Why do movie games suck?

Since we are on the eve of the Amazing Spider-Man coming out this next week in theaters, it also means that the video game will be coming out as well.  While I haven't had the chance to play the game myself, I have heard some really positive things about the game thus far.  This tends to the exception more than the norm though, as most movie tie in games end up being pretty bad.  So this begs to ask the question, doesn't it?  Why do most movie games suck?

There are lots of reasons, really.  However, the biggest reason is quite simply put, time invested in making the game.  Once a production takes off in Hollywood, it takes off very quickly.  Let's take a look at something that we know is coming out in the next few years, Marvel's Thor 2 (and no, I won't reference the "game" that came out with the first movie).  Part of the production of a movie is merchandising, thanks in part to a gentleman by the name of George Lucas.  Merchandising will also include choosing a publisher for the upcoming video game.  Video games can work a little differently, though.  For instance, Marvel signed over Spider-Man to Activision years ago, and that is why all Spider-Man titles (movie based or not) have all been put out by Activision.  In the case of Thor, Sega did have the rights to all the Avenger characters for their games, but we all know how that turned out, don't we?  As of right now, Thor could basically go anywhere (I am aware of Ubisoft's upcoming Avengers title, but we don't know if that includes individual hero games as of yet).  So shopping the big guy around to publishers will start the ball rolling here.  Once a publisher is chosen, then the publisher has to choose a house to develop the game.  A larger publisher, like Activision, is more likely to keep development in a house that they own.  A smaller publisher, like Sega, is more likely to shop the game around to independent developers.  Case in point here, Sega gained the rights to Aliens a while back, and they ended up going with GearBox to develop it.  GearBox is independent, and has done games with UbiSoft (Brothers in Arms) as well as 2k Games (Borderlands).  While those two steps sound like they should be relatively easy, they are actually the longest part of the process.  Getting back to Thor here, after the success of the Avengers movie, I would guess that blondie would be worth quite a bit to the right publisher, so choosing on one can take some time.  From there, getting the right house to do it will also take time to settle on.

From there we get into the actual making of the game.  This means the developer has to be made aware of the script of the movie.  In the case of Thor, they would have to know locations to make, characters to render, and other various parts of gaming development (the score for the game, the voice acting, etc.).  The studio needs to know just about everything in order to make the game an official tie in.  Sure, there are some games that take place "in the universe of" but not taking place during the movie (such as Green Lantern), most movie studios want the game to be an official tie in, to make the audience play the movie once they've seen it.  Then there comes other cosmetic things, such as voice acting in the game.  Some games require the main stars to provide their own voices for the video game.  In the case of Thor, they would have to get Chris Hemsworth and maybe a few other actors/actresses as well.  Hemsworth is a pretty busy guy these days, and getting him to come in to provide voice over work has to be done pretty quickly. 

So why is this so hard?  Simple.  All this is done in around half the time a normal video game is produced.  A high budget video game, like Call of Duty, takes more than two years to get out of the chute, which is why Activision switches developers every year.  The newest COD is being done by Treyarch, while next year we will get another from Infinity Ward.  Thor 2, if it's lucky, will get a year of development time behind it.  If you want further proof of time (or like I call it "cookin' the crock pot") means a better game, check out Transformers.  Activision has had the right since the first movie, and they've been decent games, at best.  The first movie game was probably the best effort, while the second movie game was the worst.  However, to say that these games were anywhere nearly as epic as their Hollywood counterparts....well let's just say they sold well, but not as well as they would have if the games had been respectable.   However, between movies 2 and 3, Activision had High Noon Studios produce another Transformers game that was loosely tied into the movies, but was not a movie game.  War for Cybertron had a proper development cycle, and managed to actually be a great game.  Sadly, it didn't sell any better than the movie titles though.  Hopefully, the upcoming War for Cybertron will not only be good, but sell well too.  I believe good games should be rewarded with high sales.

Now, I hear what you're about to ask, "Not *all* movie games suck!"  That is correct.  There are good movie games.  While I do like to use the phrase "every pig finds an acorn every once in a while."  There are reasons behind this phenomenon (that's sarcasm).  I will use the game Kung Fu Panda here, because it really is a good game, and based off of a movie.  Activision did something here that more companies need to do.  They didn't do anything fancy.  It was a panda running around beating up other animals.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It didn't need high quality graphics or any other bells and whistles that a Transformers game would need.  It also did not use any of the voice talent from the movie what so ever.  It was just a well made beat 'em up that was fun to play.  

