What makes a good game? Why are some games fun and interesting, while others are just meh? Here are some criteria, in no particular order, that I use when I try a new board game or card game:
1. Easy to Learn
The game has to wow me right off the bat. Now, some games may have a neat gimmick (like Killer Bunnies) or take place in an interesting setting (like Warhammer 40,000 or Betrayal at House on the Hill), and for such "fluffy" games, I'm willing to be patient and learn a complex rule system.
For the most part, though, I enjoy a game that I can pick up and learn easily. It has the advantage of not losing my attention, which can be a bit short, span-wise. Also, I can turn around and teach the game to others.
2. Depth of Strategy
Easy to learn, difficult to master. Those are traits I really enjoy in a game. Card games like Magic: The Gathering or Dominion, for example, have a lot of subtle interactions between the cards. Similarly, the base mechanics of Carcassonne are easy to grasp, yet the game provides many strategic options and a plethora of decisions to make.
A writer and game designer whom I admire greatly once wrote an article about the difference between choices and decisions in a game. It took him an entire article to fully explain his thesis, but the gist of it was that some games provide you with many choices, or options, and you simply have to choose the best option. Other games, however, create moments wherein your options suddenly become limited, and you must make a decision about which route to take.
I believe that a good game backs players into corners and forces them to make strategic decisions. "Do I sacrifice my bishop to put myself on offense, or do I just move my king out of immediate danger, but stay in a defensive mode?" That's a game-changing decision, and it adds tension, which I enjoy. "What do I kill with this Lightning Bolt?" on the other hand, is a choice, which may create a decision for my opponent, but is usually just simple mathematics for me.
3. Replayability
Some games have a very heavy story element to them, which is cool. It can be harmful, though. It's hard to justify spending sixty dollars on a game that's only good for a couple plays. Murder mystery games, for example, suffer from this problem. You play through them once, and from then on you know whodunnit. Even if you can get a completely fresh group to play with you, you already know the story. The Horus Heresy game, I am told, has the same problem. While it may be fun to play out the final battle to defend the Emperor of Mankind against the corrupt heretic forces, after six or seven games, it gets stale.
Single-player video games can suffer from this same problem, although in their defense, they often take a few dozen hours to finish. Fifty dollars for a game that takes twenty five hours to beat equals two dollars per hour of entertainment, which makes it four or five times better than hitting up a movie theater, as an investment. Board games that lack replayability, however, can sometimes only boast five or six hours of fun before becoming uninteresting. At that rate, you'd be better off taking your sweetheart to a water park.
4. Rewards Skillful Play
I enjoy feeling rewarded for my efforts when I'm trying hard and playing well. There are some games--Killer Bunnies comes to mind--that, when boiled down, are almost entirely random. Roulette is the same way. You're just hoping to get lucky. I don't care for that. I like feeling that my efforts are paying off.
With games like Carcassonne or Magic: The Gathering, on the other hand, you can actually watch as you gain points on the score chart or see your opponent's life total diminish. It's fabulous.
5. Randomization
As much as I like being able to play skillfully and be rewarded, I also like a bit of randomness in my games. Chess is all well and good, but the really good players know when and how it's going to end long before less-experienced players such as myself. A bit of randomization, like rolling dice or shuffling cards, helps balance the game enough that newer or less-skilled players can still have a shot at winning. It adds a bit of danger and excitement to the game.
6. Non-Aggressive Strategies
This isn't as important to me as some of the other points I've mentioned, but I am not a mean person at heart. Sometimes, I have trouble being cutthroat enough to win games. I like games like Dominion, Carcassonne, or even (if you play your cards right) Magic: The Gathering, that provide strategies wherein you don't actually have to interact with the other players. That way, I can avoid upsetting anybody. That's probably why I love combo decks in Magic: The Gathering so much. I can just do my own thing, ignore my opponent, and try to just win before my opponent can kill me. Although that can upset some opponents, too, so I guess I can't always avoid making people mad. Sigh.
7. Fun
This is hard to quantify. Different people enjoy different things.
Here's my beef with games like FarmVille, Mafia Wars, or World of Warcraft. You do the exact same thing over, and over, and over again. Now, that would be fine if what you were doing was enjoyable, but it's just... not.
I sure do loves me some Dominion, though.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Why Monopoly Is A Lousy Game
Let's be honest. Monopoly is like a rite of passage for young Americans. Our bright little eyes light up at the sight of the fake money. We scramble to choose the best game token (the boot, obviously, and I don't care what you car-lovers say) and are eager to buy up properties and start raking in the dough.
The problem is, Monopoly is actually a truly terrible game. While I applaud Hasbro's efforts to teach children basic math, I shudder to think what children may glean about how economics works from this game. It's titled "Monopoly," for God's sake. There are laws in place to prevent monopolies, and for good reason. Yet the goal of this game is to own absolutely everything, and charge everyone an arm and a leg for the privilege of residing in your city-state. I find that appalling.
Further, there is the concept that simply purchasing some real estate will provide you with income, which (as anyone who has rented or bought real estate knows) is simply not the case.
On top of which, there's the whole money system that lets you buy entire hotel chains for a few thousand dollars. Huh? It takes thousands of dollars a day to keep a good hotel running!
Then there's the fact that everyone is apparently just roaming around Monopolyville with stacks of cash and no place to live. They just keep crashing at people's houses or paying for a hotel. Do they not have anything better to do with their lives than walking (or driving, if you're into the car) around, buying and selling deeds and rarely if ever staying at the properties they own?
And then there are the cheap franchise Monopoly games, like Star Wars Monopoly and The Office Monopoly. As if giving an awful game a fresh coat of paint will fix anything. Sure, the die-hard Simpsons or Frasier fans will impulsively pick copies of their respective franchise Monopoly games, but what do they really get out of them? Cheap pewter figures that barely resemble their namesakes, and a game board that may be pretty, but makes even less sense than the streets of the original Monopoly game.
Kudos to whoever thought to make A Nightmare Before Christmas Monopoly, though. I'd totally buy that.
