Why I'm Not Excited About Next Gen

Ok, so we're all excited about the upcoming next generation of consoles right?  The Xbox One just came out recently and we're all getting geared up for new games on new hardware.  Everything is fresh, bright, and right in the world.  So before you all start rage quitting this discussion before it even begins let me preface this: it's probably not what you think, these systems are great, and just hold out until the end before you start commenting.  Got it?  Thanks.  Here we go.

So new consoles.  Gotta love em right?  And the xbox one and PS4 are some of the most powerful home consoles yet (shut up PC master race we all know how much you love your uber computers but that's not what we're talking about here).  With this new hardware we can push to new heights of what we can do with gaming.  Developers can do things that we never even dreamed possible with games before because the hardware can handle whatever we throw at it.  So....why don't they?

So far with the launch games I've heard about (throw some examples at me to prove me wrong please if I am, I'd like my excitement levels raised again) have just been the same old bleugh with prettier graphics.  Assassin's Creed 4 is just more of the same Assassin's Creed stuff, battlefield and Call of Duty never change so that's no different, and other things like Killzone or upcoming things like Titanfall just feel like more of the same things that I've seen time and time again.  Where's my innovation?  Where's the jaw dropping mind blowing things that we couldn't even imagine before now?

This is my issue: it feels like developers now a days seem to feel like why innovate on something when the same old tried and true formula works already and we can just make it prettier?  Granted I am generalizing a bit but it still feels like this.  I've seen more innovation from indie developers and they're not even working with half the power that AAA developers have.

Here's a perfect poster child for my gripes: mario.  Now granted, mario has been doing a lot of the same thing for years and years and years now.  Some might say that this invalidates my point.  But let's turn back the clock a bit.  Let's go back to the launch of the gamecube.  You know what was an early launch title for gamecube?  Super Mario Sunshine.  That game was brilliant.  It added a slew of new mechanics to the 3D mario formula that was in place from Super Mario 64 by adding the FLUDD.  On top of that we had Yoshis, and a beautiful tropical island to explore and play around in.  And that was two generations ago!  Then came the wii.  Early title for that console?  Super Mario Galaxy.  That game added a whole new dimension to the 3D mario series with the whole crazy gravity mechanics.  Just that little innovation radically changed the whole game!  Now we get to Wii U.  First big standout 3D mario game?  Mario 3D land.  With the wii and gamecube we had limited hardware and the developers were able to blow our minds with creative and brilliant innovations on the formula, so surely with this bigger better stronger hardware we will get something we could never have even dreamed of right?  So what do you have for us Nintendo?
"We're going to give you the ability to choose between four different characters like you were able to in Super Mario World 2!  Only now its in 3D!"
"Ok, that's pretty cool I guess even if it's rehashing an idea you've already done, what else?"
"Well, uh, you can turn into a cat now?  And you can split into two characters in a few stages?"
"Cool cool, and?"
"That's it."
See my point?  They've got all this potential to work with and all we get is an old idea brought back and a couple new power ups.  Don't get me wrong, Super Mario 3D land is a great game, but what happened to those brilliant levels of innovation we had a generation or two ago?

Granted I may be being too harsh.  There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon for us.  Two standout examples I would like to point out are Watch Dogs and The Division.  Let's start with Watch Dogs.  The "hack anything" mechanic is exactly what we need in this upcoming generation.  Such a simple idea turned what could have been a simple and forgettable action game into a brilliant foray into the next generation.  This one little innovation gives you an expansive toolbox constantly at your disposal giving you an incredible amount of options to approach any given situation.  Then we have The Division.  This is great twist on the MMO formula that we are so used to nowadays.  Mixing rpg like elements into a apocalyptic near future militaristic setting with PvE and random PvP is a refreshing change to both genres.

To wrap up, we need to encourage this kind of innovation.  While these other games may be fun, they don't push the industry forward to new and greater things that we are capable of as a medium.  We have the technology, let's put it to good use.

