tisdag 11 juni 2013
My thoughts on Nintendo direct E3 2013
Den här sammanfattningen är inte tillgänglig.
Klicka här för att visa inlägget.
söndag 12 maj 2013
Fire emblem awakening (2013) 3DS
This article is protected by fair use.
Much like anyone outside of Japan, the first time I heard of the Fire emblem was through Super smash bros. melee. In Nintendo's second installment in the famed fighting game series, two mysterious swordsmen named Marth and Roy were included. Like most people back then, I had no idea who they were of what Fire emblem was about. Yet for some reason, I was never to curious to find out.
Years and years pass, and Fire emblem begins to establish itself as a franchise worldwide. Still nothing that caught my interest. I cannot explain why, but the series never once appealed to me. No idea why, it has just met me with complete indifference. To be honest, I was glad that the series got a huge boost thanks to melee, which in itself is very cool, but that doesn't automatically mean I would like it.
Super smash bros. brawl is released, Marth is back for another fight and Roy is now replaced by Ike from the same series. At the time, I remember most people making fun of it due to the fact that Ike shared his name with a character from South park (you probably know whom, I should not have to explain). Even to this day, I think Marth, both in his melee and brawl incarnations, and Ike are very fun to play with. Especially Marth in melee, due to his speed, reach and fairly low learning curve. So what about Fire emblem, the series these two orginates from? Didn't bother to find out.
One of my friends owned Fire emblem shadow dragon, a remake of the very first Fire emblem game, which I got the chance to try out. It was very briefly, so I couldn't really think too much of it. However, I remember I thought it was kind of Advance wars, also a series I didn't bother with until Dual strike came out, but with one major flaw that made me extremely sceptical to the series as a whole: if your characters die, they will NOT return for the rest of the game. To compare with Advance wars, what if you could only build one of each type of unit and they were gone for the rest of the game if they got destroyed?Needless to say, I did not try the game again for a while. I also thought the graphics were odd, a weird blend of realistic and cartoonish that didn't blend well to me back then.
11 years have now passed since I first tried Super smash bros. melee, and I hear yet another Fire emblem game is going to get released. It keeps getting delayed, or so I hear since I wasn't interested in the game at all until two weeks ago or so, and its demo finally finds its way to the Nintendo eshop. I usually try out every new demo they release, and this game's demo was no different. The game was met with near universal critical acclaim, to steal a staple phrase from wikipedia, so my worries were put to rest. The demo was downloaded and I tried it out.
Literally one minute of gameplay later and I'm completely hooked. I made up my mind: I'm getting Fire emblem awakening!
After ordering the game, I played two other Fire emblem games in order to prepare myself; get aquainted with the gameplay and the overall feel and tone of the games. I tried Fire emblem (also called Blazing sword) and Fire emblem the sacred stones. Neither of these games wowed me by any means. They were fun but kind of frustrating due to the permanent character death. One small mistake and all the enemies were all over the weakest member of my legion (yes, I refer to the army I chose for a partucular map as legion sometimes due to the hilarious name that is "Lyndis's legion"). While I still think these two games are very similar to Advance wars but worse, the biggest similarity to me was the fact that they were addicting and overall fun. However, they both had a few common flaws: too many characters and weak (although still fairly enjoyable) plots. Blazing sword also had that weird and sudden protagonist change in the middle of the game, which I didn't really care for. Sacred stones was an improvement, but still not a great game. It was way more difficult (although it might be because they encourage you to move around the map and fight random enemies, which wasn't possible in Blazing sword) and didn't really keep my interest. They both nad fun characters, but way too many of them and they didn't get that much screen time. Also, the plots were ok, but had a few clichés and were pretty predictable. All in all, good games, but not great.
Now Fire emblem awakening arrives in my mailbox and I put the game card in my 3DS and try it out for the first time. What's my opinion?
Once again, one minute in and I'm hooked.
First things first, the series is famed for its difficulty. Now, the difficulty is optional, in a way, not just by difficulty settings, but the fact that you can turn off permanent character deaths. This makes it accessable to newcomers like myself as well as keeping the "classic" challenge for experienced players. I hear Ninja gaiden 3 was panned due to its low difficulty and it couldn't be cranked up to the same lever as the other games in the series. Fire emblem awakening manages to do both, easy enough for newcommers if they wish, hard enough for veterans if they wish. Nothing is forced when it comes to difficulty in this game, it's up to the player to decide. This is something I really like, something a lot of developers tend to forget these days. Video games today seems to really like holding your hand through the entire game and force feed you everything until you get sick. I like having challenge in games, but I want it to be optional. Sometimes, I like having to be put against the wall and use all my skill and wit (the little I have) to try to conquer the game, somtimes I just want to breeze my way through the game. Oftenly, I can't do both in the same game due to the fact that the difficulty might be set or cannot be changed once chosen. Tales games since symphonia has a selectionable diffuculty that can be changed at any time while Kingdom hearts has one difficulty you choose at the beginning of the game and sticks with until the end of the game. Guess which one of those series I enjoy more.
Let's get the bad stuff out of the way. First, like the other games, the plot isn't all that. It's not bad my any means, but it once again suffers from a few clichés I don't find interesting and is pretty predictable. It's not badly done, though, could have been a lot worse. In the end, I like it, but it's nothing special. Second, the soundtrack isn't fantastic. Once again, the music in this game is pretty good, but nothing spectacular. Keep in mind, I said I would start with the bad stuff, and these two aren't exactly bad by any means, just by comparison to the rest of the game. None of these "flaws" ruined the game for me by any means, but I figure I should get them out of the way first.
The gameplay is pretty good. You move around the map and select the location you can start a chapter on (or a random battle) and pick your units, i.e. characters, for the fight. When in battle, you select the unit you wish to move and a field will light up. This shows where your character is able to move and attack. If your character is close to an enemy, move to the enemy, selct attack and the weapon you wish to use and strike. Some weapons have advantage over others; swords beat axes, axes beat lances, lances beat swords. Some enemies are strong against physical attacks and weak against magical attacks, others vice versa. You must use your units in a tactical manner to win over your enemy, although the exact victory conditions varies from chapter to chapter. Some needs you to defeat all enemies, others to defeat the leader. If a unit stands next to another unit, they will recieve bonuses when it attacks or is attacked. For example, attacking next to a unit adds the chance of the other unit also attack, or protect you against damage. By fighting alongside each other, your units will grow closer and will form relationships. You can then view cutscenes that will improve their relashionships, which will increase the chances of support in battle, An important thing to always keep in mind is that the weapons are expendable, they can only be used a limited amount of times. Once they've been used that many times, they break and cannot be used. You need to keep in mind when to buy new weapons before your character is completely defenseless. All this might seem a bit hard at first, but the game has a very low learning curve and it will all make sense once you have the game in hand, so to speak.
As mentioned before, the characters' relationships improve by having them, quite literally, fight alongside each other. Two characters' relationship has three levels from C to A. During the jump from each of those letters to the next, you can view a cutscene which will "activate" the next relationship level. If the characters are of the opposite sex, they can get an additional S level where they get married. Some characters cannot have an S level with certain characters of the opposite sex, but they're not too many of them in the game. Any character can only have one marriage regardless. What does this marriage system lead to, you might ask? Play the game and see for yourself.
To talk briefly about the plot again, it's not all that great and can be predictable. What saves it is that it's mostly well written and the characters are pretty interesting. Although the game might have too many characters and not all of them get their own cutscenes in the story that can be counted with two hands, they're still fun regardless. Half the fun in the game is seeing the characters interact. Although they don't interact all that much, it's understandable since there's quite a lot of characters to begin with. If all characters had extremely detailed cutscenes with every single character, the game might have been a little too big. They kept it at a sufficable amount, and what we get is pretty good. No, I will not list my favorite characters here, I might ruin the suprise for some. I will say this, though: I like that you can custumize one character you use, which makes it more of a solid experience than having the characters look into the screen and call you Mark like a certain other game in this series. For the record, I refer to said customizable character as its default name, not My unit or MU as a lot of people do, I think it sonds silly and unnecessary.
Like I've said, or written, the music is good, but not anything spectacular. This is once again a proof or some of the game's tradition breaking, since they don't seem to use the same recruitment theme from previous games, possibly made famous through melee and brawl. Which is a bit of a shame, since it was probably more famous than the actual main theme, which thankfully is in the game and it's a good version at that, and my personal favorite. It makes up for this, if you could even call it that, by having what I concider to be the perfect level up theme in video game history so far. Forget the victory theme from Final fantasy, this is the tune that means victory to me and always brings me joy to hear, especially when accompanied by the cling of stats rising. Anyone who have played the game knows exactly what I mean, those who haven't will within minutes of playing the game. Speaking of, the sound effects are actually pretty good in this game. It breaks from tradition by not having the "text scrolling sound" and instead having the characters grunt or talk a little. Something I don't mind, and if you do mind it, you can turn it off just fine. I can't think of any sound effect that seemed off to me, and most of them hit their mark. The menu sounds and the stat rising cling I've talked about are probably my favorites in the game (might be a bit contradictionary since I say I don't pick favorites, but I think it's ok when it's something as small as sound effects in one particular video game rather than something as big, to me at least, as a favorite movie of all time) and overall sound really good to me. Might not be important, but something to mention at the very least.
The graphics are actually pretty nice, perhaps not on a technical level. Sure, it's good for 3DS standards, but it's not going to amaze anyone. What I do like is the overall tone and style it has. The cutscenes are "kindasorta cellshaded" and look good and distinguished to me, something I don't usually say. I'm not saying this have never been done before, but it doesn't mean that it's less nice in the end. The 3D effect really work during the maps as well, some maps might be slightly tilted to give more depth and other backgrounds just being overall good looking. Gimmicky, maybe. Cool, yes. I'm not the only one that gets kind of distracted when a bird or some ashes fly by the screen sometimes, right? I prefer not to show the battle scenes because I think they waste time and slow the game down a bit, but when I do watch them, they look really good. The characters' sprites during battle and cutscenes are nice and fairly detailed, but once again, nothing spectacular. All in all, the game looks nice.