The worst part about the game though: It never ends! I have met perhaps two people in my entire life that have actually played a Monopoly game all the way through to the end. SANE people just play for an hour or two and predict who is going to win. (Hint: It's the one with all the money and most of the properties.) Which is just another way of saying that normal people play until they get bored. A good game ought to hold players' interests all the way to the end of the game. Monopoly just doesn't do that.
If you already own a copy of Monopoly, I can't fault you for that. It's such a prevalent game that it's hard to avoid. It's like the Bible--people just expect you to own it. However, if you have yet to acquire a copy of your own, I say don't bother. Spend your money on a game worth playing. Or on cupcakes. Cupcakes are good, too.
The problem is, Monopoly is actually a truly terrible game. While I applaud Hasbro's efforts to teach children basic math, I shudder to think what children may glean about how economics works from this game. It's titled "Monopoly," for God's sake. There are laws in place to prevent monopolies, and for good reason. Yet the goal of this game is to own absolutely everything, and charge everyone an arm and a leg for the privilege of residing in your city-state. I find that appalling.
Further, there is the concept that simply purchasing some real estate will provide you with income, which (as anyone who has rented or bought real estate knows) is simply not the case.
On top of which, there's the whole money system that lets you buy entire hotel chains for a few thousand dollars. Huh? It takes thousands of dollars a day to keep a good hotel running!
Then there's the fact that everyone is apparently just roaming around Monopolyville with stacks of cash and no place to live. They just keep crashing at people's houses or paying for a hotel. Do they not have anything better to do with their lives than walking (or driving, if you're into the car) around, buying and selling deeds and rarely if ever staying at the properties they own?
And then there are the cheap franchise Monopoly games, like Star Wars Monopoly and The Office Monopoly. As if giving an awful game a fresh coat of paint will fix anything. Sure, the die-hard Simpsons or Frasier fans will impulsively pick copies of their respective franchise Monopoly games, but what do they really get out of them? Cheap pewter figures that barely resemble their namesakes, and a game board that may be pretty, but makes even less sense than the streets of the original Monopoly game.
Kudos to whoever thought to make A Nightmare Before Christmas Monopoly, though. I'd totally buy that.
The worst part about the game though: It never ends! I have met perhaps two people in my entire life that have actually played a Monopoly game all the way through to the end. SANE people just play for an hour or two and predict who is going to win. (Hint: It's the one with all the money and most of the properties.) Which is just another way of saying that normal people play until they get bored. A good game ought to hold players' interests all the way to the end of the game. Monopoly just doesn't do that.
If you already own a copy of Monopoly, I can't fault you for that. It's such a prevalent game that it's hard to avoid. It's like the Bible--people just expect you to own it. However, if you have yet to acquire a copy of your own, I say don't bother. Spend your money on a game worth playing. Or on cupcakes. Cupcakes are good, too.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Why You Should Be Playing Dominion
I ran into a friend while doing some laundry this morning. She and her husband are two people with whom my wife and I try to play games on a semi-regular basis. She asked about a game that my wife and I happen to adore, but I wasn't able to discuss the game in as much detail as I wanted. I wasn't able to "geek out," as they say.
So I thought I'd take this opportunity to discuss Dominion. It is a freaking awesome game. One of the things I love about it is it's replayability factor. Dominion is a deck-building card game. This means that each player begins the game with a small deck, and gradually adds to their respective decks as the game progresses. There are numerous Action cards, Treasure cards, Victory cards, and hybrid cards available that can be purchased and added to your deck to enhance the deck's power or to gain more Victory points. The great thing is, you can randomize which cards are available each game. Thus, every game is different, with unique combinations of cards available and unique challenges to overcome.
Gameplay
Here's how the game works: the game ends when either A) all the Province cards (worth 6 Victory points each) have been purchased, or B) any three Supply piles (piles of Action cards or Victory cards) run out. The winner of each game is then determined by adding up the number of Victory points each player has accumulated. Each player tries to purchase as many Victory cards as possible throughout the game. However, Victory cards usually do nothing (the Dominion: Intrigue expansion did several things to make Victory cards relevant prior to the end of the game, but for the most part, Victory cards are just dead in your hand), so it is prudent to wait until the game is coming to a close to buy Victory cards. Otherwise, you could find yourself stuck with a hand full of useless cards, thus wasting a turn or two looking for cards that do something.
Play proceeds clockwise, with each player taking a turn that consists of an Action phase, a Buy phase, and a Discard phase. During the Action phase, the active player may lay down and use one Action card, which could have a wide variety of effects, including allowing the player to use even more Action cards in that turn. Some of the more useful abilities of Action cards include drawing extra cards, acquiring new cards without needing to buy them, and adding virtual money to your money pool to spend that turn. There are also Action cards that attack other players--for example, forcing them to discard cards from their hand--but my wife and I tend to shun such malicious strategies.
Once all the actions have resolved, the player enters the Buy phase. You can use Treasure cards in your hand (plus any money generated by Action cards) to make a single purchase. Some Action cards (and, with the newest expansion, some Treasure cards) allow multiple purchases in a single turn. A typical turn, however, will consist of just one purchase, so you must select carefully which card amongst the various options to add to your deck.
During the Discard phase, all cards that were drawn or otherwise acquired are discarded into your discard pile, and a fresh hand of five cards is drawn.
Summary
The base game does a good job of introducing the various strategies of Dominion, and has given my wife and I hours of enjoyment. The great thing about Dominion, though, is that there are (currently) four expansions, each of which adds further depth and complexity, new strategies and new ways to enjoy the game.
Like most of the games I enjoy, Dominion is easy to learn and difficult to master. I would estimate that there are about one-hundred and thirty unique cards in Dominion, yet each game will only use between sixteen and nineteen of them. Since the available cards can change every game, you have to adapt to different strategies each time. Subsequently, the game has a high level of replayability. Plus, it's a lot of fun. Games can take as little as fifteen minutes from setup to point-tallying when played by two experts. (The average game, though, seems to take about thirty to forty minutes.) It is a perfectly balanced and fair game between two people, which is one of the reasons my wife and I play it so much; most of our other games need three or four people to play well. It can be played with two to four people without trouble.