As always, leave comments about games I could review or other topics I could talk about.  Thanks for reading and supporting me!

Gamer Out

Discussion: Roguelikes Are Better Than Most AAA Titles

Yes, you did in fact read that title correctly.  And I know what you're already thinking so let's get a few things out of the way now: Yes I do know I am basically comparing apples with oranges BUT there is a reason for it.  I'm going to be putting up some well loved franchises on the chopping block today but bear in mind, I do think that most of these are fantastic games despite what I'm going to say about them.  That being said, please keep an open mind and read through to the end.  Now off we go.

So I bet you're wondering what I meant by that title.  Or you've already interpreted it a specific way and are heatedly typing away at your keyboard to give me angry, hate spewing comments.  So allow me to clarify in both cases: roguelikes do some things far better than AAA titles and are a better genre of games to invest in.  I'm going to break this down into a few main points and discuss each of them in turn while using general roguelike examples or specific titles compared against AAA titles.  So let's dig in shall we?

The first point I'd like to bring up is that roguelikes are fresh every time you boot them up while AAA titles can easily get stale after the first playthrough.  Perfect example to start with; Bioshock Infinite.  Bioshock infinite is critically acclaimed.  Fans and reviewers alike love and adore this game to death.  But you know what they love it for?  The story,  which is great.  I love a game with a great story.  However once you've played that story, there's really not much left going for the game.  Once you've gone through the game the first time you're left with a very "meh" first person shooter.  Let's compare that against a roguelike which is different every time you boot it up.  Maps are random, item drops are random, enemy spawns are random, everything about these games are random.  Heck, in Rogue Legacy, one of the more recent roguelikes, even your character is random.  Every time you play these games it will be different.  There's always something new and wonderous to look forward to and that is something that many AAA games just do not have going for them.

This ties in nicely with my next point: roguelikes have a staggering amount of game time to them.  You pick up a new AAA title and you have, what, maybe 6-8 hours?  Maybe a bit more if you go for a second time through?  That's not a lot in the long run.  What about roguelikes?  Well let's take a look at my Binding of Isaac play time on steam: 36 hours.  And there is still TONS of content that I haven't even touched yet.  Wow.  See the difference here?  Because of the random nature of roguelikes, you get tons and tons and tons more mileage out of them than you would many AAA titles. I'm sure you could easily get into the hundreds of hours on these.  "But dude, what about games like Borderlands 2?  Or GTA V?  I have hundreds of hours logged on those!"  Yes I do know that there are AAA titles that you can get tons of hours out of.  But that brings me back to that point of roguelikes staying fresh.  Don't get me wrong, I love Borderlands 2.  But after awhile it just starts feeling like you're pointlessly shooting tons of dudes with the same guns. There is no variety to the experience.  It gets stale.  Roguelikes keep from going stale by actually having significantly different experiences through differing enemies, maps, and items to help you along the way.

The next point I have to bring up is that in addition to staying fresh longer, roguelikes provide a more challenging and satisfying experience overall than most AAA titles.  Now hold on, hear me out.  I do in fact know that AAA titles can be very challenging indeed.  Dark Souls is a good example, being extremely hard and requiring a great amount of skill to play.  But then again, is death in that game really all that bad?  You lose your collected souls, money for those of you who haven't played, but you can get them back without too much of a fuss.  And how about other games?  Checkpoints are liberally distributed throughout most AAA games nowadays, death is hardly more than a minor inconvenience, and many games practically hold your hand through the entire experience.  It's a bit pathetic really.  Roguelikes on the other hand are not nearly as forgiving.  When you die in a roguelike, that really is game over.  Back to start, no checkpoints no nothing.  You died, you're done.  Start over from scratch.  This may seem like a horrible thing to most gamers.  Why would you want to play a game that is so unforgiving?  But see that's the whole point.  Death is actually meaningful.  When you overcome the challenges it is WAY more satisfying.  The game was unforgiving but you were even better.  But even if you do die, it's not too horrible either.  Which brings me to my next point.

