large the power gap was between Wii and the 360 and PS3. Developers had ideas for games that the Wii just couldn't handle, so they didn't develop those games for it.

I'd say that, to some extent, both of those concerns are in play with the Wii U. The 3DS is doing quite well these days (better than the DS was at this point in its life-span). The Wii U is also doing well, but it isn't currently the mainstream runaway success that the Wii was. And so, the security of Nintendo's future, though I think nowhere close to anything resembling in doubt, is slightly less rock solid than it was in late 2006 / early 2007. And, as always, consumers want a steady flow of varied and quality titles for the systems they own.

How will the power gap between the Wii U and the other guys play into all of this? That's impossible to say for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that we simply don't know how much less powerful the Wii U will end up being. There's a lot of speculation out there, but only time will tell.

Well there you have it. Josh is a fool. If you want to hear Josh and I continue this discussion in audio form, then keep a look out for our next podcast, entitled "Josh vs Nic: A Battle for the Ages." It's going to be brutal.

I think we're also going to talk about a guy named J.J. Abrams.

Hoping you all have a great weekend, I remain,

 - Nic


END OF LINE

Assassin's Creed III - Review (PC)

This is going to be a “nitty-gritty” style review, in that I will assume anyone who reads this is already somewhat familiar with the Assassin’s Creed series.  The review is based on my playthrough of the PC version.

Differences between the PC and console versions:
Basically, it all comes down to graphics. The Xbox360 and PS3 versions are identical. Both contain some pop-in and the framerate tends to chug when there are too many citizens or enemies on the screen at once. The Wii U version, while otherwise identical to its console brethren, has an odd problem with the depth-of-field effect present through most of the game. It tends to make the background elements look weirdly stretched, rather than just “blurry” when the camera is focused on characters during cut-scenes. That’s not a slight towards the Wii U, it’s just a minor hiccup in that particular port.
The resolution is the largest and most noticeable difference between the console and PC versions. The consoles are locked at 720p (even the Wii U port), while the PC port is capable of displaying in 1080p and runs at a smooth 60 frames-per-second, as opposed to the console’s 30 (approx). I don’t mean to sound like a PC elitist, but if you have a PC capable of running the game as the developers intended, the PC is the definitive version of the game. And hey, at this point within the first few months of the game’s release, it’s $10 cheaper (on Steam).

Let’s get into it.

Story: 9/10
The story was definitely the best part of the game, but it came with a price: The main character, Connor, is kind of bland. I remember playing ACII for the first time and thinking the same thing about Ezio, but by the end of the game, the character had gone from a spoiled rich kid to a noble, honorable warrior and an overall likeable guy. Connor has no such story arch. The character stays completely one dimensional throughout the entire game. Connor is always focused on one particular goal (which I won’t detail for fear of spoilers) and absolutely nothing else. He’s also a jerk and comes off as really stupid and ignorant at times. Part of his character is that he IS, indeed, ignorant of his surroundings because of being thrust into an unfamiliar world, but some of his personal decisions made him seem… well… dumb. Harsh criticism towards a videogame character, I know. Hopefully Ubisoft will take the same route as ACII and release more games with Connor as the protagonist. Maybe then we’ll see him grow more as a character.
Aside from the mediocre main character, the story is really good. The Colonial setting provides a lot of intersections with history in which the player crosses paths with real-life figures such as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin and Paul Revere. Finding out how they all play in to the huge “end-of-the-world” plot of the present is definitely interesting to see. And again, aside from the main character, ACIII has some of the most interesting characters I’ve ever seen in a videogame, particularly the villains.
The overarching story set in the present day and featuring Desmond Miles is wrapped up very cryptically, but I believe that it falls in line with the series’ previous entries. What the next game’s plot will be is only briefly hinted at during the epilogue, but it seems as though the series could be going in a pretty interesting new direction.

Visuals: 8/10
The graphics are like the rest of the games: gorgeous. The team behind the AC games has an unmatched ability in creating an open-world environment which feels as though it was plucked directly out of the past. From the Crusade-Era “Holy land” of the original game to the recent game’s Colonial American battlefields, the series always has striking visuals.
With that being said, the art direction is a little bland. That’s no fault of the developers to a certain extent, it’s just the time period in which the game is set. For the past 3 games in the series (ACII, Brotherhood and Revelations), the setting has been in and around Italy and Istanbul. While it could be that I’m simply partial to the beautifully elegant Italian/Roman architecture of those games, ACIII falls a bit short. Story-wise, the mid/late 1700s setting works great, but for a game, I feel it perhaps should have had a different setting.
The “frontier” areas which connect all the various cities and towns are all beautiful, albeit a bit void of any purpose save for small side-quests.