More than four people will require at least one expansion, however. The base game does not come with enough Province cards for the game to play well with five or more people. You need to add two or three Province cards per person beyond the fourth to balance things. You may also need to stipulate that the second method of ending the game should be the depletion of four or even five stacks, rather than the usual three. So, a little bit of work is required to play with more than four people, but it's totally worth it.
Dominion is a lot of fun, and I highly recommend it. Both the Intrigue and Seaside expansions are enjoyable and add a lot to the game. I haven't had enough experience with the Alchemy or Prosperity expansions to give any sort of opinion on them, but I'm sure they're good, as well.
Check it out at boardgamegeek.com!
So I thought I'd take this opportunity to discuss Dominion. It is a freaking awesome game. One of the things I love about it is it's replayability factor. Dominion is a deck-building card game. This means that each player begins the game with a small deck, and gradually adds to their respective decks as the game progresses. There are numerous Action cards, Treasure cards, Victory cards, and hybrid cards available that can be purchased and added to your deck to enhance the deck's power or to gain more Victory points. The great thing is, you can randomize which cards are available each game. Thus, every game is different, with unique combinations of cards available and unique challenges to overcome.
Gameplay
Here's how the game works: the game ends when either A) all the Province cards (worth 6 Victory points each) have been purchased, or B) any three Supply piles (piles of Action cards or Victory cards) run out. The winner of each game is then determined by adding up the number of Victory points each player has accumulated. Each player tries to purchase as many Victory cards as possible throughout the game. However, Victory cards usually do nothing (the Dominion: Intrigue expansion did several things to make Victory cards relevant prior to the end of the game, but for the most part, Victory cards are just dead in your hand), so it is prudent to wait until the game is coming to a close to buy Victory cards. Otherwise, you could find yourself stuck with a hand full of useless cards, thus wasting a turn or two looking for cards that do something.
Play proceeds clockwise, with each player taking a turn that consists of an Action phase, a Buy phase, and a Discard phase. During the Action phase, the active player may lay down and use one Action card, which could have a wide variety of effects, including allowing the player to use even more Action cards in that turn. Some of the more useful abilities of Action cards include drawing extra cards, acquiring new cards without needing to buy them, and adding virtual money to your money pool to spend that turn. There are also Action cards that attack other players--for example, forcing them to discard cards from their hand--but my wife and I tend to shun such malicious strategies.
Once all the actions have resolved, the player enters the Buy phase. You can use Treasure cards in your hand (plus any money generated by Action cards) to make a single purchase. Some Action cards (and, with the newest expansion, some Treasure cards) allow multiple purchases in a single turn. A typical turn, however, will consist of just one purchase, so you must select carefully which card amongst the various options to add to your deck.
During the Discard phase, all cards that were drawn or otherwise acquired are discarded into your discard pile, and a fresh hand of five cards is drawn.
Summary
The base game does a good job of introducing the various strategies of Dominion, and has given my wife and I hours of enjoyment. The great thing about Dominion, though, is that there are (currently) four expansions, each of which adds further depth and complexity, new strategies and new ways to enjoy the game.
Like most of the games I enjoy, Dominion is easy to learn and difficult to master. I would estimate that there are about one-hundred and thirty unique cards in Dominion, yet each game will only use between sixteen and nineteen of them. Since the available cards can change every game, you have to adapt to different strategies each time. Subsequently, the game has a high level of replayability. Plus, it's a lot of fun. Games can take as little as fifteen minutes from setup to point-tallying when played by two experts. (The average game, though, seems to take about thirty to forty minutes.) It is a perfectly balanced and fair game between two people, which is one of the reasons my wife and I play it so much; most of our other games need three or four people to play well. It can be played with two to four people without trouble.
More than four people will require at least one expansion, however. The base game does not come with enough Province cards for the game to play well with five or more people. You need to add two or three Province cards per person beyond the fourth to balance things. You may also need to stipulate that the second method of ending the game should be the depletion of four or even five stacks, rather than the usual three. So, a little bit of work is required to play with more than four people, but it's totally worth it.
Dominion is a lot of fun, and I highly recommend it. Both the Intrigue and Seaside expansions are enjoyable and add a lot to the game. I haven't had enough experience with the Alchemy or Prosperity expansions to give any sort of opinion on them, but I'm sure they're good, as well.
Check it out at boardgamegeek.com!
Monday, November 22, 2010
I Could Use Some Help, Here
Hey, everybody. I've a bit of a conundrum. Maybe you can provide some assistance.
You see, my wife and I are developing a fun little card game together. It's going well--we're getting close to hammering out the major kinks. We'll probably start introducing our friends and family to it soon, partially as a way to advertise how freaking awesome we are, but mostly because the game needs beta-testing. We're hoping to actually get the thing published.
Here's the thing, though: Both of us happen to be lousy at naming things. I'm hoping that all of you faithful and brilliant readers can help us out.
I won't both explaining the exact game mechanics in this post--I'm not worried the ideas will be stolen, it's just that not everything is hammered out to our satisfaction. However, I'll give you an overview of the flavor behind it, and hopefully you can give us some good suggestions.
The game is a cooperative card game. Everyone works together to try and beat the clock. The idea is that each player is a goblin working in an underground factory. Each player draws a certain number of cards a turn, representing machine components coming down a conveyor belt. The goal is for every player to add components to machine and try to finish it in less than five minutes.
The reason for the time crunch is different each game. There are various Challenge Cards representing different bosses. For example, perhaps a big momma ogre is coming to eat all the goblins. The players have to build a machine that will either distract the big momma ogre or help the goblins escape. Or, in another challenge, a dragon is invading the goblin warrens, and the players must assemble a machine to either kill the dragon or appease it by helping it dig for treasure.
I'm stumped about what to call it. "Goblin Factory" doesn't exactly have a lot of zing. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
You see, my wife and I are developing a fun little card game together. It's going well--we're getting close to hammering out the major kinks. We'll probably start introducing our friends and family to it soon, partially as a way to advertise how freaking awesome we are, but mostly because the game needs beta-testing. We're hoping to actually get the thing published.
Here's the thing, though: Both of us happen to be lousy at naming things. I'm hoping that all of you faithful and brilliant readers can help us out.
