Diskinect

As a professional video game journalist, I like to keep my promise of "the hottest trends in videogames as soon as they become available to me" to my loyal readers. This time, though, I went a little out of my way to get you the scoop on the latest in video-game technology. Yes, I WENT to Best Buy and gave the Kinect on display a try. I even took a small focus group (my kids) with me.

Just in case you live under a rock (that would explain you reading this blog); the Kinect promises to abolish controllers by having a camera interpret your movements.

If I were to describe our experience with the system with one word, it would be FRUSTRATING (in all caps). The smaller kids had no idea what was going on and we had to constantly shout instructions from the sidelines. The oldest knew what was going on thanks to the system's constant nagging: "Stand back" "move left" "move forward" "clean your room" "eat your vegetables". The system constantly reminds you that it's YOU that has to adjust to IT. In the end the kids and I were frustrated because we kept "losing" regardless of how hard we tried, simply because the avatars took their sweet time before deciding to follow our commands.

To be fair we only tried one game, Kinect Adventures. However, this is the pack-in game for the device; I can judge the system based on this one game's performance alone. Pack-in games should be the standard for a piece of hardware. Much like Super Mario Bros./Duck Hunt, this software was developed together with the hardware and should fully take advantage of every feature.

I keep reading that "it takes a while to get used to the controls" on most reviews, and it's probably a good way to describe it. I mean, it would also take a while to get used to being raped by an elephant. You just have to relax and embrace the pain until your body becomes numb! So, are you going to let Microsoft shove a lascivious pachyderm into your living room and tell you to like it?

Sure, jumping around and swinging at the TV is fun, but that's because of the novelty of the whole situation, and because, DUH, you're freaking jumping around! Whee! Eventually you realize that all the fun is taking place on your side of the screen and the game is trying to keep up, and failing.

Remember buttons? What was the response time on those things, a millisecond? How did our grandparents manage? OMG I'm so glad I live in the future, where there's Kinect! The game has a one (1) second lag between what you do and what your avatar actually does. Say "one Mississippi" out loud; that's how long it takes for your "guy" to swing at that ball, and they expect you to get used to this. I read someone mention some players may have troubling adjusting to the "timing based" controls. I suppose one could eventually, subconsciously, begin moving ahead of time to anticipate for the lag, just as long as they keep making games in which things come at you… ever… so… slowly…

Just when things are starting to get interesting, a sign takes 15% of your screen to warn you that you're getting too close… or too far… or that maybe you're having too much fun. Then there's also the fact that your living room may not be large enough for it, or that it may not like the color of your walls or what you're wearing.

To add insult to injury, when you're done (more like when it's done with you) you're shown a couple pictures how much you look like a total assclown, flailing and jumping in the middle of a living room with a clueless look on your face.

Even though the Kinect is supposed to have an excellent voice recognition system, they opted to have you "reach" for on-screen buttons to navigate the menus. Again you find yourself looking like an assclown, reaching for something that doesn't exist, with no clue as of where it is in relation to you. Instead you have to rely on your "reflection" on the screen. Just when you can't stretch and tiptoe enough and kind of stumble forward, then it expects you to hold the pose for a second to interpret it as a click.

Going back to the Virtual Reality games of old; I must admit that I've always thought it'd be stupid playing videogames with absolutely NO tactile feedback. I felt it'd be awkward. At least with a controller, you feel something in your hand. You push the button and you know how far it can go. You know the pressing of the button stands for the action and its imminent consequences. You press A to jump, then you watch as the plumber goes up and eventually down into an endless abyss or onto a helpless goomba. When I heard of the Kinect I thought all my questions would finally be answered. If you played a kung fu game, and you threw a fist, what would your character do when you hit? Would the fist keep going through its foe's body, ignoring the excess force? Would it keep pushing forward in complete disregard for the laws of physics, sending the polygonal dummy into orbit? If you play a driving game, how does the game know how far have you pushed the pedal? How would you know? How high do you have to lift your leg to make sure you're not stepping on the gas still? Looks like I still have to wait for a few more decades for my answers. I'm disappointed with the "future of video games".

