On the Outside, Looking In: WoW (post-mortem edition)

POST-mortem, ahaha, get it?

In all seriousness, sorry that this post is late. I was celebrating my birthday this past weekend, and I was also was thinking about the last post I had done. Nobody wants to be force-fed something like this, so I quit on the old series, and figured I'd just post about the kinds of things that bug me about people that look at this game from the outside, judging it at face value. I'll probably turn this into a running theme too for future games that I find and some other assumptions that people have.

Anyway though, on to World of Warcraft

Assumption #1: World of Warcraft is a game that ruins people and kills their social life.

Okay, no. You are wrong to think this, and you are wrong to assume it from high atop your throne of bullcrap. This goes for all similar assumptions that go along this similar line, like it's only for "nerds" or whatever lame crap people come with these days.

With that said, there are most likely a niche of people out there who have been affected by this game in such a way. It pretty much created the formula for your typical MMORPG today, what with the elves and monsters and dungeons and weapons and roleplaying. To its credit, WoW has pretty much perfected the way an MMO should be: a vast, open world with enough content to satisfy all gamers ranging from casual to hardcore, and I applaud for that. That's not to say everything is perfect (because there is a LOT at isn't perfect), but to do something on this scale and keep the amount of subscribers they have is nothing short of amazing (even if they're beginning to fall as of late).

Still though, you can be addicted to ANYTHING and have it ruin your social life, or any part of your life for that matter. It all comes down to a balancing of your priorities and having the willpower to realize when you go too far. A big session every once in a while is alright, but don't let it define your very being and soul. Blaming the game is the wrong thing to do here. It's the person playing the game that is allowing it to drive their life.

Assumption #2: This game is too easy/hard.

I hear plenty of this being regurgitated from the official forums and many other places every week, even with Blizzard having responded to this many moons ago, and yet I keep hearing more.

I suppose the assumption isn't that bad. The game has certainly become more accessible to newcomers since the days of 40-man raids and ridiculously long dungeons (which I wasn't even around for). Still, the reason why people are complaining is that the game is no longer being suited for their personal (sometimes selfish) needs. Yes, the game has become slightly easier over time, but that is because the audience of WoW has changed over time. Online gaming is nothing like it was back in 2004 today. Today there are games ranging from the ridiculously hardcore to the walk-in casual, and WoW simply picked the path that is, in my opinion, a little closer to the casual side. That's not to say there isn't something for everyone in this game, but it is certainly easier to jump in and see a lot of content than it was 7 years ago. As far as the game being too hard, there are many, MANY fan-sites and databases around that can help you with whatever you need. Get to learning and you can be as successful as anyone else.

The problem is, if you dislike the way the game is actively evolving around you, then why are you still playing? You essentially hate the game, right? Why are you even paying your subscription anymore?

Assumption #3: Blizzard doesn't know what to do with this game anymore.

I'll readily admit to having said this before, and I'll apologize. It is true that some decisions were made that were a little on the sketchy side, but Blizzard has been running this game for more than 7 years now. They probably have statistics and knowledge that we players couldn't possibly comprehend. Who are we to doubt them when we only know what lies in front of us? Of course there are things that they won't tell us and other things that don't come to fruition, but for somebody to stand up and say "WoW is dying, everybody abandon ship, this other game is going to take over", just...NO!

WoW can co-exist with any other MMO out there, just like any other MMO can co-exist with WoW. Blizzard is continuously trying to improve the game based on player feedback and their own knowledge of the game that THEY created themselves. Yes, we do have the power to give feedback and stand up for things we think aren't right, but when we don't even know the resources or development process or literally ANYTHING about what goes on behind the scenes, we have no room to talk about how Blizzard is running their game and what they are going to do in the future.

With that said, it still doesn't mean I can't make a decision on an expansion's beta...I'm hoping you haven't lost your touch Blizzard. :)

Quick! Press This Button!

 Sorry I'm a little bit later with this post than usual.

The above picture is from Destructoid.com (i.e. not made by me), and it describes something that sort of bothers me with games today. Let me demonstrate.

Take for example the following video:

Again, video isn't mine, it belongs to the Yogscast (and if you haven't heard of them, fix that.)

Around the 10 minute mark, Bruce Wayne is getting his face punched by Penguin. Aside from Hannah mentioning herself that she had to counter it, if you continue letting the Penguin punch you, the game goes nowhere. You must time your button pressing to counterattack Penguin and move the story forward.