I won't both explaining the exact game mechanics in this post--I'm not worried the ideas will be stolen, it's just that not everything is hammered out to our satisfaction. However, I'll give you an overview of the flavor behind it, and hopefully you can give us some good suggestions.
The game is a cooperative card game. Everyone works together to try and beat the clock. The idea is that each player is a goblin working in an underground factory. Each player draws a certain number of cards a turn, representing machine components coming down a conveyor belt. The goal is for every player to add components to machine and try to finish it in less than five minutes.
The reason for the time crunch is different each game. There are various Challenge Cards representing different bosses. For example, perhaps a big momma ogre is coming to eat all the goblins. The players have to build a machine that will either distract the big momma ogre or help the goblins escape. Or, in another challenge, a dragon is invading the goblin warrens, and the players must assemble a machine to either kill the dragon or appease it by helping it dig for treasure.
I'm stumped about what to call it. "Goblin Factory" doesn't exactly have a lot of zing. Any suggestions?
Thanks!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
What Sony is Doing Wrong
I may write a follow-up to this post about what Sony is doing right. Maybe. We'll see.
First off, I don't understand what Sony was thinking with its marketing scheme when the Playstation 3 was released a few years ago. Check out this ad they ran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqkNPcUMffU
What the heck? That's supposed to make me want to buy a PS3? It creeped me out! Made me want to take a really hot shower to burn the disturbed off my skin.
Only the fact that they had a legitimately good product saved them. The PS3 was very powerful, and could double as a Blu-Ray disc player. Plus, legions of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear fans figured that Sony would continue to keep their precious game series exclusive. (Metal Gear Solid 4 did end up a PS3 exclusive, but Final Fantasy 13 was sold on both the PS3 and X-Box 360.) People bought it despite, not because of, the advertising campaign.
And how about that PS3, huh? Quite the machine. Although, just like the 360, early models of the PS3 suffered hardware problems that cost the company money. That's understandable; most machines are buggy when they're first released into the market. The problem is especially bad in the video game industry, however, where companies rush to release their new products without adequately testing them, just to race the competition.
The original PS3 was massive and heavy, which likely hurt sales, especially with the Nintendo Wii was about the size and weight of a Pop-Tart. Sony did eventually manage to release a new, slimmer version of the PS3, but this came with a major drawback: it wasn't backwards compatible. No more PS2 or Playstation games for you! This doesn't really make sense to me, and here's why: The PS2 Slim was tiny. I could hide it under a DVD case and no one would know. It weighed next to nothing. Yet somehow, dropping the Emotion Engine (the bit of the motherboard that ran PS2 games on the PS3) led to a 33% slimmer, 36% lighter PS3. I really don't get how that works. How big can that chip possibly be?
Okay, so, I can't play my favorite PS2 games on this new system. Fine. At least I can play the cool new games coming out, right?
Nope. Developers found the PS3 was difficult to program for, and many nearly abandoned ship and moved to the 360 and Wii. Despite the PS3's power and potential, no one made any notable games for it until about two years after its launch. Sony has since cleaned up its act somewhat, with a much more developer-friendly PS3 Slim. Still, the PS3 is lagging way behind both its competitors, trying to offer an extremely pricey system with fewer game options.
Here's another thing Sony is handling wrong: Final Fantasy VII. The seventh installment in the uberpopular series is one of the most-loved video games ever. People bought the freakin' Playstation just so they could play Final Fantasy VII. Heck, the Playstation came into existence because Square Enix wanted to created a game of epic proportions. Originally, they were going to program the game for the Nintendo 64, but Nintendo wanted to stick with cartridges instead of trying out this new-fangled CD thing. A cartridge couldn't possibly hold all the data the game would need, so Square asked if Sony wanted to have a shot at making a game console.
Point being, Final Fantasy VII is ridiculously popular. And yet it has never, not once, been rereleased since it's original launch in 1997. It's the most popular game ever to be released on pretty much any Playstation, ever. And Sony used sections of--with cool updated graphics--at the E3 convention in 2005 to show off how cool the PS3 was going to be. A "Final Fantasy VII testing group" was mentioned in the credits of the Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children movie and in the Final Fantasy VII spin-off video game Crisis Core. The team that worked on the original game has stated--repeatedly--that they would love to revisit it and update it for modern consoles. Yet still we get no updates, no rereleases. Sony is sitting on a gold mine, and it seems to have no interest in mining it.
Also, Final Fantasy 13 sucked.
Here's how a good business makes money: learn what consumers want, and sell it to them.
Here's how a lousy company fails to make money: release a product with a lot of potential, then do nothing with it.
Admittedly, some companies came come up with a product that nobody was looking to buy, and then make that product popular. See the iPod as an example. But that's not what Sony is trying to do. The PS3 was a highly-anticipated machine that gamers were salivating over. Then it hit the markets and failed to live up to expectations.
Here's what Sony needs to do to turn things around:
1) Rerelease Final Fantasy VII for the PS3. It will sell consoles. Guaranteed.
2) Release good, quality games that are enjoyable to play. Not Final Fantasy 13. And definitely not Metal Gear Solid 4. They are very pretty games to watch, but they are so dull to play. Good game play trumps good graphics every time. That's why the less-powerful but incredibly fun Nintendo Wii has seen so much success.
3) Advertise better. Tell people why they should spend hundreds of dollars on your product. Don't give them creepy babies in an empty room.
4) Respect the past. A lot of people loved their PS2 games. They PS3 is so expensive that a lot of players hawked their PS2 in order to get it. Retool the Slim if you must, but make it backwards compatible. If nothing else, at least make all those old game downloadable onto the PS3. We'll pay ten or fifteen bucks to be able to play them again.
This has been another post from L33t Games. Until next time, spend some quality time with your sweetheart.
First off, I don't understand what Sony was thinking with its marketing scheme when the Playstation 3 was released a few years ago. Check out this ad they ran:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqkNPcUMffU
What the heck? That's supposed to make me want to buy a PS3? It creeped me out! Made me want to take a really hot shower to burn the disturbed off my skin.
Only the fact that they had a legitimately good product saved them. The PS3 was very powerful, and could double as a Blu-Ray disc player. Plus, legions of Final Fantasy and Metal Gear fans figured that Sony would continue to keep their precious game series exclusive. (Metal Gear Solid 4 did end up a PS3 exclusive, but Final Fantasy 13 was sold on both the PS3 and X-Box 360.) People bought it despite, not because of, the advertising campaign.
