Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Meat Boy Winner, Layton v. Wright, Vanquish, and Time-Killers
*
To start things off tonight, I’ll announce the winner of a Super Meat Boy code for 360, as promised. Many thanks to everybody who entered, and after randomly drawing from all entries, the winner is:
Jeremy!
Congratulations, Jeremy! Please get in touch with me via email and I'll hook you up with your code ASAP.
*
Games: Phoenix Wright meets Professor Layton. And that's all I'm going to say, apart from directing you to click HERE to watch the announcement video and asking you to pray to the stars above that this game gets a domestic release.
*
Games: So if you read this blog regularly, you may remember that I commented about the Vanquish demo a while ago. Frankly, I wasn't too high on it at the time. I thought it was sporting some great graphics, but the gameplay just wasn't clicking.
Fast forward six weeks.
I got my hands on a full version and decided to start fresh. Strangely enough, my impressions now are almost completely different than they were back then. The game is totally incredible, and I've been playing it basically non-stop since I started.
I'm going to do a full review of the game soon, but if you (like me) weren’t really impressed with the demo or you got scared off by the claims that the game is only three hours long, let me assure you -- in my view, Vanquish is easily one of the best games released this year.
As far as the length issue goes, I haven't completed the game yet but I've already been playing closer to six or seven hours. Apparently the game counts play time in some weird, funky way so when people post pictures of their "game over" screen, the final run-time tally is not correct. At least, it's not truly reflective of the real-time hours spent by the player. I haven't been keeping a stopwatch by my side, but I'm absolutely sure that the game runs longer than three or four hours.
As for the rest, you have to read my review for the full details… BUT, I will say that the graphics are phenomenal, controls are tight, game design is brilliant, the pace of action remains high from the start (and rarely ever lets up) and there are so many OMGWTFBBQ moments and unbelievable setpieces that Vanquish puts the competition to shame. Crushes the hell out of it, really.
In terms of jaw-dropping Sci-Fi thrill rides, they really don't come better than this. I haven’t completed the game although I'm quite close, but I have no reservations giving Vanquish my highest possible recommendation.
*
Games: On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, we have Castlevania: Lords of Shadow.
I haven't played very much of the game, but then again, I have to be completely honest in saying that I don't feel particularly motivated or interested to come back to it. However, rather than getting into a discussion of why Castlevania has failed to hold my attention, the real reason I bring it up is that I've had several people tell me things like "it gets better later" , “it's a slow burn", or “things really heat up past the halfway point.”
I can't say whether this is true or not (although I will say that I doubt it) but as someone who has spent so many years playing so many games and who now has a full-time job, a family, and other obligations, asking players to invest in this kind of non-starter title has to stop. Videogaming is the only media where it's deemed acceptable to ask a consumer to sit through several hours (and sometimes more) before the developers get their ducks in a row and finally arrive at "the good part", and this kind of design simply does not fly anywhere else.
As an aspiring author, I’ve received tons of rejection letters that were based on brief sections of my writing. It's seldom an agent or an editor reads more than three chapters, and the norm is something closer to one chapter, or even a one-page synopsis. Regardless of how good the middle or end of the book is, it's the kiss of death to have a slow, non-starting beginning. In fact, I recently judged a writing competition, and it was a bit of an epiphany to be on the other side of the equation. After receiving a stack of submissions, I noticed that if the author didn't grab me within the first few pages, it was extremely unlikely that the rest of the submission would be worth reading. I'm sure that's not always the case, but that's essentially what it boils down to.
Look at television or films. I don't know about you, but when I start watching a brand-new TV show, if the first episode is bad, I’m pretty likely to stop watching and move onto something else. Will I be missing out on a series that really takes off two, four, or ten episodes later? Perhaps, but it's asking a lot for someone to devote time to something that may or may not improve. Same goes for movies. While I'll usually sit through almost anything if I've paid for a ticket in a theater, I don't force myself to sit through slow beginnings at home. If the movie can't give me a reason to keep watching within the first fifteen minutes or so, it's done.
