Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - MukiDA

Pages: [1]
1
NWR Forums Discord / Underpaid Lycanthropic Labor
« on: September 15, 2013, 01:24:38 AM »
So anyone who's played Style Savvy (anyone?) knows that whenever a full moon shines over your town, the game progresses. New shops will pop up, new buildings will open, and your store may even get larger.


But why a full moon?



After a brief discussion with a close friend, we came across the most viable probability: Werewolves.



It's the only thing that makes sense. Every time a full moon hangs over the city, werewolves rise from the depths... and get to work. I don't know if they're contractors or if they get picked up en masse from Home Depot (many are open 24 hours), but clearly, werewolves are building this town from the ground up.

2
So before getting into any Tales game review, I need to start with a quick breakdown for someone who's never played one of these titles: Do you like RPGs (especially the linear Japanese type)? Do you enjoy fighting games? Do you wish someone would mix them together akin to a Reese's cup? Then pick this game up. End of review.

Tales of Xillia is 13th entry in the (1)"mothership" line of "Tales of Titles", and the 9th if you use Symphonia as the new "start" to the series. Since Symphonia, the series has built pretty steadily in an iterative pace. Sequels have had a tendency to smooth out rough edges, and the production at this point looks like a finely-tuned machine. The franchise is absurdly formulaic, but it's a good formula.

The best way to describe a Tales game is "optimized". You'll never find a more play-tested J-RPG franchise. Cinematics are split between major story points and intra-character "skits", the latter of which are 100% optional. New to Xillia (note: I haven't played Graces, the previous entry) is the ability to skip the main story points as well, along with being able to move to the title screen from any pause menu. If you've ever reloaded a save file and forgot to change armor/skills/etc. right before stepping over the "cut scene activiation line", this is pretty useful. The game still relies on save points, but litters them around the world pretty liberally. Also new to Xillia is the ability to "quick save". The feature is limited to a single save file, but can be done anywhere outside of combat.

Combat's similarly optimized. Tales games play very much like something between fighting games and brawlers. Think Smash Bros., in that holding a direction on the left analog stick will call out a different special move. As RPGs tend to have significantly more abilities/spells available than fighters, you can assign which directions call which move/spell in your "Artes" menu. Each direction on the right analog stick can also be (2)assigned. Because different abilities have different movement paterns and effects, there's a fun meta-game and putting together a nice assortment of abilities to keep your enemy juggled. It's the only RPG that has combo videos are posted online. Some fighter abilities even heal, which helps party versatulity significantly.

Xillia brings in some combat elements to limit the "attack spamming" issue that can be prevailant in RPGs of this nature with the continuation of the "Assault Counter" (AC) meter first shown in the previous Wii/PS3 entry, Tales of Graces. Each attack or special move drains one point of the counter, and when it hits 0 you have to wait a couple of seconds before attacking again. It works as a low-end stamina bar that forces you to think of combos that will fit within your window of attacks and simultaneously limit enemy retalation. A dodge mechanic somewhat similar to Wind Waker's also allows you to quickly get the drop on enemies that would otherwise be impossible to hit consistently. Finally, a loss during a battle no longer results in a "game over" screen, as you now have the option to re-start combat in this event. It's not quite as harmless as Xenoblade Chronicles, but it's a definite step up in options that previously weren't common in RPGs of any nature. Note that if this isn't your first rodeo and you decide to play a step above "normal" difficulty, you may wish to double-check your items collection before a major boss battle, as your characters will rather quickly deplete your inventory in normal combat.

Graphics are a mixed bag. I personally prefer the uncompromised cel-shaded look of previous Tales games, and Xillia opts for a fully shaded world. Water looks amazing (think Half-Life 2), but the game can take a pretty big hit to framerate and speed during some of the flashier boss battles.

That said, the in-game cinematics have definitely taken a step up. The Tales team has significantly improved their ability to "shoot" action sequences since Tales of the Abyss, and facial expressions are far removed from the "porcelain doll syndrome" present or worked around in other J-RPGs (I'm looking at you, Star Ocean 4 and Arland series). Rowen, the party's "distinguished older gentlemen", particularly shines in this regard, and the game is decidedly far less depending on (3)2D cel animation than previous Tales titles have been. Costume designs are just as outlandish and seemingly out-of-place as any Tales game (Graces especially), with a bit of lampshading for Milla and Jude thrown into the skit selection.

That last bit reminded me about another major point in the game: You start by choosing between one of the two main characters on the box: Milla Maxwell and Jude Mathis. The story is told from the character's perspective, which results im some markedly different segments whenever their storylines diverge. Sometimes the sequences even change completely, such as an arrow-dodging event on Jude's part that looks decidedly less impressive from Milla's point of view. In either event, the game is enjoyable, but please don't hold back from choosing the character you'd rather enjoy sticking with, as the story does a good job of highlighting them, especially in the events leading to the 3rd act.

Speaking of which, the characters are pretty endearing in this title. Most of the bad guys are enjoyably outlandish and quite well fleshed-out. While we probably won't see a Tales protagonist as great as Yuri Lowell anytime soon, Jude and Milla stand out well in their own right as characters who develop outside of their somewhat narrow worldviews throughout the adventure. A definite plus is that Teepo, this game's obligatory "stuffed piece of junk" character, is far more tolerable than his peers and at times quite lovable. About the only groan-inducing elment of the roster is Ivar, but eventually the story becomes pretty self-aware about it and they run his goofy anime hamminess for all its worth.

Of final note is that Xillia curbs quite a few good ideas from Xenoblade's playbook. As there's no world map, travelling throughout most of the game can be done by clicking the right analog stick in (e.g. the R3 button) and selection your destination, and often the game will reward you for re-visiting earlier areas to perform quests. Also new is that very quest system, which allows you to pick up small missions to take care of from NPCs in towns and seaports. Rather than crafting items, the materials you pick up throughout the game are used to directly upgrade your shops. These materials are present in every area via a glowy dog or a knapsack left on the ground. They replenish regularly and previously-located items are marked on the map in a predictable pattern, so collecting them regularly and enhancing the team's combat abilities is pretty easy, even if you're battle-averse.

I very much enjoyed my time with Xillia, and am about 3/4 of the way into my second playthrough via the game's "New Game+" style system. If you had a good time with previous entries, or if you fall into that "RPG/Fighter" niche, you'll probably have quite a good time with this title. Mind you, if you're sick of Tales games (9 3D entries since 2004 might do that to you), there's nothing Xillia's going to bring to the table to turn you around, but for the rest of us, it's a very solid purchase.

A-

Pros: Game's just as enjoyable as previous entries, awesome combat
Cons: No more cel-shading, gold acquisition ramp is a little rough on the first playthrough

(1)As the franchise is pretty aggressive about sequels, spin-offs, and itterations, and more importantly, as the franchise doesn't really have a numbered naming convention, Namco has created a handy label to make out which entries in the franchise are the ones you should be looking most forward to. For the sake of comparion, the Wii sequel of the Gamecube game, the PSP entries, and the newly-annouced iOS/Android "Tales of Link" are all considered spin-offs.

(2) Pro-Tip: The right analog stick can be assigned to any move that ANY member in your party has access to. If you want to quickly spam your party member's best moves, you can assign them to directions on that stick and essentially spin it around during boss battles. I personally assing left/right to attack spells and up/down to healing spells.

(3) Previously done by Production I.G. and handled this time around by Ufotable, of Mobile Suit Gundam Seed fame. Character designs were by Daigo Okumura, though in-game and in-cinema, they seem very heavily influenced by Hisashi Hirai's work (Gundam Seed, S.cry.ed), with a hint of Clamp's Code Geass designs.

