Having been a user of the Apple platform of devices for going on two years now, the amount of games I've played on the things can be counted on one hand. All this time, the only games you'll find on my iPhone or iPad are Angry Birds, Chaos Rings, Superbrothers, Zenonia and Mega Mall Story. There was also a demo of Cut the Rope but that was my girlfriend's pick and I barely touched it but I guess it counts. So there's six games in total.
This isn't a rant on how good/bad mobile games are compared with console/handheld games. Angry Birds is a good as everyone says. Cut the Rope is great, too. Chaos Rings is a pretty little JRPG and a good game. Superbrothers is a fantastic adventure game and Mega Mall Story was addictive while it lasted. The only true disappointment was Zenonia, which featured a translation so childish that I was actually offended.
This rant is about depth. Because as great as some of these app games are, most of them aren't too deep. Angry Birds is just chucking fowls over and over, and Mega Mall Story got thin after you realize that there isn't that much freedom in the game. Not the kind of freedom of a Sim City or Civilization. So Chaos Rings had a lot of depth, but in the end, it's something that console games have been doing since the SNES days. Does it really count as an 'app' game just because it is featured in the App Store?
Superbrothers is the only game that truly offers depth while pushing the creative envelope. But so does Rhythm Heaven. And that got me thinking. Why isn't there a game like Rhythm Heaven (and it's Wii sibling Rhythm Heaven Fever) on the app side? The game has enough depth, what with dozens of mini games and variations on each one. There are even bonus unlockable games too, not to mention a ranking system for competing with yourself for the best performance. For the sake of disclosure, I never beat Rhythm Heaven on DS, BUT, I did get gold on every mini event I played and that counts for me as depth - that I'm actually able to do this without getting bored. Thing is, Rhythm Heaven is perfect as an app. It's got a simple premise mixed in with some zany mini games all the to beat of some of the most catchy tunes you'll ever hear. Isn't that what the mobile platform is all about? Simple games bursting with creativity and music? So why isn't there a Rhythm Heaven clone app?
Someone out there can set me straight, I'm sure. There's got to be one out there that I just don't know about. But that's the thing. Why don't I know about it? I mean, I know about Rhythm Heaven. Played it too, and loved it. When I first got my iPhone and iPad, I was checking the game releases week after week, seeking to see for myself what all this mobile hype was all about, and all I got was a disappointing mix of puzzle games, hidden picture games, word games and ports of popular console fare like Need for Speed. Honestly, this wasn't what I signed up for. Where's the simple, zany games with great music? Couldn't find any. Why is that? Why are some potentially great games so hard to find? And why are all the featured games so.... shallow. I mean, I've seen Temple Run in action. Not interested.
So my search goes on. And while the apps have yet to offer more games for a grizzled game vet like myself, I can always rely on the good old consoles to deliver to me my entertainment. For me, mobile games have a long way to go before catching up to the best that consoles have to offer. It's just that, if consoles and handhelds can offer stuff like Rhythm Heaven, then why do I ever need to turn to apps?
Oh, and I lied. I also bought Street Fighter IV for a buck on the App Store. But that doesn't count. Afterall, wasn't it done on consoles first? And better besides?
Wednesday 27 June 2012
Sunday 17 June 2012
The Console War: Now Just Giving them Away!
It's been six long years, but the inevitable has finally happened. People are starting to give away consoles! In just the past few months alone, I have seen three deals in stores where if you buy whatever, you get a free 4 gig Xbox 360. For late adopters and recent red ring sufferers, this is like a godsend. But for guys like me who had to buy TWO 360s, it's kind of scathing.
Just recently, I saw two such deals happening pretty much simultaneously. In Canada, both Staples and Futureshop are both offering a free Xbox if you buy a select brand of laptops. Buy a small computer for $800, get a $200 console for free. Not a bad deal, and it's no a surprise that the Staples site has already sold out of their Toshiba machines. I'm not sure about Futurshop though, who is offering the deal for Samsung buyers. A few months before, Rogers was offering a free Xbox if you do one of their bundles (with Kinect, even, if I remember correctly).
Now I'm not privy to the deals, but I doubt it's truly for free in the sense that Microsoft is just giving them away. I don't know if reimbursements are coming from Rogers, or Toshiba, or Staples or whoever but I doubt Microsoft is just letting retailers or manufacturers use their console without any kind of catch. And even though gamers are getting a very good deal, it's still more of a bait than a windfall. Any core gamer can say that a 4gig 360 isn't at it's full potential without a hardrive (another $100) and a Live subscription ($60/year). An exciting deal overall? Yeah, but just know what you're getting into.
But I seriously doubt late adopters care. All they want to see is probably what the console hype is all about and don't have to pay a penny for it. Microsoft is probably loving the installed base. Sure, they might have 30+ millions of Xbox consoles out in the world, but a million of those didn't have to pay a penny for it, and the machine might not even be out of the box. But if Microsoft just wants the numbers, there are worse ways to go about getting them.
I don't have some super sharp insight into all of this, just a cynical observation that the company who can afford to give away so many consoles also happens to be one with the deepest pockets. Not sure if that's fair. But, before anyone starts feeling sorry for Sony, it's best to keep in mind that they started it.
Remember that Rogers deal? Well, before they gave away 360s, they did it first with the PS3. If the timeline is any indication, it looks like Sony gave their rivals one excellent idea.
But the true winner in all of this? The folks who got a PS3 from Rogers. With no hard drive to upgrade and no subscriptions to maintain, it truly is for free.