In conclusion, the system has great potential and I'm pretty sure it'll get better. What bothers me is that it is simply not ready for the market, and instead of fixing it, Microsoft is somehow convincing the media (hence the consumers) that they should deal with it and learn to love it. This concept is fairly new and is still evolving, and I'm sure in a few years Microsoft may iron out the wrinkles and make the experience as life-altering as they claim, right out of the box. In the meantime, treat this game like a novelty arcade machine; play it at someone else's place until the novelty wears off.

Hype: The Last Story

Hey, guys, have you heard about Mistwalker Studios' The Last Story? Well, I'll tell you about it anyway!

The other day I was browsing through my RSS reader and found a story about The Last Story. The writer advised the readers to keep an eye out for this game. I quickly realized why; this was the next great Final Fantasy.

If you're anything like me (or most hardcore Final Fantasy fans) you may feel like the last great FF game was IX. The recent ones, though more technologically advanced, never really reach that epicness that once characterized the series. This is because IX was the last FF game in which Hironobu Sakaguchi was directly involved. He assumed the role of executive producer for following iterations and eventually just quit Square-Enix altogether.

Square-Enix has been milking the franchise ever since Sakaguchi went to establish Mistwalker in 2004 and the result is just not the same. Chocobos and moogles alone do not make a Final Fantasy. While I was inanely hyped over Final Fantasy XIII (wow, 13 already?) the more I learned about it, the more I lost interest. Today it's all the way down to 0. I really don't care about it anymore. I felt I was destined to play pointless casual games for the rest of my life.

This announcement, however, fills me with joy. The prodigal son is back. The REAL Final Fantasy will rise from the ashes like it just used a Phoenix Down. Let me tell you why. Mistwalker has made it very obvious their intention is to write a proverbial love letter to the players who made them famous and felt like they had been abandoned.

The first sign is the title; a direct synonym of the former. Final = Last. Story = Fantasy. Even the title logo uses an art stile very similar to titles of the FF series. Every true fan knows the tale of a desperate video-game company that after a series of unsuccessful games decided to blow its entire (remaining) budget in one (ironically titled) final attempt before they closed their doors for good, and how it not only saved them from bankruptcy but set a standard for the genre. Sakaguchi has made various statements that he is treating this game "as if it were his last" even though all signs point to this game being a huge success.

The second sign is that the game is a Wii exclusive. Back in the day all FF games were Nintendo exclusives on the NES, Game Boy and SNES (Later they jumped to the Playstation apparently because of a perceived need for CD-ROM technology). Even though the Wii has limited graphics the trailers already look amazing, and many critics hail it as the best-looking game for the console.

The third sign was recently revealed. Mistwalker has confirmed that Nobuo Uematsu is composing the music for this game. For those of you who only play FPS games; Uematsu is the musical genius behind all final fantasy games up until IX and a collaborator in most later entries (even as a freelancer after he quit Square-Enix on 2004… hmmm).

The only missing component is the character design. It appears neither Yoshitaka Amano nor Tetsuya Nomura are involved in this project. This worries me because I'm not particularly crazy about the characters I've seen in the trailer. To me they just look like a squad of generic anime characters; the one thing that discourages me from playing other JRPGs (this could be in part due to the original Japanese dialogue). I hope these characters turn out to be as interesting as their predecessors.

Now that we've settled that this game is indeed the Final Fantasy Messiah, let's move on to what's new. The game will feature both online cooperative and competitive play, a first in the "series". Some say this will be a lot like Monster Hunter's online play, which is awesome except for the matchmaking. The combat appears to be very tactical, with everything happening in real-time and players ducking for cover or hiding from large foes.

Besides that, there's no telling what else will change until I see it in action, but I would rather they weren't that obvious with the similarities. I'm afraid that one problem with the excessive subliminal links to the FF series is that this could bring forth the curse of the sequel. Besides, players may be constantly bewildered by any new item, job/class and spell naming conventions (and a serious lack of chocobos).

I haven't been this exited about a video game since the Dreamcast days. I'm very glad some of the minds behind the some of the greatest videogames ever are stepping away from an old, beat-up franchise and starting anew, knowing that if they stick to the original "recipe" the fans will respond, and I certainly hope the success of this game makes more great artists realize this before it's too late.

Paper Rock Scissors (Lizard Spock)

Good morning, class. Today we will be discussing the ancient "paper, rock, scissors" mechanic and how it is applied to video games. Please leave any questions for the end of the lecture when you will be able to post your comments.