And how about that PS3, huh? Quite the machine. Although, just like the 360, early models of the PS3 suffered hardware problems that cost the company money. That's understandable; most machines are buggy when they're first released into the market. The problem is especially bad in the video game industry, however, where companies rush to release their new products without adequately testing them, just to race the competition.
The original PS3 was massive and heavy, which likely hurt sales, especially with the Nintendo Wii was about the size and weight of a Pop-Tart. Sony did eventually manage to release a new, slimmer version of the PS3, but this came with a major drawback: it wasn't backwards compatible. No more PS2 or Playstation games for you! This doesn't really make sense to me, and here's why: The PS2 Slim was tiny. I could hide it under a DVD case and no one would know. It weighed next to nothing. Yet somehow, dropping the Emotion Engine (the bit of the motherboard that ran PS2 games on the PS3) led to a 33% slimmer, 36% lighter PS3. I really don't get how that works. How big can that chip possibly be?
Okay, so, I can't play my favorite PS2 games on this new system. Fine. At least I can play the cool new games coming out, right?
Nope. Developers found the PS3 was difficult to program for, and many nearly abandoned ship and moved to the 360 and Wii. Despite the PS3's power and potential, no one made any notable games for it until about two years after its launch. Sony has since cleaned up its act somewhat, with a much more developer-friendly PS3 Slim. Still, the PS3 is lagging way behind both its competitors, trying to offer an extremely pricey system with fewer game options.
Here's another thing Sony is handling wrong: Final Fantasy VII. The seventh installment in the uberpopular series is one of the most-loved video games ever. People bought the freakin' Playstation just so they could play Final Fantasy VII. Heck, the Playstation came into existence because Square Enix wanted to created a game of epic proportions. Originally, they were going to program the game for the Nintendo 64, but Nintendo wanted to stick with cartridges instead of trying out this new-fangled CD thing. A cartridge couldn't possibly hold all the data the game would need, so Square asked if Sony wanted to have a shot at making a game console.
Point being, Final Fantasy VII is ridiculously popular. And yet it has never, not once, been rereleased since it's original launch in 1997. It's the most popular game ever to be released on pretty much any Playstation, ever. And Sony used sections of--with cool updated graphics--at the E3 convention in 2005 to show off how cool the PS3 was going to be. A "Final Fantasy VII testing group" was mentioned in the credits of the Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children movie and in the Final Fantasy VII spin-off video game Crisis Core. The team that worked on the original game has stated--repeatedly--that they would love to revisit it and update it for modern consoles. Yet still we get no updates, no rereleases. Sony is sitting on a gold mine, and it seems to have no interest in mining it.
Also, Final Fantasy 13 sucked.
Here's how a good business makes money: learn what consumers want, and sell it to them.
Here's how a lousy company fails to make money: release a product with a lot of potential, then do nothing with it.
Admittedly, some companies came come up with a product that nobody was looking to buy, and then make that product popular. See the iPod as an example. But that's not what Sony is trying to do. The PS3 was a highly-anticipated machine that gamers were salivating over. Then it hit the markets and failed to live up to expectations.
Here's what Sony needs to do to turn things around:
1) Rerelease Final Fantasy VII for the PS3. It will sell consoles. Guaranteed.
2) Release good, quality games that are enjoyable to play. Not Final Fantasy 13. And definitely not Metal Gear Solid 4. They are very pretty games to watch, but they are so dull to play. Good game play trumps good graphics every time. That's why the less-powerful but incredibly fun Nintendo Wii has seen so much success.
3) Advertise better. Tell people why they should spend hundreds of dollars on your product. Don't give them creepy babies in an empty room.
4) Respect the past. A lot of people loved their PS2 games. They PS3 is so expensive that a lot of players hawked their PS2 in order to get it. Retool the Slim if you must, but make it backwards compatible. If nothing else, at least make all those old game downloadable onto the PS3. We'll pay ten or fifteen bucks to be able to play them again.
This has been another post from L33t Games. Until next time, spend some quality time with your sweetheart.
Friday, November 19, 2010
Pure Perfection
I want to tell you about a perfect video game. Really, it is perfect. It cannot be improved. There is not a single crack in the entire code that can be altered to deliver a more seamless and inspiring gaming experience.
The game is Shadow of the Colossus, for the Playstation 2. It was released in North America in 2005 and is the reason that I discovered the art of video games. I used to believe that video games were merely entertaining. It wasn't until playing Shadow of the Colossus that I realized something: video games can be a high form of art, just like film. They have a script, actors, costumes, architecture, music, sound effects, visual effects, everything for which we praise movies. Video games add one additional element to the mix, however, that film does not have: immersion. Players actually participate in the story. They drive and create the plot as they play the game.
I have in the past compared Shadow of the Colossus to the more recent Legends of Zelda games, but boiled down to the core and most interesting elements. The plot of Shadows involves the hero, Wander, scouring a vast enchanted land searching for sixteen colossal creatures. He must slay each one of them in order to resurrect a young woman who was unfairly and cruelly sacrificed. There are no minions or mini-bosses. There are just the sixteen colossi, and sixteen puzzles to solve in order to reach each colossus' lair. Solve a puzzle to get to the boss, then have a really fun boss fight. How could I say no to that?
In the game, you only have a bow and arrow and a magical sword as your weapons. Your arrows do little to affect the colossi, unless they have weak points you can hit to bring them to their knees. Your magical sword is your only weapon that can actually injure the creatures, and can only do so on their weak spots. Thus, you inevitably have to climb onto these massive creatures, clinging desperately to them as they try to shake you off. Equipping the sword will allow you to see a glowing sigil at the colossus' weak point, although some colossi have several weak points which must be stabbed in order.
After a gorgeous cutscene that establishes the setting and the basic plot, the game begins at a ruined temple in the center of a forbidden land. You, as Wander, step out of the temple into the sunlight. You learn the holding your sword up will cause a beam of light to shine directly towards your next foe. Mounting your horse, Agro, you ride towards your first challenge. You find yourself at the bottom of a cliff, and must dismount and leave your horse behind as you climb toward the first colossus. This climbing acts as a tutorial, teaching you the basic moves of dodge rolling, leaping from ledge to ledge, clinging, and other skills you will need throughout the game.
