Hey, hey Bag!

My bros and I have been playing Melee like mad recently. While the controls are nearly perfect in all possible regards, there are a couple of flaws that throw a wrench in the action.

1.) Up on the analogue causes the character to jump, but there are already two dedicated jump buttons. This is redundant to say the least. It screws me up sometimes when I want to do Link's spin attack on the ground, but I end up jumping instead.

2.) You can grab by shielding and pressing the A button, but I found it easier to just press Z. However, the problem with this is that the shield is also mapped to Z in addition to the L and R triggers. Again, this is highly redundant and unnecessary. It becomes an inconvenience when I want to grab my opponent but end up shielding instead.

Timing and precision is everything in that game, but recently these two problems have been really killing those two very important criteria.

Since it has been purported that Brawl will use the Gamecube controller, I'm just wondering if Sakurai got wise to this and just omit the redundancies in Brawl. I think it would definitely streamline the controls and the action.

- Wolfen 359

I guess the reason for the redundancy is so that beginners could find the setup most comfortable for them. Though most people are comfortable with a jump button, it may make more sense to some people that "up = jump." However, for experienced gamers it was pretty much an annoyance, rendering the regular up+A attack fairly useless. You'd either jump or smash instead of doing a standard vertical attack. I do hope that Sakurai and Co. consider this when it comes time to finalize the controls in Brawl.

Hey there NWR, I love your podcast and was hoping maybe you could respond to this constructive criticism on there, if not the mailbag please.

Well I just played Kid Icarus for 2 hours and only got past the first 2 levels, lol. However I think that game is a winner and as long as you keep playing and playing and learning the patterns of both the levels and the monsters it does seem beatable.

To be honest you guys should have more then 3 VC ratings, you should have Not Recommended, Recommended for Fans, Recommended for Everyone, and then the fourth rating a game like Kid Icarus should fall under and that one should be Recommended for Hardcore.

I mean no little kid is gonna be able to beat this game these day's, but it's not just for fan's either cause that implies that only people who love the character, genre, or series should be the only ones to play the game. No, a game like Kid Icarus is a Recommended for Hardcore game, meaning all hardcore gamers that love a hard game should play it. I am hardcore and I knew this game would be tough.

Knowing that I don't mind dying the Million times cause I knew I would be, but I just keep on learning the game and then bam ever so slowly I can beat it, only a hardcore gamer could have this dedication and patience though and that is why a I believe a Recommended for Hardcore rating is sorely needed for your VC Mondays ratings system. What do you guys think?

-Andrew (WPack911 on the boards)

- WPack911
Miami, FL

When we came up with our Virtual Console Mondays format, we decided that three levels of recommendations would be enough to cover all the bases. The absolute greats and the absolute worsts are easy to pick out, but what about those that are in the gray area? We devised the "Recommended for Fans" level in the middle to take care of those games that may only be good for some, but not all. Hence, only fans of the characters, the genre or the mode of gameplay would be best suited to such a game. “Fans" is a broad term, but we felt it was the most appropriate.

I don't believe a "hardcore" recommendation would work in the system we currently have set up. Does a hardcore game mean that only hardcore gamers will like it? I would certainly hope that everyone enjoyed Viewtiful Joe. It's about as hardcore as they come, but it's still something anyone can enjoy, despite its difficulty.

A hard game can still be a game that anyone can have fun with. Therefore, we can still recommend a hard game for everyone. We do note the relative difficulty level in our summary for each game, so if someone out there is turned off by dying left and right, they don't need to get the game. We try to let them know that beforehand.

But you know, the classic "hardcore" games are the foundation of the modern video game industry. Yeah, some of them were balls-to-the-wall hard, but they were just as fun. Unless you want all future games to hold your hand every step of the way like many modern games do today, don't you think it would be better if people were more exposed to real challenges?

Hello NWR. I want to get your opinion on this. As of right now, it's clear that Nintendo it's putting most of its efforts on the Wii, with games like Metroid Prime 3, Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Smash Bros. Brawl, to name a few. It's understandable, since the Wii is the newest thing and all, but I do feel that Nintendo is somewhat 'ignoring' the DS and its success. What's it getting this year? Pokemon, Zelda Phantom Hourglass, and a few others like Custom Robo, but nothing big enough besides that, at least from Nintendo.

So, do you think Nintendo is putting more effort on the Wii because it just launched? Do you expect this to end, so that Nintendo can make great games for both consoles, equally? Do you think they will eventually choose one system to develop for the most?

Thanks

- sergioalb64
Baldwin Park, CA

The Wii has just launched, so it's only natural that all the attention is on the console half of Nintendo's business. We know that Metroid, Mario and Smash Bros. are coming for the Wii. Those are some big games, so you can imagine that all the focus is on them at the moment.