Other "good" movie games are often based off of movies that have been out for a long time, such as Ghostbusters.  The Ghostbusters game from a few years ago was a title put out by a company who really loved the Ghostbusters, and put their heart and soul into making a good game.  It didn't hurt, either, that Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis took an interest in the project and personally brought in all the talent needed to voice their original characters (which is saying something, considering how Bill Murray can be).  This game had no time table that it had to be out by because there wasn't a new movie coming out.  It was merely a game being put out by a bunch of people who loved the Ghostbusters.  The final result?  And excellent title, top to bottom.  Most of your top notch movie titles are examples of this.  Goldeneye 007 on the Nintendo 64 was actually brought out the summer before the following Bond movie, Tomorrow Never Dies.  The result?  Well, it's a legendary title that shaped the console first person shooter into what we get on our consoles these days.  

The only real anomaly here is Star Wars.  Yes, I know not all Star Wars games are good.  In fact, Star Wars:  The Force Unleashed II was an embarrassment on levels that I will have to get into one of these days.  However, most Star Wars games are actually, well, games.  They are playable, and you do have the ability to have fun with them.  While they do fall into the Ghostbusters camp more than the Thor camp these days, I do believe it is important to point out that George Lucas owns his own video game development studio and publisher.  Pretty sure that helps produce a decent product if you're trying to get a movie out.  No one controls his intellectual properties better than George Lucas, and you can quote me on that one guys.

Overall, the truth is that movie games tend to suck because they don't get the same love and attention that other games do.  Sure, someone might love the idea of making a game to go along with Thor, but unless the correct amount of attention is given to the game, like most games get, then it's going to be fighting an uphill battle from the second that it hits the shelf.  Reviews will be mediocre at best, and there will always be some other game out there that gets higher scores around the same release date.  Sure, you'll still have the kids coming in to pick up the title after seeing the movie.  Wouldn't it be nice though to have a movie game that makes you want to see the movie again though?  Unfortunately, that tends to not be the norm when it comes to video games based off of movies.  I would say, "let's hope that changes," but as long as the Hollywood way goes, it's never going to get better.  
 

Mass Effect 3

Now that BioWare has released it's "extended cut" of the endings for Mass Effect 3, I figure now would be a good time to go back and look at this game, and explain my feelings about the game.  I personally believe that there is no more important new IP from this generation of consoles than Mass Effect.  BioWare is one of those rare companies (like Blizzard or Epic) that can build up hype for a game simply by saying that they are making it.  Sure, their track record isn't as stellar as Blizzard (still haven't forgiven them for Sonic Chronicles: Dark Brotherhood), but they manage to make some excellent games, and do while while not always relying on the same IPs.  Heck, one could argue that BioWare takes a lot of chances in this area when you compare that most other developers continually pump out the same stuff every year or so.  One thing I certainly believe in, and you can quote here, BioWare is the developer that started to turn the tide with console RPGs.  Before BioWare, most console RPGs were Japanese, such as Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy.  However, when Star Wars:  Knights of the Old Republic came out, everything changed.  This showed that western developers could produce a triple A role playing game.  Seriously, if I told you 10 years ago, that a Canadian developer would be making better RPGs than the most current Final Fantasy, you'd laugh your ass off at me.  But I'm telling you right now, Mass Effect is better than Final Fantasy XIII.  Period.  

Mass Effect, the first one, was released only for the X-Box 360, and BioWare never bothered to re-release it on the Playstation 3.  Why is that?  Because, honestly, it wasn't really good enough for that much attention.  Don't get the wrong, it was a good game.  However, there was a lot problems with the game, and this biggest problem with a new IP is getting people to get invested in the characters and story.  While Mass Effect's story and characters were quite good, it wasn't the easiest thing to get into.  Many went into this thinking of it being a lightsaberless KOTOR.  Without the Star Wars name to drive this game, some found it a little hard to relate to.  Also, for a console RPG, it was far too technical.  I've always said that the biggest difference between  a console RPG and a PC RPG is that console RPGs are more based on characters and story, while PC RPGs are more based upon being "true to life."  This first game in this series was very technical, with a ton of different attribute points to go into skills that many didn't know what they did or why they needed that skill.  It wasn't bad, it was just far too technical for an RPG that played more like a Gears of War title than KOTOR.  Then there was the landing missions and the like.  This was not a bad game at all, it just was a lot harder to get into that many were expecting it to be.  Of course, there was that sex problem that made it into some in the main stream media, but I'd prefer to not get into that.  The game did have a very deep and complex story, and those who took the time who were patient enough to get into it were well rewarded. 