The essence of his mechanic is choosing a "weapon" from a limited selection. Ideally, when there is odd amount of weapons each has a "stronger" and a "weaker" counterpart and ties are only possible when both players use the same.

We'll start with a few examples of games where this concept is applied incorrectly.

The first example is the origin; that game you play with your hands. This game is imperfect because, unless you cheat or are too predictable, the probability of wining, losing or a tie is the same. The game is ideal for conflict resolving where both parties are at even odds. The real fun is in trying to cheat by "dealing" a fraction of a second after the opponent without him or her noticing, trying to find a pattern or "tell" to predict their "move" or using faints or distractions to manipulate your opponent; all of these elements being very human in nature. One can easily conclude a game will be very boring when played against a computer.

My most recent experience was with a browser-based game titled "Legends of Zork" in which a player had to choose a fighting stance and a type of equipment (if my memory serves me right). When added together the result is a double PRS mechanism that would be turned into a bonus or penalty to the regular combat mechanic (+2, +1, 0, -1, -2). If your character is significantly stronger the mechanism would be negligible, but in tougher dungeons you really had to pay attention. The system is flawed because one could not change equipment while adventuring, therefore requiring the player to become familiarized with the different types of creatures (and the odds of appearing) that would randomly appear within an area. Say eventually you figure out most creatures are "scissors", you equip a "rock" and hope you don't find too many "papers". Keep in mind this game is played in short intervals, so finding a pattern is even more difficult.

The second example that comes to mind is Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings. The game was an RTS/Tower defense hybrid in which you summoned different creatures to defeat incoming waves of monsters. While stronger creatures could easily defeat weaker ones, when the action got intense it was all about assigning the right units to the right wave. Melee units were strong against ranged units, ranged units were strong against aerial units and melee units had a hard time hitting aerial units. This made the strategy too simple at times but very frustrating if the next wave was too strong for the units used on the last one and you had spent many resources on them. Also you gained access to different types of units at different rates, so sometimes you just didn’t have the right guy for the job.

A more global example is equipping "elemental" items in RPGs. You find this really neat piece of fireproof armor and then after you notice most of the creatures you find use Ice attacks you decide to switch to regular armor with lower defense as long as it's not weak against ice.

Next I present a few examples in which the mechanic has been used effectively.

Sega's Alex Kidd in Miracle World (1986): At the end of every level you'd challenge a boss to a game of PRS. It would show its choice via a thought bubble and there was a certain strategy as some of them had tells, would "shoot" early or even throw some feints at you. The example is effective because they found a way to mimic the "human" factor.

Another great example is the black mages in the Final Fantasy series. A black mage will always start with three offensive spells: Fire, bolt and ice. These spells will improve at the same rate. Eventually you learn spells for the "rare" elements: water, aero, gravity, holy and darkness among others. But just as the spells are rare so is the rate in which a creature is strong or weak against it compared to other elements or physical attacks. This is good because the elements aren't balanced in a straight-out paper-rock-scissors fashion, and at all times the player has access to all elements

Based on these examples I've come up with a simple formula for how to make it work. One simply has to follow these rules:

• The player must be able to tell what the opponent shot (so as to clearly understand why he lost or won).
• The opponent must have a certain degree of predictability.
• Both player and opponent may try to deceive each other.
• The player must be able to switch "weapons" freely before each "shot", the player must have equal access to the different weapons and plenty of ammunition.

There is also a fascinating article in Wikipedia regarding this subject that you may peruse if you require further reference.

Review: Crystal Defenders R2

I love it when a plan comes together. I think this is the main reason I wanted to be a computer programmer. There are very few things as satisfying as having an algorithm always return the expected result.

This is probably why I fell in love with Final Fantasy XII. The gambit system was designed to help minimize micromanagement so the player could concentrate on the overall strategy of the battle. One could for example automate healing and attacking and manually control the use of items or stronger attacks. I remember being advised to turn off gambits during boss battles when I read the reviews for the game. I took it to the extreme. I seldom entered commands manually, even for the group leader. I just loved moving across the "world" facing every kind of creature without having to alter my gambits. Sure, I'd have to make small tweaks for some bosses, but that's how Final Fantasy works. Good think they were no monster spawn points and the ones that were already there would stick to their territory, because otherwise I'd have reached level 99 on all my characters overnight (like I did on FFVII when I taped the "attack" button down and let the Midgar Zolom repeatedly attack me)

My first experience with this kind of mechanic was with Final Fantasy Tactics for the Playstation (1). As the name implies this game was all about tactical movement and planning. It had a feature in which you could set a character on "auto pilot", mostly intended to reduce tedious tasks (like healing). As soon as I learned of this feature I turned ALL my characters on auto. I'd carefully select which skills to teach my units, skipping the unnecessary ones to intentionally limit their arsenal. I beat the last boss with all my characters in auto.

