A New Kind of Sequel

 

So...there is going to be a sequel to a Pokémon handheld game. I thought I'd never see the day.

As many are now aware, the internet is exploding at the new information presented in the form of Pokémon Black 2 and Pokémon White 2. As I found out about these new games due to hit Japan this Summer, many thoughts were racing through my mind. I was excited for a new Pokémon game as I always am, but my feelings weren't entirely one-sided.

Let me lay out my clear thoughts on these new games, but before I say them, let me emphasize that I'm not here to say "Oh God these are going to be awesome!" or "Oh God these are going to suck!". The games were just announced, so you know about as much as I do (i.e. NOTHING). Anyway...

The Good 

 

1. They are trying something new. Like I previously stated before, Pokémon has had a hard time getting away from their main story arc in their handheld games. There have been countless spin-off games, and some have even been enjoyable for sure, but their main franchise is becoming dry and stagnant. Having an actual sequel to a previous title implies that there are possibilities for advancing the environment and story in time. What happens after Team Plasma is defeated at the end of the game? I do remember there being a lot of controversy among NPCs about the "ownership of Pokémon". I'd be interested in seeing that.
   
2. Having this be the "deluxe edition" of Pokémon is not necessarily a bad thing. Everybody knows that after a duo of colorized Pokémon games come out, there's usually an "in-between" version that gives the story a twist and has the third of the generation's legendary triangle on the cover (barring a few early examples with Pikachu and Suicune). According to the information we've been given, the Dragon/Ice type Kyurem will be the focus, but somehow it will involve the other two legendaries Reshiram and Zekrom as well in giving Kyurem new forms, as seen above. That's very interesting to say the least, and I'm starving for more information.
   
3. Having the game be a "sequel" means several things beyond what we think. I suppose this could go along with #1, but there's more to it than that. Riddle me this: How many games do you know where the sequel (i.e. it had a '2' in the title), and the experience was mostly the same as the previous game aside from a handful of new features and minor tweaks? Usually, Pokémon goes along with the "in-between" name, like Emerald or Platinum, but because of the choice to not only make this a sequel, but to have two versions as if they were a new generation of games? There are bound to be differences and changes of some sort, and that is why I am intrigued as to how big of an impact the number '2' will have.

The Bad 

1. If this is the way they are choosing to finally innovate, it better not be a fluke. Making a new Pokémon game is one thing, but if they're choosing to make a sequel of sorts, it better not be more of the same. I'm not saying that continuing the tradition of "minor tweaks and altered story" is bad and I'm not saying I won't still buy one of them if that happens, but if that's the case, then pardon me if I were to stand up here for a moment and say that is partially bullshit. Calling the game a sequel when it is merely just another take of the story that Black and White told us is NOT a sequel. It is a "best of both worlds" if you will of the first two games with a few bonus features thrown in. It means they are literally making two games out of what could have been one just to monetize their brand. I'm hoping with all my soul that this won't happen, because I have far too much fun with Pokémon to bring myself to hate it.
    
2. Why was the name change made now, at this specific point in time? I guess this is a little nitpicky, but surely the folks over at The Pokémon Company would have noticed far before now that the series was getting a little stale. Why was the decision made now during the fifth generation of games to go with a new name? It makes no sense right now, but perhaps we will understand what the inclusion of the '2' means as we get more information.
   
3. The cover stars are a little...different. While I guess this isn't a bad thing inherently, just looking at them does reveal some drastic changes when compared to legendary Pokémon and cover stars of past games. Supposedly the two Pokémon above are both new forms of Kyurem, the Dragon/Ice type found in both previous games at level 70, making it the usual third legendary in the Black/White triangle with Reshiram and Zekrom. While new legendary forms are nothing new (see Giratina and Deoxys), the forms seem almost fusion-like with the other two legendaries, straight down to their names, "Black Kyurem" and "White Kyurem". Combining these names, the fusion-like cover forms, and #1 from this list, it could give the more cynical of us out there that they're running out of ideas or being lazy, which puts us in an even more uneasy state. We don't really know anything for sure though yet, so it's all speculation of course. 