In the long run, I guess this works, but what the hell just happened? Did we really have to press a button to make what was essentially a cutscene move forward correctly? I could have sworn I played this game with an Xbox controller, not a TV remote. At least for a segment like this, you don't get any indicators other than the squiggly lines around Penguin's head. The other example is something out of a game like God of War 3 (warning, this one is a bit more violent):

We're shown the actual button we need to press every time? Come on now. That's just ridiculous, especially considering the long, brutal beatdowns that Kratos hands out, all because we keep pressing a few different buttons. For something elaborate like a finishing move in God of War, there should be an equally elaborate gameplay element as well, not just a handful of "press this to go on" buttons.

Don't get me wrong, games like Arkham City and God of War are brilliant experiences and the stories they tell are incredible, but having cutscene-like events that are controlled by you pressing the right button at the right time seems rather dull. Some of the most exciting and interesting moments in the game are passing by, yet I'm here watching them while only pressing buttons. Yes, the scenes look amazing and the actions is awesome, but my attention is misplaced since my eyes are busy looking in the corners of the screen for the inevitable button to pop up.

I guess the quick-time event has its place somewhere in gaming, but in my opinion, it shouldn't belong in high quality action games, or at least during the action-filled or interesting scenes in any game.

Stand Up and Fight

I wish to share this video with anyone that visits this page, as today is the day when many websites we know and love openly protest against this shitty legislation. Please, do everything you can to fight against this shitty legislation. It is NOT dead yet and it is still dangerous!

A link to a petition can be found in the video description, and for more, you can email your local representatives, telling them how much you disapprove.

As was said in the video, I believe in a free, uncensored internet, and I will not stand to have this brought down upon us.

I Wanna Rock! (Rock?)

I don't know about you, but I have a special place in my soul for music and rhythm-based video games. While I can't say I'm good at Dance Dance Revolution (I'm not very athletic) or any similar dancing game, I was fortunate enough to be given piano-playing fingers and sharp eyes, which makes playing the gaming instruments more fun for me than actually learning the piano. (Note: I have no clue how to play the piano.)

Now, if you're also a plastic guitar player, a mini-drum set player, or simply a person who likes to sing while people around you pretend to play instruments, then you'll likely know that the two most popular music video game franchises out there are Guitar Hero and Rock Band. There are some other popular ones out there as well, such as the sliding arrows of the aforementioned DDR, the Kinect-enabled Just Dance series, and a recent song teaching game with a guitar called Rocksmith. However, Guitar Hero and Rock Band have been in the spotlight the most, and for good reason, as they probably made the game genre what it is today.

Still, over time it seems like Guitar Hero became the token, predictable game over the years. Like Call of Duty, the Guitar Hero franchise is overseen by Activision, and it seemed like the release plans were to have one new Guitar Hero title every year for the main game series as well as 1-2 off series or handheld games. Every year, besides a new song list and a handful of new features, it was easily predictable what the game would be like even before they were launched. Some features, like being able to play any instrument at any time or the ability to play an Expert+ difficulty on drums, were really cool and unique to the brand, but a ton of things that were handled differently than Harmonix with Rock Band just seemed like dumb ideas.

With that said, here is a list of things that I like/dislike about Rock Band and Guitar Hero: 

1. The Music Store. Rock Band's music store is bigger than a donut shop line on Fat Tuesday. It keeps adding new songs weekly ranging from obscure to insanely popular, and it's super easy to go online in the game and purchase any amount of songs you want, like the iTunes music store only for video games. The list of songs in the store stood mostly consistent through each Rock Band game with you being able to buy any song(s) you wanted and add them to your growing song list. Obviously past versions of Rock Band don't support more recent releases, but being able to get all of your songs at the low price they have always been at while being able to import almost all previous songs is amazing on its own.

Guitar Hero has a music store as well, and it does have a pretty good variety of songs, but it has nowhere near as many songs as the Rock Band store. Forget Fat Tuesday; the amount of songs here is more comparable to any typical line at a McDonalds in the morning for breakfast. However, the miniscule list of songs in the store is probably because of the way they released games. Having 1-2 console releases every year ensures that customers would buy the new games for the songs they wanted, but with the added burden of a game's price tag as well as waiting for months to get a license on the store to import songs (that is, if they even decided to release one, and most of the time they didn't).

The question here is if they going to have a music store where you purchase individual songs and bundles for low prices, why bother releasing new games at all? I guess it's nice to have some games themed around a single band, like Green Day, Metallica or Van Halen, but switching between games is just obnoxious and needless.

2. The Instruments. For a game that is parodying the dream of many young musicians, the instruments aren't too bad, with a few exceptions. The Guitar Hero controller has stayed the same over the years for the most part with the Whammy Bar, Strummer and the colored buttons, and it generally is easy to pick up and use (unless you play like how I know most newbies play: strumming and pressing at the same time. Wrong!). One fair criticism it has received is it looks more like a toy than the Rock Band guitar, which is true, but isn't that what it is? A toy? Next we'll be complaining that the in-game characters look nothing like the band whose song they're playing.