Sound: 10/10
Hands down, this is the best sounding game you’ll ever hear. I’ve never really taken notice of the sound design within a videogame, but in ACIII, sound is constantly driving the atmosphere. Whether it’s the bustling streets of New York and Boston, the wilderness of the frontier and homestead areas, or the ocean waves during Naval combat, the sounds of the game immerse you, I guarantee, as no other game has before.
Along with the sound is ACIII’s music. In my opinion, and no disrespect to original series composer, Jesper Kyd, Lorne Balfe has created the best score of the entire series. Like many of Hans Zimmer’s apprentices (Klaus Badelt), Balfe manages to have the same disease: He’s better than Hans Zimmer. I strongly recommend picking this score up on www.amazon.com where it’s available as a digital download. You won’t regret it.

Gameplay: 6/10
I found the gameplay to be quite unfocused at times. The game constantly changes up your control scheme and play-style throughout its entirety. One minute you’re doing your normal assassin routine, the next you’re riding on horseback while yelling at 3 groups of soldiers to fire their cannons at redcoats in a “tower defense” mini-game.
And that’s essentially what most of the game felt like to me: A series of mini-games with normal Assassin’s Creed gameplay sprinkled in. You spend more of your time with these diversions in gameplay than you do being sneaky and “assassin-ing.”
Most gamers probably welcome these types of constant gameplay changes since it has been stated that the series tends to be “boring and repetitive.” This is a claim that I can agree with if talking about the first game, but I believe Ubisoft rectified the problem with the sequels from ACII through Revelations. In all fairness, it’s probably a good thing that Ubisoft did, in fact, change things up a bit to keep the series fresh, I just felt like the change ups seemed rather forced at times.

Controls: 6/10
Control is kind of wonky every now and then. Connor will sometimes get locked into position and unable to move. This becomes extremely frustrating when having to jump from rooftop to rooftop, or tree branch to tree branch in order to escape guards, or take out a target within a time limit. Although it could have been because I was playing on PC with an Xbox360 controller, it seemed like my ‘B’ button would occasionally stop working. This usually happened when I was engaged in combat and had to use the button to counter an enemy’s attack. I would hit the button to counter, but absolutely nothing would happen and Connor would just stand there like an idiot, resulting in a musket being driven into his face. Again, this could have just been a PC related issue or a problem with my controller, though I haven’t had this problem with any other games using the same one (including other AC games).

For the most part, I felt that Assassin’s Creed III was a decent entry in the series. It was good, but it certainly didn’t live up to the standards which I believe were set by ACII.
I always like to give an “is it worth $60,” or “full price verdict” and here it is:
Is it worth retail price? Maybe.
If you’re a fan of the series, full price is definitely worth it, but if not, wait till the price comes down around $30. Frustrating (at times) controls/gameplay and a main character that has about as much personality as a rock, might turn potential fans off if they haven’t spent time in the AC universe before. Only spend the full price of admission if you absolutely cannot wait to see how the Desmond Miles portion of the Assassin’s Creed series comes to an end.  

Final Score: 8/10

-Josh

By the way, I take credit for these screenshots. All were done by me from my PC except the boxart and video/music. I'm slowly inching my way to fancier things! 

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

Mario and Link team up....along with Maxwell?

WB Games announced today that the Wii U version of Scribblenauts Unlimited will include playable Scribblenauts versions of Nintendo characters (Mario, Luigi, Princess Peach, Yoshi, Link, Zelda, Epona, and a goron). Scribblenauts Unlimited will be available for Wii U on launch day, November 18.

I'm a big fan of Scribblenauts, and the Mario and Zelda franchises. So this excites me.

It's funny, Gamestop's Facebook page had a tease about it beginning Monday. Their banner had an image of Maxwell (main character of Scribblenauts) flanked by two bulbous shadowy areas. The text asked "Who's playing with Maxwell?" Folks in the internet had figured out who the shadows were within a matter of hours. And I for on am glad they were right.