3
If you caught RFN 347, you probably heard when The Great Sage Jones called your ass out. You know your type:

- No items
- Static Stages (a lot of Final D 'n Battlefield)
- Wavebirds/GC Remotes only
- 2 players only (when practical)
- C-Stick is for dirty, dirty cheats

Essentially, we attempt to drag Smashy Bros, tooth and nail, closer to being a fighting game.

My credentials, via Twitter:
https://twitter.com/RichardOshey/status/332502274985295872/photo/1

I mainline princesses. I just want to start off saying, I'm here for you guys.

4
General Gaming / The "Anime Bullshit" genre
« on: August 22, 2013, 11:08:30 AM »
First off, before I get started on this one, I'd like to clarify that my biggest grief with this genre is that I can't stop patronizing it.

So, what has to be the most sobering realization with the breakdown of the market/momentum walls that kept a ton of anime bullshit out of this country is that, most of it isn't particularly good.

What's the "anime bullshit" genre? Don't worry, it's not an actual single game genre. It's the umbrella term for every game present at your local game stop that nobody's purchased in three months, is probably published by NIS or XSeed, and only gets purchased because it has anime bullshit on the cover.

Examples include Hyperdimension Neptunia (the console wars RPG), Otomedius (Gradius with boobs), Record of Agarest War Zero (the bouncing boob cinematic RPG), and very Arland game.

For the most part, these games are in the 4-6 mediocrity extravaganza range, and about the only thing that keeps you from taking them home is glancing metacritic on your phone.

For those who could actually manage some import cash, it was the DBZ and Ranma½ fighting games in the 16-bit era.

So with all that out of the way, what shining gems have you guys found in this genre? Note that they, under no circumstances, need to be publicly well-received. I enjoy the Ultimate Ninja Storm series, for example.

Also note that respected franchises that happen to brandish the art style ( Fire Emblem, Persona, Tales of Xxx-ia, etc.) don't count.

5
General Chat / Why does Pixar keep making Cars movies?!
« on: August 10, 2013, 04:16:36 PM »
This is actually your answer, in case you ever wanted to know:

Walk into any toy store or major retail chain with a toy section. Count the number of toys you see for:

Toy Story (any)
A Bug's Life
Monsters, Inc.
Finding Nemo
The Incredibles
Ratatouille
WALL-E
Up
Brave

The number is probably very low, and would be at 0 if Monsters University had been 3 months past the home video release. You know what you'll have no trouble finding in the toy department?

Cars toys.

You know what franchise you'll also find perennially in the bookbags, shoes, and lunch bag/thermos section?

Again, Cars.

Pixar keeps making them because the toys sell all year long, and probably see a sizable boost when another movie hits. I mean, this is a company that pushes boundaries as to what can be done in a 3D movie; take a look at the environments in The Incredibles, fur rendering (including impacts of collapsible particle-laden objects) in Monsters, Inc., and even the boundary/portal tricks used in Presto. Cars, from what I can gather, is probably the project Pixar trains new staff members on, because it's the definition of a safe film.

Chances are, the franchise pays for itself and has no bearing on the release of their major feature films.

6
General Gaming / Do we have a "non-tendo" sidebar/forum?
« on: August 10, 2013, 04:02:12 PM »
In adding to my 3DS, I've got an iPad and iPhone 4S. What I've noticed is that I occassionally get excited by DS and 3DS hand-me-downs. On the flipside is that some of them are fantastic ports, and some of them are really bad.

Having a full-time job makes it pretty trivial to even try out the more expensive Square ports, but I assume a few people might be on the fence because even high end studios (See: Square 'n Capcom) have put out some stinkers (See: Chrono Trigger and Mega Man X) among some fantastic ports (Final Fantasy Tactics, Ghost Trick) and some YMMV releases (TheatRhythm, Phoenix Wright 123 HD).

Anyone want a breakdown of some titles? Do we already have a section for this?

7
5. You find yourself shamefully hiding accidentally-bought second (and third, see note for #2) copies of a game you haven't played yet.
4. You own Metroid:Other M, Aliens:Colonial Marines, AND Amy.
3. You excitedly rushed to add a game to your shopping cart during a Steam sale, only to realize you've owned that game for six months.
2. You buy games before 6 a.m. (seek help)
1. You can't pirate games. I don't mean you won't, I mean you can't. At best they're cracked backups of your library.

8
- Fecal transplant shake.
(~1% advantage, Diet Coke)
- Cyanide
(lost on the second round; testers in question had no prior experience w/ Diet Coke)

9
General Gaming / Xbox One: The coin's shiny side.
« on: July 04, 2013, 02:44:43 PM »
So I think I made a decent (who knows, I didn't spark much discussion) point about the problems with turning discs into download code, and thankfully, most people had a similar viewpoint: Microsoft backtracked, more than likely after seeing the initial pre-order sales figures.

So with that hoopla out of the way and dismantled, I'd like to discuss the flipside on the system: Xbox One's cloud services will do more to put people online, and a HELL of a lot more to KEEP people online, than that braindead system could have ever hoped to accomplish.

Again, disclaimer: I have zero current plans to pick up a One. The PC covers the grand majority of games I'd want on that system anyway, and even my PS4 purchase will be dependent on whether Namco, NIS America, whoever buys Atlus, and Arc Systemworks, et al, learn how to actually release the PC version of every one of their games that they have to develop ANYWAY. ( though no, doing this is nowhere near as trivial as it sounds)


So Xbox One cloud services. There's nothing magical about them. If you want the entire first half of this explains in a moderately concise manner, check out the latest Giant Bombcast.

The fact of the matter is, it's a bunch of computers. It's a metric buck-ton of computers, and they're designed to run software in a trivial, automatically load-balancing manner. If you want more info on this sort of thing, look up "Map Reduce" or "PC Cluster" on Google. You'll find more info than you probably ever wanted on the subject.

It's a crap-ton of computers and they're all owned by Microsoft. In addition, the "price" of using these machines is probably split two ways between the licensing fee developers are ALREADY paying to make every Xbox 360 game and your Xbox Live Gold subscription. What this means is that, for all intents and purposes, this tech is free.

If you've ever played an online game whose entire online component, especially in games that keep data about your game (how you rank in a Madden football season, for instance), there've been many times where the data they kept has been beyond the scope of the console makers' (e.g. Sony/Microsoft/especially Nintendo) online components. This means that the publisher themselves need to pay for the online functionality they provide, and quite regularly. Whatmore, most publishers have no idea how in the **** de-centralized processing works, and as a result, are putting out game-specific server boxes. This means two things:

#1. Their scalability is going to be crap by design. If they build every one of these groups of servers to match launch requirements, over half would go unused after the first week. So in thinking "long-term", they will nearly always have horrifyingly broken launch periods.

#2. Their lastability is going to be even worse. "Long-term" is essentially until people stop buying new copies of the game, especially if the number of additional users hopping on starts to eclipse sales (e.g.  a market that buys the game mostly used), at which point, poof, their desire to continue spending cash to maintain these servers for this purpose begins to evaporate, and after a brief period of time, so will the servers HAVING that purpose in the first place. They'll be wiped and set to function as servers for whatever the new game is, and then you go back to #1.

So Microsoft has a ton of computers for this kind of thing. From their estimates, they have enough to have access to 3 complete servers for every single concurrent Xbox One that's online at any given moment.