The Rock Band guitar, while it does look more like an actual guitar, is a little more difficult to get used to. The buttons aren't colored on top, but on the sides, which could confuse those who like glancing down to check them while playing. For me personally, it takes a little more pressure from your fingers to press down each button as well as each one being just ever so slightly further spaced apart, but with practice that became less of an issue. Both guitars are fairly nice at what they do and they each have their own minor nitpicks.

The drum sets are where we get a little aggressive. The Rock Band drum set initially had only 4 pads and a pedal, but with the advent of Pro Mode in Rock Band 3, there have been attachments for three cymbals, adding up to 7 total things to hit with your wooden sticks. I haven't yet tried it myself, but it does appear to be challenging, which I like. Guitar Hero's set had three pads and two cymbals, and eventually two pedals to give those who liked metal and harder rock songs (like me) a run for their money. To this day I don't believe Rock Band ever confirmed a difficulty for two pedals, although you can use two in any song anyway with a splitter. I liked the two pedals and I liked the blatant difference with the cymbals at first, but those cymbals were really finicky. Sometimes they would work and sometimes they wouldn't, and it was because the pressure sensor inside is so small that it doesn't register on some parts of the cymbal. If it were a real drum set and nothing happened when I hit a cymbal, then I'd be returning it to the store and wondering what law of physics I broke.

Exclusive to Rock Band is the keyboard, which I've never tried as it appears to be ridiculously hard at higher difficulties. I do like how they implemented it though, with the track shifting in the game whenever higher or lower notes are coming in the song.

The microphone is...a microphone. Not much to see here. Sorry. :) Kidding aside, it does behave like your average karaoke machine for the most part, which is easy and fun.

3.Gameplay. Pretty much the same. Press or hit small or large buttons that correspond on the screen while strumming if you're on a guitar. The Hammer-On notes in both games are similar, but the Guitar Hero ones are more noticeable with the solid white on top compared to the harder-to-notice size difference in Rock Band. To compensate though, Rock Band incorporates a more fun way to start your point-multiplyer on drums by inserting small drum solos, and some songs end in a typical concert-like fashion where the whole band just smashes all the buttons on their instruments and finishes strong to earn as many points as possible. As I mentioned previously, Guitar Hero allows you to play any combination of instruments that you want, like two people playing Guitar, and correct me if I'm wrong, but Rock Band hasn't done this yet, and it's a great idea.

On a slightly different note, comparing these plastic instruments to the real things, they do portray them pretty accurately. However, if you had to ask me, I think the drums are the instrument that stands out the most. The microphone and the keyboard are slight exceptions because playing a piano or singing is mostly the same no matter how you do it, but the drums have actually taught me personally how to play an actual drum set. I'm not joking here; the drums are a great tool for learning how to play songs on an actual drum set because they aren't constrained by learning notes and chords on a piano or guitar or the range of your voice, and I applaud that. I have some great fun playing on my real set as well as my plastic one.

That's about it for that list. There's probably more to say, but it's been a while now since I've played one of these games to be honest, and my memory of these games mostly comes from nostalgia, so I wouldn't be surprised if I'm wrong about some of the things I've laid out here. Guitar Hero went on temporary hiatus to reevaluate their game model, and while Rock Band 3 is still releasing songs every week and is a really fun and raging success, there hasn't been any talk at all of any major music game coming up. The market was really bogged down for a short time in the late 2000's with so many different releases that it was hard to keep track of which was released when without a timeline, or an encyclopedia.

Still, I'm looking forward to what Harmonix and Activision have planned for their two franchises. With the apparent success of the Rock Band store, the decline of Guitar Hero, and the advent of Pro Mode with guitars that actually have strings (!), who knows what each company is planning for the not-so-distant future.

More of the Same

The year is 1998. You've bought this game pictured above, and after finally finishing it a couple months later, you're pretty sure it's one of the best games you've ever played.

Fast forward to 2011, and we have this:

Um, guys? Did Disney suddenly get a hold of Nintendo, somehow get permission on one of the greatest games ever, and do with it the same thing they did The Lion King?

All joking aside, I'm very much enjoying my 3DS and Ocarina of Time 3D even moreso, but I have just the slightest feeling of uneasiness lingering in the back of my mind. Yes, the 3D, while it is a bit of a gimmick, is cool without the glasses, and the game still lives up to its original form, I'm getting a hunch that I'm being fooled in a way. Is my nostalgia worth the $35 graphical update, 3D features, touch screen inventory, and possible other minor features?

