I've played a lot of games lately, most of which I've liked. Three recently-played games I enjoyed are particularly notable: Red Steel (Wii), Shadow the Hedgehog (various), and Deep Labyrinth (DS).
Why are they notable? Because they all got awful reviews. If I had let the reviews stop me from trying them, I'd be missing out on a whole lot of fun. True, Shadow and Deep Labyrinth aren't the greatest games out there, but I like them much more than reviewers seem to. As for Red Steel, I absolutely love it.
Even if you disagree with my liking those games, I hope my point is clear: don't let reviews scare you away from a game you think you'll like. If it looks good to you, try it. If you don't want to waste money on a game you might not like, I reccommend Gamefly; it's a great value. You've got very little to lose. And if you're sure you'll like a game despite what reviews say, just buy it; that's what I did with Red Steel, and I don't regret it at all.
Similarly, don't waste money on a game that doesn't appeal to you just because it gets good reviews. I never had much interest in Final Fantasy VII, but since everyone raves about it, I decided to give it a try. The result? I absolutely hated it. Don't get me wrong; it's good to try games outside your normal favorites, but don't rush out to buy a game just because it's greatly hyped.
Reviews are ultimately one person's opinion, and even if reviewers do their best to take an objective look at a game, it's impossible for them to take every gamer's tastes into account. Nobody has a better idea of what you'll like than you do, so if you think you're going to like a game, give it a try.
Here's a good example of reviews not reflecting the average gamer: Pokemon Mystery Dungeon got awful reviews from pretty much every source, but it sold extremely well. On the flip side, Psychonauts got excellent reviews but did not sell as well as one would think. I enjoyed both games (Psychonauts more than PMD), and I played them before hearing any reviews or reading any sales stats.
So clearly, reviews aren't always right. Trust yourself, and you'll get the most out of your gaming experience.
Showing posts with label gaming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gaming. Show all posts
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Friday, March 30, 2007
Elebits and Wii Potential
Konami's "Elebits" (retitled "Eledees" in PAL regions) was one of Wii's most anticipated early titles, and it does not disappoint. It is very entertaining, but more importantly, it shows the potential of Wii to really create unique play experiences. Players control a boy named Kai who uses a "capture gun" (essentially a beam one can use to move and manipulate heavy objects from a distance) to collect little electricity-giving creatures called Elebits. At first, Kai can only lift small objects that he'd be able to lift himself. However, by collecting enough Elebits to activate an appliance (which he activates by pressing a switch or performing another action with the capture gun's beam), he gains more power and can lift heavier things. In later levels, this goes as far as allowing Kai to lift houses, tankers, amusement park rides, and more.
Part of the uniqueness of "Elebits" is that you can do more than just lift or check the objects. By grasping them with the beam using the A or B button and moving or turning the Wii Remote, you can manipulate the objects in any way possible. Lift, move, rotate, flip, open, spin; you name it. There is more to the game than that, of course, but the unique gameplay style is my focus. This is the kind of game for which Wii was made; it wouldn't be the same on any other system. The sensor bar and the unique shape and setup of the Wii Remote and Nunchuk allow for precision and comfort not possible with Sony's Sixaxis controller, and playing the game simply with joysticks would be very difficult because you need to move objects fully and freely in three dimensions. True, full three-dimensional movement works fine with standard controllers in level editing features, but it would be too clumsy for a game like Elebits.
Other developers should follow Konami's example when setting out to create original IPs for Wii. Motion sensing controllers exist so players can feel like they're actually controlling the on-screen action, so developers must look beyond simple gestures and create totally immersive gameplay.
Now, this is not a review of "Elebits" and I'm not saying it is the ultimate Wii game, but I am saying that it makes the best use of Wii's unique features so far. I'm also not suggesting I don't like other uses for the Wii Remote either; I've tried 7 Wii games so far and I think all of them use the features very well. But "Elebits" is the first one I've played that creates an experience impossible on any other console. Games like that will propel Wii to even greater success.