Something that might be both great and terrible about the game is the fact that it's the first Nintendo game that uses the term "DLC". New super Mario bros 2 was first outside of japan, but Fire emblem awakening came out first in japan, making it the very first game to have downloadable content and call it DLC on a Nintendo console. At least to my knowledge. People seems to be either very against DLC or for DLC. Personally, I'm pretty much only against first day DLC, as it feels like they just took some parts of the game and gave it its own pricetag. I understand it can be done as preorder bonuses to encourage people to actually buy games and now illegaly download games and the like, but in the end, despite that I don't like first day DLC too much, I guess I'm indifferent. There's good DLC out there for sure, but some has too big pricetags and might not be worth it in the end. Even worse is on-disc DLC, where you pay for something that's actually already on the disc (hello Capcom), which I actually do despise, but might sometimes fall for if it's something I concider cool or funny enough to bother with. I admit, I'm probably the demographic for DLC; someone with money and happens to be bored and willingly enough. Sometimes buying things as a joke, like swimsuits for the males in Dead or alive 5, and sometimes because I have nothing better to do with my pathetic life. It's not like I can donate to cancer research or something, right? Honestly, though, DLC is the way of the current generation of gaming, and might live on for some time. I'm glad Nintendo is starting to catch up, proving they're usually a generation behind in hardware and sometimes one generation ahead in game making. Having consoles with graphics one generation behind and gameplay so sweet it makes it feel like a game from the future. Quite an odd combination. Like I said, I'm glad they're doing this, if they treat DLC well and not be lazy about it, it might make them quite a few extra bucks. Fire emblem awakening's DLC, at this point in time, in my personal opinion, is actually kind of worth it. It's not vastly expensive and are all funny and entertaining (once again, will not spoil it, buy the game and look up the DLC yourself), even if a bit short. It makes me wish they would release a new mini-campain, or map at least, once a month or so, but that's probably just me. Mostly because I want to be able to go back to this game from time to time. A huge disappointment some DLC were sloppily and unnecessarily "censored", I hope that won't ever happen again. Seriously, that was very lame.
I'm not going to give too much details here, but to me, there's not replay value in this game. To compare to Advance wars once again, aside from the story mode, you had plenty of other modes to choose from, buy more maps to get even more stuff and have fun with. Fire emblem doesn't have much of that, though. Thankfully, the DLC does give it some replay value, but I wish I could get a little more extra if I wanted to play through the game again (once again, I'm intentionally being vauge). It's not terrible, though, as I've picked up the game plenty of times after I've finished it, so I'm not saying there's no replay value whatsoever. I'm just saying it could be even more. Admittingly, probably because I'm used to a certain game similar to this one, but others might find this a bigger issue than me.
I'd like to personally ask Nintendo and Intelligent systems something: Please, do NOT milk this game. Let it stand on its own. This is a great game that doesn't need unnecessary sequels or tie-ins, or some stupid anime or movie to try to promote it. I thought Persona 4 was a game that was self-contained and didn't need some lame anime adaptation or fighting game spin-off that's pretty much a palette swap of another fighting game for no good reason. Treat this game with the respect it deserves. I know I said I won't mind more DLC, but so far, all DLC has felt tounge-in-cheek and felt like an obvious way to have fun with the game without being disrespectful. A lot of times when I play really good games, it ends up getting milked so bad that it's hard to even return to the original, let alone enjoy it. This feels like it's going to be a flagship title for the Fire emblem series, for both good and bad, and I ask of Intelligent systems and Nintendo not to let this go through their heads. Some classics are just better left untouched. Treat this game with respect, not greed. We have a great game called Fire emblem awakening, and we're happy with what we got. Please let it stay that way. I might be asking for the impossible, but I'm asking it nontheless.
Before ending this, let's be blunt. In my years, I have played plenty of games of many categories. A lot of good ones, a lot of bad ones. If you're thinking of getting a 3DS but can't come up with even one worthwile game, look no further. Fire emblem awakening is the finest game for the 3DS right now, and it's one of my all time favorite games. It is worth to get a 3DS just for this game, in my opinion. What are you waiting for? Go visit your local video game store and pick up a copy of this game right now! So what you can't afford it, I'm sure you'll be fine without food for a month! In all seriousness, though, despite this being a great game, I still do NOT look forward to the megami tensei crossover.
Summary: This game is simply fantastic, everything from its gameplay to characters are really well done, and well worth your time and money. If you want a solid reason to get a 3DS, look no further! Buy this game!
Grade: 8/10
All images found via Google and are copyrighted by their respective owners.
Much like anyone outside of Japan, the first time I heard of the Fire emblem was through Super smash bros. melee. In Nintendo's second installment in the famed fighting game series, two mysterious swordsmen named Marth and Roy were included. Like most people back then, I had no idea who they were of what Fire emblem was about. Yet for some reason, I was never to curious to find out.
Years and years pass, and Fire emblem begins to establish itself as a franchise worldwide. Still nothing that caught my interest. I cannot explain why, but the series never once appealed to me. No idea why, it has just met me with complete indifference. To be honest, I was glad that the series got a huge boost thanks to melee, which in itself is very cool, but that doesn't automatically mean I would like it.
Super smash bros. brawl is released, Marth is back for another fight and Roy is now replaced by Ike from the same series. At the time, I remember most people making fun of it due to the fact that Ike shared his name with a character from South park (you probably know whom, I should not have to explain). Even to this day, I think Marth, both in his melee and brawl incarnations, and Ike are very fun to play with. Especially Marth in melee, due to his speed, reach and fairly low learning curve. So what about Fire emblem, the series these two orginates from? Didn't bother to find out.
One of my friends owned Fire emblem shadow dragon, a remake of the very first Fire emblem game, which I got the chance to try out. It was very briefly, so I couldn't really think too much of it. However, I remember I thought it was kind of Advance wars, also a series I didn't bother with until Dual strike came out, but with one major flaw that made me extremely sceptical to the series as a whole: if your characters die, they will NOT return for the rest of the game. To compare with Advance wars, what if you could only build one of each type of unit and they were gone for the rest of the game if they got destroyed?Needless to say, I did not try the game again for a while. I also thought the graphics were odd, a weird blend of realistic and cartoonish that didn't blend well to me back then.
11 years have now passed since I first tried Super smash bros. melee, and I hear yet another Fire emblem game is going to get released. It keeps getting delayed, or so I hear since I wasn't interested in the game at all until two weeks ago or so, and its demo finally finds its way to the Nintendo eshop. I usually try out every new demo they release, and this game's demo was no different. The game was met with near universal critical acclaim, to steal a staple phrase from wikipedia, so my worries were put to rest. The demo was downloaded and I tried it out.
Literally one minute of gameplay later and I'm completely hooked. I made up my mind: I'm getting Fire emblem awakening!
After ordering the game, I played two other Fire emblem games in order to prepare myself; get aquainted with the gameplay and the overall feel and tone of the games. I tried Fire emblem (also called Blazing sword) and Fire emblem the sacred stones. Neither of these games wowed me by any means. They were fun but kind of frustrating due to the permanent character death. One small mistake and all the enemies were all over the weakest member of my legion (yes, I refer to the army I chose for a partucular map as legion sometimes due to the hilarious name that is "Lyndis's legion"). While I still think these two games are very similar to Advance wars but worse, the biggest similarity to me was the fact that they were addicting and overall fun. However, they both had a few common flaws: too many characters and weak (although still fairly enjoyable) plots. Blazing sword also had that weird and sudden protagonist change in the middle of the game, which I didn't really care for. Sacred stones was an improvement, but still not a great game. It was way more difficult (although it might be because they encourage you to move around the map and fight random enemies, which wasn't possible in Blazing sword) and didn't really keep my interest. They both nad fun characters, but way too many of them and they didn't get that much screen time. Also, the plots were ok, but had a few clichés and were pretty predictable. All in all, good games, but not great.
Now Fire emblem awakening arrives in my mailbox and I put the game card in my 3DS and try it out for the first time. What's my opinion?
Once again, one minute in and I'm hooked.
First things first, the series is famed for its difficulty. Now, the difficulty is optional, in a way, not just by difficulty settings, but the fact that you can turn off permanent character deaths. This makes it accessable to newcomers like myself as well as keeping the "classic" challenge for experienced players. I hear Ninja gaiden 3 was panned due to its low difficulty and it couldn't be cranked up to the same lever as the other games in the series. Fire emblem awakening manages to do both, easy enough for newcommers if they wish, hard enough for veterans if they wish. Nothing is forced when it comes to difficulty in this game, it's up to the player to decide. This is something I really like, something a lot of developers tend to forget these days. Video games today seems to really like holding your hand through the entire game and force feed you everything until you get sick. I like having challenge in games, but I want it to be optional. Sometimes, I like having to be put against the wall and use all my skill and wit (the little I have) to try to conquer the game, somtimes I just want to breeze my way through the game. Oftenly, I can't do both in the same game due to the fact that the difficulty might be set or cannot be changed once chosen. Tales games since symphonia has a selectionable diffuculty that can be changed at any time while Kingdom hearts has one difficulty you choose at the beginning of the game and sticks with until the end of the game. Guess which one of those series I enjoy more.
Let's get the bad stuff out of the way. First, like the other games, the plot isn't all that. It's not bad my any means, but it once again suffers from a few clichés I don't find interesting and is pretty predictable. It's not badly done, though, could have been a lot worse. In the end, I like it, but it's nothing special. Second, the soundtrack isn't fantastic. Once again, the music in this game is pretty good, but nothing spectacular. Keep in mind, I said I would start with the bad stuff, and these two aren't exactly bad by any means, just by comparison to the rest of the game. None of these "flaws" ruined the game for me by any means, but I figure I should get them out of the way first.
The gameplay is pretty good. You move around the map and select the location you can start a chapter on (or a random battle) and pick your units, i.e. characters, for the fight. When in battle, you select the unit you wish to move and a field will light up. This shows where your character is able to move and attack. If your character is close to an enemy, move to the enemy, selct attack and the weapon you wish to use and strike. Some weapons have advantage over others; swords beat axes, axes beat lances, lances beat swords. Some enemies are strong against physical attacks and weak against magical attacks, others vice versa. You must use your units in a tactical manner to win over your enemy, although the exact victory conditions varies from chapter to chapter. Some needs you to defeat all enemies, others to defeat the leader. If a unit stands next to another unit, they will recieve bonuses when it attacks or is attacked. For example, attacking next to a unit adds the chance of the other unit also attack, or protect you against damage. By fighting alongside each other, your units will grow closer and will form relationships. You can then view cutscenes that will improve their relashionships, which will increase the chances of support in battle, An important thing to always keep in mind is that the weapons are expendable, they can only be used a limited amount of times. Once they've been used that many times, they break and cannot be used. You need to keep in mind when to buy new weapons before your character is completely defenseless. All this might seem a bit hard at first, but the game has a very low learning curve and it will all make sense once you have the game in hand, so to speak.
As mentioned before, the characters' relationships improve by having them, quite literally, fight alongside each other. Two characters' relationship has three levels from C to A. During the jump from each of those letters to the next, you can view a cutscene which will "activate" the next relationship level. If the characters are of the opposite sex, they can get an additional S level where they get married. Some characters cannot have an S level with certain characters of the opposite sex, but they're not too many of them in the game. Any character can only have one marriage regardless. What does this marriage system lead to, you might ask? Play the game and see for yourself.