This brings me to what I personally consider to not only be the best game of the series, but the best game of this generation of consoles.  Yes, I put this game very high when it comes to acclaim.  Mass Effect 2 fixed everything, that was wrong with the first offering.  The shooting mechanics were refined to the point of near perfection, the leveling system was far more streamlined, and even hunting for minerals was less of a pain (although far more tedious).  The cast of crew members was increased dramatically, and as long as you were playing as the correct gender, every member of the crew was able to be romanced (unlike the first game, where only three were).  BioWare spared no expense in improving everything in this game, right down to the voice talent (such as Martin Sheen, for instance).  Far more was revealed, and it was far easier to get sucked into the galaxy.  As a bonus, any choices you made in Mass Effect were carried over to impact what happens in the sequel.  It did have a few things that needed to be tweeked, though.  The scanning system was tedious, and the leveling system also too streamlined.  However, when you play both games back to back, it's very obvious to see the evolution in game play, and where BioWare was looking to go with the series.

 The initial feedback on Mass Effect was mostly good.  Reviews were high, and the game play was not that much different from the 2nd installment, and the story was building up from the first to games.  As with Mass Effect 2, choices made in the first two games were carried over to effect the third.  Expectations were extremely high from the fans.  Sadly, the ending disappointed some very vocal fans.  BioWare quickly rebounded, promising an extended ending that would be more rewarding than what was actually delivered.  However, I'm here to tell you that the game wasn't as good as 2, and it had nothing to do with how long or short the ending was.  Sure, the game still played like a dream, and they gave back a little more character development with the leveling system.  However, the biggest problem with the game is that Mass Effect 3 acts like Mass Effect 2, for the most part, never happened.   

 

 

The only party members you had from the second game were also the ones that appeared in your crew in the first, Tali and Garrus.  If you decided to romance on of your crew from 2, like Miranda here, Mass Effect 3 treats the romance as something that was really thrown in rather than plotted for.  It was clumsily done, and sadly, probably the worst part of the game.  Furthermore, Mass Effect 2's main paragon/renegade choice at the end of the game seems like it should have been a pretty big choice.  However the person you don't want to get the item in question (trying to remain spoiler free here) ends up with that item anyway, basically making the focal point of the second game completely pointless. 

Overall, I still love Mass Effect, and Mass Effect 3 is a great game.  The extended ending is a better overall ending than the original cut.  I won't spoil anything here, but I will say what happened had to basically happen.  However, I honestly think that the "tree" of choices that BioWare originally intended to create with this game got far too big for the game to handle.  At least in the time allotted for completion.  I would guess if you got the developers behind closed doors, they would state that they would probably had prefered another six months to a year in order to let this game cook some, and let the choice tree work it's way out.  There really needed to be more choices, more returning characters in your crew, and a much bigger adventure than what BioWare produced.  It's still a triple A game, and I have to take into consideration that they are one of the first to allow this sort of branching storytelling from game to game (Namco Bandai tried something similar with the the MMO simulator .Hack, but those were far more streamlined, with little to no choices involved).  I believe that their next attempt will be far better, but this was a fantastic first step.  I'm more than certain that Mass Effect will continue in a very big way, and we should all be looking very forward to it.

Microsoft's Smart Glass: What do you think?

In order to be an equal opportunity basher and praiser, I'm doing a Microsoft story.   At E3 2012, Microsoft "announced" their entrance into the handheld market with the announcement of X-Box Smart Glass.  While the announcement was interesting, most people were pretty "meh" about the addition.  I personally look at the most long term uses for this technology.  