Part of the uniqueness of "Elebits" is that you can do more than just lift or check the objects. By grasping them with the beam using the A or B button and moving or turning the Wii Remote, you can manipulate the objects in any way possible. Lift, move, rotate, flip, open, spin; you name it. There is more to the game than that, of course, but the unique gameplay style is my focus. This is the kind of game for which Wii was made; it wouldn't be the same on any other system. The sensor bar and the unique shape and setup of the Wii Remote and Nunchuk allow for precision and comfort not possible with Sony's Sixaxis controller, and playing the game simply with joysticks would be very difficult because you need to move objects fully and freely in three dimensions. True, full three-dimensional movement works fine with standard controllers in level editing features, but it would be too clumsy for a game like Elebits.
Other developers should follow Konami's example when setting out to create original IPs for Wii. Motion sensing controllers exist so players can feel like they're actually controlling the on-screen action, so developers must look beyond simple gestures and create totally immersive gameplay.
Now, this is not a review of "Elebits" and I'm not saying it is the ultimate Wii game, but I am saying that it makes the best use of Wii's unique features so far. I'm also not suggesting I don't like other uses for the Wii Remote either; I've tried 7 Wii games so far and I think all of them use the features very well. But "Elebits" is the first one I've played that creates an experience impossible on any other console. Games like that will propel Wii to even greater success.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Challenging Gaming-Inspired Violence
I downloaded a controversial PC freeware game a while ago, and in my effort to tie up loose ends before spring break is over, I finally played it today. I did not get very far, but from what I have seen, this game has real merit.
For the uninitiated, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is a 16-bit-style role-playing game (think Chrono Trigger or 2D Final Fantasy games) created with the "RPG Maker" program. It recreates the Columbine shootings and surrounding events from the point of view of the shooters. It becomes surreal at one point, but it aims to recreate the events as accurately as possible. Other than the true storyline, it plays like any other RPG.
People have criticized the game for "trivializing" or "glorifying" the shootings. Some of these points are well taken, like the argument against the game "humorously" (in some opinions) using factors in the shootings as RPG staples. For example, you can use the PC game "Doom" or a Marilyn Manson CD as stat-boosting accessories, and battles play out much like those in the Final Fantasy series. Some people were just angry that someone would make a game based on these events, and others were concerned that it would spawn more shootings.
But the game, as the creator once stated, is a documentary of sorts. It brings players into the world and minds of the shooters, showing what led to the event. Because it is based on the true details, it shows what went into and caused the shootings. It is very educational, and when observed properly, it can teach us what leads to these shootings so we know how to prevent them in the future. I learned a lot from the small part of the game I've played so far.
It also challenges the boundaries of gaming. World War II resulted in many more deaths than the Columbine shootings, but it has become a video game cliche. True, it the span of time between the events and the games is much larger, but it doesn't make the connection any different. After all, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was partially based on the much more recent L.A. riots, but the historical context was one of few aspects of the game that did not come under fire from critics.
In a similar vein, it reminds the public that video games are no different from any other medium. The movie "Bowling for Columbine" came out significantly earlier, and what did it get for turning the tragedy into inaccurate political propaganda? An Oscar. The obvious surreal parts aside, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" was much more accurate, sympathetic, and candid than that "documentary." I'll save my rant about how much I hate Michael Moore for another day and another blog, but the fact is that the game shouldn't have been shunned after the movie was honored. Video games are here to stay, just like movies, music, TV, and books. Demonizing them because they're more interactive than other media is like demonizing imagination. Anyone can pretend to kill someone else without a video game.
People who look at video games as a root for violence have it backwards. For example, a school shooting perpetrator listed "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" and other, much more violent games as his favorites. Some people saw that as proof that such games lead to murder. But ask any psychologist, and he or she will tell you that it's much more likely that people play these games BECAUSE they have violent intentions than it is the other way around.