Imagine my delight to find Square-Enix had released a tower defense game based on the Tactics franchise. I wonder how this game had managed to fly under my radar for over a year. Two episodes (R1 and R2) were released, but as far as I've read R1 is basically the first 30% of the full game and most missions are exceedingly easy. I suggest you go straight to R2; the game doesn't really have a narrative and you get more diverse units and more complex maps.

The game's mechanics may appear overly simplistic at first. Wave after wave of enemies march over a set path, and if enough of them get to the other side, you lose. You try to stop them by placing units around (never on) the trail that will take swings at the enemies that walk across their set range (it is hilarious when in motion). The enemies keep walking and never fight back, so your guys never die. The problem is that each wave is composed of more creatures, each faster, stronger or immune to certain attacks. Eventually one of those critters will survive the ambush and reach its goal, your stash of crystals.

That’s where the game stops being simple. All units cost money and you only gain money by defeating enemies, so you have to keep a tight budget (overspending in the first few waves will make it harder to acquire better units later) while keeping an eye on what kind of monster is next in case you need to adjust your defenses. After every round you need to decide whether to get more units, upgrade or place crystals nearby to make them more powerful. The "wave" does not start until you're ready and you can always place or upgrade units on the fly or by pausing.

I breezed trough about 4 maps (with about half a dozen missions, each), getting perfect results at times, until I hit this one map that always seems to burn through my crystals at a different point (so I never know what it is that I did wrong). I've spent all day at work thinking of different strategies and drawing maps on post-its for when I get home.

The graphics and music are all straight from FFTA2, but I don't mind because they're nice and the game was cheap.

I suspect the experience will be short but sweet, with some pauses on tougher maps. In order to stretch it out I'll try not to advance until I get a perfect rating.

In my opinion this game provides an excellent balance between casual and hardcore play. The mechanics are simple and gameplay in general is relaxing, yet it requires a certain level of skill; perfect for relaxing after work. So if this sounds like your kind of game and you have 8 bucks to burn, give it an try and drop me a line so we can exchange strategies.

The next generation

I was born in the twilight of the golden era of videogames. Unlike older "Generation-X-ers" who witnessed the dawn of videogames, I came along just in time for the second generation of home consoles to fade into obsolescence. I really consider myself lucky in this aspect because, seriously, man, text-based and monochrome games are only fun if you are emotionally attached to them. My memories of the Atari 2600 are really blurred as I was just a baby (it was probably my cousins or maybe even uncles playing). I first owned one of these when I found it left behind in my grandfather's house after his death (which supports my uncles/cousins theory). I find its beeps and bloops as soothing as the metallic ping of a wind-up mobile over a baby's crib.

Awareness gained, the different stages of my life can be practically defined in bits. I was an 8-bit (third generation) kid, a 16-bit (4th) preteen, and a 32/64-bit (5th) angsty teen. I reached adulthood right on time for the sixth generation (where bits no longer mattered). Now, if we're currently living on the era known as the seventh generation (of video game consoles), what comes after adulthood? I guess its old-age.

If you take a look at recent posts in this blog you may have noticed a trend towards classic or retro games and a shy approach to this next generation of games. Doesn't that sound like the kind of thing an old man would do? And while, sure, I'm dying to try out all those new games that are coming out, on a limited budget (and schedule) I opt for the classics. Probably because in my sub-conscious I think it's a safer bet even though logic dictates more advanced games are bound to be better.

Depending on how you define the next generation, the self-denominated Generation Y known as the Millennials, I might also fit in that category. So chronologically the shared experience is the same. Again, the only difference being the involvement in the first couple of generations of videogame consoles.