Let's first look at the Kinect.  No, I won't go into how Microsoft used the past few E3's (before this one) to shove this little gem down our throats.  Instead I want to get into the long term possibilities.  Now, anyone who has known me for a significant amount of time will tell you I personally don't care for this forced attempt at getting us into motion gaming (I'm sure that will be a nice long post sometime).  There are other uses this technology has though, many more than I could possibly think of.  However, when it comes to entertainment, imagine a TV fully integrated with Kinect, allowing the TV's interface to allow menu interface with a swipe of your hand, or using a full variety of voice commands.  Yes, while motion gaming isn't exactly something I would consider to be a "must have" thing, I do believe in the long term uses in Kinect, and we've only scratched the surface here.

So now we have SmartGlass, and the real positive here for Microsoft, is that they are not requiring you to purchase a new X-Box peripheral.  If you're already sporting an iPad (which I, luckily, am), you can use that to sync up to your X-Box 360 for to use these features.  The impact this will have on gaming is minor, at best.  I don't really know how many people are itching to see their Halo online profiles as they barrel through Halo 4 in November.  However, I do see the impact on other parts of entertainment.  

Microsoft showed the Game of Thrones SmartGlass feature, which I found to be different, but not particularly imaginative.  Let's give them the benefit of the doubt though, this was probably an early on idea.  Let's look at what it could actually do that would be useful?  How about if you're watching a football game, and as the game is taking place, your tablet keeps up with the stats in real time?  How about if a big play happens in another game, your tablet gives you the opportunity to flip to that game to see the replay?  Or how about if you're watching a movie, the tablet will do a pop up video of how certain scenes were shot, or interviews with the director?  Possibly using your tablet as a Netflix browser, and with a shift of your finger, it appears on the TV?  SmartGlass has far bigger uses than just gaming, and I'm looking forward to seeing what people much smarter than I am will be able to come up with.   

 While there are thousands of rumors out there about the neXt Box, I don't believe Microsoft will make all that much of a stink about the hardware as much as they will stress on X-Box Live and the integration you will have with your Kinect or tablet.  Certainly, it'll be strong, and play some seriously good games, but I really think they are moving more towards the "top box" theory.  This means that they will be working more on signing more cable companies and networks to support the X-Box to, well, basically replace your cable box.  I could be wrong.  I've certainly been wrong before.  This time though, I think Microsoft is heading in that direction.

Will THQ survive?

Considering the immense hatred of publishers in this day and time, it's interesting to see how the public has handled the missteps by THQ over the past 12 months.  For those who don't know, THQ has been under a lot of financial stress in 2012.  This can be attributed mostly to the poor business choice of pumping a lot of money into the production of the ill-fated uDraw gaming tablets.  Originally it was produced for the Nintendo Wii, but was later released for the X-Box 360 and Playstation 3 consoles.

While hindsight is 20/20, and it is quite easy for me to say, "Yeah, I knew that would suck."  The truth is that it is a very poor investment for one very important reason.  No matter how good of an artist you are, using a pencil and paper will  always be cheaper, and usually look better than the general person who just wants to draw or color a picture.  Doing it "old school" will cost pennies, while the uDraw tablet was far more expensive.

 THQ was in a lot of trouble earlier this year.  Many speculated that they were going to declare bankruptcy, which was probably pretty accurate.  This caused the publisher to put pressure on Vigil games to have Darksiders II ready far earlier than they original intended.  Luckily, the bullet was dodged, and Vigil was allowed to delay the game a few more months.  The digital sales of add ons to Saint's Row The Third were attributed to the good news.  In fact, I would venture to guess that Volition's announcement and subsequent cancellation of the Saint's Row:  Enter the Dominatrix should prove that THQ now has their head above water and will survive, at least now.



There is some cannon fodder here, though, and THQ did have a serious loss to their gaming portfolio.  Unfortunately for them, it was probably the most up and coming IP that they had in their portfolio.  It is, of course, the UFC.  Electronic Arts is now in control of the UFC gaming IP, and while I doubt the games will be as good as THQ's games were (these games were worked on by Yukes, who makes the WWE games), they will still sell a ton.  EA is a master of marketing, if nothing else, especially when it comes to their sports games.   This is huge blow to THQ, because it was the one IP that they had that probably hasn't reached it's high point yet.    

One the positive sign, THQ has resigned their contract with World Wrestling Entertainment, which is a seriously high spot for the company.  Before UFC, the WWE games were a massive part of THQ's profits. The UFC's growing popularity has eroded some of that fan base away, but WWE is by no means a slouch.  In fact, with current WWE Champion and internet darling C.M. Punk on the cover of WWE 13, this could see some nice returns for THQ.  