 Without a magic notepad, I remain,

 - Nic


END OF LINE

Update on Wii U, almost one week post-E3

So the dust is starting to settle, the emotions of the moment are beginning to subside, and people are starting to take an honest and objective assessment of Nintendo's main E3 presentation and the potential fate of the Wii U. Opinions, as you might imagine, are still mixed. There's a little less "the sky is falling on Nintendo" than there was last week, but those voices are still out there. On the other hand there are people who are convinced the Wii U will be even bigger than the Wii. And then, there are all those voices in the middle. Folks who are weighing the good news and bad news and still just aren't sure what the future will hold.

The philosopher in me is quick to applaud them, as they are acknowledging reality: we just don't have enough info to predict the future. Too many unknowns.

But in the days since E3, some more information has come to light:

1. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is coming to Wii U. Now, some might argue that the COD craze is already dying down and ultimately this revelation will not be as important as folks imagine. They might be right. On the other hand, a COD game that uses the Gamepad in creative ways could be a big draw to the portion of the gaming community Nintendo has been unable to successfully court in the past few years.

2. Activision has even more content coming to Wii U. What it is, who knows (although their website suggests Transformers Prime might be one title, and Skylander Giants has been confirmed). But it's coming.

3. Regarding on-line: The friending system will not use friend codes as they exist today on Nintendo systems. That having been said, the level of interaction one can have with someone on-line through Nintendo Network and Miiverse will differ between those tagged as friends and those not tagged.

4. It's already been reported that the USB port on the system will allow for expandable storage via USB harddrives. The question many have asked is, how will that effect eShop titles (specifically, will there still be harsh filesize restrictions as with WiiWare). Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aime has said on the matter, "The main message we've communicated is that it's got USB ports so you can keep adding storage to your heart's content." This suggests to me that there won't be such intense restrictions on filesizes. Yay.

5. Rumor: NintendoLand will be packaged with the Wii U.

6. Rumor: Wii U news will pick up big time in September.

7. Saving the biggest for last here--Rumors about pricing. Two sources for this. One is a Best Buy kiosk supposedly including the MSRP, the other a tip sent in to GoNintendo. Both are suggesting that the Wii U will be sold initially for $300. This is a bit lower than some (including Josh) were expecting. I personally think this is a great price. But only time will tell if this rumor is true.

Of course, this still isn't enough to predict the future. But it is interesting.


My body is ready.

 - Nic


END OF LINE

Nintendo and The Internets: The Story So Far (in a nutshell)

With E3 2012 beginning in less than a week, anticipation is building regarding The Video Game Big Three (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft) and their respective presentations. The video game industry is a little like college football, in that momentum is a big part of the game (and that mascots are important). And E3 gives the companies a chance to gain, or lose, that momentum. A great showing can generate hype and excitement. A poor showing can generate apathy and internet 'memes.'

Nintendo has a lot riding on this year's show. With the Wii U scheduled to launch sometime before Christmas, and the 3DS doing well but, as with any platform, in need of quality software just on the horizon, it's important that they 'bring the momentum.' One area where they are, perhaps surprisingly, poised to do just that is with on-line features.

I say "surprisingly" because for some time Nintendo has been known as the slow adopter when it comes to on-line. The reputation has some legitimacy, but in my experience is usually way overblown. It's true, when Microsoft gave the world XBox Live on the original XBox, Nintendo's on-line offering on the Gamecube was.....nothing. But, the PS2 had no on-line system either (though a few games had limited on-line features). When Sony got into the game on the PS3 with PSN (and Microsoft continued giving the world XBox Live on the XBox 360), Nintendo did as well with the Virtual Console and WiiWare services (united in the Wii Shop Channel) on the Wii. On the handheld side, the original DS had no unified on-line service (though some games had on-line functionality). Two years later the PSP got the PSN. Two years after that Nintendo released the DSi, which boasted, among other things, a downloadable service known as DSiWare. And most recently, Nintendo released the 3DS in March of 2011with it's downloadable service, the Nintendo eShop, rolling out three months later.

Of course, timing isn't everything. There's also the issue of quality. And it's here that the criticisms of Nintendo have a bit more teeth, as they say.

On the Wii, the story is mixed.