To talk briefly about the plot again, it's not all that great and can be predictable. What saves it is that it's mostly well written and the characters are pretty interesting. Although the game might have too many characters and not all of them get their own cutscenes in the story that can be counted with two hands, they're still fun regardless. Half the fun in the game is seeing the characters interact. Although they don't interact all that much, it's understandable since there's quite a lot of characters to begin with. If all characters had extremely detailed cutscenes with every single character, the game might have been a little too big. They kept it at a sufficable amount, and what we get is pretty good. No, I will not list my favorite characters here, I might ruin the suprise for some. I will say this, though: I like that you can custumize one character you use, which makes it more of a solid experience than having the characters look into the screen and call you Mark like a certain other game in this series. For the record, I refer to said customizable character as its default name, not My unit or MU as a lot of people do, I think it sonds silly and unnecessary.
Like I've said, or written, the music is good, but not anything spectacular. This is once again a proof or some of the game's tradition breaking, since they don't seem to use the same recruitment theme from previous games, possibly made famous through melee and brawl. Which is a bit of a shame, since it was probably more famous than the actual main theme, which thankfully is in the game and it's a good version at that, and my personal favorite. It makes up for this, if you could even call it that, by having what I concider to be the perfect level up theme in video game history so far. Forget the victory theme from Final fantasy, this is the tune that means victory to me and always brings me joy to hear, especially when accompanied by the cling of stats rising. Anyone who have played the game knows exactly what I mean, those who haven't will within minutes of playing the game. Speaking of, the sound effects are actually pretty good in this game. It breaks from tradition by not having the "text scrolling sound" and instead having the characters grunt or talk a little. Something I don't mind, and if you do mind it, you can turn it off just fine. I can't think of any sound effect that seemed off to me, and most of them hit their mark. The menu sounds and the stat rising cling I've talked about are probably my favorites in the game (might be a bit contradictionary since I say I don't pick favorites, but I think it's ok when it's something as small as sound effects in one particular video game rather than something as big, to me at least, as a favorite movie of all time) and overall sound really good to me. Might not be important, but something to mention at the very least.
The graphics are actually pretty nice, perhaps not on a technical level. Sure, it's good for 3DS standards, but it's not going to amaze anyone. What I do like is the overall tone and style it has. The cutscenes are "kindasorta cellshaded" and look good and distinguished to me, something I don't usually say. I'm not saying this have never been done before, but it doesn't mean that it's less nice in the end. The 3D effect really work during the maps as well, some maps might be slightly tilted to give more depth and other backgrounds just being overall good looking. Gimmicky, maybe. Cool, yes. I'm not the only one that gets kind of distracted when a bird or some ashes fly by the screen sometimes, right? I prefer not to show the battle scenes because I think they waste time and slow the game down a bit, but when I do watch them, they look really good. The characters' sprites during battle and cutscenes are nice and fairly detailed, but once again, nothing spectacular. All in all, the game looks nice.
Something that might be both great and terrible about the game is the fact that it's the first Nintendo game that uses the term "DLC". New super Mario bros 2 was first outside of japan, but Fire emblem awakening came out first in japan, making it the very first game to have downloadable content and call it DLC on a Nintendo console. At least to my knowledge. People seems to be either very against DLC or for DLC. Personally, I'm pretty much only against first day DLC, as it feels like they just took some parts of the game and gave it its own pricetag. I understand it can be done as preorder bonuses to encourage people to actually buy games and now illegaly download games and the like, but in the end, despite that I don't like first day DLC too much, I guess I'm indifferent. There's good DLC out there for sure, but some has too big pricetags and might not be worth it in the end. Even worse is on-disc DLC, where you pay for something that's actually already on the disc (hello Capcom), which I actually do despise, but might sometimes fall for if it's something I concider cool or funny enough to bother with. I admit, I'm probably the demographic for DLC; someone with money and happens to be bored and willingly enough. Sometimes buying things as a joke, like swimsuits for the males in Dead or alive 5, and sometimes because I have nothing better to do with my pathetic life. It's not like I can donate to cancer research or something, right? Honestly, though, DLC is the way of the current generation of gaming, and might live on for some time. I'm glad Nintendo is starting to catch up, proving they're usually a generation behind in hardware and sometimes one generation ahead in game making. Having consoles with graphics one generation behind and gameplay so sweet it makes it feel like a game from the future. Quite an odd combination. Like I said, I'm glad they're doing this, if they treat DLC well and not be lazy about it, it might make them quite a few extra bucks. Fire emblem awakening's DLC, at this point in time, in my personal opinion, is actually kind of worth it. It's not vastly expensive and are all funny and entertaining (once again, will not spoil it, buy the game and look up the DLC yourself), even if a bit short. It makes me wish they would release a new mini-campain, or map at least, once a month or so, but that's probably just me. Mostly because I want to be able to go back to this game from time to time. A huge disappointment some DLC were sloppily and unnecessarily "censored", I hope that won't ever happen again. Seriously, that was very lame.
I'm not going to give too much details here, but to me, there's not replay value in this game. To compare to Advance wars once again, aside from the story mode, you had plenty of other modes to choose from, buy more maps to get even more stuff and have fun with. Fire emblem doesn't have much of that, though. Thankfully, the DLC does give it some replay value, but I wish I could get a little more extra if I wanted to play through the game again (once again, I'm intentionally being vauge). It's not terrible, though, as I've picked up the game plenty of times after I've finished it, so I'm not saying there's no replay value whatsoever. I'm just saying it could be even more. Admittingly, probably because I'm used to a certain game similar to this one, but others might find this a bigger issue than me.
I'd like to personally ask Nintendo and Intelligent systems something: Please, do NOT milk this game. Let it stand on its own. This is a great game that doesn't need unnecessary sequels or tie-ins, or some stupid anime or movie to try to promote it. I thought Persona 4 was a game that was self-contained and didn't need some lame anime adaptation or fighting game spin-off that's pretty much a palette swap of another fighting game for no good reason. Treat this game with the respect it deserves. I know I said I won't mind more DLC, but so far, all DLC has felt tounge-in-cheek and felt like an obvious way to have fun with the game without being disrespectful. A lot of times when I play really good games, it ends up getting milked so bad that it's hard to even return to the original, let alone enjoy it. This feels like it's going to be a flagship title for the Fire emblem series, for both good and bad, and I ask of Intelligent systems and Nintendo not to let this go through their heads. Some classics are just better left untouched. Treat this game with respect, not greed. We have a great game called Fire emblem awakening, and we're happy with what we got. Please let it stay that way. I might be asking for the impossible, but I'm asking it nontheless.
Before ending this, let's be blunt. In my years, I have played plenty of games of many categories. A lot of good ones, a lot of bad ones. If you're thinking of getting a 3DS but can't come up with even one worthwile game, look no further. Fire emblem awakening is the finest game for the 3DS right now, and it's one of my all time favorite games. It is worth to get a 3DS just for this game, in my opinion. What are you waiting for? Go visit your local video game store and pick up a copy of this game right now! So what you can't afford it, I'm sure you'll be fine without food for a month! In all seriousness, though, despite this being a great game, I still do NOT look forward to the megami tensei crossover.
Summary: This game is simply fantastic, everything from its gameplay to characters are really well done, and well worth your time and money. If you want a solid reason to get a 3DS, look no further! Buy this game!
Grade: 8/10
All images found via Google and are copyrighted by their respective owners.
torsdag 31 januari 2013
Django unchained (2012)
This review is protected by Fair use.
With his heavy use of violence, razor sharp dialog, fun music and many occations of the word "nigger", Tarantino has captured generations with his many masterpieces, Pulp fiction and Reservoir dogs as the most common favorites.
While both of them are high quality films in many ways, I still dare say that they're kind of overrated.
It's not that they're bad, it's just that he has done better than those two, at least in my opinion. Enter Inglorious basterds, a movie of a genre I like to call Hämnd movies, or Minority revenge. Tarantino's work before Basterds has mostly consisted of crime dramas and action. On paper, they don't sound all too exciting, Basterds, however, sounds interesting even on paper: Jewish americans killing nazis. While sometimes keeping to the usual WW2 movie formula of jews being victimized by nazis and usual nazis-hunting-down-jews, it also contained jews killing nazis and scalping them. Sure, Tarantino's movies all have action and shooting scenes, but none of them outright told history to screw itself an decided to have fun with it without being too disrespecful. This is something I don't see all that often, at least not in the way Tarantino presents it, and it's something I really enjoy. To me, Inglorious basterds is Tarantinos TRUE masterpiece.
So I thought until I saw this movie.
There are few movies I've seen more than once in the theaters and payed full price for them each time, but this is one of them. This movie clocks in at 2 hours and 45 minutes, but honestly, not one of those minutes contain a dull moment; it's always fun and exciting, but in different ways. Like I said about Basterds, this movie is sort of more movies in one, some might find it disturbing, but I don't. Basterds is both a traditional WW2 drama with nazis hunting jews, most notably in the first scene which almost seems like something out of Schindler's list, but also a to-hell-with-history-let's-have-fun movie with jews shooting nazis and even beating one with a baseball bat. Django unchained is much like an action movie at first, but later become much more of a thrilling drama before finally becomming an action flick again. People often call this a western, but from what little I know, Tarantino himself doesn't concider it one. Honestly, being able to mix two kinds of movies into one without the other condtradicting the first or the like is a sign of Tarantino's talent as a film director. Not everyone could pull this off well, but he managed to.
I will not, as per usual, talk about the plot of the movie too much, as I always encourage readers to find out themselves, as it's the part of a movie's journey to me. All I will say that it contains black people killing evil slave drivers. If you wanted to see Inglorious basterds set in pre Civil war USA, but with blacks killing racists, this is the movie for you. Even if it doesn't sound like the movie for you, check it out anyway, you might be delightfully suprised.
Before going into the acting and sound, let's talk about the more touchy subjects of this movie. Yes, this movie contains a LOT of usage of "nigger" and it's also violent by many standards. One could justify the usage of the racist terms becuase racism was practically encouraged back then and "nigger" was probably a very common term, if not the only one, for black people. One could say that they could use "negro" some more, since it's regarded as less offensive, but eveyone who knows about Quentin Tarantino also knows that he has an obsession with that word, and he doesn't mean it it a racists sort of way (at least not privately), and pretty much all his movies contain it more or less in one way or another.I do not find it too offensive, as most people who use it in this movie are evil and mostly end up dead, so in a way, the movie encourage you NOT to use it. Additionally, there's no solid evidence that people forced slaves to fight for entertainment, but it wouldn't suprise me if some scum did it in real life anyway. This movie may and may not be offensive to black people, and this movie might not age well in this regard in the future. Honestly, I don't mind it, since it doesn't come off as mean spirited or anything to me, it's not like it's Jud süss. Frankly, most smart people in this movie are black, and most whites (one notable exeption, of course) are portrayed as racist and stereotypical rednecks, oftenly both. If anything, this is sort of racist to white people as well, but they're not a minority, so they don't always notice that kind of stuff themselves. This is is overanalyzing, of course, as I think most people will enjoy it regardless of any "controversy", because there is none (to me).