At the top of the cliff, you encounter a huge minotaur, perhaps ten stories tall. It mostly ignores your presence, at least until you leap at its ankles and begin climbing up its legs and back. It will shake to try to dislodge you, and will really get serious about getting you onto the ground once you reach the back of its head, where its weak spot waits. Timing your blows carefully, you must grip its fur with one hand while drawing back your sword with the other. The longer you hold off stabbing, the more strength you will stab the colossus with, but if you wait to long, you could be flung loose. Three or four good stabs, and the minotaur collapses, dead.
Here, the music softens to a mournful choir. The colossus falls to the ground in slow motion, a mighty, timeless creature, brought to an end by cruel fate. As the game progresses and with each slain colossus, you have to wonder if you are really doing the right thing, killing off these creatures.
After the death of the colossus, black tendrils rise from the corpse and zap you. You collapse to the ground, then find yourself transported back to the temple, where you receive new instructions from the mysterious voice guiding your quest. This is not only important to the plot, but a useful game mechanic, because you do not have to take the time to backtrack before moving on to the next colossus.
One of the many, many things I like about this game is its seamlessness. By that I do not just mean the map, although it has one giant map with no load times--you can travel from one end of the land to the other without having to wait for a portion of it to load. But I also mean seamless in terms of graphics. The cutscenes and the in-game graphics are identical, which helps add to the immersion. Granted, the graphics are not as sharp as other contemporary games, but they were and remain quite good, particularly with the use of lighting. The physics are also incredibly real--Agro moves like a real horse, and will even stubbornly pull away or fight against your control if he doesn't like the direction you're going. He will absolutely refuse to jump over a cliff for you, and will hesitate before making leaping small hurdles.
The music is spectacular and very well-integrated with the on-screen events. The plot is simple, yet deep and moving, as Wander becomes more and more infected with the souls of the colossi, and must decide how far he is willing to go to bring back the woman he loves. The puzzles and the boss fights are spectacular and extremely enjoyable. Only one of them was perhaps less than perfect, and even that's debatable. One of the colossi, a smaller one about the size of a large SUV, is afraid of fire. I had to climb a ways to reach the platform on which it waits to attack, so once I picked up a torch, I started backing it towards the edge from which I entered. Apparently that's the wrong edge, which I didn't realize until after I had gotten the thing to fall off. It didn't die, it wasn't even stunned, and it's armor plating was still intact, yet it couldn't get back up to me, and there was no way I was going down into a narrow corridor with that thing. Eventually, I had to restart the battle and force it to the opposite edge, from whence it fell a long ways. It became stunned, and several armor pieces fell off, so I was able to jump down onto it and slay it. It wasn't THAT hard, but I do wish that the game designers had made it slightly more clear exactly where you were supposed to push the creature.
At any rate, I love love love the game. It's one of the reasons why I am so annoyed that Sony stopped making Playstation 3s backwards compatible. My favorite games are on the Playstation 2! Why would I give that just to play PS3 games?
If you have the console on which to play it, I would highly recommend purchasing a copy of Shadow of the Colossus. You will not be disappointed. It is pure perfection.
The game is Shadow of the Colossus, for the Playstation 2. It was released in North America in 2005 and is the reason that I discovered the art of video games. I used to believe that video games were merely entertaining. It wasn't until playing Shadow of the Colossus that I realized something: video games can be a high form of art, just like film. They have a script, actors, costumes, architecture, music, sound effects, visual effects, everything for which we praise movies. Video games add one additional element to the mix, however, that film does not have: immersion. Players actually participate in the story. They drive and create the plot as they play the game.
I have in the past compared Shadow of the Colossus to the more recent Legends of Zelda games, but boiled down to the core and most interesting elements. The plot of Shadows involves the hero, Wander, scouring a vast enchanted land searching for sixteen colossal creatures. He must slay each one of them in order to resurrect a young woman who was unfairly and cruelly sacrificed. There are no minions or mini-bosses. There are just the sixteen colossi, and sixteen puzzles to solve in order to reach each colossus' lair. Solve a puzzle to get to the boss, then have a really fun boss fight. How could I say no to that?
In the game, you only have a bow and arrow and a magical sword as your weapons. Your arrows do little to affect the colossi, unless they have weak points you can hit to bring them to their knees. Your magical sword is your only weapon that can actually injure the creatures, and can only do so on their weak spots. Thus, you inevitably have to climb onto these massive creatures, clinging desperately to them as they try to shake you off. Equipping the sword will allow you to see a glowing sigil at the colossus' weak point, although some colossi have several weak points which must be stabbed in order.
After a gorgeous cutscene that establishes the setting and the basic plot, the game begins at a ruined temple in the center of a forbidden land. You, as Wander, step out of the temple into the sunlight. You learn the holding your sword up will cause a beam of light to shine directly towards your next foe. Mounting your horse, Agro, you ride towards your first challenge. You find yourself at the bottom of a cliff, and must dismount and leave your horse behind as you climb toward the first colossus. This climbing acts as a tutorial, teaching you the basic moves of dodge rolling, leaping from ledge to ledge, clinging, and other skills you will need throughout the game.
At the top of the cliff, you encounter a huge minotaur, perhaps ten stories tall. It mostly ignores your presence, at least until you leap at its ankles and begin climbing up its legs and back. It will shake to try to dislodge you, and will really get serious about getting you onto the ground once you reach the back of its head, where its weak spot waits. Timing your blows carefully, you must grip its fur with one hand while drawing back your sword with the other. The longer you hold off stabbing, the more strength you will stab the colossus with, but if you wait to long, you could be flung loose. Three or four good stabs, and the minotaur collapses, dead.
Here, the music softens to a mournful choir. The colossus falls to the ground in slow motion, a mighty, timeless creature, brought to an end by cruel fate. As the game progresses and with each slain colossus, you have to wonder if you are really doing the right thing, killing off these creatures.