What I don't expect to see is THQ taking many more chances on unproven IPs.   We've seen them take a few risks outside of the ill fated uDraw tablets.  They also attempted to take Red Faction in a new direction after the success of Red Faction Guerrilla, and took a shot in the dark on a new IP called Homefront.  Both franchises could have done well, but fell short due in sales due to low review scores and pretty mundane gameplay.  Guerrilla, itself, was a new direction from the Playstation 2/X-Box Red Faction first person shooters, adopting a sandbox style game similar to a Grand Theft Auto.  The final product was surprisingly excellent, and had the sequel, Armageddon, played more like that, then I believe it would have been a much stronger title.  On the other hand, Homefront was really an interesting idea that had one of the most intriguing ideas for a story I've seen in games.  The story revolves around North Korea invading the United States.  Unfortunately, good ideas don't always equal stellar sales.  Homefront was just another first person shooter, and couldn't stack up to Call of Duty or Halo.

 


THQ is probably going to head in the Activision/Electronic Arts direction, at least for now.   This means they will probably focus more on their heavy hitters than they usually would.  They've already announced Saints Row 4 will be out in 2013, and with WWE sticking around, those will be available for years to come as well.  I am interested to see how Darksiders II does.  If it does well, THQ will have another feather in the cap with at least two more bullets to fire.  You play as the Four Horsemen of Apocalypse in these games; War was the first game, and Death will be in the second (Pestilence and Famine, you're on deck...).  

My advice is that if you're going to try and sell some sort of add on to a console and you're not responsible for producing said console...let the console provider make it.  We've had way too much plastic crap come out this last generation. 

Why Sony's Playstation 3 is anything but a failure

When this generation of console gaming is over, the Playstation 3 could very well be sitting in a position they've never been in before, dead last.  Both Playstation and Playstation 2 devastated their competition with little difficulty.  I find this particularly funny, because during the time of PSX vs. Sega Saturn, I was firmly planted on the side of Sega, since they were the "real" gaming company.  I had dealt with Panasonic, professionally of course.  Their 3DO console was a failure from the start, and once the Saturn and PSX were about to come out, Panasonic decided that it was wise to bow out while they could still clearance out their overpriced consoles.

Sony came into this generation with a pretty big ego.  After their big wins over the last two generations, they fully expect the new generation of console gaming to begin when they said it did.  Of course, we all know how this generation has turned out thus far.  Microsoft was first out of the gate with what could very well be the finest management of game releases in the first several years that I've ever seen.  Nintendo shot out of the blocks like a fat kid after a doughnut, and while they ran out of steam very quickly (which I predicted less than 6 months after their launch, by the way), they still managed to move more hardware than either of their competitors.  Sony, on the other hand, thought they had the gaming thing licked, and needed to move their focus onto a much more profitable venture.

 You seem the Playstation 2, back in 2000, did something much more impressive and important than rule the video game world.  It was responsible for accomplishing something that many had tried to do, but failed.  The accomplishment?  The destruction of VHS.  When college kids were getting Playstation 2 consoles for Christmas, it put a DVD player in houses and college dorm rooms across the world.  With the blessing of every studio, the Playstation 2 managed to start the boulder rolling of the DVD boom.  This was a glorious time for movie studios, because they could reissue everything they have had in their movie portfolio, at a cheaper cost, and  make tons of money in the process.  So this time around, Sony was once again trying to do something similar.  Introducing a new format to the movie world.  The only difference this time, however, was that they had competition.

Toshiba had HD-DVD, while Sony brought Blu-Ray to the table.  While there are differences between the two, and honestly now it's pointless since we all know Blu-Ray won this war, the only important thing to remember is that both were high definition formats.  Sony initially was in talks with Toshiba to combine the formats in order for both companies "win."  However, Toshiba backed out of the talks, and the warn ensued.  Microsoft backed Toshiba, more or less out of spite for Sony, with an attachment for the X-Box 360, however every Playstation 3 that sold came with a Blu Ray player.  A damn good one too, that is continually updated via firmware patches, and since launch has also added 3D Blu-Ray support.  Like the PS2 before it, this put the format war out of reach, with HD-DVD bowing out a little over a year after the PS3's launch.  