Let's talk about one of the movies strongest points: the acting. Pretty much every actor in this movie does a really good, DiCaprio and Waltz being the most notable. While I think that Waltz isn't deserving of an oscar for best supporting actor again, he still does a fine job, and shows why he's one of the best in all of Hollywood right now. Much like Ben Affleck, DiCaprio has been a bit of a punchline. I remember my fellow female classmated having pictures of him on their desks, and people claiming he was nothing but a pretty face in Titanic. Like Dick Grayson himself said, you can't stay the boy wonder forever, as people seems to appreciate him since The aviator, which earned him an oscar nomination for best actor. Personally, I think he first started to shine in The departed, but this movie proves that the man has genuine acting skills. Polish it a bit more, and that oscar will finally be yours, Mr DiCaprio!
Jamie Foxx does a good job portraying the main character Django (the d is silent). Unfortunately, Django isn't TOO interesting as a character. The movie shows his history and personality quite well, but he is, too bad as it is, outshined by the two other main characters. Granted, he is rather cool and suffices as a main character, but his character isn't all too deep, but he's not bad or anything. Fortunately, Foxx's talent as an actor helps portraying the weak and strong sides of Django, the slave begging for his wife to be spared and the gunslinging badass who makes The man with no name look like 7 year old with a cork pistol. Also, the McGuffin in this movie is technically a woman, which some might find annoying. Just a heads up.
To those wondering why I have yet to speak of Samuel L Jackson's acting in this film: honestly, he's good in pretty much everything he's in, I do not need to talk about how talented that man is, you already know that by now.
The soundtrack to this movie is, to put it simple, awesome! I listened through it before watching the movie, which was a huge mistake. It doesn't seem too all that before actually hearing them in the context of the movie. Most notably, I didn't think the song Ode to Django was too good, especially since it was made by the brilliant RZA, but when the speakers in the theaters started pumping that song at full scale, my fist wanted to pump and my mouth wanted to shout "Oh yeah!". I didn't, but it was close. Bottom line, Tarantino has always picked good songs for his movies, and this one might have the most solid soundtracks of them all. Highly recommended once you've watched the movie.
There are two things I dislike in cinematography that is fairly frequently used that I noticed in this movie: tilted angle and spinning camera. I dispise shakey cam above both of these if done incorrectly, but that's beside the point. Fortunately, the few tilted angles work, particularly towards the ending when, not going to give too many details, a character is upside down. I don't remember the camera spinning around for no good reason, like in Jackie Brown, but the camera does move around a bit, but not in the way I found annoying. The reason I bring this up is because, like previously stated, because they're fairly common things I don't like, and previous Tarantino titles have used them, both poorly and sucessfully, and Django unchained uses them to some part and does it fairly well. Overall, the movie is pretty well shot, aside from a few shots that doesn't work too well (Tarantino has this odd habit of zooming in on seemingly uninportant stuff, like a person turning on their car or pouring up a drink), but it's still well done. The action in this movie will leave anyone satisfied, and is one of the many highlights of the movie. I could go on to talk about them, but then I'd spoil the fun for people who have yet to see this funfest of a movie.
Tarantino is known for having scenes that drag out for long, scenes that might not even be all too important to the plot. This movie is no exeption. However, like most of his movies, they're salvaged by the fact that the dialog is always fun, well written, and usually realistic. The one line of dialog I didn't like in this flick is when a character asks if another character is scary (once again, I'm vague on details on purpose). Other than that, I have no singnificant complaints. This is probably the part that makes this movie good even for people who don't like fairly violent movies, the good acting and dialog usually help them get invested, even if blood is shed from time to time. That's one of the best thing I can say about any director; that anyone can enjoy their movies and it sometimes surpasses their intended audience. If you're one of those who loves well written movies, don't mind that they're a little long, and have good action in them, this movie is a match made in heaven for you. If not, you're going to love this movie anyway.
In conclusion: this is an action-packed, well written movie with great acting to boot. It's currently in theaters, but might not be for much longer. If not, buy this movie, Tarantino deserves your money for this masterpiece!
Summary: While it might be regarded as controversial with its violence and alleged "racism", this movie is a true thrill. Great acting, great soundtrack, great dialog and great action cannot be wrong: buy this movie, it's Tarantino's best work yet!
Grade: 8/10
Image found via Google and are copyrighted by its respective owners.
With his heavy use of violence, razor sharp dialog, fun music and many occations of the word "nigger", Tarantino has captured generations with his many masterpieces, Pulp fiction and Reservoir dogs as the most common favorites.
While both of them are high quality films in many ways, I still dare say that they're kind of overrated.
It's not that they're bad, it's just that he has done better than those two, at least in my opinion. Enter Inglorious basterds, a movie of a genre I like to call Hämnd movies, or Minority revenge. Tarantino's work before Basterds has mostly consisted of crime dramas and action. On paper, they don't sound all too exciting, Basterds, however, sounds interesting even on paper: Jewish americans killing nazis. While sometimes keeping to the usual WW2 movie formula of jews being victimized by nazis and usual nazis-hunting-down-jews, it also contained jews killing nazis and scalping them. Sure, Tarantino's movies all have action and shooting scenes, but none of them outright told history to screw itself an decided to have fun with it without being too disrespecful. This is something I don't see all that often, at least not in the way Tarantino presents it, and it's something I really enjoy. To me, Inglorious basterds is Tarantinos TRUE masterpiece.
So I thought until I saw this movie.
There are few movies I've seen more than once in the theaters and payed full price for them each time, but this is one of them. This movie clocks in at 2 hours and 45 minutes, but honestly, not one of those minutes contain a dull moment; it's always fun and exciting, but in different ways. Like I said about Basterds, this movie is sort of more movies in one, some might find it disturbing, but I don't. Basterds is both a traditional WW2 drama with nazis hunting jews, most notably in the first scene which almost seems like something out of Schindler's list, but also a to-hell-with-history-let's-have-fun movie with jews shooting nazis and even beating one with a baseball bat. Django unchained is much like an action movie at first, but later become much more of a thrilling drama before finally becomming an action flick again. People often call this a western, but from what little I know, Tarantino himself doesn't concider it one. Honestly, being able to mix two kinds of movies into one without the other condtradicting the first or the like is a sign of Tarantino's talent as a film director. Not everyone could pull this off well, but he managed to.
I will not, as per usual, talk about the plot of the movie too much, as I always encourage readers to find out themselves, as it's the part of a movie's journey to me. All I will say that it contains black people killing evil slave drivers. If you wanted to see Inglorious basterds set in pre Civil war USA, but with blacks killing racists, this is the movie for you. Even if it doesn't sound like the movie for you, check it out anyway, you might be delightfully suprised.
Before going into the acting and sound, let's talk about the more touchy subjects of this movie. Yes, this movie contains a LOT of usage of "nigger" and it's also violent by many standards. One could justify the usage of the racist terms becuase racism was practically encouraged back then and "nigger" was probably a very common term, if not the only one, for black people. One could say that they could use "negro" some more, since it's regarded as less offensive, but eveyone who knows about Quentin Tarantino also knows that he has an obsession with that word, and he doesn't mean it it a racists sort of way (at least not privately), and pretty much all his movies contain it more or less in one way or another.I do not find it too offensive, as most people who use it in this movie are evil and mostly end up dead, so in a way, the movie encourage you NOT to use it. Additionally, there's no solid evidence that people forced slaves to fight for entertainment, but it wouldn't suprise me if some scum did it in real life anyway. This movie may and may not be offensive to black people, and this movie might not age well in this regard in the future. Honestly, I don't mind it, since it doesn't come off as mean spirited or anything to me, it's not like it's Jud süss. Frankly, most smart people in this movie are black, and most whites (one notable exeption, of course) are portrayed as racist and stereotypical rednecks, oftenly both. If anything, this is sort of racist to white people as well, but they're not a minority, so they don't always notice that kind of stuff themselves. This is is overanalyzing, of course, as I think most people will enjoy it regardless of any "controversy", because there is none (to me).
Let's talk about one of the movies strongest points: the acting. Pretty much every actor in this movie does a really good, DiCaprio and Waltz being the most notable. While I think that Waltz isn't deserving of an oscar for best supporting actor again, he still does a fine job, and shows why he's one of the best in all of Hollywood right now. Much like Ben Affleck, DiCaprio has been a bit of a punchline. I remember my fellow female classmated having pictures of him on their desks, and people claiming he was nothing but a pretty face in Titanic. Like Dick Grayson himself said, you can't stay the boy wonder forever, as people seems to appreciate him since The aviator, which earned him an oscar nomination for best actor. Personally, I think he first started to shine in The departed, but this movie proves that the man has genuine acting skills. Polish it a bit more, and that oscar will finally be yours, Mr DiCaprio!
Jamie Foxx does a good job portraying the main character Django (the d is silent). Unfortunately, Django isn't TOO interesting as a character. The movie shows his history and personality quite well, but he is, too bad as it is, outshined by the two other main characters. Granted, he is rather cool and suffices as a main character, but his character isn't all too deep, but he's not bad or anything. Fortunately, Foxx's talent as an actor helps portraying the weak and strong sides of Django, the slave begging for his wife to be spared and the gunslinging badass who makes The man with no name look like 7 year old with a cork pistol. Also, the McGuffin in this movie is technically a woman, which some might find annoying. Just a heads up.
To those wondering why I have yet to speak of Samuel L Jackson's acting in this film: honestly, he's good in pretty much everything he's in, I do not need to talk about how talented that man is, you already know that by now.
The soundtrack to this movie is, to put it simple, awesome! I listened through it before watching the movie, which was a huge mistake. It doesn't seem too all that before actually hearing them in the context of the movie. Most notably, I didn't think the song Ode to Django was too good, especially since it was made by the brilliant RZA, but when the speakers in the theaters started pumping that song at full scale, my fist wanted to pump and my mouth wanted to shout "Oh yeah!". I didn't, but it was close. Bottom line, Tarantino has always picked good songs for his movies, and this one might have the most solid soundtracks of them all. Highly recommended once you've watched the movie.