Since games are a time-intensive pastime and require a much more active role from the player than simply sitting on the couch or turning a page, it makes no sense to me for a developer to hide "good stuff" hours into the experience. I'm not saying that games need to lay all their cards on the table up front, but they do need to be exciting, intriguing, or interesting enough to convince me to devote my precious free time to them.
 |
| That's right... I went there. |
If the really fun powers of a character don't come into play until 3/4ths of the way through an adventure, that's a problem. If a story languishes with dull characters and irrelevant plot lines until a player gets ten chapters in, that's a problem. If a developer is not able to express the core value of their project within the first HOUR, that's a deadly serious problem.
I like stories with twists and turns, I can appreciate starting with simple mechanics and building them in complexity as an adventure goes along, and I can certainly have patience for things that might take time to unfold, but there has to be some hook; some display of brilliance and promise that gives me reason to push on. I'm no longer willing to sit through drab “filler” levels, and stories that roam over hill and dale before sharing a few juicy bits with the player.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not saying that games need to be short as a rule. If a developer feels as though they need a hundred hours to deliver the complete experience they’re crafting, I'm absolutely fine with that as long as it's not 90 hours of garbage and a really “killer twist” at the end. However, if you're crafting a game that has six hours of quality content, don't you dare ask me to give you fifteen or twenty hours in order to see it.
No more slow starts. No more making me get halfway through before things pick up. No more pointless crap and asking me to get through tedium in the hopes of finding value later on.
It's called editing and focus, people. Learn it.
*
Posts
I think it's just a matter of how much you're turned off by something. There's been plenty of TV series that started out shitty and supposedly got better. Some I stuck with to see for myself (Mad Men), others I bailed on due to wanting to gouge out my eyes after 3 episodes (6 Ft Under, which very many people have urged me to stick with. Maybe someday).
In my experience, Castlevania's beginning was ho-hum, but not awful. I wanted to see where it was going and was glad I did. But if I downright hated it, I'd bail too.
Allow me to play devil's advocate though. I'd argue that I prefer a game with a lackluster first act and stunning finale to one that starts strong but ends pitiful. If a game, movie, book, etc. wows you in the end, you'll forget about the long drive to get there. I get your point that many won't get that far, but it is something to consider.
Also, curious what made you stick with Monster hunter Tri given how much you loathed the first 6-8 hours? I couldn't even get passed 2 myself.
Hey Jeff!
Thanks for your comment, man. To answer your Monster Hunter question, I blogged about it a while ago and the nutshell version is that I was just really captivated by the premise. Something about going up against these huge monsters really struck a chord with me, and while I totally hated the first game, I kept coming back to the series in the hopes that they would finally get it right.
(By the way, I don't think they have gotten it right quite yet, but that's a different discussion.)
Anyway, I hadn't checked in with the series in a while and I kept hearing that Tri was where Capcom finally turned the corner so I gave it a whirl. Also, it helped that I won a free copy from a Twitter contest, so there was no real financial risk involved…. ; )
Once I started playing, I was able to see the improvements that Capcom had made, and I was in just the right frame of mind to jump into what became offered. I suppose the stars aligned in a particular way and there it was.
The really sick thing is that once I finished off Tri, I became quasi-addicted and it took a lot of effort to stop playing. At the moment, I'm about halfway through MH: Freedom Unite on the PSP, but it's on hold while I fulfill my reviewing duties… ; D
Like Mr. Pierre points out, I'd prefer a slow start leading up to a mind-blowing finale than the opposite. I know we've talked about this on the podcast a few times -- the way developers seem to be front-loading cool content into the first few hours of games in order to hook players, but then have nothing left for the the rest.
I do get where you're coming from though -- after having spent time with Valkyria Chronicles 2, I'm against the slow starts as well. That one finally killed the game for me (along with the dorky anime characters...) so there has to be a balance somewhere.