So why is this important?  Two major reasons.  The first reason is because just about everyone watches movies.  Think about it.  You play games.  Your brothers might play games. Your Dad and mom might even play.  Do your grandparents?  Does everyone you know play?  Probably not.  However they all watch movies, don't they?  The second, and much more important reason for Sony is that with Blu-Ray being their format, that means they get a cut out of every Blu-Ray player and movie sold.  It's probably not a huge amount, but it's why a patent is so important.  Hell, Sony made a zillion bucks off of CDs.  This comes into play with the next generation consoles, like the next X-Box.  If Microsoft wants it to be a multimedia hub of high definition entertainment, they are going to have to go with a Blu-Ray drive.  And who get as a cut of that?  That's right.  Every X-Box and X-Box game produced, Sony will receive a cut. 

Think about that the next time someone says the Playstation 3 was a colossal failure.  Sure it did a lot of things wrong, and didn't win both wars, but it will make Sony a lot of money in the future. 

She said...what?!

I've been in classic Final Fantasy mode lately.  To be more exact, the 16-bit era.  Due to circumstances I will get into, I've been really wanting to play through the black sheep of this family, Final Fantasy V.  I want to play this game for the very reason why I call it the black sheep of the 16 bit Final Fantasies, because it's the one I've played through the least amount of times.  Final Fantasy V has been released only twice in North America, first being for the Sony Playstation (with FFVI, called Final Fantasy Anthology), and then a re-mastered, re-release on the Nintendo Game Boy Advance.

Anyone who knows me will tell you if I have my choice of playing a game on a handheld, or my 50 inch plasma, that I will certainly take the plasma.  So I went ahead and started playing it on the Playstation version.  Unfortunately, I had to hunt down my GBA version almost immediately afterwards.  I was reminded of something pretty unsavory about the ill fated Playstation version, and it further reminded me about the difference between Japanese game localization then....and now.

First, it's important to know the history of this very interesting game.  The Super Famicom in Japan had three Final Fantasy numbers released, the North American Super Nintendo only had two.  Final Fantasy IV was renumbered II here, because it was the 2nd FF release here, and VI was renumbered as III since it was the 3rd release.  Final Fantasy V was supposed to be released at least two times on the SNES, and even once on the PC.  However, all three attempts were stopped.  However, this didn't stop Square USA from working on the game for release here, and it was very far along in the localization process by the time the second time that it was shot down for the SNES release (as Final Fantasy Extreme).  (I heard that the overall localization was 90%+ complete).

Why wasn't it released here?  Quite honestly, it's probably due to the fact that Square was a really small publisher back then.  Final Fantasy wasn't the sure thing that it is now when it comes to sales.  It wasn't until Sony and the Playstation marketing dollars that turned the RPG powerhouse into a world wide phenomenon.  This didn't stop Square USA from trying, as they themselves released two "made in the USA" titles.  These titles were panned by fans, mostly, and the second one, ultimately, caused Square USA to close it's doors.  These games were Final Fantasy Mystic Quest, which was a "beginner" RPG released at a low 40 dollars...and a Secret of Mana clone, Secret of Evermore.

So that brings us to Final Fantasy Anthology.  Squaresoft was a much bigger publisher then, and had a nice little deal with Electronic Arts that helped them go back and release some of their old library.  Square did so by releasing three separate Final Fantasy packages, Final Fantasy Origins (I & II), Final Fantasy Anthology (V & VI), and finally Final Fantasy Chronicles (IV & Chrono Trigger).  Since Final Fantasy V was mostly completed years ago, they used that translation.

 That brings me to Faris here.  Faris is the pirate captain from the game, who is also the older syster of Lenna, Princess of Tycoon.  Faris is a very cool character, and is really my favorite from this particular game.  However, in the original cut of the localization, Faris talks like a pirate.  She says "Arrrrrr" quite a bit.  This really, without a doubt, ruins the first game for me.  One has to remember though, this was pretty much the norm back in the day.  The same team that translated that game is the same team that brought us the infamous quote from Final Fantasy IV, "You spoony bard!"  Why?  Gaming was considered to be more of a kiddy thing back, then, and quite honestly, putting heart and soul into telling a good story with good characters wasn't exactly the most profitable path.  Sure, now a days, if we had someone eternally representing "Talk like a Pirate Day," we would all roll our eyes and bash it unmercifully. 