There are two things I dislike in cinematography that is fairly frequently used that I noticed in this movie: tilted angle and spinning camera. I dispise shakey cam above both of these if done incorrectly, but that's beside the point. Fortunately, the few tilted angles work, particularly towards the ending when, not going to give too many details, a character is upside down. I don't remember the camera spinning around for no good reason, like in Jackie Brown, but the camera does move around a bit, but not in the way I found annoying. The reason I bring this up is because, like previously stated, because they're fairly common things I don't like, and previous Tarantino titles have used them, both poorly and sucessfully, and Django unchained uses them to some part and does it fairly well. Overall, the movie is pretty well shot, aside from a few shots that doesn't work too well (Tarantino has this odd habit of zooming in on seemingly uninportant stuff, like a person turning on their car or pouring up a drink), but it's still well done. The action in this movie will leave anyone satisfied, and is one of the many highlights of the movie. I could go on to talk about them, but then I'd spoil the fun for people who have yet to see this funfest of a movie.
Tarantino is known for having scenes that drag out for long, scenes that might not even be all too important to the plot. This movie is no exeption. However, like most of his movies, they're salvaged by the fact that the dialog is always fun, well written, and usually realistic. The one line of dialog I didn't like in this flick is when a character asks if another character is scary (once again, I'm vague on details on purpose). Other than that, I have no singnificant complaints. This is probably the part that makes this movie good even for people who don't like fairly violent movies, the good acting and dialog usually help them get invested, even if blood is shed from time to time. That's one of the best thing I can say about any director; that anyone can enjoy their movies and it sometimes surpasses their intended audience. If you're one of those who loves well written movies, don't mind that they're a little long, and have good action in them, this movie is a match made in heaven for you. If not, you're going to love this movie anyway.
In conclusion: this is an action-packed, well written movie with great acting to boot. It's currently in theaters, but might not be for much longer. If not, buy this movie, Tarantino deserves your money for this masterpiece!
Summary: While it might be regarded as controversial with its violence and alleged "racism", this movie is a true thrill. Great acting, great soundtrack, great dialog and great action cannot be wrong: buy this movie, it's Tarantino's best work yet!
Grade: 8/10
Image found via Google and are copyrighted by its respective owners.
fredag 23 november 2012
Argo (2012)
This review is protected by Fair use.
During most of my life, Ben Affleck has been used as a punchline. I remember Conan O'Brien having a scetch where they once pulled out a big box containing, as they put it, unsold tickets to Ben Affleck movies. This was long before his directing career, and I believe such a joke won't be able to be told in a few years, because the term "Ben Affleck movies" has changed significantly in a fairly short period of time. Back then, Pearl harbor and Daredevil were Ben Affleck movies. Today, The town and Argo are Ben Affleck movies. Allow me to explain a little.
In 2007, Ben Affleck had his true directing debute with Gone baby gone. While critically acclaimed, it did not preform well at the box-office. One cannot judge a director fairly simply from a single movie, so Gone baby gone might have been concidered beginner's luck. His next movie, The town, was released in 2010, recieved much critical acclaim, and did a lot better at the box-office, earning over 100.000 USD, a huge improvement over Gone baby gone's 30.000 USD. Around now, the name Ben Affleck was starting to get a lot more respect than ever before. A lot of people I have talked to this year was suprised to hear that The town was, in fact, directed by that bore from Daredevil. I have a feeling that 5 years from now, people will be suprised that the same guy who directed The town was in Pearl harbor long before he started directing.
This brings us to 2012, and his new movie, Argo, hit the swedish theaters this very day. As they say; third time's the charm. This is no longer beginner's luck, this is skill. I can say, after watching all three of Ben Affleck's movies, that this man, if he continues to do as good as this, might be the next Martin Scorsese, and I mean that in the best way imaginable. This man really knows how thrillers are supposed to work, and moviemaking as a whole. While I don't really aprove of how he shows himself shirtless and having the camera spin around at certain times, this man might be somewhat of a genious. I am truely suprised by Ben Affleck's talent.
Honestly, I don't want to talk about the plot of the movie too much, as I usually walk into movies only knowing their titles and if they are good or not. To give a short synopsis to those who might be genuinely curious, though (if you've read this far, this might apply to you), the movie is loosely based on the 1979 hostage crisis in the US embassy in Iran. Tony Mendez, Ben Affleck's character, who works for the CIA comes up with a plan to save six of the hostages who have escaped from captivity. What is this plan? Watch the movie to find out!
Keep in mind, though, as at one point in this movie does it become somwhat of a "movie about movies", but I didn't find it too distracting. Just don't go into this movie expecting a 100% deadly serious thriller, as this movie does have its lighthearted moments. Some might find it distracting, but like I've stated, I didn't.
One more thing to remember is that this movie is, indeed, LOOSELY based on true events. A lot of the scenes, and sometimes even characters, in this movie were made up and history is not 100% represented well. For example, Canada's involvement is mostly kept to a minimum, as this movie focuses on CIA's role. A note about this is before the end credits, so it doesn't come off as disrespectful to me. It also might be hard for actual Iranians to watch, as this movie focuses on a dark chapter in that country's history, and it may and may not come off as portraying that country incorrectly. I do not think this was done with ill-will against any culture or country, as I do not think Affleck encourage hate against middle eastern countries, only to give his version of a certain dark event that happened. For one thing, if Affleck would make a movie of the Norrmalmstorg robbery (where the term Stockholm syndrome was coined) next, I doubt I would assume he saw all Swedes as robberers or people who always defend people who do them harm. Remember that this is a movie, it needs to have dramatic tension and a lot of other stuff real life might not have. While it is not always accurate to history, I doubt it was done with bad intent, as it seems to be aware that it takes liberties and admits it fully.
In spite if its shortcommings, this is a pretty damn good film, Apart from a few shorts, mostly involving spinning cameras (seriously, Hollywood, kill that fad off!), it's shot beautifully. The music, while not spectacular, is pretty good, and oftenly sets the mood of the scenes well. Most notably, the acting is very solid, as the cast gives an all-around good preformance, although maybe not Oscar-worthy. Ben Affleck, much like in The town, has probably realised that if your acting works in a particular way, make movies where that acting fits that movie's universe. He, much like Keanu Reeves, has been known not to show too much emotions. In movies like this, this works to his favor, gives his role. Calm, collective and intelligent. People who have seen this movie and The town knows what I'm talking about. Oscar-winning Alan Arkin also does a really good job, even though his character was made up for the movie.
All in all, this movie is really good, and well deserving of your money. It is currectly running in theaters, so go watch if you're a fan of thrillers or overall good movies. If this is not in theaters when you read this, buy this movie! I wholeheartedly recommend it!
Argo fuck yourself.
Summary: Ben Affleck has proven to be one of Hollywood's currently best directors, and this movie shows exactly why. Though not always historically accurate, it's an exciting movie well acted, well shot, well deserving of your time and money. Buy this movie!
Grade: 8/10
tisdag 5 juni 2012
My thoughts on Nintendo's E3 conference 2012
This article is protected by Fair use.
I will not directly link the conference. If you wish to see it, please look it up yourself (which shouldn't be too hard).
Nintendo and Sony has dominated my video gaming for my entire life. The first console I ever got was a Gameboy and the first non-handheld one was a Nintendo 64. I consider the Super Nintendo the best console released so far and the PS2 a close second. Fortunately, my brother had a Megadrive (Genesis) and some of my friends had Xboxes (if that's even correct english), so I had the chance to experience other companies game systems. While I mean no disrespect to fans of this and that, Nintendo and Sony will most likely go strong in my game library for years to come, although I don't mind trying different platforms or even getting some of them in the future once I get the budget to do so. I must confess, though, that Nintendo have always been a personal favorite of mine, despite their flaws. They have been the only company whose conferences at E3 I have followed online, live or in video form published later, although I have seen summaries of other companies' conferences.
This year, I have decided to show the world my thoughts on this year's conference by Nintendo. I admit that I will most likely not bring anything new to the table especially regarding my lack of professionalism, but like I always say: the only thing I can always give that hasn't been given or said already is my own personal thoughts.
As a whole, the theme of this year's conference seems to be asymmetry. The Wii U has two different screens, one on the gamepad and the TV itself, allowing you to play the games in two different ways at the same time, etc. To answer the most common critism of the Wii U: I don't care too much about the name, we all laughed at the name Wii a few years ago and 95 million units sold later, the only ones left laughing is Nintendo. What I mean is don't judge the book by its cover, wait for it to be released first.
Ever since the Wii, Nintendo has felt like Apple of the gaming world; whatever new groundbreaking way of playing games they invent, everybody laughs at first, buys it and realize it's pretty good, and try to copy it. Compare to the iPad which initially nobody believed would be a hit. It's amazing how influential Nintendo is and they find new ways to keep video games interesting. They don't just target gamers, but consumers. Some might say they're just trying being "gimmicky" and are only looking for new ways to print money for themselves, which is true to an extent. However, they have great financial ideas, target consumers, giving you a wider audience, and good ways to execute this with new ways of playing games that has never been tried before or taking older ideas and making them new and fresh. Sometimes this works, the DS, sometimes it doesn't, Virtual boy. If the Wii U becomes a hit in the likes of its predecessor, it won't be too long before more controllers have screens on them, much to the dismay of the nay-sayers.
Yes, I am completely aware that the Dreamcast did this before the Wii U, this is what I meant with taking new ideas and making them fresh. Some call it "ripping off", but taking a concept that works and try to reinvent it is what makes business business. Like it or not. If that wasn't true, Sony wouldn't have made Move and Microsoft wouldn't try to make more family friendly games or make Kinect. I am aware that companies "rip off" each other, but I do not blame them for doing so.
Admittingly, one aspects of the Wii U, specifically, being able to play in the gamepad while the TV is on a different channel or something, I do kind of like. This is great for families with only one TV (20 years too late for me, though) and kids probably have fun playing Wii U while mom is watching [insert any TV-show here]. Gimmicky? Sure, but I have to give Nintendo some credit for once again trying something different.
As for the games themselves, I will go through most of the conference and give my quick thoughts on the games. Before that, though, I feel I should say something about the conference as a whole. Honestly, it was decent. They did a good job on most parts, they were fairly interesting to listen to, and not many glaring mistakes were found on my part. I won't call them out, at least not all of them, I will leave that to the people who have a greater sense of humor than I do to properly make fun of them. I was disappointed that some text was also used in the actual trailers, speciffically Arkham city. You'd assume they write seperate texts to promote the game slightly differently. I've always liked how Nintendo doesn't always resort to celebrities to promote their games or random people to come in and play their games just to show how familyfriendly it is in the middle of their conferences. As such, I didn't like the part with the dancers, though it didn't last that long. The "conversations" the presenters had with each other felt kind of forced and rehearsed at best, but, once again, it didn't last long enough to bother me too much. I also find it interesting that they've barely shown the actual Wii U, they focus mostly on the controller, not the actual console, as in the part where you put the game in. Then again, I don't remember Nintendo dragging an actual Wii around on-stage as opposed to just the Wii remote. Once again, nothing too big, but just something I've noticed.