I'm not saying video games never lead to real violence. If you live in such conditions; because of your environment, your age, mental disabilities, etc.; that murder seems like a viable option, video games might just be the driving force that lead you to action. But that's a very different message than the one people like Jack Thompson are sending. These people want us to believe that video games can turn any normal, well-behaved person into a murderer, and they are always the first media target after a young person commits murder or suicide. I've played all the Grand Theft Auto games, Silent Scope, Red Steel, the Mortal Kombat series, Doom (including levels designed by one of the Columbine shooters), Quake, and even Night Trap. However, of all the kids at my high school, I am probably the LEAST likely to ever shoot anyone. You can't look at video games as a universal evil; they only factor into violence in rare, specific cases in which they are not the main culprits anyway.
If Jack Thompson and other "crusaders" want to stop youth violence, they need to stop looking at the easy target of video games and start improving living conditions. If regular citizens want to protect their kids from violence at school, they should teach their kids not to mistreat others. Getting rid of violent video games might help a little bit, but improving people's lives will stop the raw emotions that inspire the violence in the first place.
For the uninitiated, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" is a 16-bit-style role-playing game (think Chrono Trigger or 2D Final Fantasy games) created with the "RPG Maker" program. It recreates the Columbine shootings and surrounding events from the point of view of the shooters. It becomes surreal at one point, but it aims to recreate the events as accurately as possible. Other than the true storyline, it plays like any other RPG.
People have criticized the game for "trivializing" or "glorifying" the shootings. Some of these points are well taken, like the argument against the game "humorously" (in some opinions) using factors in the shootings as RPG staples. For example, you can use the PC game "Doom" or a Marilyn Manson CD as stat-boosting accessories, and battles play out much like those in the Final Fantasy series. Some people were just angry that someone would make a game based on these events, and others were concerned that it would spawn more shootings.
But the game, as the creator once stated, is a documentary of sorts. It brings players into the world and minds of the shooters, showing what led to the event. Because it is based on the true details, it shows what went into and caused the shootings. It is very educational, and when observed properly, it can teach us what leads to these shootings so we know how to prevent them in the future. I learned a lot from the small part of the game I've played so far.
It also challenges the boundaries of gaming. World War II resulted in many more deaths than the Columbine shootings, but it has become a video game cliche. True, it the span of time between the events and the games is much larger, but it doesn't make the connection any different. After all, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was partially based on the much more recent L.A. riots, but the historical context was one of few aspects of the game that did not come under fire from critics.
In a similar vein, it reminds the public that video games are no different from any other medium. The movie "Bowling for Columbine" came out significantly earlier, and what did it get for turning the tragedy into inaccurate political propaganda? An Oscar. The obvious surreal parts aside, "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" was much more accurate, sympathetic, and candid than that "documentary." I'll save my rant about how much I hate Michael Moore for another day and another blog, but the fact is that the game shouldn't have been shunned after the movie was honored. Video games are here to stay, just like movies, music, TV, and books. Demonizing them because they're more interactive than other media is like demonizing imagination. Anyone can pretend to kill someone else without a video game.
People who look at video games as a root for violence have it backwards. For example, a school shooting perpetrator listed "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!" and other, much more violent games as his favorites. Some people saw that as proof that such games lead to murder. But ask any psychologist, and he or she will tell you that it's much more likely that people play these games BECAUSE they have violent intentions than it is the other way around.
I'm not saying video games never lead to real violence. If you live in such conditions; because of your environment, your age, mental disabilities, etc.; that murder seems like a viable option, video games might just be the driving force that lead you to action. But that's a very different message than the one people like Jack Thompson are sending. These people want us to believe that video games can turn any normal, well-behaved person into a murderer, and they are always the first media target after a young person commits murder or suicide. I've played all the Grand Theft Auto games, Silent Scope, Red Steel, the Mortal Kombat series, Doom (including levels designed by one of the Columbine shooters), Quake, and even Night Trap. However, of all the kids at my high school, I am probably the LEAST likely to ever shoot anyone. You can't look at video games as a universal evil; they only factor into violence in rare, specific cases in which they are not the main culprits anyway.
If Jack Thompson and other "crusaders" want to stop youth violence, they need to stop looking at the easy target of video games and start improving living conditions. If regular citizens want to protect their kids from violence at school, they should teach their kids not to mistreat others. Getting rid of violent video games might help a little bit, but improving people's lives will stop the raw emotions that inspire the violence in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