During that time, though, we didn't have a choice, and we had to use our imaginations more to tell  the story.  Luckily for me, the Game Boy Advance version of Final Fantasy V came complete with a brand new localization of the text.  Faris came off like she was supposed to, rough, tough, and gruff, but no pirate speak.  

Controversy with Lollipop Chainsaw

This is an interesting dilemma.  Let's look at Suda 5 1's latest "trip" Lollipop Chainsaw.  Suda 5 1, and please forgive the comparison, because I mean this to be a compliment to both gentlemen, is the Joss Whedon of the gaming world.  When you're watching something that was written or directed by Whedon, like Marvel's The Avengers, you get the feeling from the start that he had something to do with it.  The film is usually overflowing with character, and has some of the quickest and wittiest dialogue out there.  The same comparison could be said about Suda and his Grasshopper Manufacture.  When you're playing a Suda trip, there's no doubt in your mind that is what you're playing.  It is impossible to mistake his direction and creativity with anybody else.

This comes as double edged sword, unfortunately.  His games are always hyper Mature rated, and sometimes I wonder myself how he doesn't manage the ever elusive "Adults Only" branding (bet you didn't even know there was an AO rating, did you?)  While his games are overflowing with style and originality, the same could also be said for the violence and dialogue.  This means, much like South Park or a George Carlin HBO special, if you walk away from it without feeling offended, than I don't believe Suda 5 1 thinks he did his job.


Does this make it a bad game?  No.  In fact, it's not a bad game at all, it's actually like good.  It's not Suda's best game, that would be last year's winner of the Enygma "Best Game that Nobody Played" Award, Shadows of the Damned.  However, it is still really fun to play, and the offensive humor will indeed have you laughing at times (especially the verbal exchanges with her boyfriend).


So why can't Suda catch a break?  It's really hard for me to say, as an outsider looking into the world of the game review media.  It's the one aspect of this business I know little about, but if I had to theorize, I would have to say that I think a reputable gaming website probably finds a game with the type of sophomoric humor that this game bleeds from start to finish, beneath their standards.  Perhaps they are worried about the backlash on giving a game that uses very specific phrases to demean women a higher score?  Maybe it's the fact that the main character, Juliet Starling, is really not all that bright?  Maybe its' a combination of all those things?


Lollipop Chainsaw, and more importantly Suda 5 1, manages to do something that most games wish they could do, but fail miserably.  It can be summed up with one word, style.  It might be offensive, risque and gory, but it also has style.  I think we need more games to think outside of the box of what is the norm, and have originality and style.  No, I don't mean a half naked, foul mouthed cheerleader with a chainsaw, I just mean putting something different out there besides what the norm is.  Army guy with a gun.  Football player.  Guy with an impossible haircut and a big sword.  This stuff has been done to death.  Get some style in there, do something different.  We need more of that in gaming, or we could be more like Hollywood.  That reminds me, we just had a Three Musketeers movie recently, so isn't it time for another Robin Hood retelling? 

My thoughts on the 3DS XL

Nintendo, for the lack of a better phrase, confuses me.  The truth of Nintendo's handheld dominance over the last 20 years is nothing to blow my nose at, but this year has seen some very strange choices from the Big N, and I can't say that I completely understand them all.  Wii U side (I'm sure I'll rip into that at some point soon), Nintendo decided to save their redesigned 3DS unit until a few weeks after the biggest gaming show on the planet.  I question that choice in itself, especially since it was announced that same week in Japanese newspapers that Nintendo was going to show it pretty soon, and I would think the more eyes seeing it the better, but what do I know?  

So let's first ask the question, did the relatively young 3DS need a redesign?  Yes.  The battery life is pretty bad on the old one, and while the design looks really cool (I really do love the metallic finish), the clam shell/wide screen design can lead to some really weird looking scratches on your screen.  Furthermore, the 3DS is a mere babe when it comes to it's console lifespan.  I always find it amusing when people throw a fit when Nintendo does something like this.  The original Game Boy had two separate hardware skus (original and Game Boy Pocket), the Game Boy Color had one, the Game Boy Advanced had three separate skus (Game Boy Advanced, Game Boy Advanced SP, and GBA Micro), and the Nintendo DS had an astounding four different hardware launches (DS, DS Lite, DSi and DSi XL).  We knew this was going to happen and some point, and while the first six months of the 3DS were so bad that Nintendo had to apologize for it and gift twenty free games to those of us who ponied up the 250 bucks to buy one, which I have my own theories as to why the console didn't sell that well outside of the initial launch, and yes, price was part of it.  