Conclusion

So what can we conclude from all of this? Realistically, nothing. The games were just announced yesterday and the cover stars and names are all we know. Still, already the fans and all of the gaming world are going nuts with speculation, praise, and criticism. If there's anything we can take from this, it's that the handheld Pokémon games have made a game-changing decision just by having a supposed sequel to their most recent games, and whether or not that will prove to be a great choice or a terrible one still lies in the future.

For me, long as I get my Snivy to start with, I'm happy. :P

A League of It's Own

Yeah, the title of the post sucks. I know.

League of Legends is a Mobile Online Battle Arena (MOBA) game developed by Riot Games. Launched a little more than two years ago, it currently has more than 32 million accounts registered and more than 500,000 players online at any time. Oh, and did I mention it's free to pick up and play?

What is a Mobile Online Battle Arena you ask? Well, personally I find it a little hard to explain. Having only played League of Legends for almost a year, and only having started with MOBA games for just a little longer, I'm far from being an expert or a veteran. From my experience, I suppose I can say it's a cross between a real-time strategy game, a tower defense game, and maybe a little bit of an RPG. It sounds a little weird, but somehow it works out to be really fun.

The whole MOBA game genre was brought up into mainstream popularity by a mod created for Warcraft III called Defense of the Ancients. It contained most of the elements still present in MOBA games today from purchasing items to teams working towards destroying the enemy's beacon(s) in their home base. If you don't live under a rock, you'd know Valve Software (you know, those guys who made Steam), is currently making a sequel, as it was (and arguably still is) incredibly popular to this day. I'm here to talk about League though, so let's get on with it.

Gameplay is difficult to master, and honestly, it's a little hard to play at first for new players too, but once you get the hang of it, the endless amount of fun you'll be having is mind-numbing. You control a single champion who has four abilities, choosing which abilities you unlock and make stronger as you level up. You also make your champion stronger by gaining gold passively (and killing minions and enemy champions) and buying items.

There are a number of different modes in LoL (best acronym ever), but the classic one that everyone knows is Summoner's Rift, where you are placed on a team of five and face another team of five champions. The objective is to destroy your enemy's turrets until you reach their home base and destroy their giant crystal called the Nexus, which will give you victory. There are three paths with turrets lined along each, and many paths leading through a jungle with monsters lying around between the three paths. Of course, the enemy team will be trying to do the same to your turrets and Nexus, so you must strategize with your team to be effective at offense and defense.

Technically the game is free, as you can download the game and play it with no charge, but if you wish to use the champion you want all the time, you must unlock them. You earn Influence Points, a type of in-game currency, for every game you play, with victories rewarding more than losing. Once you unlock a champion, they're yours to use whenever you want. Having almost no champions starting out does suck, but thankfully Riot provides you with ten free champions that rotate every week or so, which if you play often enough has the benefit of teaching you how each champion works. Also, if you so choose, you can spend some actual cash for another type of currency called Riot Points to purchase champions and special skins for your favorites. There's a lot more to know about making purchases with IP and RP, and almost anything can be found on the official website.

Aside from the gameplay itself, the community surrounding this game is just baffling. It has grown so much in the past two years that it rivals World of Warcraft in terms of fans and community involvement. There are many popular fansites (that list is very non-exhaustive), complete with guides and people streaming live games and content. There is an incredibly active sub-Reddit message board containing links with many opportunities to learn and laugh. The game is exploding onto the eSports scene, having a presence at nearly any major PC gaming competition out there with professionals being found around the world and giving Starcraft a run for it's money.

It Has. Its Own. Memes.

All in all, League of Legends is a game you can't go wrong with. Then again, I suppose the genre might not be for everybody just like Starcraft II is probably not for me (Good God I suck at Starcraft II), but for a free game, I think it's very polished and incredibly fun. Go check it out if you so choose, but just make sure you aren't a Macintosh user.

Or, you could get Bootcamp. Bitches love Bootcamp.

I kid. I kid. But seriously, Bootcamp is awesome.

Games on Steam You Should Be Playing (1)

Have I ever mentioned how much I love Steam? Oh wait, yes I have.