What does this mean for you, as a player? By taking the cost of running and maintaining servers out of the developers' and publishers' hands, you're going to look at the near-abolishment of games going "permanently offline". Whatmore, because Microsoft DOES know how to arbitrarily spin of servers and shut them down as need be, and near-instantly re-allocate machines for other purposes (if they can't, they don't have any goddamn business running a cloud platform), this means that they can easily justify spending millions of dollars on new machines in anticipation of a major online game release (say, an MMO), because once the initial load of new users dies down, they can immediately use those otherwise "idle" servers on EVERY OTHER GAME IN THEIR LIBRARY.

The biggest influx of users you're going to see on the Xbox One is going to happen at these two milestones:

- A major publisher (EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc.) is going to shut down their entire online infrastructure for a major game one or two years after its release due to the reasons I mentioned above. But this is only going to happen to the PS4 and/or Wii U releases of this title. The Xbox One version will still be online for years to come.
- A major publisher is going to release an incredibly online-heavy title (MMO, MOBA, freemium version of either, fighting game, persistent-world FPS, etc.) and the launch is going to be a rather dirty mess. Tons of people are going to constantly see "could not connect"-style errors.... on the two platforms that Microsoft DIDN'T release.

Second prediction? Inside of two years, Sony and/or Nintendo will sign a major deal with Google or Amazon to provide similar functionality, and it's going to be a rough first few years for them because they'll be playing a frighteningly desparate game of catch-up.

Okay, I'll save the second point (all that physics and magical power-boosting nonsense, and how it could actually be feasible) for a follow-up to this post, as I think this is already a big of a wall of text. I'm not even sure you could take this wall down without Mikhail Gorbachev's involvement.

10
Nintendo Gaming / Did I just burn $35 on an RPG without combat?!
« on: June 21, 2013, 10:36:51 AM »
And if so, why do I love playing it so much?

(Animal Crossing: New Leaf)

11
Nintendo Gaming / Disgaea 3: A simple guide
« on: June 21, 2013, 10:35:28 AM »
Seriously, this one is as simple as it gets. You want more complicated? GameFAQs.

1. Build mages. Not optional. Build them fast and build them often. You'll be done with the main story in under 20 hours.
- Yes, they will be glass canons. Yes, I would recommend finishing a fight before they get slaughtered.

2. If you're looking to level up QUICK after that, look these terms up on Google:
- Reverse pirating
- Statistician
- Item duping

Get yourself 24 or more statisticians(x300 each), split amongst 3-4 items, and you'll get your characters to level 4,000+ in just a few quick fights.

You'll be doing hundreds of thousands or even millions of points in no time!

12
'cause I would eminent-domain the **** out of Tom Nook's home 'n business.

13
NWR Forums Discord / Stop!
« on: June 19, 2013, 07:10:23 AM »
Collaborate and LISTEN!
- Navi

14
Nintendo Gaming / New Leaf layout tips?
« on: June 17, 2013, 06:13:50 AM »
I just started my game, but now I'm stuck pondering over the town layout.

This is my first Animal Crossing game. Anything in specific I should shoot for in terms of house placement?

15
Okay, I'll get a couple things outta the way:
- If I get a PS4, it'll be to play those games on Vita.
- When I get a Wii U, it'll be to play Mario rehashes and Smash
- I have zero plans to get an Xbox One
-- I think it'll probably be the most successful console this generation, and people are seriously underestimating how ridiculously brilliant that UI looks. It makes the competition look like Smart TVs.
-- I don't even really think that their setup is bad. I'm just clarifying here why I'll never hop on myself.

Okay, I'm only jotting this down because I'm getting really tired of seeing the discussion fall to:
"Well not everyone has a great internet connection"
"What about our soldiers?"
"What if I need to sell my games?"
"How is it any different from Steam?"

And I hate this direction because it's easy to come up with interim solutions, and it detours the most glaring issue:

The DRM scheme the Xbox One is using for games is a bad idea, and it serves no purpose.

So let's do this categorically.

Number One: It's not about how good your internet connection is. I could live in a fucking Tier 1 datacenter and it wouldn't matter. We could have a magical wireless internet that worked in the center of the earth and this would STILL be a bad idea.

Number Two: It's nothing like Steam. We accept Steam's DRM requirement of being occassionally connected because it's on a PC. It's essentially an open system. You connect a USB drive, or a memory card, or some wacky SSH/FTP mount, and it's storage. You can copy anything to that storage. There's nothing stopping you from moving bits from point A to point B under any and all circumstances. Keeping you from making bootleg copies of a purchased program is a viable challenge. Consoles aren't working in that ecosystem. This problem doesn't exist in that world; they're completely closed off to prodding. They have copy protection that every non-interactive entertainment industry has wet dreams about. THEY DO NOT NEED TO PHONE HOME TO KEEP CONTENT SAFE FROM PIRACY.

Number Three: "Always-On" internet connectivity is a great thing. It's a fantastic idea. "Required-On" connectivity is pointless. Always-On means that you can build a content that has your games patched before you get home. It means your inbox will always be up to date. It means you can get instant access to impending developments as they happen. NONE of these features logically transition to a situation where a lack of connection breaks all locally stored content, and it's not really okay to act like they do.

Bonus Example: iPhones and Android phones COME with the internet. When you buy one, you buy a service plan that, 99.99% of the time, includes a data plan. Internet access is intrinsic to nearly EVERYTHING that those devices do, and somehow there is not a SINGLE one of these devices on the planet whose apps, books, photos, music and/or movies saved internally suddenly lock themselves away from you if that connection (or their servers) disappears for ANY length of time.

In finale, the core problem is better explained by paraphrasing Penny Arcade:
The moment they decide it's not worth it anymore your entire fucking library will evaporate.
(http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2013/05/13)


The last device that had this requirement was DIVX. Joke about its failures, but some people did purchase DIVX movies, and none of those purchases exist anymore.

Time to go grandiose and anvilicious. At the end of the day, these things are art. They are an art form, and this setup has been engineered to destroy our ability, as a SOCIETY to preserve it. And for what? It's not even to prevent piracy; they solved that problem over six years ago. It's to circumvent first sale doctrine.

If you don't see that as disgusting at its core, I'm not sure what else I can tell you.

16

So first off, a warning: I write walls of text. A lot. They may not be particularly cohesive, so please skip on if rants give you migraines. =3


My dissapointment about the "Tales" segment on Connectivity a few months back stemmed mainly from the fact that there was very little discourse regarding the actual game mechanics, and this is part and parcel what MAKES these games. Whatmore, much like the Bourne movies (legacy notwithstanding), the formula is so tightly knit that we go into sequels with FULL KNOWLEDGE that we're getting more of the same with a different story skin (though I could easily go on about how good Vesperia's story was).


I realize that many people have glanced over other people's shoulders at this game series and wondered just why there's such a fevor amongst its fanbase. So with that, I give you:


Why I love the Tales series.
(umm, starting from Symphonia).

Okay, so this is gonna be a running theme: Tales games to most JRPGs (the Final Fantasies in particular) are very much like Eternal Darkness is to Resident Evil: The budgets are much smaller but the focus on gameplay results in a far more pleasurable experience. (note: A very self-professed Tales Whore is making that statement. You may need a packet or small jar of salt to swallow it.)