After the death of the colossus, black tendrils rise from the corpse and zap you. You collapse to the ground, then find yourself transported back to the temple, where you receive new instructions from the mysterious voice guiding your quest. This is not only important to the plot, but a useful game mechanic, because you do not have to take the time to backtrack before moving on to the next colossus.
One of the many, many things I like about this game is its seamlessness. By that I do not just mean the map, although it has one giant map with no load times--you can travel from one end of the land to the other without having to wait for a portion of it to load. But I also mean seamless in terms of graphics. The cutscenes and the in-game graphics are identical, which helps add to the immersion. Granted, the graphics are not as sharp as other contemporary games, but they were and remain quite good, particularly with the use of lighting. The physics are also incredibly real--Agro moves like a real horse, and will even stubbornly pull away or fight against your control if he doesn't like the direction you're going. He will absolutely refuse to jump over a cliff for you, and will hesitate before making leaping small hurdles.
The music is spectacular and very well-integrated with the on-screen events. The plot is simple, yet deep and moving, as Wander becomes more and more infected with the souls of the colossi, and must decide how far he is willing to go to bring back the woman he loves. The puzzles and the boss fights are spectacular and extremely enjoyable. Only one of them was perhaps less than perfect, and even that's debatable. One of the colossi, a smaller one about the size of a large SUV, is afraid of fire. I had to climb a ways to reach the platform on which it waits to attack, so once I picked up a torch, I started backing it towards the edge from which I entered. Apparently that's the wrong edge, which I didn't realize until after I had gotten the thing to fall off. It didn't die, it wasn't even stunned, and it's armor plating was still intact, yet it couldn't get back up to me, and there was no way I was going down into a narrow corridor with that thing. Eventually, I had to restart the battle and force it to the opposite edge, from whence it fell a long ways. It became stunned, and several armor pieces fell off, so I was able to jump down onto it and slay it. It wasn't THAT hard, but I do wish that the game designers had made it slightly more clear exactly where you were supposed to push the creature.
At any rate, I love love love the game. It's one of the reasons why I am so annoyed that Sony stopped making Playstation 3s backwards compatible. My favorite games are on the Playstation 2! Why would I give that just to play PS3 games?
If you have the console on which to play it, I would highly recommend purchasing a copy of Shadow of the Colossus. You will not be disappointed. It is pure perfection.
Bohnanza: A Lesson in Free-Market Economics
My wife and I were introduced a few weeks ago to the bean-planting game Bohnanza by Rio Grande Games. It was designed by Uwe Rosenberg (of Agricola fame) and retails for between fifteen and twenty dollars at most game shops or online stores.
The concept was initially difficult for me to swallow. We plant and trade beans? How can that possibly be fun? But I swallowed my skepticism. After all, there are a lot of games out there that sound odd when you try to describe them. (Case in point: Puerto Rico. You're a Spanish plantation owner during the height of the slave trade. Not something an American audience would normally latch onto. Yet the game has been selling well since it's release in 2002 and is still played in gaming groups across the nation.)
It turns out, the game is pretty fun, and it teaches some of the principles of free-market economics. Surprise, you can learn valuable lessons from games.
The regular game rules are for three to seven players, although there is a variant that allows for a two-player game, so it's good for married couples that can't always get together with their friends to play games ;) . Players draw cards from a community deck. One of the interesting game mechanics of Bohnanza is that hand rearrangement is forbidden. The cards in each player's hand must remain in the exact order they were drawn, and must always be played in that order.
At the beginning of each player's turn, he or she must plant at least one bean card, although two cards is allowed. (In my experience, it is rarely useful to plant two; one usually suffices.) The forced planting is a curse more than a blessing; you only have two "bean fields" in which to plant beans, each of which can only hold one type of bean at a time. There are maybe a dozen different types of beans, each with a different regularity. For example, there are only eight red beans in the deck, but twenty-two wax beans. Red beans are worth more coins, but are more difficult to accumulate, while wax beans are hardly worth anything, but you're likely to see a lot of them. The goal is to plant as many of one type of bean in a bean field before having to harvest it. The forced planting sometimes requires you to harvest a particular bean field before you really wanted to in order to make way for the next bean in your hand, and you lose out on potential coins.
When a bean field is harvested, some of the harvested beans are flipped upside down and become coins in your coin pile, while the extra beans are placed in the community discard pile. The player with the most coins at the end of the game wins.
After the forced planting at the beginning of his or her turn, the player then flips up a certain number of cards from the deck (the exact number changes depending on how many people are playing) and either plants any or all of the revealed beans or trades them away to other players for favors. Players may also trade away cards from their hands, which is a good way of getting rid of undesirable beans. Don't want to plant that chili bean next turn? Try to trade it away to someone who wants it. All traded beans immediately get planted. There is one final chance to make trades, after which, the next player gets his or her turn and must plant at least one bean from his or her hand.
The game is simple to pick up and play and is very amusing. One aspect of it that I enjoy is how it encourages cooperation. Hoarding beans and only making trades that benefit you will discourage players from trading with you, and everyone will have very low scores by the end of the game. On the other hand, trading freely and helping all the other players will lead to a high scoring game. You may not win, but you will have earned a lot of coins. That's how a good free market economy works. Everyone could just do what's best for themselves and try to undermine the competition, but it just stagnates the cash flow. If everyone is looking out both for themselves and everyone else, the money flows freely, and everybody ends up in the black.
In conclusion, not only is Bohnanza a fun and inexpensive game, but it demonstrates how a healthy free market economy functions best. Ideally, in the game, everyone tries to specialize in their own particular type of bean, instead of directly competing with someone else for the exact same bean. Ideally, in the real world, companies will release unique products and services, rather than copying another company's product or service. Maybe that's why the Zune never caught on? It wasn't different enough from the iPod.
Anyway, we liked Bohnanza. The holidays are coming up. You should all consider picking up a copy of this light but amusing game.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11/bohnanza
The concept was initially difficult for me to swallow. We plant and trade beans? How can that possibly be fun? But I swallowed my skepticism. After all, there are a lot of games out there that sound odd when you try to describe them. (Case in point: Puerto Rico. You're a Spanish plantation owner during the height of the slave trade. Not something an American audience would normally latch onto. Yet the game has been selling well since it's release in 2002 and is still played in gaming groups across the nation.)