This is something that major game developers seem to want to do to make a quick buck off of us. I don't really agree with the entire notion overall, yet here I am, wanting to pay $40 for Halo: Anniversary. Either nostalgia is seriously this powerful, or we just aren't looking deep enough into this, because one-too-many-a-time we have been fooled by this trickery.

Of course some of these kinds of remakes are definitely worth it. The aforementioned Ocarina of Time move to the 3DS wasn't that bad, as it is heralded by gamers as one of the greatest games ever made, and having it back looking better than ever after 13 years is not only refreshing but fun too. The upcoming Jak and Daxter Collection on the Playstation 3 contains all three games of the main series: Jak and Daxter, Jak II, and Jak 3, all remade with the high definition graphics that the console is known for. Personally, I loved the hell out of Jak II, and while I had never played Jak and Daxter or Jak 3, if I owned a Playstation 3 I would definitely pick this up, being eager to find out how the other games of the series played. I'm sure something situational could happen like this to anyone for any kind of remake for a game or series.

It isn't all good and pretty though when it comes to remakes of course. Tomb Raider: Anniversary was made  in 2007 as a remake of the first game, having come out in 1996. While many things were right about the game, it was critiqued pretty heavily for eliminating a lot of bugs from the original, but not all of them. The recent Halo: Anniversary looks to be a great adventure from the outside as well, but for $40 there really isn't anything new there except new maps to play online and an archive of Halo timeline information, along with the new look given to the original campaign from 10 years ago.

Both of these games and probably many others might have gotten a graphical update and some new features, and while in the end it is the same game, what ultimately determines the worth of what you are paying for? I suppose it varies per person on which game remake you're buying honestly. Some are definitely better than others just at a glance, but if you're willing to throw money around for that game you really liked, whatever then I guess.

It's a little strange though, because instead of the game being judged on the gameplay within (which is assumed to be the same as it was before the remake), it's judged on whatever else it brings to the table first, like features and graphics. This is all fine and dandy if the gameplay were absolutely flawless, but seeing as that's so rarely the case, we're just supposed to accept the game as it is, throwing our hands in the air at the issue and saying "PFFFT WHATEVER THE GAME IS STILL GOOD HURR DURR".

I'm probably just being nitpicky though to be honest. Most of the time, remakes of classic console games are remade with a lot of attention paid to it and a lot of detail given with the extra features and graphics, and that alone is usually enough to sway people, including me. They are usually just as good if not better than their originals, and the games that are chosen for remakes are usually deserving of them in the first place.

Then there's the Nintendo Wii and 3DS shops. We get our childhood gaming memories sold back to us from years past? There's no way I'm falling for tha-...Where'd all of my money go?

...Oh.

Nintendo Who Now?

If there's anything that Nintendo has in the industry of video games, it is longevity. The home of Mario has certainly made their name known throughout the world, publishing title after title, each one seemingly more memorable than the last. It's no wonder why they keep making amazing product after amazing product with all of their games being more freakin' popular than Lady Gaga.

Yet, there seems to be a slight problem.

Nintendo's games and systems are great, and there's no denying that. However, why is it that over their recent console's lifetime, the profits and releases for it seem to have fallen flat? I'm sure there's no reason for concern, and I know making a game nearly flawless takes an impossible amount of time, but we fans are waiting outside, wondering why the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 are consistently releasing great game after great game while the Nintendo Wii, while awesome in its own right, has us bored.

Now, I won't lie. I'm pretty biased for Nintendo, and I'll love their games until I die. From the outside though, it just seems like the Wii is making some similar mistakes to its predecessor, the Gamecube. It too was tending to fall on the "boredom" side of the gaming experience near the later half of its life cycle.

There are obviously a number of factors that we consumers can see, and some others that we probably can't. The Nintendo console was always generally known for being the affordable system, able to play fun games with decent graphics, but always putting gameplay first above all else, which is probably why I'm so biased (A game should be fun to play, right?). I'm not saying Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 games don't do this, but I've heard one too many a person say before that a Wii game is bad because "the graphics aren't good", and that's just not true. Therefore, maybe the higher definition titles of the other consoles just wouldn't work on the lower budgeted hardware, so high profile releases are seen a lot less compared to the others.

One other possible reason that makes sense in theory are the kinds of companies that own the consoles. Microsoft is primarily a software developer, and Sony is an electronics manufacturer. They both have definite experience in their respective fields, but enough to succeed on their own in the gaming industry. With that said, they have many other products that they sell to keep the profits rolling in. To me, this says that they can afford to keep out the random third-party games, mostly sticking to the higher profile titles to ensure a profitable return.