There have been many Indie games that have exploded into popularity as a result of being cheaply available on Steam, and I'm here to offer you all some quick insights. Of course, this list is by no means exhaustive, hence the "1" in the title of this post. I'll keep this going as a recurring thing whenever there are a few games that I love and play on Steam and that I think you should throw money at your computer screen for.

Without further ado...

Dungeon Defenders

Tower defense games have been receiving overlooks and remakes like crazy recently, and Dungeon Defenders is no exception. You play as one of four available classes that are able to erect defense mechanisms and attack with their weapons to defend the eternia crystal (e.g. your home base). Easy enough to understand, but difficult to master, especially when you get into later levels with multiple bases to defend and many entrances that enemies come out of.

It is possible to go alone, but one of the main hallmarks of Dungeon Defenders is the ability to play with up to four other players, which is ridiculously fun. More monsters will spawn as a result, but combining and strategizing with your teammates can ultimately shut down the enemy waves so hard that sometimes you can just sit back and watch the carnage.

There is also PvP and challenge type maps that I have yet to try, but the multiplayer aspect of this game as well as fun and challenging gameplay in addition to constant downloadable content definitely makes it worth $15.

Limbo

First starting out on the Xbox Live Arcade, Limbo made it's way over to Steam a while ago and is continuing its popularity trend, and it deserves it. I haven't made it all the way through this game yet, but believe me when I say that you will be utterly shocked at how original and creative it is. Currently $10, it tells a tale of a boy who is searching for his sister in a dark, mysterious and cruel world.

It is primarily a puzzle solver, and a great one at that, but it is VERY easy to die. You do respawn nearby every time, but in order to succeed at this game, you not only need to pay attention to your surroundings to avoid death, but to be prepared for any and all surprises that lurk around every corner. This game is dark (literally), entertaining, possibly morbid, and great fun. If you put it down, you will want to go back and play it again to see what happens next.

Audiosurf

If you do not own this game yet, get it right now. Do it. I will wait for you to buy it. It is $10. Why are you still reading? Do it now.

Audiosurf can best be described as "iTunes, but with really cool visuals and a catchy video game built in". It can search for any music file you have saved on your computer, turn that file into a race track of sorts, and you play a game while riding the track it created. The type of game and way you can play depends on the type of little ship you select, but the general idea is to collect the good blocks and avoid the bad ones in order to get the highest score possible.

Any game that can integrate your music like this is awesome. Not only can you listen to the music you love, but the game is literally designed around that same music. Easy to pick up but difficult to master, Audiosurf will keep you occupied for hours and hours and hours, or at least as long as you don't run out of music, but even then they have some free tracks and radios that you can use.


This is only a few of the games that have soared on Steam, and I'll have more next time. Until then, why haven't you bought Audiosurf yet? Get out and go do it. NOW.

A Fine Millionaire

There once was a man named George Lucas. He created Star Wars. Wait...wrong person...sorry.

There once (and still is) a man named Tim Schafer. He founded Double Fine Productions, a video game developer, in the year 2000. He is mostly known for his specific flavor of storytelling, seen in his previous work at LucasArts with the Monkey Island games and some of his more recent work such as Brütal Legend and Psychonauts.

Recently, if you've been reading the far-off corner of the internet that is video game news, you would know that recently Mr. Schafer started a fundraiser on Kickstarter, asking fans and anyone else for $400,000 to fund the company's newest adventure game. A bold favor to ask, but a timer of 30+ days would be a fair amount of time.

Now, you probably know what happens next, but let's put this into perspective for a second. A video game developer is openly asking for funds to make a game. That's not wrong at all, but you'd think that at the very least the full 30+ days would be taken up, if they even make their goal in the first place.

Well, as of right now, he has nearly $1.8 million, with 27 days remaining.

Holy hell. Either Tim Schafer knows something we don't, or Double Fine has a very dedicated fanbase.

Still, is it possible for game developers to learn from this? If the fans are loyal enough I suppose, and the game developer has a reputation for staying true to their roots and listening to their fans. It would obviously be more difficult for, say, Activision, to do something like this compared to a smaller developer, but what would happen if a larger company tried something like this? Sure they have more than enough money to fund it themselves, but imagine the following: What if Activision trusted their fans and were closer to communicate with them? Would they still crank out AAA titles like they do now? Would each title be beautiful and perform amazingly as usual, but still be extremely similar to last year's title?