Roguelikes are built to be shorter yet more brutal experiences.  You could probably get through an entire game in 5-30 minutes or less.  But of course you'll probably play more than that, just because of the factor of "Just one more try, I know I'll get farther this time...".  How does that compare with AAA titles?  Well most AAA games you really need to sit down for a bit with it to really get engaged with the game.  The worst offenders are RPGs.  Final Fantasy, Mass Effect, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Skyrim, all really require you as a player to set aside a good few hours to just sit down and play for awhile.  Now this is not an inherently bad thing, but let's face it we have lives too.  Sometimes we just don't have that much time to commit to a game.  On the flipside there's always time for a bite sized adventure or 3 with a roguelike.

My final point that I want to bring up is that roguelikes are more cost effective than AAA games.  For both the customer AND the developer.  Let's go back to those previous AAA examples, how much did you spend on those?  About $60?  And how much time did you get out of the majority of them?  6-8 hours?  Maybe more?  Maybe WAY more in the case of something like Mass Effect or Fallout or Skyrim.  And how much did the developers spend?  Millions of dollars you say?  Now go to the flipside.  Roguelikes will maybe run you up $5-$20 at most.  They can last for hundreds of hours.  And on top of that they're cheap enough that indie developers can make them.  INDIE DEVELOPERS GUYS.  It doesn't take much to make a decent roguelike.

So I bet you're all wondering now "Well man if roguelikes are so awesome like you say then why don't more developers make them?".  That is indeed the question of the hour: why don't more developers make them?  The only people who do it nowadays are indie devs.  Could you imagine what we could have if a developer were to make a roguelike with AAA levels of quality?  It would still be much cheaper than AAA titles nowadays and would have plenty of polish and shine on the current formula for roguelikes.  On top of that there's so much room for possibility in roguelikes.  Rogue Legacy is a 2D hack and slash platformer, Binding of Isaac is a top down pseudo twin stick shooter, Risk of Rain is a cooperative 2D exploration shooter, and Eldritch is a first person action game with an incredible variety of styles of combat and a wonderful mobility system.  Those were just 4 games and already we have a wide variety of different gameplay styles.  Imagine what else you could do with this formula.  The possibilities are staggering.  Thing is we as consumers need to direct the market.  We need to show what we want by what we buy and what we support.

Until next time, keep leaving comments and suggestions for more things for me to review and topics to discuss!  Thank you all for your continued support!

Gamer out.

Discussion: Home

So recently I got my hands on a little game called Home.  If you look at it on Steam it has a really low price of entry, only about $3 not on sale and under $1 on sale.  Looking at it, one might think, "well what can I get out of a game that comes at THAT low of a price?  Must not be super good because of how cheap it is."  Turns out the price tag is only because the game is VERY short, only about an hour to an hour and a half for a play through.  However what it lacks in quantity it definitely makes up in quality.

Now, originally I was going to review this game.  However, after playing it I realized you couldn't really review it without MASSIVE spoilers.  Also its a bit of a difficult game to review in general since its incredibly unconventional in how it plays out.  So I have decided to instead do a discussion post about Home and talk about some things it does well and some things that make it stand out on the gaming scene.  So going to say right now you should pick this up and play it, or find someone who has it and play it so you know what I'm going to be talking about.  It's cheap and not very long, worth the price of admission in my opinion. Warning label going up regardless:

SPOILERS AHEAD SPOILERS AHEAD

Alright lets start with the basics.  What is Home?  Home is a very simple and unconventional little story driven horror game.  You play as a guy who wakes up to find himself in a strange house with no idea how he got there.  But this is not the setting for the game.  Oh no.  The game is about this man's journey back home and what he finds along the way.