Finally, I will NOT talk about the games people were hoping they would show but didn't. E3 isn't over yet, after all (although I don't have my hopes up). Some were hoping for news on the new Smash bros. game or Pokemon black 2 and white 2. I didn't expect them to talk about these two, and I'm not suprised they didn't. There's something specifically related to 3DS tomorrow (I think), it's possible they'll talk more about DS titles then, too. I can give my comments on that later if my readers want (which, as of now, are nonexistant). However, I'm slightly disappointed they didn't talk too much about Assassin's creed 3, since it's one of the most hyped and talked about games this E3. I suppose the Ubisoft conference took care of that, but it wouldn't have hurt if they BRIEFLY talked about it, at least, such as the Wii U specific controls, like they did for Arkham city. I was also disappointed that they very briefly showed Mass effect 3 and Tekken tag 2, since both those games are pretty hyped, although Mass effect 3 has already been released, and the fans still haven't seem to recovered. Come to think of it, it might have been for the best if the didn't talk about Mass effect 3. Also, I do hope 3DS lite or something are in the works, because I'd love to see that. Maybe next E3.
That said, let's talk about the games they showed (apologies if I miss any)!
Pikmin 3: The first game they showed. They even had a few Pikmins visit Miyamoto in the begining. Nice way to get things started, I guess, especially since Pikmin 3 has been pretty requested lately, perhaps mostly because Olimar was featured in Brawl. I haven't played that much of Pikmin. It was years ago, but from the little I played, I liked it. It's possible I'll get Pikmin 1 and 2 if Pikmin 3 get good enough reviews for me to bother with it (if I get a Wii U).
Since I'm not a Pikmin fan, or at least not yet, I don't think I can do this game justice. I do admit that it looked good from what little we saw (like most games do on E3), especially the graphics. It's good that Nintendo seems to catch on in the graphics department, although Microsoft's and Sony's next consoles will probably have even better graphics, I guess Nintendo might be doomed to have graphics one generation behind if this keeps up. That said, the game looked pretty good, although the use of the Wii U felt kind of tacked-on, it could might as well have been a Wii game. Then again, don't speak too soon. This is Nintendo we're talking about, they're damn good at making games and usually suprise even me. I can only hope this game will be the game Pikmin fans have been waiting for and deserve, and will hopefully introduce new fans to the series.
Just to get it off my chest: Reggie and Miyamoto are both awesome. There, I said it.
Wii U: I know this isn't a game, and I've already talked about it, but I figure I'd give it another look.
I have to be honest, the controller looks pretty good. While the graphics on the gamepad and the games themselves are most likely exaggerated and won't look half as good in the final product, it looks pretty impressive as of now. Wii U is basically a DS where the upper screen is your TV. The gamepad has two control sticks, one gamepad, four buttons (A, B, X, Y), four shoulder buttons (very similarly to a PS-controller), start and select buttons, a microphone, a camera and a touch screen. I left some details out, but it basically sound like a single screened DS with a few more buttons. It supposedly have built-in sensors as well, alowing you to tilt your controlpad and affect the game, like in Wario ware: twisted (speaking of, I can't wait for the next Wario ware for this console, it will be even sillier than ever before). I hate to admit it, but I'm impressed and this looks rather promising. The only REAL problem is that it might come with an extremely high pricetag, maybe more than 599 USD. Since the controller is fairly high tech (for a controller), it's possible the actual Wii U won't be as impressive, similar to the Wii. Mind you, I own a Wii and I still use it, but even I know it's rather lacking in some part, like graphics or online play. Naturally, graphics aren't the only thing that matters, it's called video GAMES after all, i.e. you're meant to PLAY them, not look at them. that would be movies. It's too bad that sometimes hardware have to be sacrificed for innovation sometimes. I've looked up some technical specifications for the Wii U, most of which were gibberish to me, but it looked somewhat lackluster in its hardware, although not flat-out terrible (couldn't find any mentions if it will finally have a DVD-player, though, something that might not go unappreciated).
They also talked about the social aspects if of the Wii U, most of which was browser based. I honestly don't care about that sort of thing, but you are free to check it out if you wish.
All in all, it looks promising. It has all the potential to be the next Wii or the next Virtual boy. Tread carefully, Nintendo.
New Super Mario bros. U: Honestly, how long can you call this "new" Super mario bros.? It's not thaTt new anymore.
That aside, it looks pretty fun. They've added some new features, such as chatting or watching replays, Yoshi and its abilities, or a player using the gamepad placing blocks on the screen. Other than that, it seems like your basic Mario game: innovative and fun. If I get a Wii U, this will be one of the first I'll get. Seems like a perfect launch day game, like how Super Mario 64 was for Nintendo 64. I only wish they did the same with Super Mario 3D land, then I would have been one 3DS richer today.
However, it might not go down in Mario history as one of the best in the series. I can only hope for me and my friends' entertainment that I'm wrong.
Batman: Arkahm city: armored edition: Too bad Harley Quinn didn't lead the entire presentation, though that small cameo on the screen was pretty fun. Also, the picture above uses the british way of spelling armored.
I've been thinking of reviewing Arkham city for a while now. I think it's way better than Arkham city and might be the best superhero game yet, or at the very least the best Batman game yet (which used to be the Batman on the NES in my opinion, seriously). Honestly, the Wii U version of it (armored edition, seriously?) seems pretty good. They've mostly just changed the controls a bit, such as searching for clues on the gamepad's screen, or using the gamepad's screen (expect to see the "using the gamepad's screen" a lot in this article) to change weapon or steering remote controlled batarangs. Some of the old weapons seems to be tweaked a bit, for example, you now hack using the touch screen on the gamepad and try to avoid sensors while looking for the password. It's hard to explain, but it looks pretty decent. The only really new thing they've added is BAT-mode. During fights, a new meter will be filled. Once it's full, you can activate BAT-mode via the gamepad's screen to make Batman momentarily stronger. To any and all self-proclaimed pros of Arkham city believing this system to be nothing but a way to help newbies become better at a game that is generally believed to be pretty hard at times: I believe you don't actually HAVE to activate it. You can probably still carry on the fight without giving a crap about the BAT-gague.
This game is perfect for launch day. People are already familiar with this game, it has recieved critical acclaim and sold pretty well. We know what to expect from this game. Arkham city is regarded as one of the best games of 2011, and it could work again, although maybe not out-do itself. The Wii U gamepad is PERFECT for a game like this. Batman is the world's greatest detective (in the DC universe at least) and he have always used a wide array of helpful gadgets and items to carry on his investigations. The gamepad feels like one of Batman's toys, it's certainly high tech and gimmicky enough, just look at his cryptographic sequencer. Best of all, there's really not much risk involved, since gamers know that Arkham city is a damn good game and a gamepad will most likely not change that. That, and this has was announced for the Wii U almost as soon as the Wii U itself was announced. It won't suprise me if this game comes bundled with Wii Us on release date. I'd buy it, at least.
Seriously, check this game out, either version is fine! Please check out a trailer for the Armored edition (or armoured) while you're at it!
Scribblenauts unlimited: There's mot much I can say about this game. This is especially too bad after all the stuff I wrote about Arkham city. However, I've never played any Scribblenauts game. I've heard the first game was pretty good and the second game was slightly better recieved. I know that it's about the playing being able to draw anything and stuff, but it never interested me. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just not all that interested in it.
However, the trailer did its job, it showcased the game pretty well and gave me a good idea of its features and what it's about. It didn't convince me to buy the game, though. I do recommend Scribblenauts fans to check it out themselves if they haven't already. It's also for 3DS.
Wii fit U: Once again, I'm indifferent. I know the Wii fit introduced people who aren't into video games to the Wii, and it sold pretty well. The trailer shows some decent features for a game of its kind, such as additional pedometer support and whatnot. If I was into Wii fit, I would probably be excited for this, it looks like Wii fit but bigger (no pun of any form intended).
Sing (working title): This seems like a Kinect game, honestly. It advertises as a sing game the people who aren't singing can join in, via dancing or singling along. How can the game know they're dancing in the background exactly? Does the gamepad's camera take care of this? Seems like something you'd need a camera on the TV for, or a Kinect. Then again, this is probably intended to be a game you can just bust out at any party in the world and people might have fun, so I guess the game might do its job in the end. Plus for the imaginative title, I think they forgot the "star" at the end, though.
New Super Mario bros. 2: This one's for 3DS. It looks pretty promising, actually. My overall thoughts are mostly the same as NSMBU, but this one seems to focus on transforming everything on the screen into coins via various means. Guess Nintendo really can't hide their love for money anymore. Jokes aside, this might be a pretty solid platformer for a handheld, probably up there with Super Mario 3D land.
Paper Mario sticker star: 3DS game. Another series I'm indifferent to. I know a LOT of people like the Paper Mario series, I've only tried the first game and Thousand-year door. They were pretty good games if memory serves right, but nothing that hooked me. It wasn't the graphic style or anything, which might be a common complaint about the series or not, I just simply never got into them. I will say that I might play them again and it's possible that I'll like them better than the first time, some games needs the right mindset to get into.
For those interested, you collect stickers in this game, which also works as your attacks. For example. you can find a shoe sticker and you can then stomp enemies. Sounds fun enough, can lead to some interesting game elements. I'm sure Paper Mario fans will be thrilled, I know a few. I'll wait until I've played other Paper Mario games, though.
Luigi's mansion: dark moon: Once again, 3DS game. Never thought they'd make a Luigi's mansion game, honestly. Yet, here we are. It was one of the first gamecube games I bought, third to be exact, and I remember that I enjoyed them back them. I've played it quite recently, and it holds up ok but today's standars. It's by no means a horror classic or anything, or "Mario" classic, even. It's a pretty original "Mario" game for its time and deserves a second look.
In the new game, there's more than one mansion that needs investigating. Sounds interesting enough. New ghosts were promised, some which might require unique capturing types. Seems like a basic sequel. If I ever get a 3DS (or 3DS lite as I hope), I'll be sure to check it out, and you should too. Although I don't expect the new Super Mario galaxy or the likes.