The problem is at once simple and complicated. Games aren't really written by writers. Yet, even when you do get a writer to pen a game script (was it Orson Scott Card who did Advent Rising? I don't remember anymore...) that writer has to work around the gameplay. In some ways, for as much as I bitch about the state of game narratives, it's amazing they're even as good as they are. Think about how less engaging movies and novels might be if there were huge hour-long gaps where the audience was forced to do repetitive or tedious actions over and over before getting to the next part of the story -- that's basically what games are dealing with. In a good game, those chunks of non-story time are great, but I think we can all point to games we played where we'd have just rather seen all the cutscenes together without having to stop and actually play the game parts.
I don't know how you fix that -- other than making gameplay that doesn't suck, but that's easier said than done, apparently.
Like Mr. Pierre points out, I'd prefer a slow start leading up to a mind-blowing finale than the opposite. I know we've talked about this on the podcast a few times -- the way developers seem to be front-loading cool content into the first few hours of games in order to hook players, but then have nothing left for the the rest.
I do get where you're coming from though -- after having spent time with Valkyria Chronicles 2, I'm against the slow starts as well. That one finally killed the game for me (along with the dorky anime characters...) so there has to be a balance somewhere.
The problem is at once simple and complicated. Games aren't really written by writers. Yet, even when you do get a writer to pen a game script (was it Orson Scott Card who did Advent Rising? I don't remember anymore...) that writer has to work around the gameplay. In some ways, for as much as I bitch about the state of game narratives, it's amazing they're even as good as they are. Think about how less engaging movies and novels might be if there were huge hour-long gaps where the audience was forced to do repetitive or tedious actions over and over before getting to the next part of the story -- that's basically what games are dealing with. In a good game, those chunks of non-story time are great, but I think we can all point to games we played where we'd have just rather seen all the cutscenes together without having to stop and actually play the game parts.
I don't know how you fix that -- other than making gameplay that doesn't suck, but that's easier said than done, apparently.
Brad, thanks so much! Sent you an e-mail. I played a ton of original Meat Boy on PC, and I've enjoyed a lot of Ed McMillen's work in the past.
In fact, if I can plug his Etsy shop where you can buy "This is a Cry For Help" which is a compilation of the last 10 years of his work... http://www.etsy.com/shop/EdmundM) Some of my personal favorites of his include "Triachnid" and I often think about "Coil". Check out the Flash versions if they're still around. (I'm less familiar with Tommy Refenes... I think he's mostly a coder, although he made some waves in an App Store flap a while ago.)
I have some thoughts about the Time Killers issue. More and more I've wondered if we're focused TOO much on rewards in games, and too little on the challenge. Consider Super Meat Boy, which people love because of the challenge -and relative reward- of making progress.
On the most recent Weekend Confirmed podcast, Jeff Cannata went on little rant that was right in line with that. To summarize (and oversimplify), he says that sometimes a developer needs you to be bored in order to deliver the really cool moments that stick with you.
I doubt anyone thinks that video games (or books, movies) have to always be "on" 100% of the time, but I wonder if we're somehow collectively veering towards more superficial gaming experiences.
Maybe not.
Also, I'm glad to hear you liked Vanquish. I think it got lumped together with Quantum Theory in a lot of peoples' minds. I only ever heard "Shinji Mikami" and "Platinum Games", and I've been surprised that the buzz has been so negative about it.
Played the VANQUISH demo at E3 and was bowled over.
I'm so glad that you're so on-board with it. Nice one.
I bought it, and I can't wait to play it!!
Best!
I'm now listening to the latest GameCritics.com podcast about Deadly Premonition.
I could be wrong, but I get the impression that Deadly Premonition is extremely difficult to get into initially. I'm curious, Brad, what "hooked" you about that game that turned so many other people off.
You specifically mentioned directorial intent, and allowing yourself to let the story build until you get to the more engaging moments... how does it avoid being a time killer?