Now the first question that should be asked of every horror title is what makes it horror?  What makes this game scary?  Well, I can tell you one thing, it's definitely not a danger factor.  It's not about managing supplies and feeling that rush of adrenaline that comes from narrowly escaping death at the hands of a much more powerful opponent.  In fact there is no combat in Home at all.  All you do is walk around and look at things.  No, what makes Home scary is two things: it's atmosphere and the dread of what you'll find next.

Home effectively makes you feel like you're in danger for the beginning of the game.  It always feels like there is something out there, something coming and there's nothing you can do about it except keep putting one foot in front of the other.  However since you will quickly learn that there is no danger to you as a player the other type of horror that this game does well takes over.  Throughout Home you find pieces of things that happened before the start of the game.  A dead body, a video tape, your possessions in places they shouldn't be.  You slowly put the pieces together to find out what happened before.  And each new piece is one more piece you wish you did not know.

Throughout all this the gloomy lighting and your own footsteps help the atmosphere of the game to weigh heavily on your mind as each new piece of evidence comes to light.  Why was your wallet at the top of the water tower?  Who were those two dead campers and what happened to them?  Why is your friend dead?  Each new bit brings more questions than answers, leaving the player to interpret what happened for themselves.  Which brings us to the most fascinating part of Home: how it tells the story.

See, in many games you're run down a storyline that is predetermined.  The set pieces are in place, the ending is going to be a certain way, there is a definitive way this story is going to go.  Some games build upon that formula and let the player shape the story by giving them choices.  The Mass Effect series is a prime example, giving the player options throughout the whole game as to how they want to approach a situation and giving them control over many major events throughout the game.  However Home takes this a step farther.  Home lets you decide not only how your character acts, but how he perceives the world around him.

This next part is probably the biggest spoiler so far.  So if you really don't want spoilers, now is the time to abandon ship and come back after you've played the game.  You have been warned.

The prime example of how this mechanic comes into play is at the very end of the game.  You finally arrive at home.  It all comes down to this.  You explore the house a bit, and make your way into the basement.  Down there, you find a body wrapped in rags.  Up to this point, you've been making decisions like, did I take this or that item?  Did I go down the shaft without anything to help me down or did I use the rope?  Etc.  But then comes this decision: Was this body my beloved wife?

At this moment when I was playing, I just stopped.  I couldn't believe what I was seeing.  They were going to let me make THIS major of a decision?  They were going to let me decide whether my wife was dead or not?  But then you realize: they're not letting you decide whether your wife is dead or not, they let you decide how your character is going to perceive this dead body.  Is he going to deny that his wife is dead and keep searching for her?  Is he going to recognize who this is and try to piece together what could have led to this?  Then after that crucial moment comes a sequence where you go through all the bits of evidence you collected throughout the game and make decisions about each.  And each is a decision in how your character perceives what this evidence means in the grand scheme of things.

This is what I find the most fascinating about Home.  Not only are you affecting the story by your decisions, you're directly affecting your character's psyche by your decisions.  And not only your decisions affect this: whether or not you missed an item will affect how the story goes because of what evidence you have.  However this does not give it replay value.  Quite the opposite in fact.  If you were to go back and try to do Home over again, picking up all the items that you missed before, you would be severely disappointed.  The whole point of the game is to give players a unique experience that they can interpret and affect how the character interprets it.  The game is purposefully vague in what it gives you, and will remain so no matter how much evidence you collect.  So going back and redoing all of that just devalues the outcome you received.  Those questions that remain unanswered are better than if you had answered them.  What was in that room?  What was on that video tape?

It's games like Home that show how the gaming industry is so unique as a medium for storytelling.  Letting you directly control more than just your characters actions is something you just cannot do in any other medium.  My final word here is that this game is brilliant, unique, and is definitely worth the price of admission and the discussion with other players that it leads to.

To wrap up, I am still accepting requests for topics and reviews you would like me to do.  Post about your own Home experience in the comments below and post requests in the comments!

Gamer out.