Lego city undercover: More stuff I'm indifferent to. I loved to play with Lego as a child, but even then I though that Lego didn't really need video games. Legos are too blocky to fit in smooth 3D. Good thing I wasn't born five years ago, there seems to be Lego versions of EVERYTHING today, even Lego rockband. I know people like the Lego games, but I'd rather stick to actual Lego instead. This game looks ok, though, something I'd probably play if I was a child. Probably. If you're interested in the Lego video game universe, check it out. It's got to be better than the old Lego island games, at least. It also has an 3DS version in the works, too.
Just dance 4: Nothing I care about the slightest, but I know the Just dance games sells pretty well and is probably fun if you're a 15 year old girl or something. This also has that dance number I talked about. In the end, this is nothing I will be playing anytime soon, even at parties.
ZombiU: A somewhat pleasant suprise, actually. If unlucky, this game might be the Wii U's Red steel; a pretty cool idea with a lot of potential with mediocre-at-best results. What I mean is that this game looks pretty neat, but it might be just another attempt to use a gimmick without trying to make an actual game or gaming experience. However, the game seems to use the gamepad pretty well, maybe even better than a future Resident evil game might. It also awoke my curiosity in a Fatal frame game for the Wii U, as it could turn out pretty good. I'm afraid there's not too much to say about this one, it's just your basic zombie game with a twists, the gamepad, that is. Could be great, could be lame, only time will tell. It also seems to use a "zombify yourself" function with the gamepad's camera. Zombie Reggie was suprisingly entertaining, something you could look up if you wish. It also opens up new posibilities for horror games for the Wii U, something that might work. For a while, at least. Check this game out!
Nintendo land: Also a suprise, didn't see it coming, nor did I read about it beforehand or anything. Unfortunately, I'm not the least interested in this game. Granted, it's the first themepark based game with Nintendo characters I've seen, but it would've probably been a better idea if they opened an ACTUAL themepark. If Angry birds can, Nintendo can. There might be one somewhere, but I'm too tired to check that at the moment. As for the game itself, it's just a few Nintendo-themed video games that's meant to be fun for the whole family and such. If I had kids, it could have been a decent choise if they kept it to themselves. Pass. I do admit that the Luigi's mansion game seems pretty fun.
There was also two quick trailer collages of games, only two of which I wish they could have talked about more. The Wii U games shown were Darksiders II, Mass effect 3, Tank! Tank! Tank!, Tekken tag tournament 2, Trine II: Director's cut, Ninja gaiden 3: razor's edge, Aliens colonial marines, and the 3DS games were Castlevania: lords of shadow - mirror of fate, Disney's Epic Mickey: power of illusion, Sribblenauts unlimited, Kingdom hearts 3D: dream drop distance. Additionally, Ubisoft had their own collection of mini-trailers; those shown were Assassin's creed 3. Rabbids land, Your shape fitness evolved 2013, Rayman legends, Sports connection, Avengers battle for earth. The only one that caught my attention was Assassin's creed 3, but I bet Ubisoft's own conference took care of that one.
There's an additonal 20 minutes of extended trailers for some games at the end of the conference, but it was prerecorded, and most of it was for Wii fit U, Nintendo land and ZombiU, so I don't count it as a part of the actual conference. You can check that out too, if you wish, though.
Summary: In my opinion: this conference was decent. There's stuff to make fun of, such as occational slip up, the stiffness of the interactions between the presenters (if that's what it's called) or the dance game sequence. Fortunately, they showed some seemingly good games, although many were simply glanced through. The Wii U looks promising enough, and could become the next Wii or the next Virtual boy. If you have time to spare, check out the conference yourself, or a summary at least.
All images found via google and are copyrighted by their respective owners.
I will not directly link the conference. If you wish to see it, please look it up yourself (which shouldn't be too hard).
Nintendo and Sony has dominated my video gaming for my entire life. The first console I ever got was a Gameboy and the first non-handheld one was a Nintendo 64. I consider the Super Nintendo the best console released so far and the PS2 a close second. Fortunately, my brother had a Megadrive (Genesis) and some of my friends had Xboxes (if that's even correct english), so I had the chance to experience other companies game systems. While I mean no disrespect to fans of this and that, Nintendo and Sony will most likely go strong in my game library for years to come, although I don't mind trying different platforms or even getting some of them in the future once I get the budget to do so. I must confess, though, that Nintendo have always been a personal favorite of mine, despite their flaws. They have been the only company whose conferences at E3 I have followed online, live or in video form published later, although I have seen summaries of other companies' conferences.
This year, I have decided to show the world my thoughts on this year's conference by Nintendo. I admit that I will most likely not bring anything new to the table especially regarding my lack of professionalism, but like I always say: the only thing I can always give that hasn't been given or said already is my own personal thoughts.
As a whole, the theme of this year's conference seems to be asymmetry. The Wii U has two different screens, one on the gamepad and the TV itself, allowing you to play the games in two different ways at the same time, etc. To answer the most common critism of the Wii U: I don't care too much about the name, we all laughed at the name Wii a few years ago and 95 million units sold later, the only ones left laughing is Nintendo. What I mean is don't judge the book by its cover, wait for it to be released first.
Ever since the Wii, Nintendo has felt like Apple of the gaming world; whatever new groundbreaking way of playing games they invent, everybody laughs at first, buys it and realize it's pretty good, and try to copy it. Compare to the iPad which initially nobody believed would be a hit. It's amazing how influential Nintendo is and they find new ways to keep video games interesting. They don't just target gamers, but consumers. Some might say they're just trying being "gimmicky" and are only looking for new ways to print money for themselves, which is true to an extent. However, they have great financial ideas, target consumers, giving you a wider audience, and good ways to execute this with new ways of playing games that has never been tried before or taking older ideas and making them new and fresh. Sometimes this works, the DS, sometimes it doesn't, Virtual boy. If the Wii U becomes a hit in the likes of its predecessor, it won't be too long before more controllers have screens on them, much to the dismay of the nay-sayers.
Yes, I am completely aware that the Dreamcast did this before the Wii U, this is what I meant with taking new ideas and making them fresh. Some call it "ripping off", but taking a concept that works and try to reinvent it is what makes business business. Like it or not. If that wasn't true, Sony wouldn't have made Move and Microsoft wouldn't try to make more family friendly games or make Kinect. I am aware that companies "rip off" each other, but I do not blame them for doing so.
Admittingly, one aspects of the Wii U, specifically, being able to play in the gamepad while the TV is on a different channel or something, I do kind of like. This is great for families with only one TV (20 years too late for me, though) and kids probably have fun playing Wii U while mom is watching [insert any TV-show here]. Gimmicky? Sure, but I have to give Nintendo some credit for once again trying something different.
As for the games themselves, I will go through most of the conference and give my quick thoughts on the games. Before that, though, I feel I should say something about the conference as a whole. Honestly, it was decent. They did a good job on most parts, they were fairly interesting to listen to, and not many glaring mistakes were found on my part. I won't call them out, at least not all of them, I will leave that to the people who have a greater sense of humor than I do to properly make fun of them. I was disappointed that some text was also used in the actual trailers, speciffically Arkham city. You'd assume they write seperate texts to promote the game slightly differently. I've always liked how Nintendo doesn't always resort to celebrities to promote their games or random people to come in and play their games just to show how familyfriendly it is in the middle of their conferences. As such, I didn't like the part with the dancers, though it didn't last that long. The "conversations" the presenters had with each other felt kind of forced and rehearsed at best, but, once again, it didn't last long enough to bother me too much. I also find it interesting that they've barely shown the actual Wii U, they focus mostly on the controller, not the actual console, as in the part where you put the game in. Then again, I don't remember Nintendo dragging an actual Wii around on-stage as opposed to just the Wii remote. Once again, nothing too big, but just something I've noticed.
Finally, I will NOT talk about the games people were hoping they would show but didn't. E3 isn't over yet, after all (although I don't have my hopes up). Some were hoping for news on the new Smash bros. game or Pokemon black 2 and white 2. I didn't expect them to talk about these two, and I'm not suprised they didn't. There's something specifically related to 3DS tomorrow (I think), it's possible they'll talk more about DS titles then, too. I can give my comments on that later if my readers want (which, as of now, are nonexistant). However, I'm slightly disappointed they didn't talk too much about Assassin's creed 3, since it's one of the most hyped and talked about games this E3. I suppose the Ubisoft conference took care of that, but it wouldn't have hurt if they BRIEFLY talked about it, at least, such as the Wii U specific controls, like they did for Arkham city. I was also disappointed that they very briefly showed Mass effect 3 and Tekken tag 2, since both those games are pretty hyped, although Mass effect 3 has already been released, and the fans still haven't seem to recovered. Come to think of it, it might have been for the best if the didn't talk about Mass effect 3. Also, I do hope 3DS lite or something are in the works, because I'd love to see that. Maybe next E3.
That said, let's talk about the games they showed (apologies if I miss any)!
Pikmin 3: The first game they showed. They even had a few Pikmins visit Miyamoto in the begining. Nice way to get things started, I guess, especially since Pikmin 3 has been pretty requested lately, perhaps mostly because Olimar was featured in Brawl. I haven't played that much of Pikmin. It was years ago, but from the little I played, I liked it. It's possible I'll get Pikmin 1 and 2 if Pikmin 3 get good enough reviews for me to bother with it (if I get a Wii U).
Since I'm not a Pikmin fan, or at least not yet, I don't think I can do this game justice. I do admit that it looked good from what little we saw (like most games do on E3), especially the graphics. It's good that Nintendo seems to catch on in the graphics department, although Microsoft's and Sony's next consoles will probably have even better graphics, I guess Nintendo might be doomed to have graphics one generation behind if this keeps up. That said, the game looked pretty good, although the use of the Wii U felt kind of tacked-on, it could might as well have been a Wii game. Then again, don't speak too soon. This is Nintendo we're talking about, they're damn good at making games and usually suprise even me. I can only hope this game will be the game Pikmin fans have been waiting for and deserve, and will hopefully introduce new fans to the series.
Just to get it off my chest: Reggie and Miyamoto are both awesome. There, I said it.
Wii U: I know this isn't a game, and I've already talked about it, but I figure I'd give it another look.