For such a unique and young medium, video games are special in that the user themselves are controlling their experience and pleasure. To have technology interacting significantly closer like this compared to movies or television requires the developers of said technology to pay closer attention to how we use it, which implies that they are required to be that much closer to their consumers. Having a customer play your video game is a lot different than having them sit back and watch a TV show.

With that in mind, what if major companies today were closer to their customers? What would happen if they were able to listen to all of their customers instead of just a majority? What if they acted on what their fans wanted the most instead of the best logical business decision?

Perhaps there would be less homogenization of game genres, less expansion-pack like sequels, and more surprise hit games that are rooted in deep innovation.

Nintendo's Successful Failure

I've praised Nintendo before for their seemingly great emphasis on putting the "game" in video game, but they personally have somewhat of a problem themselves. While their systems may not have the best hardware or the highest overall popularity among older teens and young adults, one thing we can't deny them is how great they have mastered and stood true to their franchises. Mostly every Zelda, Mario, Kirby, and Metroid has been good if not great since each series' introduction. I say that last sentence with a heaping mound of salt of course, because not only will your gaming experience vary per person, but there hasn't been a fair share of controversy on a select few of these games, especially some of the few changes that they do make between games.

I won't say I hate Nintendo, because it is quite the contrary. However, I think most if not all of their game franchises is in the same boat that I talked about before as Pokémon where there are new elements and whatnot, but the core is beginning to get stale.

Take Mario for example. Everybody knows his name and everybody knows his game(s). As Nintendo's leading star, nearly all his games are regarded as fun and enjoyable to run through, and they are. However, the "collect 100-or-so-odd stars" mechanic is getting a little old. While seeing all the new levels they come out with is entertaining and trying to navigate them all perfectly is cool, having the same overall goal for each recurring game makes it feel like its more of the same. Luckily, at least for me personally, the new additions to each game are enough to satisfy me to want to play, but as soon as I finish the main story (which might also need a little change; Bowser kidnapping Peach is even more overused), I'm not finding a lot of reason to finish other than unlockable, ridiculously hard secret levels.

Still, I guess the star collecting and the princess kidnapping are hallmarks of the Mario franchise, so I suppose it's not the greatest example in the world.

A more common example would probably be the Legend of Zelda franchise. Your quest and generic role is usually the same in every game, which includes both flavors of handheld and console alike. Start off as a common village boy, then somehow it's determined you are the hero and are given your trademark green tunic and hat, then you eventually find the Master Sword, then you kill Ganon. Again, there are various elements and new things that are added to make the game feel original, but the underlying context is basically the same. As a certain internet-famous game critic once wrote, we are basically being resold Ocarina of Time every single time with new items, NPCs, maybe a new setting, and that's about it.

I may sound like I'm being harsh on these wonderful game franchises, and I don't like pointing out the flaws in the games I really like, just like any fanboy doesn't (except many of those don't have a brain to explain themselves). I suppose I'm just part of a niche of gamers who are stuck in a sort of limbo where we love continuously each game because it stays true to the roots of what made the games great, but we realize at the same time that the general formulae are remaining the same and we are concerned at just how long it can last before it falls over and dies. 

It's like going to eat at McDonalds when you think their burgers and fries are tasty, but you're fully aware of all the controversy surrounding fast food and the health risks that repeating eaters are known for. You don't have an answer for it, but the good keeps you coming back regardless of what you know about the bad.

Wow...I think I just figured out why World of Warcraft is plaguing me so...

Handheld Home Front

So...there's another Playstation handheld device coming out in the next week here in North America, dubbed the Playstation Vita (read: VEE-TUH)

Now, I know what you're thinking. First, deja vu right? Didn't this happen before? Second, will history repeat itself? Will the Vita fail as the PSP did, emphasizing graphics and features over a sizable load of popular launch titles, ultimately leading to its downfall? Third, why don't you post more often Cláymore? You should really remember your blog more often.

Answers:
1. Yes, it did.
2. As of right now, it seems likely.
3. School sucks, but you sort of need it.

What? You want longer answers? Okay fine.