However, let's not forget how big of an impact Pokemon Diamond and Pearl will have when it's released this April. It's a foregone conclusion that the game will be a monster hit, but I think it's gotten to the point where that success is taken for granted. It is the biggest of the big games that will ever be released on the DS, more than likely. And later this year, Phantom Hourglass comes out. A portable Zelda game isn't something to scoff at, either.

Once Nintendo starts better outlining their plans for the rest of this year (which they will probably start doing at GDC), you'll see that Nintendo's got a lot more coming—for both platforms. Nintendo is a large company with many resources at their disposal. Nintendo has always supported their console and handheld equally as well. Both the GameCube and the Game Boy Advance got stellar support over the last five years. They can do the same with the Wii and DS. I wouldn't worry about there being a shift towards one system or the other.

hey bag!

So you guys keep saying on the podcast that most fighting games lag when played online, are that you're skeptical that Nintendo will be able to pull off 4-player fights in SSBB. Okay, I can get that. But do tell, what games are suited for online play? Wario Ware? I know the next Mario Party isn't online, but could it be? Excite truck? really, which games work online and which ones don't? I'm perplexed

~The Midnight ThunderBoy

- hotdiggedydemon

Just about any game will work online. There are even online fighting games, including the Mortal Kombat games on the PS2 and Xbox. What really determines whether or not a game can be taken online is the experience the developer has with networking multiplayer games.

The best example I can think of off the top of my head is online football. Sega demonstrated that the Dreamcast's 56K modem was plenty enough to play an online game with someone without issues, yet there are people that complain about problems with modern versions of Madden playing over the broadband-only Xbox Live. If it can be done on dial-up, why is it not better over broadband? The online programming makes all the difference.

That's the real reason why people are skeptical about Nintendo's claims of online Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Though they do have some online DS games under their belt, Nintendo is still many years behind when it comes to online programming. They may have the technical experience and know-how, but making it work in a game that requires pin-point precision with four people going at once is something entirely different. Even experienced developers don't always get it right the first time. If they did, there wouldn't be any need for patches. Online PC and Xbox 360 games can have unexpected post-launch multiplayer issues fixed after the fact. From the looks of it, Wii games can't. That means Nintendo needs to pull off a perfect four-player online fighter without any problems showing up after the game is released. Given the types of wi-fi games that Nintendo's Japanese studios have previously worked on, that seems like a very tall order to fulfill.

If Nintendo pulls this off, then they can pull off anything. Even though Nintendo is on record as saying SSBB will be online, to exactly what capacity remains unknown. We're all taking a wait-and-see approach on this one, because although Nintendo gets the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the quality of their games, they don't get a free pass in the online sector. Why would they, considering both of Activision's DS games have better online features than any of Nintendo's DS titles?

The DS Mic has been underutilized since it's conception and I'd like to know why. Are game developers having difficulties with it, lack of viable uses, or is the quality of the mic disturbingly bad like the Wii-mote speaker? What's your take on the DS Mic?

- Acefondu
Michigan

I think it's that a microphone and a handheld game system are two things that don't really belong together. To date, the number one use of the DS mic is to blow into it to create an effect. Developers have tried to change up why you'd need to blow into it, but since the action is the same it gets old and boring rather quickly. I wish games would stop using the mic for such an obvious thing.

Microphones should really be for talking into, plain and simple. That means things like voice recognition or online chat. The never-to-be-released Jam With the Band (Daigasso Band Bros.) had a crude, but novel, option where you could hum or sing in to the microphone and the tones would be translated into musical notes for use in the game. Games like Metroid Prime Hunters and Downhill Jam have voice chat in some form or another, but the insensitivity of the mic makes it difficult to talk unless your mouth is right next to the thing and/or you speak into it very loudly.

Ultimately, I think the lack of mic usage in DS games is because it's a very poor quality microphone in a bad position. You can't do anything in the game at the same time you need to use it, basically. To make matters worse, Nintendo has not released an official headset for the DS. If there was an accessory out there that would make it more feasible to use voice commands on the handheld, then we might see the mic get more use.

Now that I think of it, wouldn't a DS version of Odama be the perfect thing? It could come packed-in with the headset and help legitimize the DS microphone as a viable addition.

FIRST, a disclaimer. I don't think that NWR is the worst culprit regarding the following matter, but I think it IS a fairly widespread phenomenon.

With that out of the way, I wanted to ask: What do you guys think of the rating scales used on various sites? Some use a 5-point rating system, while others go with the more common 10-point scale.

Contrary to mathematic logic, I don't believe these systems equate to a 1:2 ratio directly. It seems like a 4.0 is the absolute floor for 10-scale games, yet people more easily give out 2-stars for a bad game. For whatever reason, it seems like the more "even" rating system is the 5-point (stars, cubes, happy faces, etc.) scale, rather than the inflated 10-point scale, which is bloated with games hovering in the 6-8 point range.