It turns out, the game is pretty fun, and it teaches some of the principles of free-market economics. Surprise, you can learn valuable lessons from games.
The regular game rules are for three to seven players, although there is a variant that allows for a two-player game, so it's good for married couples that can't always get together with their friends to play games ;) . Players draw cards from a community deck. One of the interesting game mechanics of Bohnanza is that hand rearrangement is forbidden. The cards in each player's hand must remain in the exact order they were drawn, and must always be played in that order.
At the beginning of each player's turn, he or she must plant at least one bean card, although two cards is allowed. (In my experience, it is rarely useful to plant two; one usually suffices.) The forced planting is a curse more than a blessing; you only have two "bean fields" in which to plant beans, each of which can only hold one type of bean at a time. There are maybe a dozen different types of beans, each with a different regularity. For example, there are only eight red beans in the deck, but twenty-two wax beans. Red beans are worth more coins, but are more difficult to accumulate, while wax beans are hardly worth anything, but you're likely to see a lot of them. The goal is to plant as many of one type of bean in a bean field before having to harvest it. The forced planting sometimes requires you to harvest a particular bean field before you really wanted to in order to make way for the next bean in your hand, and you lose out on potential coins.
When a bean field is harvested, some of the harvested beans are flipped upside down and become coins in your coin pile, while the extra beans are placed in the community discard pile. The player with the most coins at the end of the game wins.
After the forced planting at the beginning of his or her turn, the player then flips up a certain number of cards from the deck (the exact number changes depending on how many people are playing) and either plants any or all of the revealed beans or trades them away to other players for favors. Players may also trade away cards from their hands, which is a good way of getting rid of undesirable beans. Don't want to plant that chili bean next turn? Try to trade it away to someone who wants it. All traded beans immediately get planted. There is one final chance to make trades, after which, the next player gets his or her turn and must plant at least one bean from his or her hand.
The game is simple to pick up and play and is very amusing. One aspect of it that I enjoy is how it encourages cooperation. Hoarding beans and only making trades that benefit you will discourage players from trading with you, and everyone will have very low scores by the end of the game. On the other hand, trading freely and helping all the other players will lead to a high scoring game. You may not win, but you will have earned a lot of coins. That's how a good free market economy works. Everyone could just do what's best for themselves and try to undermine the competition, but it just stagnates the cash flow. If everyone is looking out both for themselves and everyone else, the money flows freely, and everybody ends up in the black.
In conclusion, not only is Bohnanza a fun and inexpensive game, but it demonstrates how a healthy free market economy functions best. Ideally, in the game, everyone tries to specialize in their own particular type of bean, instead of directly competing with someone else for the exact same bean. Ideally, in the real world, companies will release unique products and services, rather than copying another company's product or service. Maybe that's why the Zune never caught on? It wasn't different enough from the iPod.
Anyway, we liked Bohnanza. The holidays are coming up. You should all consider picking up a copy of this light but amusing game.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11/bohnanza
Monday, November 15, 2010
Welcome to L33t Games!
It's time to take the plunge and do what I love. And what do I love? Games! Video games, board games, card games, you name it. I cannot claim to hold any degree in game design--yet--but I am a game enthusiast, and an amateur student of game theory.
The purpose of this blog will be to study games--what makes them good, what makes them fail; why some of them sell well, while others fall flat. There will be game reviews and maybe even a few rants about the game industry (I'm looking at you, Blizzard).
This will all be skewed, of course, by my own biases. That means that I may bash on some games that you love, while touting games that you cannot stand. I preemptively apologize.
To help you understand what sort of blogger I intend to be, I thought I'd demonstrate what sort of gamer I am. For starters, I have been a Magic: The Gathering enthusiast for years. I have dabbled with various role playing games, but have struggled to find both a gaming group and a world in which I really want to play. I am a fan of Dominion, Carcassonne, and Betrayal at House on the Hill. I have been talking myself out of starting a Warhammer 40K army for about a year, now.
On the video games side, I prefer action/adventure type games with interesting stories, characters, or settings. I own a Playstation 3 and a really lousy computer, so my previewing of current video games will be extremely limited. I tend to like games that have a clear and satisfying end, which is why I rarely play online or multiplayer games, although the occasional Halo frag fest can be fun. Shadow of the Colossus is my all-time favorite game. Silent Hill 3, Batman: Arkham Asylum, and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are some of my favorite games. I have recently enjoyed the God of War series and inFamous.
It behooves me to explain that I am married, and that my wife and I are working our way through college. We both enjoy playing games together, and we try to meet up with our friends regularly for a good gaming session.
This has been my first official L33t Games blog. Until next time, don't forget to floss.
The purpose of this blog will be to study games--what makes them good, what makes them fail; why some of them sell well, while others fall flat. There will be game reviews and maybe even a few rants about the game industry (I'm looking at you, Blizzard).
This will all be skewed, of course, by my own biases. That means that I may bash on some games that you love, while touting games that you cannot stand. I preemptively apologize.
To help you understand what sort of blogger I intend to be, I thought I'd demonstrate what sort of gamer I am. For starters, I have been a Magic: The Gathering enthusiast for years. I have dabbled with various role playing games, but have struggled to find both a gaming group and a world in which I really want to play. I am a fan of Dominion, Carcassonne, and Betrayal at House on the Hill. I have been talking myself out of starting a Warhammer 40K army for about a year, now.
On the video games side, I prefer action/adventure type games with interesting stories, characters, or settings. I own a Playstation 3 and a really lousy computer, so my previewing of current video games will be extremely limited. I tend to like games that have a clear and satisfying end, which is why I rarely play online or multiplayer games, although the occasional Halo frag fest can be fun. Shadow of the Colossus is my all-time favorite game. Silent Hill 3, Batman: Arkham Asylum, and Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time are some of my favorite games. I have recently enjoyed the God of War series and inFamous.
It behooves me to explain that I am married, and that my wife and I are working our way through college. We both enjoy playing games together, and we try to meet up with our friends regularly for a good gaming session.
This has been my first official L33t Games blog. Until next time, don't forget to floss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)