1. Items you'll actually use.
Generally speaking, health/mana restoration items in RPGs fit into a very "junk/jewelry" mentality really early on. Health restoration items don't scale with your health, and you burn through the ranks of them pretty quickly. Combined with the post-battle group health casting that becomes standard 10-20 hours in, and the health potions pretty quickly get relagated to the junk drawer.
Magic restoration is the opposite. They're either so ridiculously expensive (being 10-100x the price of the health-restoring items) or so rare (being outright unbuyable, and only showing up half a dozen times over the course of hte adventure) that you pretty much hoard them up to the ending credits. Just like jewelry, most of them stay locked away, and only find use on special ocassions.
So the Tales/Star Ocean series fixes this problem quickly and sucinctly. One, all items scale. HP and MP (or TP or SP, or whatever they're calling it nowadays) restoring items restore a percentage of the resource. Meaning, the potion you bought an hour is is just as useful in the final boss battle. The trade-off? Item cap of 15-20. This means you can't just spam these items in battle, and still have to use them stategically. But you will use them.


2. Casters and fighters stay neck 'n neck.
This RPG flaw isn't J- specific, and has probably been around for as long as the term RPG has existed, as it started in D&D. May I present you with: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards
This is by far the biggest source of annoyance in role playing games. Fighters are cool and all, but if you want an experience that stays fun for more than a day, you go with magic casters. In a party system, this means your fighters eventually fall to the "waiter" roll of dolling out items because you're not gonna waste your summoner's turn with trivial stuff like that. While there's always new spells to learn, your combat specialists don't go far beyond *"attack".
For this one, the Tales series basically pulled things straight out of anime (or possibly fighting games) in giving the swordmaster a variety of special attacks, and combat mechanics around linking them into a variety of combs. Heck, some of them even get healing attacks, making them just as versatile as your spellcasters while being significantly more mobile.
And that's another thing...


3. The party "dynamic".
Most RPGs have the concept of defending instead of attacking on a given turn, and most of them teach you early on to put your weaker spellcasters in the "back row" of your party, and your attackers up front.
Is it just me, or does the difference in both instances so negligible that it almost doesn't matter?
In the SNES era, the difference between defending and just taking a hit after attacking was so minuscule that you might as well call the defend option "skip this turn". There were entire swaths of games where my healer would be in the front row because it just didn't make that much of a difference as far as damage was concerned (especially when enemies started casting spells), simply because they accidentally fell into the front row and it didn't matter enough to change.
Sooooo, here's where the Tales series makes a monumental improvement in the formula.
Spellcasters don't just insta-cast when their turn comes up. They open up a magic circle beneath them (signifying a spell is being cast) and then cast it after a few seconds. While this timespan can be sped-up, it does take time. And if they get hit by a significant degree, that spell is interrupted. Blocking attacks usually results in taking significantly less damage (170 vs, say, 20). Between the two of these, not only do you now have fighters and spellcasters on equal footing (each with their own strengths and weaknesses), they now need to work together. A fighter's job, in part, is to actively look out for their spell casters and intercept enemies making a beeline for them to assure that their area-smashing lightning spell, or their party-saving healing spell, actually gets cast. Whatmore it also forces the players to make judgement calls, as they need to decide on dealing with a knight now or taking a couple of hits in order to intercept the enemy mages.


4. Real-Time Battle
I'll have to hold off on this one in any major depth, because I could write a page centered entirely around "how not to hate real-time combat", but this one I think is more left up to personal taste. I personally like taking a fully active role in my combat, to me, turn-based feels a bit archaic (I say this, having just burned +150 hours in Disgaea 3...), and far more importantly, I like fighting games. Fighters and RPGs are by far my two favorite genres, and any game that combines the two tends to be seen favorably in my eyes.
But I'll leave it at, the battles are real-time, meaning you move and attack in ways pretty similar to adventure games or, as previously mentioned, fighting games. And the Tales series, especially from Symphonia on, bring a few elements to the table that make it far more enjoyable a combat style than, say, Star Ocean (Which I could also write at length about).


5. A whole mess of story... if you want it.
So my biggest complaint about Golden Sun, and this becomes especially jarring if you try playing it again, is that the game had a truck-load of dialogue for a game where, story-wise, not a whole lot really happened. I mean, you could take the average 5-minute a-button-tapping jamborie in that game and condense it into about a sentence's worth of information.
This is a common issue with a lot of J-RPGs. You want to tell your story, but you also want there to be a lot of inter-character dialogue. You want your characters to feel like real, fleshed-out human beings. The problem is that animation is expensive. So chances are, you're going to have to make a decision, budget-wise: You can either have a few scenes where your characters have believable expressions and solid acting, or you can have a BUCKET-TON of dialogue, and more character depth to go with it, at the expense of a lot of "porcelain doll syndrome", or what a friend of mine affectionately calls "The Squeenix Valley". This ruined Star Ocean 4 for me.
The Tales series came up with a storytelling mechanic that finds a solid compromise for this problem. Basically, at various points in the game, you'll get a quick "story segment", that is 100% optional, that you'll get from pressing the start/select/back/etc. button when the prompt for the scene comes up. You get a brief dialogue, usually text-only, between 2D portraits of the characters. Usually they'll have animated mouths, and their expressions will change as the sequence demands it. They're 100% character pieces, which basically lets you experience all the intra-story banter between your party members, and usually only reiterates or reinforces major parts of the story itself. You might even get funny bits about characters you'd never **see or guess otherwise.
The magic, is, of course, that they're all optional. This becomes increasingly noticeable when you realize that a 2nd run-through of the game takes you half as long as the first one did, EXP boosts notwithstanding. It lets you keep all the fun parts of playing a long adventure, without forcing you to sit through multiple instances of the minutia. Now if only they'd allow you to skip what few dialogue sequences remain, especially ones that precede boss battles.


6. Cooking!
I'll leave this one brief. I could write up a list of "Stuff Tales games do right", which I think I've just about done here, but this one is a cute work-around to an issue that comes up with point #1. Fact is, while the item dynamic works really well during battle, it leaves you with an issue about dwindling resources over the course of a long dungeon. So they came up with the concept of cooking, which allows you to put together a meal after every fight. As you can store MANY different kinds of ingredients, this allows you to stay on top of keeping your health and mana at a moderate level without having to constantly use your precious "gels" (the health/mana-restoring items). As you can't eat food while IN combat, it makes for a way to keep combat exciting while limiting dungeon fatigue. Whatmore, it creates a whole new gameplay mechanic in learning recipes and figuring out who the best cooks in your party are while enjoying a practical side benefit in improving your dungeon and exploring stamina.


7. The last brick in this wall of text.
So yeah, that, in my opinion, is what gets people enamored with this series. While the gameplay has stayed pretty steady/familiar since the initial Gamecube offering, that core foundation is so well tuned, and the formulas that lead into it so solid, that picking up entries in the franchise is now pretty much a given for me (got my pre-order set for the idiotic collector's edition of Xillia the day I found out it existed). I could go at length into things that Symphonia specifically did that I really wish would come back to the serie (like the brilliant anti-maze dungeon designs), but I'll save that wall for another day.
*I've played a lot of FFs, so yes, I know there's other skills for those types of jobs, but for the most part, they're either spellcasting with a REALLY low spell list ceiling or getting skills which enhance what "attack" does.
** Like finding out that Yuri Lowell is really into catgirls.


(Modified a whole mess of times because the forum software did funny things to my formatting)

17
General Chat / On the Wii U's CPU
« on: December 03, 2012, 06:50:19 AM »
So I'm not sure that I'm entirely knowledgable enough to discuss this, or if I'm even in the right place, but I figured I'd drop my $0.02 in rather than yell at the podcast.