Now the question comes up, do I like the redesign?  Honestly, the answer is no.  Nintendo missed the mark on something extremely important in their redesign, and while I do want to get one for myself, because I really do adore larger screens on handhelds, they really seem to miss the boat when it comes to listening to their customers.  Sure, in retrospect they listen (I've never seen a company have to apologize for a price drop before, and gift free software because of it.), but pro-actively they would rather tell you what you want, rather than listen to you and address those concerns.  If you go back through history and look at all the handhelds launches that Nintendo has had, they always seem to leave something out that everyone seems to want.  This time around they managed to address a problem they knew they were going to have right out of the chute, but forgot something extremely major, especially when compared to their competitor.  The thing they got right was the battery life.  The 3DSXL will effectively double the amount of playtime you were getting out of your original 3DS.  They completely missed on adding a second analog stick, which I would think would be one of the most important additions you could make.  

I can hear everyone now griping about how Sony had four separate skus for the original PSP as well, and managed to make the same mistake. Yes, you would be correct.  However, the major different between the two to me is that the original PSP had no accessories or the like that allowed another control stick to be added on, so zero percent of the games actually used a second nub.  Sony went on record to say that a second stick would have been a huge drain on their battery, and while I don't know if I 100% buy that, I will say the addition of a second stick in later models would have segregated the audience, and there would be PSP games out there that wouldn't run on all PSPs, which I don't think Sony really wanted to do.  The difference here is that the 3DS does have a second analog stick attachment, the Circle Pad Pro.  Plus, there are games that actually use the secondary pad, such as Metal Gear and Resident Evil.  So the lack of this option so young into this console's life cycle probably means Nintendo doesn't view the secondary stick as a big deal.  If they include a secondary stick with their next version of the 3DS, after the XL, they will run into the same problem Sony could have faced with the later versions of the PSP, and segregate their audience.  

The Vita hasn't exactly set the world on fire yet, though, so perhaps Nintendo does not believe that they will lose much market share to Sony due to Sony's poor efforts with their newest handheld.  There are lots of ways to look at this, and as of right now, I'd guess Nintendo doesn't see a threat from Sony at this point.   

"The time has come," the Walrus said, "To talk of many things...."

Well, let's start with the basics here.  I'm Travis Saucier, but I might be better known as Enygma, here on the internet.  I am a lifelong gamer, and have managed to eek out a 15 year career or so in the wonderful world of video games.  I am extremely well schooled in gaming not only as a hobby, but also as a business, which is something I believe that the gaming community sorely needs to remember when they are thinking about their favorite consoles, publishers, and developers.  I hear I'm a pretty good writer (I am probably my own worst critic), and  I am hoping that word will get around about my little endeavor here, and we will see where it goes.  I know I can swing the "sword of sarcasm" very well, and plan on doing a great length when called for.  

So, you're probably asking yourself, "Why are you starting a gaming blog?"  I will answer that with two very simple truths.  The first one, I stated above.  I believe a lot of people look at gaming simply through the eyes of the consumer, which quite honestly, there's nothing wrong with.  We are all consumers.  Hell, I've been a consumer for 30 freaking years plus.  However, the business perspective is rarely looked at from the side of the consumer.  Why do companies do this, or why do companies do that?  While the obvious answer is "to make money," I do hope I will be able to offer a more in depth look at as to the business.  The second reason is that I have been noticing over the last several years that there are gaming media outlets that are either extremely angry for no real reason, or so pretentious in their reviewing that I personally think that they probably have forgotten about the bliss and joy that gaming is supposed to bring all of us.  So while I can't promise that I'll never "rant" about things, because I am sure I will, I will state that I plan on bringing a more respective view to this blog, and not focus on cussing about how bad something sucks over and over again.  

My plans for this blog also include countdown lists, retro reviews of older classics, and my own personal insight as to where I think gaming is going as a whole.  I welcome debate and disagreements with my views as well, after all, no one is perfect, and one man's trash is another man's treasure.  I would also love suggestions for upcoming pieces you'd like to see me do.  I can't promise I can and will do any and all suggestions I get, but I will do my absolute best.

I do have a twitter account, which I will link from this blog.