The Virtual Console service launched almost simultaneously with the system, offering software emulated (hence, "virtual") titles from consoles of the past (hence, "console"). The original selection was small, but grew over time. Perhaps one of the most mind blowing aspects of the service, especially for children of the 80's and 90's such as myself, was that the consoles of the past weren't limited to Nintendo consoles. Games from systems such as the Turbografx 16 (gasp) and SEGA Genesis (super gasp) would also be available. Oh to be able to travel back in time and tell the pre-teen version of myself that in the future I'd be able to, on a single Nintendo console, play Mario games, Bonk games, and Sonic games. Mind. Blown. As of this writing the Virtual Console service offers games from ten seperate systems (including arcade games), with new titles still being added. On the whole, aside from those disappointed that the selection isn't larger, the VC on the Wii has done well.

Then there's WiiWare. Announced June 2007, WiiWare was designed to fill a gap left by the VC. The Virtual Console was, as the name clearly indicated, a service exclusively for playing old games. WiiWare, on the other hand, would offer new downloadable titles in a wide range of genres from a wide range of developers. Excitement was in the air, and eleven months later the service launched. Now, don't let people mislead you through hyperbole. WiiWare has not been anywhere close to a disaster. Many quality titles have been released through it, and many gaming companies have made money off it. But two major problems prevented the service from reaching it's potential: 1) a 40mb file-size limitation (imposed presumably because of the Wii's small amount of internal storage, and download time concerns), and 2) a lack of promotion (this includes not only advertising, but promotion and ease of use within the WiiShop Channel itself).

A word should also be said about the lack of a unified on-line system outside of the various channels. Unlike XBox Live, on-line components of games are essentially self-contained within the games themselves. Each game had its own friending system and friends list (both using the much loved "friend codes"), as well as "who's on-line" monitoring system. So if I'm on my Wii playing Mario Kart, and Josh is on his playing Call of Duty, there's no way for me to know (aside from calling him up and saying, "Hey man, what are you doing?").

DSiWare is perhaps Nintendo's most disappointing chapter in the world of on-line. The idea was solid: inexpensive downloadable titles for a handheld. The problem has been in the execution, particularly with promotion/distribution. Much like WiiWare, the games themselves haven't been an issue. There are some lower quality titles, sure (as with any platform). But there are also some outstanding high-quality enjoyable ones also. The trick is learning about them, and then finding them in the DSi Shop. The limited memory of the DSi means the Shop Channel is a no-frills hurry-up-and-wait-for-the-next-screen-to-load affair. A splash page with icons for a few games is about all you get in terms of promoting titles. Nintendo has a website that tries to make up for this. And while the site is very useful, some DSi owner just won't be dedicated enough to find and use it.

But times they are a changin'. Enter the 3DS and its eShop channel. Launched three months after the 3DS itself, the eShop is, by most people's reckoning, a huge step in the right direction. No severe file size limitations like WiiWare, a mix of virtual console titles (from handheld consoles, of course) and new original games and applications, the availability of all DSiWare titles, and an excellent virtual store front. Titles are grouped together into different categories (games with Mario, applications, new releases, top sellers, etc.). After clicking on a title one can read more information about it, see what other players have rated the game, and in most cases see screenshots and videos. Purchasing titles is quick and painless, and the actual downloading can happen immediately or later when the system is in stand-by mode.

The 3DS also has a more robust on-line system. Friend codes still exist, but they are tied to the system itself now and not individual games. There's also the ability to see which friends are on-line and what they are playing.

But this is only the beginning. Recently Nintendo has announced that the majority of upcoming 3DS and Wii U retail games (as opposed to 'downloadable games') will be available both as physical cards/discs and downloads. The consumer will be able to choose the distribution method he/she prefers. Also of note, even the download option will be available at retail stores (like Wal-Mart, Target, etc.).

Word on the street is that the on-line aspect of the Wii U will be Nintendo's best (this word provided by people like EA CEO John Riccitello). Details aren't available yet, of course. So who knows what all this entails.

And that brings us to now, less than a week before Nintendo's E3 presentation. The Wii U has much to prove. Recapturing the 'core' after apparently losing it in the days of the N64 (it seems to me it was really the Gamecube era that saw this happen). Showing the new tablet controller isn't just a gimmick (I'm already convinced it isn't). Appeasing (or not) the folks who are anxious to see a Nintendo system with cutting edge graphics again. And generally, demonstrating that the Wii U is a system worth shelling out money for. On-line will be a part of that. And I'm very curious as to how that will play out.

 - Nic

END OF LINE