The bad? The CPU is really as bad as it looks. It's basically three overclocked Wiis, and without that graphics chip, it can't even play high def video. (Key technical point: The Wii's CPU cannot handle the h.264 codec, a popular Blu-Ray codec, in standard definition. 1080p is a little under six times that, so I will stand by my point)


The good? It probably doesn't matter as much as it appears to. The CPU's main weakness (aside from the low clock rate) is a complete lack of SIMD units. Basically, SIMD units are like mini-processors that let CPUs handle work far beyond what they're normally capable of. They're what allow the PS3 to stream video to the PSP, or even just decode Blu-Ray for that matter.


It's something that, more than likely, the Wii U's graphics chip can pick up the slack for and then some. Since about two Ati generations after the 360 (and one Nvidia gen after the PS3), graphics chips have been able to handle SIMD-like workloads by themselves. Problem on the PC is that for them to handle anything not graphics oriented (like hair, cloth, and liquid physics that we're starting to see in games like Borderlands 2), you basically have to bounce data back and forth between your main ram and graphics ram, which slows things down enough to not be worth it.


On the Wii U there's no such separation. It's all one memory bank, and I'm sure it won't take long for Epic (among other devs) to start implementing the sharing of some workloads between the two chips, if for no other reason than to take advantages of current and upcoming developments in hardware (AMD's Fusion chips, the next Xbox). That said, there's no way they were gonna get something like that ready for launch (and even if they did, games in development would be using much older versions of their engines by then. See Madden).


Without any GPGPU (using a graphics chip for CPU purposes) code in launch titles, developers basically have an Xbox 360 CPU with zero optimizations and close to a third the clock rate, and it shows. Assuming Epic and Ubisoft optimize their engines to snatch a little extra computing power from the GPU, it should look substantially different next year.


That said, the Wii U WILL be a pretty big step down from the 2013-on systems from Sony & Microsoft, but it won't be anywhere NEAR as much of a disparity as the Wii had to deal with. It's only slower, whereas the Wii just outright didn't have functionality that PC devs had been used to for five years by the time it launched. (Basically, graphics shader tech) If you want a comparison point, compare Doom 3 on the original Xbox to the BFG edition that came out this year on 360. It'll be closer to that.

Edit note: I am never writing a wall of text rant on my iPad ever again.


18
General Gaming / On "Valve Time" and not anticipating HL3
« on: August 25, 2012, 02:53:37 AM »
Warning: I write walls of text. If you're thinking "tl;dr" at a glance, go with your gut.

Right off the bat, I'll make my point clear. Whenever Valve decides to continuation to the Half Life franchise, I'll be picking it up day 1. I don't care if it takes me a week for Steam's servers to steady out from the load it causes.

That said, I'm in no hurry. At the end of the day, I don't really care much about Half Life's story. When you build a story with cliffhangers that have no forseeable conclusion (Resident Evil movies, EVERY Half Life game to date), you're probably not telling a very good story, and more than likely piecing it together per iteration (see every season of Heroes and Dexter past the first).

Only the story is not really what gets me into that series, anymore than the story being what got me into Prometheus. Half-Life is really a series of amazing moments and sequences, long before it became a standard for FPSs, and, in all honesty, it still does this the best out of most titles. The cinemas never cut to a different perspective and the game RARELY takes control away from the player (even when amazing things are happening). Never mind that the game's biggest events require active and skilled participation from the player, as opposed to the "Theme Park Attraction" approach most modern titles take to this kind of immersion.

Basically, I'll be glad to plunker down and enjoy 6-8 hours of whatever Valve releases in the next few years. Which segways quite nicely into...

Valve Time

So much like this site's titularly loved games producer, Valve has a tendency to release software on the "When it's done" schedule. Franchises disappear for ages, and screenshots have very little value for completion estimates until a street date is on our laps. Even that doesn't always mean a whole lot. And the final single-player games tend to be short (both Portal games, for instance)

I think what most people don't realize about Valve Time, however, and what didn't really click for me until the release and subsequent critical backlash of Quantum Conundrum, is just how much of that results in what we DON'T get to play in their eventual releases. A GREAT deal of every dev cycle for Valve is research, into both how they can extend their engine (hell, look at DOTA 2 and all the Mac/Linux work) and what works best over the course of their games. The chunk we never see is what they find DOESN'T work in their titles, because at best, we get snippets of that in the dev commentary.

Who knows how many OTHER ideas Valve worked on for weeks or months that, as work wrapped up on that segment of a game, turned out to NOT BE FUN. Who knows how many programmer days (e.g. 24 hour periods, not work days) funneled into a gameplay or graphics concept that modern hardware at the time wasn't ready for, and was scrapped (or pushed into future consideration).

Next time you get a chance, if you own a DVD or Blu-Ray copy of Serenity, take a look at the deleted scenes. Most of them are minutes of extra dialogue in various parts of the movie that contributed NOTHING to the plot and actually felt a little "rambly". Half of that movie's brilliance (imho) was what never left the cutting room floor, something that is RARE in video games. "Insert Credit" had a feature on this problem some time ago, and how the rather excessive cost of game development (and this was written before the current console generation started) leads to a distinct lack of editing in games, for both story and level elements.

Basically, look at it this way: Among other things, Valve Time keeps "Scrappy Levels" down to a minimum.

19
Nintendo Gaming / On the Wii and "niche" game sales...
« on: August 21, 2012, 11:09:24 AM »
You know, there's a lot of discussion that happens as to whether it's worth it to bring games stateside, especially on the Wii. The thing that nobody seems to bring up, however, is just HOW well some of these discussed games have actually done. At least according to VG Chartz...

- Tatsunoko vs Capcom?
The USA release sold as much (270,000 copies) as the European (140k) & Japanese (130k) COMBINED. Mind you, this is counting the fact that Japan got two releases of this game (regular + international version).

- Okami?
Not so hot in Japan & Europe, but in the states, it outsold the PS2 version 3 to 1 (390k vs 110k)

- Xenoblade Chronicles?
200k in Europe, 160k in Japan, 300k in the states. Keep in mind, this is with a limited release AND 4 months' worth of sales vs nearly a year in Europe and over two years in Japan.

At the end of the day, North America is far more than a "niche" market of these games, and about the only reason this stuff doesn't get more exposure is more than likely due to the fact that Nintendo has too many multi-million-selling franchises to bother with the effort >_<

That said, I'll just about lose it if we even have to FATHOM something like operation rainfall on the Wii U. Digital Distribution should make bringing over already-translated NOE titles ARBITRARY.

20
Nintendo Gaming / More games on the e-shop retail section?
« on: August 17, 2012, 06:03:46 AM »
I can't be the only one hoping for the e-shop retail launch to not be limited to simply NSMB2.

For one, I want DOA:D. I don't care if I have to buy it twice, I just want that game permanently embedded into my system.

The same thing goes for TheatRythm, which I don't actually own yet. 99 times out of 100 I'd rather whip out my 3DS than my iPhone for 5 minutes of fun, and that game seems plenty apt for that kinda use.

There's a few other games I'd wait to get cheap, but for the most part, "small bits of fun" genres like fighting or puzzle seem perfect for this purchasing option. James' comments on the podcast definitely shot my hopes way up for e-shop releases of existing titles, so hopefully we'll see some of the older stuff come back =3

21
Warning: Wall of text.

I'm not sure if anyone keeps up on non-gaming news, but a good chunk, if not most of you, have probably seen the biggest battle currently going on across consumer device makers: The fight to be THE set-top box.

Apple has the AppleTV, Google has GoogleTV, and now the Nexus Q. Microsoft is trying to turn their Xbox platform into the place to go for everything, from Netflix to Battlefield. Even Sony has done a pretty good job of trying to link all of their "Bravia" devices, including the PS3, together under a single ecosystem.