Making a new device that wouldn't repeat the mistakes of the slowly-yet-painfully dying PSP seemed likely honestly, as Sony saw the possible profits in the handheld market judging on the dominating Nintendo and the ever-intrusive-but-still-awesome Apple and their app store from heaven.

While I applaud the creation of new devices to turn more people into gamers and diversify the culture a little more, I'm finding Sony's target audience for these handhelds confusing. Are they supposed to be for everybody? For people who want to be cool? For school D-bags that want something to throw at the nerds for target practice? According to the most recent (and thankfully dead) PSP commercials, it seemed like the second choice with the Kevin Butler-like kid that everybody now hates (and don't pretend you don't. He was ANNOYING AS HELL.)

Yeah...no. If the Nintendo DS and the iPhone are for "kids", then the PSP is for rim-hat-wearing tools that are completely ignorant of the big picture.

Thankfully, the ad campaign so far doesn't seem to be like this. So far I've only noticed a running deal Sony has going with Taco Bell where you can possibly win a Vita by buying a $5 box meal. It's creative, but fast food? Well okay then...(Note: I like Taco Bell.)

Still, according to the now almost 2 months of sales in Japan, the PS Vita is currently selling LESS than it's predecessor per week, yet Sony doesn't seem very concerned. Granted that it has yet to come out in America as of right now, but still, that's a little bit worrisome in my opinion.

Having some friendly competition in the handheld gaming scene is all fine, and I like that Sony is at least trying to improve on what they had before that clearly sucked, but right now it doesn't appear as if they know what they are doing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the "gameplay over graphics" thing repeated itself enough times by now? Hell, even the company that runs on that ideology screwed it up at first with the 3DS, and it took a sizable price drop and the launch of better titles to get it up and running.

You'd think that the second go-around wouldn't be another learning experience, but I suppose we will just have to wait and see.

The World's Best Hat Simulator

Sandviches are tasty, aren't they? Filled with tasty cheese, lettuce, your choice of lunch meat, all between two delicious slices of bread.

What? You were expecting something else? I thought I'd make my post this time about sandviches. I don't know what you're talking about.

Team Fortress 2 is a first-person shooter available for PC, PS3 and Xbox 360 (The only version that matters is the PC one. Let's be honest.) It is FREE TO PLAY, read that again, and downloadable off of Steam. Yes, that Steam. You used to have to pay $20 dollars for this game, but recently the game went free-to-play due to the overwhelmingly popular in-game item shop.

Aside from the ungodly amount of memes and hilarious in-jokes related to this game, if you haven't heard about it by now, then you need to smack yourself, because not only is this one of the few first-person shooters that I'll play actively, but Team Fortress 2 is a fountain of endless fun and replayability. It is all multiplayer though, and depending on which server you select at first, the difficulty curve is a little steep, but even losing in this game is fun. How many other games can you say that for?

There are 9 different characters you can play as with playstyles for everyone ranging from the outrageously fast but fragile Scout, the turret-building Engineer, the long-range Sniper, or the wonderfully grief-tastic Spy. You select the red or blue team depending on whether you want to play defense or offense respectively, and the two teams are pitted against each other on one of many maps with one of several objectives depending on the server you chose. These include Territory Control, Capture the "Enemy Intelligence" (i.e. flag), Payload (push the cart to the end of the track), King of the Hill, and several others.

I mentioned an in-game item shop earlier, and it doesn't disappoint. You can buy different weapons that affect your class, different Use items (like the Sandvich :P), and any amount of hats from the towering mountain of choices. A running joke, as you can see by the title, is that too much emphasis is put on the store and hats by players, which does have merit, but then again, they're too cool to take the concern seriously, so who the hell cares. No money to buy hats? That's okay. There is an in-game crafting system where you can craft almost ANYTHING available in the store, and you can get items as random drops while playing as well. The items you don't keep can be broken down into parts to use for the crafting.

All in all, Team Fortress 2 is a hilariously fun game, even for those of you that don't like first-person shooters all that much like myself. With a laundry list of servers and endless possibilities for games, you will never get bored. Go here to download it, and best of luck on the battlefield.

Which character is my favorite? Easy. *ahem* Gentlemen...