I have to be honest, the controller looks pretty good. While the graphics on the gamepad and the games themselves are most likely exaggerated and won't look half as good in the final product, it looks pretty impressive as of now. Wii U is basically a DS where the upper screen is your TV. The gamepad has two control sticks, one gamepad, four buttons (A, B, X, Y), four shoulder buttons (very similarly to a PS-controller), start and select buttons, a microphone, a camera and a touch screen. I left some details out, but it basically sound like a single screened DS with a few more buttons. It supposedly have built-in sensors as well, alowing you to tilt your controlpad and affect the game, like in Wario ware: twisted (speaking of, I can't wait for the next Wario ware for this console, it will be even sillier than ever before). I hate to admit it, but I'm impressed and this looks rather promising. The only REAL problem is that it might come with an extremely high pricetag, maybe more than 599 USD. Since the controller is fairly high tech (for a controller), it's possible the actual Wii U won't be as impressive, similar to the Wii. Mind you, I own a Wii and I still use it, but even I know it's rather lacking in some part, like graphics or online play. Naturally, graphics aren't the only thing that matters, it's called video GAMES after all, i.e. you're meant to PLAY them, not look at them. that would be movies. It's too bad that sometimes hardware have to be sacrificed for innovation sometimes. I've looked up some technical specifications for the Wii U, most of which were gibberish to me, but it looked somewhat lackluster in its hardware, although not flat-out terrible (couldn't find any mentions if it will finally have a DVD-player, though, something that might not go unappreciated).
They also talked about the social aspects if of the Wii U, most of which was browser based. I honestly don't care about that sort of thing, but you are free to check it out if you wish.
All in all, it looks promising. It has all the potential to be the next Wii or the next Virtual boy. Tread carefully, Nintendo.
New Super Mario bros. U: Honestly, how long can you call this "new" Super mario bros.? It's not thaTt new anymore.
That aside, it looks pretty fun. They've added some new features, such as chatting or watching replays, Yoshi and its abilities, or a player using the gamepad placing blocks on the screen. Other than that, it seems like your basic Mario game: innovative and fun. If I get a Wii U, this will be one of the first I'll get. Seems like a perfect launch day game, like how Super Mario 64 was for Nintendo 64. I only wish they did the same with Super Mario 3D land, then I would have been one 3DS richer today.
However, it might not go down in Mario history as one of the best in the series. I can only hope for me and my friends' entertainment that I'm wrong.
Batman: Arkahm city: armored edition: Too bad Harley Quinn didn't lead the entire presentation, though that small cameo on the screen was pretty fun. Also, the picture above uses the british way of spelling armored.
I've been thinking of reviewing Arkham city for a while now. I think it's way better than Arkham city and might be the best superhero game yet, or at the very least the best Batman game yet (which used to be the Batman on the NES in my opinion, seriously). Honestly, the Wii U version of it (armored edition, seriously?) seems pretty good. They've mostly just changed the controls a bit, such as searching for clues on the gamepad's screen, or using the gamepad's screen (expect to see the "using the gamepad's screen" a lot in this article) to change weapon or steering remote controlled batarangs. Some of the old weapons seems to be tweaked a bit, for example, you now hack using the touch screen on the gamepad and try to avoid sensors while looking for the password. It's hard to explain, but it looks pretty decent. The only really new thing they've added is BAT-mode. During fights, a new meter will be filled. Once it's full, you can activate BAT-mode via the gamepad's screen to make Batman momentarily stronger. To any and all self-proclaimed pros of Arkham city believing this system to be nothing but a way to help newbies become better at a game that is generally believed to be pretty hard at times: I believe you don't actually HAVE to activate it. You can probably still carry on the fight without giving a crap about the BAT-gague.
This game is perfect for launch day. People are already familiar with this game, it has recieved critical acclaim and sold pretty well. We know what to expect from this game. Arkham city is regarded as one of the best games of 2011, and it could work again, although maybe not out-do itself. The Wii U gamepad is PERFECT for a game like this. Batman is the world's greatest detective (in the DC universe at least) and he have always used a wide array of helpful gadgets and items to carry on his investigations. The gamepad feels like one of Batman's toys, it's certainly high tech and gimmicky enough, just look at his cryptographic sequencer. Best of all, there's really not much risk involved, since gamers know that Arkham city is a damn good game and a gamepad will most likely not change that. That, and this has was announced for the Wii U almost as soon as the Wii U itself was announced. It won't suprise me if this game comes bundled with Wii Us on release date. I'd buy it, at least.
Seriously, check this game out, either version is fine! Please check out a trailer for the Armored edition (or armoured) while you're at it!
Scribblenauts unlimited: There's mot much I can say about this game. This is especially too bad after all the stuff I wrote about Arkham city. However, I've never played any Scribblenauts game. I've heard the first game was pretty good and the second game was slightly better recieved. I know that it's about the playing being able to draw anything and stuff, but it never interested me. I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just not all that interested in it.
However, the trailer did its job, it showcased the game pretty well and gave me a good idea of its features and what it's about. It didn't convince me to buy the game, though. I do recommend Scribblenauts fans to check it out themselves if they haven't already. It's also for 3DS.
Wii fit U: Once again, I'm indifferent. I know the Wii fit introduced people who aren't into video games to the Wii, and it sold pretty well. The trailer shows some decent features for a game of its kind, such as additional pedometer support and whatnot. If I was into Wii fit, I would probably be excited for this, it looks like Wii fit but bigger (no pun of any form intended).
Sing (working title): This seems like a Kinect game, honestly. It advertises as a sing game the people who aren't singing can join in, via dancing or singling along. How can the game know they're dancing in the background exactly? Does the gamepad's camera take care of this? Seems like something you'd need a camera on the TV for, or a Kinect. Then again, this is probably intended to be a game you can just bust out at any party in the world and people might have fun, so I guess the game might do its job in the end. Plus for the imaginative title, I think they forgot the "star" at the end, though.
New Super Mario bros. 2: This one's for 3DS. It looks pretty promising, actually. My overall thoughts are mostly the same as NSMBU, but this one seems to focus on transforming everything on the screen into coins via various means. Guess Nintendo really can't hide their love for money anymore. Jokes aside, this might be a pretty solid platformer for a handheld, probably up there with Super Mario 3D land.
Paper Mario sticker star: 3DS game. Another series I'm indifferent to. I know a LOT of people like the Paper Mario series, I've only tried the first game and Thousand-year door. They were pretty good games if memory serves right, but nothing that hooked me. It wasn't the graphic style or anything, which might be a common complaint about the series or not, I just simply never got into them. I will say that I might play them again and it's possible that I'll like them better than the first time, some games needs the right mindset to get into.
For those interested, you collect stickers in this game, which also works as your attacks. For example. you can find a shoe sticker and you can then stomp enemies. Sounds fun enough, can lead to some interesting game elements. I'm sure Paper Mario fans will be thrilled, I know a few. I'll wait until I've played other Paper Mario games, though.
Luigi's mansion: dark moon: Once again, 3DS game. Never thought they'd make a Luigi's mansion game, honestly. Yet, here we are. It was one of the first gamecube games I bought, third to be exact, and I remember that I enjoyed them back them. I've played it quite recently, and it holds up ok but today's standars. It's by no means a horror classic or anything, or "Mario" classic, even. It's a pretty original "Mario" game for its time and deserves a second look.
In the new game, there's more than one mansion that needs investigating. Sounds interesting enough. New ghosts were promised, some which might require unique capturing types. Seems like a basic sequel. If I ever get a 3DS (or 3DS lite as I hope), I'll be sure to check it out, and you should too. Although I don't expect the new Super Mario galaxy or the likes.
Lego city undercover: More stuff I'm indifferent to. I loved to play with Lego as a child, but even then I though that Lego didn't really need video games. Legos are too blocky to fit in smooth 3D. Good thing I wasn't born five years ago, there seems to be Lego versions of EVERYTHING today, even Lego rockband. I know people like the Lego games, but I'd rather stick to actual Lego instead. This game looks ok, though, something I'd probably play if I was a child. Probably. If you're interested in the Lego video game universe, check it out. It's got to be better than the old Lego island games, at least. It also has an 3DS version in the works, too.
Just dance 4: Nothing I care about the slightest, but I know the Just dance games sells pretty well and is probably fun if you're a 15 year old girl or something. This also has that dance number I talked about. In the end, this is nothing I will be playing anytime soon, even at parties.
ZombiU: A somewhat pleasant suprise, actually. If unlucky, this game might be the Wii U's Red steel; a pretty cool idea with a lot of potential with mediocre-at-best results. What I mean is that this game looks pretty neat, but it might be just another attempt to use a gimmick without trying to make an actual game or gaming experience. However, the game seems to use the gamepad pretty well, maybe even better than a future Resident evil game might. It also awoke my curiosity in a Fatal frame game for the Wii U, as it could turn out pretty good. I'm afraid there's not too much to say about this one, it's just your basic zombie game with a twists, the gamepad, that is. Could be great, could be lame, only time will tell. It also seems to use a "zombify yourself" function with the gamepad's camera. Zombie Reggie was suprisingly entertaining, something you could look up if you wish. It also opens up new posibilities for horror games for the Wii U, something that might work. For a while, at least. Check this game out!
Nintendo land: Also a suprise, didn't see it coming, nor did I read about it beforehand or anything. Unfortunately, I'm not the least interested in this game. Granted, it's the first themepark based game with Nintendo characters I've seen, but it would've probably been a better idea if they opened an ACTUAL themepark. If Angry birds can, Nintendo can. There might be one somewhere, but I'm too tired to check that at the moment. As for the game itself, it's just a few Nintendo-themed video games that's meant to be fun for the whole family and such. If I had kids, it could have been a decent choise if they kept it to themselves. Pass. I do admit that the Luigi's mansion game seems pretty fun.
There was also two quick trailer collages of games, only two of which I wish they could have talked about more. The Wii U games shown were Darksiders II, Mass effect 3, Tank! Tank! Tank!, Tekken tag tournament 2, Trine II: Director's cut, Ninja gaiden 3: razor's edge, Aliens colonial marines, and the 3DS games were Castlevania: lords of shadow - mirror of fate, Disney's Epic Mickey: power of illusion, Sribblenauts unlimited, Kingdom hearts 3D: dream drop distance. Additionally, Ubisoft had their own collection of mini-trailers; those shown were Assassin's creed 3. Rabbids land, Your shape fitness evolved 2013, Rayman legends, Sports connection, Avengers battle for earth. The only one that caught my attention was Assassin's creed 3, but I bet Ubisoft's own conference took care of that one.
There's an additonal 20 minutes of extended trailers for some games at the end of the conference, but it was prerecorded, and most of it was for Wii fit U, Nintendo land and ZombiU, so I don't count it as a part of the actual conference. You can check that out too, if you wish, though.
Summary: In my opinion: this conference was decent. There's stuff to make fun of, such as occational slip up, the stiffness of the interactions between the presenters (if that's what it's called) or the dance game sequence. Fortunately, they showed some seemingly good games, although many were simply glanced through. The Wii U looks promising enough, and could become the next Wii or the next Virtual boy. If you have time to spare, check out the conference yourself, or a summary at least.
All images found via google and are copyrighted by their respective owners.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)