The average consumer has a tendency to not be a big fan of switching inputs on their television, and this is probably the largest contributor to everyone fighting so hard to stay on the TV. If you watch all of your movies on the Xbox, why bother switching over to the PS3 to start playing games? Vice versa, of course, and with digital distribution of games becoming far more prevalent in this generation (and probably ubiquitous in the next), game makers are doing everything possible to become the given choice.

So it's with this that it seems that the Wii U has pretty solid potential in terms of getting a non-trivial foothold here. Any one of us with a modern smartphone (iOS, Android, and even Windows) knows full well the power of notifications. Things that you wouldn't even bother with before, like social networking, becomes a lot easier when you have that simple buzz or "ping" signifying that something at least slightly relevant to your interests has come up.

The thing is that the Wii U gamepad, assuming Nintendo does this right (I think we all have more than simply "our doubts" here), has the potential to do this in the living room. The thing is, even when the system's not showing up on the TV, the pad is still there to handle both gaming AND all that Miiverse stuff. The latter is where the magic lies. You can get a notification for a game invite when you're watching a movie on the same game system whether it's the PS3 or the Xbox. However, you won't get ANY of that when you're on another system, or just on the Blu-Ray player, or just watching cable. The Wii U is pretty much going to be the ONLY system that can notify you about friends wanting to start a match in Mario Kart or have their town visited in Animal Crossing while you're using the TV for something else ENTIRELY. Even Smart Glass won't have that. Being an app on an iPad or a Droid means that it has to be run, and isn't going to be there at all times.

Keep in mind, this working correctly will depend on a LOT more competency in this sector than Nintendo has ever shown, so like I said, I have my doubts. But keeping people playing even when their TV is being used for something else may end up being the best long-term decision Nintendo's made on this system.

It's the only thing plugged into your TV that doesn't HAVE to try to do everything in order to stay relevant. All it has to do is play games, and that's an advantage that nobody else will have in this upcoming generation.

Well, at least until E3 2015 when everyone has a touchscreen controller.

22
Nintendo Gaming / Has anyone done an SD Card roundup?
« on: June 03, 2012, 09:57:18 AM »
It wasn't a big deal on the e-shop, where the file size limit probably mitigated any chance of long loads times...
... but starting August, we're gonna see full 3DS titles hit the e-shop. Whatmore, the Rayman Legends demo has given us our first solid hit (AFAIK, I haven't really downloaded many demos for the 3DS) of SD-card-based loading time.
So that said, has anyone tried doing a break down of loading times across multiple SD card types? I mean, we have quite a solid range to compare, from cheap Class-4 to solid Class-10 all the way to monstrous UHS-I/UHS-II cards. It would be interesting to see if the higher-speed cards result in any noticeable benefit in 3DS demos, as it would more than likely result in better performance when full retail games hit the e-shop.
And hey, anything that might speed up load times in a (hopeful) eventual release of DOA:D is okay in my book. =3

23
The discussion on getting multiple Wii U tablets working on one console had my clutching my iPhone furiously because the technicalities of the discussion were missing some key points.
Right off the bat, the "bandwidth" of HDMI: 1920 x 1080 x 60 (fps) x 3 (24 bits of color / 8 bits per byte) = 355.96 megabytes per second. If I remember correctly, the Wii U controller is exactly a quarter of that (960x540). 5ghz wi-fi tops out at around 112 megabytes/sec. (assuming one hell of a MIMO setup getting 900 megabits, which is beyond fantasy), but neither one of these totals really matter.
So right off the bat, let me make it clear that nothing that even VAGUELY resembles a raw video stream is going to that controller. In fact, any "display" hardware on that graphics chip probably isn't even in charge of that. Fact of the matter is, what Nintendo is shooting for has already been done by Apple (look up Airplay mirroring), Intel (look up Wi-Di), and Sony (PSP Remote Play). Basically the system, either through brute force on the CPU (Sony) or a custom piece of silicon on the CPU (Intel) or GPU (Apple), will convert the framebuffer (basically the piece of memory that your game's image is on) to a video stream.
Keep in mind that this process doesn't need to involve video output of any kind. e.g. they could pick any chunk of memory to send to the controller. This is why you can have different images on the TV and on the controller itself, and in theory, you could send images to as many controllers as you want. Bandwidth on an encoded video stream is ORDERS OF MAGNUTIDE lower than raw bandwidth. Heck, Blu-Ray does 1080p (once again, enough for FOUR controllers) and tops out at 36 megabits.
Well, that's the theory, anyway. In reality, there's a far bigger limitation: processing power. Anyone who's seen the three implementations I mentioned (Sony/Apple/Intel), will note one major issue: They suck. Seriously, they generally fail on all three counts: Bad input lag, crappy visual quality, and a low framerate. Basically, Nintendo's trying to do what all three of these companies have on the market with AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE better quality. And realistically, this is what will limit them the most.
First off, the conversion, unlike Sony's method, will most certainly not involve the CPU. It's far too much of a performance hit and unlike Sony, Nintendo has the distinct advantage of planning this feature out on their side. So it's probably gonna be part of their custom graphics chip. In fact, it'll probably be the feature that deems it a custom chip, and not a run-of-the-mill Radeon HD 4990 in the first place.
Now, given that the issue of getting the video small, smooth, and quickly to the tablet is non-trivial, you're more than likely going to see the limit of one controller for cost reasons. The hardware needed to get the speed and quality levels Nintendo wants is probably going to be a MUCH LARGER cost (in terms of the space used up on that graphics chip) than any of those previously mentioned methods. In fact, it wouldn't be trivial to implement something like that unless you're SERIOUSLY planning it in advance of a system's release. With that in mind, we have a few possibilities as to what Nintendo will do:
- On the one hand, the video streaming will be set to exactly the tablet screen's specs and that'll be the end of it. The console won't be PHYSICALLY capable of streaming more than one video.
- On the other hand, it might be set to stream a whole 1080p image, which means in theory, by intelligently splitting the image, they could stream it to 4 tablet controllers (remember, each one has a quarter of 1080p's resolution).
- And finally, and this is the caveat I'd be willing to deal with, it could the former while supporting a "party mode", which would essentially send a quarter of that smaller resolution to up to 4 controllers. Basically, you'd get up to 4 players going, but each one would halve a slightly blurry/pixelated image. Think DS games on 3DS. This would be more than acceptable for things like the "dual play screens" for games like Madden. This last one is the most likely to happen.
Anyhoo, that's my 2 cents on the discussion (I re-wrote this once, and it's probably still too convoluted, and I'm not even sure I'm making a point of any kind). What I'm far more interested in discussing is figuring out who's gonna build a Gamecube controller adapter that let's me plug that thing into a Wiimote, in advance of the next Smash Bros. game. Failing that, I'll gladly buy at least one Classic controller merely designed like the Gamecube controller (hear that, Nintendo? That's like new money for old rope! Make it happen!)

24
General Gaming / Why Sonic Sucks: An Introspective
« on: January 21, 2010, 12:40:54 PM »
Notes: I apologize if this is a tl;dr. I don't hate Sonic, and I'm not even that big a fan of Mario (tho I am a Yoshi fan, take that as you will). I make the Mario comparison a LOT, not because Sonic needs to become a slow platformer, but mainly because it's essentially the only other pure platformer on the market (Wratchet's half-shooter, and even that only brings us to three. There have been more 2D fighting game franchises released in the last couple of years, ffs.) Also, I'm pretty sure I pulled most of the foul language out, save for the occasional acronym, but if anything isn't kosher, I'll change it immediately.