I propose that a re-imagining of what constitutes a "bad" game is a "good" idea. In fact, I think it wouldn't be realistic to expect a "bell curve" range of titles. Under this system, a merely "average" game would receive a 5.0/10. I know that you're probably, as reviewers, tempted to pass on the "crappy" games, but I think it's as important for readers to know what's good as what's bad.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

- decoyman
Monterey, CA

This is a topic that a lot of people don't fully understand. The term "average" is not qualitative. It is a statistical term that takes N reviews, adds them all together and divides that sum by N. (That's actually the mean, but people more commonly refer to it as the average.) A score of 5.0/10 would more accurately describe a "mediocre" game, and that's exactly how we refer to those middle-of-the-road releases, as evidenced on our editorial policy page.

So where does this "average" description come from? It just so happens that when taking the average score of games from the major gaming magazines and websites, the figure comes out to be somewhere in the low 7.0 range. Does that mean any game below 7.0 is terrible? No. It just means that the majority of games released are games that are worth playing in one form or another. On most major 10-point scales (ours included), any game above 5.0 is worth playing. History has shown that developers know how to make good, playable, enjoyable games. It's just that the level of good, playable, enjoyable can vary from 5.0 to 10.

I feel that the "inflation" of the 10-point scale is an illusion created by people who read reviews. What's really happening is that people only want to spend their money on games that they know they will like. $50 or $60 is a lot of money to drop on a game, so you want to be absolutely sure the investment will be worth it. At what point do you think a game won't be good because of its review score? Of course any game that gets 9s or 10s will be worth the money. A lot of people will also fork over the clams for something that scores in the 8.0 range. However, once you get into the 7s, things get a little murky. Sure, you could have a decent amount of fun with a game that scores 7.0, but do you really want to spend $50 for that privilege? Especially when there are better games out there? Perhaps. But have you ever bought a $50 game because of it scored a 6.0? Probably not.

The line between a "good" and "bad" game is clear (at least on this site): 5.0. Games below 5.0 are bad, getting worse as the score goes lower. Games above 5.0 are good, getting better as the score goes higher. Most games score above 5.0 because most games are decent or better. That's easy enough.

The line that separates "worth it" and "not worth it" is less clear. In fact, it's impossible to define. Everyone has a different tolerance level when it comes to what games they want to get. If someone really likes a particular genre to death, they'll buy more games from that genre than most other gamers. However, someone on a tight budget may only favor games that score very well, since they know their gaming dollars won't go to waste. A score of "6.5" means two completely different things to each of these people. One may stay away from it because it's not good enough for their budget. Another may see it as a game they might want to check out. That does not change the fact that the game received a 6.5/10, which is a fair score by our books, and by the books of many other publications as well.

So what about five-point ratings scale? The problem people have with a 10-point scale is that the "worth playing" range doesn't match up with where they think it should be. 5.0 is considered low by many on a 1-10 scale, but it's the scale's midpoint (and we treat it as such). 3 is also the midpoint on a scale of 1-5. Why don't 6/10 games get as much attention as 3/5 games? It's how people perceive the score. The five-point scale better fits the worth it/not worth it scale that people create for themselves. 5s and 4s are definitely worth buying. 1s and 2s aren't. 3s are a maybe. However, since people assume that any game scored below 7.0 isn't worth the money, the 10-point scale tends to be skewed higher. Not by reviewers, but by readers.

This phenomena may also be the fault of the game industry in general. Publishers know when they have a super-hit on their hands, and they know when they have a mediocre game. But you know what they do? Charge full price for both. I truly feel that all the games we review are fully deserving the scores they get. However, when you factor in the fact that you need to pay $50 for a 6.0 game versus $50 for a 10 game, of course people are going to think that the 6.0 game has an "inflated" score. You're essentially getting less game for the money. Would people have looked at such a "low-scoring" title more seriously if it had come out at, say, $30? $20? If a game starts off at a discounted price, people will be more willing to buy it because of that. Instead, gamers wait for the inevitable price drop. Nintendo President Satoru Iwata said if companies keep doing that, it will "aggravate the decreasing sales of new software." What publishers should really do is price a game based on its quality and keep it there for the long haul, rather than cut and run. If they did that, people would be more willing to try out more games.

This question really drives home a good point about reviews in general. First, a review is always, always not just the score by itself. Always read the full text of our reviews—or any review for that matter—to see why a game got its score. A game might be a good with flaws, or a mediocre game with bright spots. That can make a difference to a lot of people. Also, make sure the explanation matches the score. Furthermore, don't read one review and take it to the bank; try to get as many perspectives on the game as possible by reading multiple reviews from various publications. By doing so you'll get the whole picture from different angles. That's one of the reasons why we do multiple reviews on important titles.

That's the end of the mailbag. There's nothing much else left to say, other than to send in questions for next week's update!