On the other hand, Nintendo does nothing but make video games and products related to video games. The company is massive and it does bring in the profits, but they don't sell as many varied products as Microsoft and Sony do. So, in order to keep up a solid profit margin, they allow many third-party developers in on the Wii. In my theory, this could be why we see so many "party games", children's games, and cheap, $10-bin games on the Nintendo Wii. Obviously you should take this with a grain of salt; I'm not even a self-proclaimed expert here.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Nintendo is unfortunately disappointing me with the lack of popular titles on their console right now. Their first half went off with a bang, taking the industry by storm with motion controls and the implications of turning everyone into a gamer by bringing past generations of adults into the fun of gaming. Now, it seems like they're just biding their time until the Wii U is released.

Oh, by the way, that's the name of their next console. Wii U.

 

I am looking forward to it, as it promises high definition graphics, which are words that you don't usually hear around the world of Nintendo, at least not without "Nintendo doesn't have" in front of them. If true, then everything we know about Nintendo could change. From a seemingly "old wise-man" video game company to a modernized, youthful gentleman, it could probably break my mind in two if this happened in front of my eyes, in addition to probably my wallet what with the generation of affordable Nintendo consoles going away for now.

For now though, I'm playing my Xbox 360. Oh, and PC games. Those exist too.

Forever Final?

Welcome to 2012 everybody. Are we all ready to point and laugh at all the crazy people when they're wrong (again) about the world ending? I am. Anyway, on to Final Fantasy.

Giant swords, spiky hair, and seemingly endless character tropes, Final Fantasy is a series of games that has withstood the test of time. No game is truly "final" it seems, as developer Square Enix has stood true to the game's general formula since its creation. Over the past 20+ years, the franchise has built up a reputation for having wonderful, polished gameplay and a storyline that weaves through environments that are always as deep as it is large. I'm constantly impressed when I read into each game and compare it to previous titles, noticing not only the completely new and sprawling world that has nothing in common with games before it, but also more subtle changes like the battle system or the way equipment and stats are handled.

With all of this said, I've recently had a fallout with playing Final Fantasy. I've heard many a good thing about the last released console title, Final Fantasy XIII, as well as its fair share of criticism. The battle system was something different, and it really paid off as a stand-out feature of the game. It did suffer a little for being really linear, but that's a minor nitpick in my opinion, as the game supposedly features hours upon hours of content to satisfy any level of gamer. There's even a sequel planned for release this year, which I'm really hoping doesn't flop like the previous one did for Final Fantasy X.

 

What is my point in all of this? Well, even more recently Square Enix has been working their asses off on Final Fantasy XIV, and like Final Fantasy XI before it, the game is an MMO. I haven't played either game, and I'm not regretting my decision. The first MMO was okay, but many had issues with the complicated terminology, not being able to experience content unless you found a consistent group, and prices being solely based on a player economy, which jacked up prices so high that Bill Gates would have trouble affording a single Phoenix Down. Maybe the second outing would be filled with corrections learned from the first.

...Or not.

Let me digress a little bit. If you follow this link here, it will lead to a video done by Mike B of Zam.com. It describes everything that is wrong perfectly, and one has to wonder how it got this shockingly terrible. Further information can be found in this somewhat of a follow-up video, where Mike B lists his most controversial games of 2010. If you watched my first video link, it's not hard to guess what was at the top of his list. 

As it was mentioned in the video, the graphics were pretty high caliber, but many, MANY things were wrong. Square Enix CEO Yoichi Wada had stated that the game's flaws had "greatly damaged the Final Fantasy brand", and sweeping changes had gone underway to make things right (see the second video). To this day, I don't believe that players have been charged at all in terms of a subscription fee, and there are plans to relaunch a "2.0" version of the MMO with a beta planned for late 2012.

How did so much go wrong? How did all of these choppy decisions and inexcusable game problems make it past the private testing phase? How did the once awesome Final Fantasy brand, known for having high quality graphics and fun, immersive gameplay, turn into a completely phoned-in effort of a video game that wouldn't even pass a quality test half a decade ago?

Regardless, it does seem Square Enix is taking the issue very seriously with the shuffling of their staff and the reassurance they are giving players. It shows that they at least care about the game doing well, though it's probably more for money's sake right now, but it's caring nonetheless. That's the only real thing Square Enix has remaining for the franchise right now, aside from announcing titles before they even have a development team (which is a whole other different topic). Here's hoping that the story continues on into something better, because after all, no true Final Fantasy game is ever Final.