Thrice now during this console generation, Sega has tried to reboot sonic. Thrice. First with the 2006 "Sonic The Hedgehog", a standard reboot title much like "Prince of Persia" in 2008. Then they tried it again with "Sonic Unleashed", featuring the "Hedgehog Engine", and now they're attempting to do it again, in the same 5-year-period, with "Project Needlemouse".
Every time Sega releases a new Sonic game, every Sonic fan in a three mile radius can be heard collectively sighing, and the same tired comment comes out, which was seemingly birthed at around the time of Sonic Adventure 2's release (or, arguably, with Knuckles Chaotix on the 32X, but I can count on a single finger how many people I know that every actually owned a 32x).

"Dear God, Sega, please don't include any more of Sonic's crappy friends".

There's a strange sentiment around Sonic fans, that Sonic's forestful of playable, colorful critters is what's ruined the franchise for the past ten some odd years, and I think it's about time we killed that myth right off. The problem with the Sonic franchise isn't that they add friends to each subsequent release.

No, the problem with the Sonic franchise is that Sonic team will not let go of a bad idea.

They'll bandage it, they're cover it up, they'll try to ignore it's a problem, but they will never outright let go of a bad idea, and this isn't anything new with them. In fact, there's a pretty easy example to go by from Sonic 2 (That's Genesis Sonic 2, not the 3D or GBA one). Sonic 2 brought us Tails, one of Sonic Team's best ideas. He was, essentially, a 100% completely optional co-op player. Someone could hop right in and play as him, but, unlike the beat-'em-ups of that era (Final Fight, TMNT), if they decided to leave the room, you wouldn't be stuck with an on-screen friend prevent you from progressing into the game. Tails being on-screen was not a requirement, and him going idle simply resulted in the CPU re-taking control of his actions (which was essentially a time-delayed mirror of whatever Sonic did). Tails was a co-op friend who was nearly always helpful (it's nice to have someone around who could attack but not die in any meaningful way, especially against a boss), and it was nearly impossible for him to become a hindrance.

Of course, this came with one exception. In underwater levels, Tails could grab an air bubble. While underwater areas had a slightly higher risk than land areas for Tails (he couldn't "fly" into water in Sonic 2, so his death meant waiting for Sonic to surface), it still lead to situations where it could get Sonic killed (2 seconds away from death, the bubbles are on a 3-4-second interval, and Tails steals your bubble), whether controlled by the CPU or a friend.

Now, in all honesty, Tails really didn't need to run the risk of drowning in the first place. It did nothing to improve the fun or challenge of the game. If Tails couldn't drown, but Sonic could, the player would still need to manage the air supply to continue into the game, and it would be in keeping with the concept of Tails, and the player wouldn't have to actively think about him being around. Tails grabbing air bubbles or drowning is a feature that Sonic Team really should have removed from the game entirely.

But instead, they bandaged it. Instead of an air bubble coming out of the ground in Sonic 3, two did, one clearly designated for Tails.

Moving beyond this overly-digressed example, we walk directly into Sonic Adventure, Sonic's first 3D foray. I'm not entirely sure why, but Sonic Team essentially skipped an entire console lifespan (the Saturn) with which to continue the legacy of their most popular franchise (I know exactly 2 other people who have ever played PSO). My guess is that they spent 3-5 years on and off trying to figure out how to make Sonic work in 3D. Their final result was a horrific failure, but to explain why, we have to inevitably bring up Sonic's primary competitor in his hey-day, Mario.

Playing Mario 64, you'll note a large abundance of changes Nintendo made to the gameplay formula, and you'll also note that the entire premise behind all of them were to make platforming work in 3D. It's a variety of fixes that, sadly, other developers don't seem to have learned. (Though it helps that the market for 3D platforming is nearly nonexistent, aside from Wratchet, which is also half-shooter)

First off is the ever-present issue that jumping from platform A to platform B in 3D is HARD for a player. You're going to overshoot or undershoot a LOT of the times. This is a genre where a missed jump often leads to death. And Super Mario 64 had SEVERAL fixes for this.

1. Mario leaves a shadow DIRECTLY BELOW HIM at all times, regardless of light source. This has nothing to with the graphical capabilities of the console he's on, as it's been the case in Sunshine and Galaxy as well. This is a situation where gameplay is more important than graphics, as it allows you to track where Mario will land.

2. Mario has a new move, the butt stomp, that allows him to IMMEDIATELY cut off a jump arc and go straight down. Combined with #2, it makes it very easy to avoid over-shooting a jump, especially when jumping onto smaller platforms. Once you see the shadow where you want to land, you just butt-stomp.

3. If Mario misses a platform by a hair, he'll auto-grab the ledge. He'll also do this if he slips off of a ledge. This is a ridiculously important feature, and it's the biggest criticism I have for nearly every 3D platformer on the market. (Seriously, try the Sonic 2006 demo on the Xbox 360. Try to NOT accidentally fall off a ledge to your death. ) It really comes down to this, to any developers of 3D platformers reading: NINTENDO didn't figure out a better solution for barely-missed jumps than to auto-grab ledges. Who the HELL do you think YOU are, that your game doesn't have this feature? Yes, Tim, I'm talking to you.

I could go on for hours, but this isn't a 3D Mario introspective. However, in addition to the various movement enhancements (Mario up until 64 had 3 jumps at best: Jump, Full-Sprint-Jump, and Starman Flip. Mario in 64 has a jump, triple jump, wall jump, sideways jump, and a backflip), Nintendo realized that even they didn't have the resources to make level design identical to the 2D days. In a 3D game, you can't just make 40-60 some odd levels in full 3D. There's too many issues in terms of balanced design and collision issues (there's a LOT of testing that has to be done in a game to make sure players don't fall through the floor, or get stuck). Your options are to either add depth to the few levels you can make (hence the multiple-objective approach in the series since), or to essentially make a platformer on rails, ala Crash Bandicoot. After long delays in development, Nintendo made the first approach work.

Yuji Naka made a platformer on rails.

There's a major problem with a platformer on rails. It's the same problem that light-gun shooters have, it's the same problem Starfox had, it's essentially the same problem that every on-rails game has.

They're REALLY short.

Sonic Adventure was fun, I won't contest that. But Sonic Adventure was 3 hours long, at best. The biggest problem Nintendo had during the N64's launch period was that in the two weeks that followed the release of Mario 64, they had a lot of folks returning their games (and sometimes consoles) because they'd already beaten it.

Sonic Adventure had that problem on day one.

Being a platformer on rails was a problem, and part of the problem was that it wasn't Sonic. Sure, everyone who remembers Sonic on the Genesis, especially given the marketing campaign, remembers the running. But Sonic also had a LARGE degree of solid platforming. Especially in the first one, before the implementation of the spin dash, there were large stretches between running downhill and through loopty-loops where Sonic would pick up coins, take out enemies, and look for power-ups. There was the lava level, where between sections of running from pouring magma, Sonic would actually spend a great deal of time moving slowly through a level whose floor was near-instant-death, much like some of the "Bowser's Castle" levels in Super Mario 3 'n World. Sonic was a platformer. Faster than most, and clearly more linear than the direction Mario took (e.g. no overworld map), but still a platformer.

In all honesty, after Sonic Adventure they really should have just dropped the on-rails aspect and fleshed out the world Sonic moved around in.

However, that requires time and research that Sonic Team probably didn't have the budget for (It probably didn't help that Dreamcast sales started plummeting a year in and Sega really didn't have the time for Sonic Team to build something like this). Instead, they bandaged the hell out of Sonic Adventure's short play-through problem. That's where all the current hatred of the franchise comes from.