By the end of this year the youngest of Generation X will reach the age of thirty (the oldest being at the ripe old age of 50), but considering how fast things moved and how much change we have seen in terms of culture, it makes sense we start developing a crotchety attitude towards culture in general earlier than our parents. And when it comes to videogames, we're a collective bunch of old farts.

Generation Z (also known as "those darned kids", "kids nowadays", and "get off my lawn") was born into a world of 3D gaming. Unlike X and Y, these are the offspring of gamers. Their parents want them to get involved in gaming; their vision on games in entirely different. I don't know many kids that age except my own and those of close friends and relatives.

When I was a kid the constant marketing of new technologies made us believe that once a new console came out our old games were outdated and looked crappy. While I refused to throw away my old consoles I also refused to use them once I acquired a new machine, even if I was bored of the software on it. It was all about the pretty graphics. Later on, with age, came the realization that old games are art, and if anything they should be more respected considering it took more talent to make them look fairly decent.

My kids had figured this out since the beginning. They were used to seeing me play nice-looking games on the PS2 and then switch to emulated SNES games and they never asked me why these other games looked ugly. To this day they don't know the meaning of the word "graphics". They enjoy games for as long as they're fun. I'm really proud of my kids. While other kids may not be as awesome as mine, and might have grown a bit spoiled by parents who don't really appreciate retro games (namely younger GEN Y) I suspect they would be a minority. Whenever I see a child playing with a handheld system, 90% of the time it will be a Nintendo DS, 50% of which are actually using the GBA port.

So, why do guys my age hate classic remakes?

Take your dad (or grandpa) to one of those "tribute" shows for their favorite band/artist. Chances are he'll sing along and tap his feet (even dance) all the way through, with a big smile on his face. Ask him if he liked it on the way home and he'll complain about everything they did wrong (worse or better than the original). If you take your son (or younger brother) along, there's a 50% chance he'll enjoy the show, depending entirely on how close the music is to what he normally likes.

Whenever a remake or a sequel for an old franchise comes up, along comes the horde of elderly gamers, swinging their canes and pointing their power-gloved fingers. When you read the reviews on the Internet or in magazines (written, of course, by old gamers) they will bash these games, complaining about how they got it all wrong and how they're repeatedly raping their favorite characters. Then you read the whole thing and eventually they say something along the "well, the game was fun BUT it wasn't what I wanted" line. The game gets a pathetic score; doomed forever. In the end, it is only judged by how much it's like the classic. Even if the game is more fun, or looks better than the classic. If it's different, they hate it. For example I'm having a blast playing Sonic The Hedgehog 4: Episode 1. Sure, they got some things different, but it really does capture the essence of the classic, and I love that. My kids have never played a Sonic game. They loved it. My wife only played it a couple of times (she's more of a Mario fangirl) and still loved it. She was actually exited when she first played it because of how it felt so much like the original.

I remember hearing a film critic say that Speed 2: Cruise Control would be a better movie if it had just been titled "Cruise Control". I'm not even kidding, guys. The success of a sequel is entirely linked to how close it stays to the original formula. Any changes, for better or worse, will ruin it for those who expected the original to continue right where it left off.

The only way to make it the same is to make it the same. Game developers and publishers must be aware of this (check out Mega Man 9, 10 and Final Fantasy IV: The After Years) but why do they stick to the old Hollywood sequel mentality? Sure, sequels are profitable since people expect more of something they already like, but in this day and age that kind of thinking is obsolete.

Are classic games doomed forever? No. Not for a few more generations, but the developers of these games have to really start re-thinking the entire process; because no matter how close you stay to an original when making a remake or a sequel, it will never be the same. Developers should consider their games as a form of sub-genre. Whenever they want to make another one, they can re-use the aspects that made it successful, but develop a whole new presentation, especially new characters and story.

I think the best example for this mentality is the Final Fantasy Series. Instead of recycling the same story and characters to capitalize on the success of the original, they decided to make an entirely new game that was a lot like it, but at the same time was entirely new. Every iteration of the franchise turned out to be an entirely different game, the good features stuck, the not so good were left behind, but in no way could a player feel disappointed by the latest version. Whether they liked it or not depended solely on the content of the game, but they had a clear idea what it would be like when they got it.

What if Sega had done all those weird Sonic games with another character? I can guarantee you they would be hits, and the characters starring these games could potentially be the marios and sonics of the next generation.