Think back to Sonic Adventure 2. Was the inclusion of Knuckles and Tails (and, of course, Shadow/Rouge/Robotnik) really the problem? Was it honestly Shadow the Hedgehog that people didn't like? No. God no. And sadly, to explain this, I have to go back to that Italian plumber nobody wants to hear about anymore.

Nintendo's made modifications on Mario's gameplay before. Super Mario Bros. 2 (US) featured 3 extra playable characters. Toad could pick enemies up faster, Luigi could jump higher with a bit more difficulty over control, and Peach could float for short periods of time. Super Mario Bros. 2 (Japan) also featured a Luigi that could jump higher but was slightly harder to control, and that's become a running theme for the character. Super Mario World featured Yoshi, who could eat and insta-stomp-kill small enemies, and even walk on things that were otherwise dangerous for Mario alone to walk on. Not to mention all of Super Mario Bros. 3's power-ups.

The thing is, all of these changes either made the game slightly easier or were a trade-off. They never made any changes to the fundamental nature of the game, and they never made the game substantially harder (not more difficult, but harder, and more frustrating) for no discernible reason. And they were nearly always optional.

Let's go back to Sonic Adventure 2 and point-nobody-liked number one. So you start a level, and you have to play as Tails. Fine, no big deal. Suddenly you're in a large bipedal mech. This mech is SLOW. This mech gets ONE JUMP. And very often, you're going to DIE because you missed said jump.

Let's go back for a moment to Mario. Imagine if, in Super Mario World, Yoshi moved a LOT slower than Mario. Also he couldn't jump as high. Also, you started the level on him, and you couldn't get off until you finished said level. Really clear now, right?

The problem wasn't that they added Tails as a playable character. It's that HE COULD JUMP OUT OF THE MECH AND DO A BETTER JOB (yes, I am shouting). Only that wasn't an option. Sonic Adventure was too short a game, and rather than make levels that didn't revolve around going from point A to point B (which was really the problem), they simply made going from point A to point B a lot slower. And the "Tails Levels" were a requirement. It's not even that the levels were required that made them annoying; calling them "Tails Levels" is really disingenuous. They were "Slow mech that doesn't in any way resemble the game you bought" levels. A lot of people didn't like Raiden supplanting Snake in Metal Gear Solid 2 or The Arbiter doing the same to Master Chief in Halo 2. Now imagine if Raiden spent the game in a wheelchair or if The Arbiter walked on all fours and couldn't aim his shots (e.g. you had to walk him in the direction he shot in). Much like these theoretical scenarios, you'd grow to hate the concept of "Not playing as the main character" rather than realizing that what you really didn't like was "Playing a game that in no way resembles the game I thought I bought". It's like if, halfway into Bust-a-Move, the bubbles stopped sticking, little pegs showed up in the well, and suddenly it's Peggle. Nobody walked into Halo 3 or MGS3 (and the latter even had a completely different main character) dreading that they'd be playing as someone other than the main character. Doesn't that tell you something?

This leads us to the second largest mistake Sonic Team's made: Alternate (let alone forced) playable characters that control nothing like Sonic.

I won't even go into the Knuckles levels, in which Sega decided to get rid of the rails in exchange for a gameplay concept that could BARELY functioned as a mini-game, and proceeded to stretch out the gameplay length and shrink the windows for success as the game progressed. They essentially built a third of the game on trial-and-error gameplay mechanics, something that would get any other game returned on day one. (unless, of course, the entire game consisted of hand-drawn animation)

Sonic Adventure 2 was atrocious because, rather than drop the concept of a "platformer on rails" (which isn't even really a platformer), they decided to "fix" the short play-length problem by turning it into a game, for over 2/3 of the experience, that was as far removed from a Sonic title as one could manage. Sonic 3 also had Tails and Knuckles as playable characters, and nobody hated that game. Why? Because they could do the same *basic* things that made a game a Sonic title (Jump reasonably high, run, spin-dash), and on TOP, had their own special abilities (flying, climbing walls). 

The saddest thing? Both of those sets of skills would have made for a great, traditional, 3D platformer. Super Mario 64 got re-released on the DS with 4 seperate playable characters, and even they had nowhere near the level of flexibility in capability that the Sonic trio did. Imagine the level design that allows only characters that can fly or glide to reach certain areas, or sections that are too high to fly to (Tails had a tendency to get tired after several seconds of flight), but with nearby walls to climb (and of course, some sort of speed-up to Knuckles's climbing ability to avoid tedium, such as being able to jump straight up mid-climb). Or even areas that Sonic Adventure hinted at where a series of flying enemies could be placed that sonic could homing-attack his way through (that were too long for flying and gliding). 

Almost none of which Sonic Team could do with a platformer on rails.

Sonic Heroes almost had the right idea, but by not dropping the rails, level design really didn't offer much between the 3 gameplay styles, and felt ridiculously contrived as a result. 

Sonic Unleashed traded friends for a werehog form, but problem #2 was still there: you weren't playing a platformer for well over half the game. And once again, the "on-rails" segments, not a great idea in the first place, went by way too quickly.

Even the 2D title, Sonic Rush, failed the concept in its second iteration. Once again, we go back to the "Nintendo doesn't dare do this and they're the market leader"(New Super Mario Bros. has sold 10 million copies in two months' time) reasoning. Think back to every Mario title you've ever played. Think back to the portion of the game where you play something that's substantially different than the rest of the game. In Super Mario Bros. 1 & 3 it was swimming. In Super Mario Land it was the submarine. In World it was the "balloon" special stage. Or auto-scrolling stages. How many levels are in each of these games? Approx. 30-70, depending on the title. How many levels featured these substantially different gameplay mechanics? Right, somewhere between 3 and 5. We're talking less than 10% of the game as a whole. In Sonic Rush 2, the "mini-game" levels have to be done at least once every time you go to a new pair of stages. Since Sonic went 3D, the stages where you don't play as anything that even vaguely resembles a Sonic game tends to account for over half of your play time. Sometimes over two-thirds.

I won't even touch upon the "bonus stages" much. In a Mario title, getting a "full game completion" required a higher order of skills in the game you were playing. In Sonic games, it has traditionally required a higher order of skills in a completely different style of game.

In the final "Nintendo doesn't dare do this" example, I'd like to point out that they're not above releasing entire games with substantially different gameplay concepts, featuring Mario characters. Yoshi's Island and Wario Land even featured Mario in their SUB-titles to get them off the ground as spin-offs, and cut it off after both of their initial forays (both of which played FAR closer to the Mario formula than their sequels did, especially for Wario). However, in the one "Mario" game to not feature any platforming whatsoever, Luigi's Mansion, even Nintendo didn't have the balls to even include the word "Mario" in the title.

I could go on for hours, as I haven't even skimmed across the Wii Sonic Games, which are far closer to being "on-rails" than even the Sonic Adventure series, or the PSP games, which essentially turned Sonic 2's versus multiplayer into a "full" game.

I conclude all of this with a great degree of skepticism for Project Needlemouse. It being a "Sonic-Only" game is not a good sign, in the slightest. If Sonic team had the ambition to make a true 3D Sonic game, there's no way they'd leave Tails and Knuckles out of it. Something with exploration, real platforming, and even the simplest of puzzles (scavenger hunts aren't puzzles) would benefit substantially from characters with slight modifications to the main character's abilities. It's a direction they'll probably never head in, and if they stick to the platformer on rails, their only real options are to either make the game a 0-day GameStop return or find some new way to bludgeon Sonic's only real differentiating feature: He moves really fast.

Pages: [1]