Just recently, I saw two such deals happening pretty much simultaneously. In Canada, both Staples and Futureshop are both offering a free Xbox if you buy a select brand of laptops. Buy a small computer for $800, get a $200 console for free. Not a bad deal, and it's no a surprise that the Staples site has already sold out of their Toshiba machines. I'm not sure about Futurshop though, who is offering the deal for Samsung buyers. A few months before, Rogers was offering a free Xbox if you do one of their bundles (with Kinect, even, if I remember correctly).
Now I'm not privy to the deals, but I doubt it's truly for free in the sense that Microsoft is just giving them away. I don't know if reimbursements are coming from Rogers, or Toshiba, or Staples or whoever but I doubt Microsoft is just letting retailers or manufacturers use their console without any kind of catch. And even though gamers are getting a very good deal, it's still more of a bait than a windfall. Any core gamer can say that a 4gig 360 isn't at it's full potential without a hardrive (another $100) and a Live subscription ($60/year). An exciting deal overall? Yeah, but just know what you're getting into.
But I seriously doubt late adopters care. All they want to see is probably what the console hype is all about and don't have to pay a penny for it. Microsoft is probably loving the installed base. Sure, they might have 30+ millions of Xbox consoles out in the world, but a million of those didn't have to pay a penny for it, and the machine might not even be out of the box. But if Microsoft just wants the numbers, there are worse ways to go about getting them.
I don't have some super sharp insight into all of this, just a cynical observation that the company who can afford to give away so many consoles also happens to be one with the deepest pockets. Not sure if that's fair. But, before anyone starts feeling sorry for Sony, it's best to keep in mind that they started it.
Remember that Rogers deal? Well, before they gave away 360s, they did it first with the PS3. If the timeline is any indication, it looks like Sony gave their rivals one excellent idea.
But the true winner in all of this? The folks who got a PS3 from Rogers. With no hard drive to upgrade and no subscriptions to maintain, it truly is for free.
Monday 11 June 2012
Cloud Gaming: There Has Got to be a Better Way
So the big hoopla about On-Live launching and taking the world by storm has come and gone. The gaming industry is still pretty much the same now as it was back then. Personally, I can't help but heave a sigh of relief. Still, one is never far off from talk about how cloud gaming will rock the industry as we know it. It can still come true, but personally, I don't want to be around when that happens.
Most gamers by now have lived through the anticipated launch of Diablo 3, but how many had had a good experience on day 1? The day the game went live, I played for about 10 minutes before the server kicked me out for a last minute update... and this is why I'm dreading a future of the cloud. What's that? Diablo 3 isn't a game in the cloud? No, but it's close, since you simply cannot play it when not hooked up to the internet.
Right now, I'm not going to go into how cloud gaming is a bad idea because of the usual stuff like spotty connections, lag, being a hostage to your service provider or the fact that you don't have a physical copy of the game (even though I just did). Rather, I'm arguing on the sake of just being able to play the darn thing. Taking the Diablo 3 analogy a step further, can you imagine loading up a cloud version of Red Dead 2, or Resident Evil 7 on launch day, only to find that you can't play it due to high server volumns? I'm picking on these games, and not games like World of Warcraft or even Modern Warfare because my concern is about single player.
One of the unavoidable ironies of the Diablo 3 launch is that the game can be played alone, single player, but you can't do that if the servers aren't up. And all the while you're thinking to yourself how it just doesn't make any sense! I'm trying to play single player for goodness' sake! It's like at the zoo, where a tiger is on the other side of the glass, and it wants nothing more than to maul me but it can't because I'm not on the same side. Even though the tiger can see me right there, not two feet away, but oh so frustratingly far because of the glass!
When I'm hungry for a great game, cloud gaming is that glass. I am the tiger, and the game is just on the other side, so close but so far away.
Anyway, this posting is more a rant than anything serious, but if given the chance, I'd go for a sunny forecast any day of the week.
Most gamers by now have lived through the anticipated launch of Diablo 3, but how many had had a good experience on day 1? The day the game went live, I played for about 10 minutes before the server kicked me out for a last minute update... and this is why I'm dreading a future of the cloud. What's that? Diablo 3 isn't a game in the cloud? No, but it's close, since you simply cannot play it when not hooked up to the internet.
Right now, I'm not going to go into how cloud gaming is a bad idea because of the usual stuff like spotty connections, lag, being a hostage to your service provider or the fact that you don't have a physical copy of the game (even though I just did). Rather, I'm arguing on the sake of just being able to play the darn thing. Taking the Diablo 3 analogy a step further, can you imagine loading up a cloud version of Red Dead 2, or Resident Evil 7 on launch day, only to find that you can't play it due to high server volumns? I'm picking on these games, and not games like World of Warcraft or even Modern Warfare because my concern is about single player.
One of the unavoidable ironies of the Diablo 3 launch is that the game can be played alone, single player, but you can't do that if the servers aren't up. And all the while you're thinking to yourself how it just doesn't make any sense! I'm trying to play single player for goodness' sake! It's like at the zoo, where a tiger is on the other side of the glass, and it wants nothing more than to maul me but it can't because I'm not on the same side. Even though the tiger can see me right there, not two feet away, but oh so frustratingly far because of the glass!
When I'm hungry for a great game, cloud gaming is that glass. I am the tiger, and the game is just on the other side, so close but so far away.
Anyway, this posting is more a rant than anything serious, but if given the chance, I'd go for a sunny forecast any day of the week.
Monday 4 June 2012
Superman: My New Favorite Hero
My favorite superhero of all time used to be Spiderman. But I'm not sure if that's so true anymore.
Recently, I had a chance to read through all 12 issues of All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison, Frank Quietly and Jamie Grant. At first I wasn't all that impressed (Watchmen is still my favorite graphic novel of all time), but the more I think about what I've read the more it grows on me.
It's no secret that, on the DC side, it's all about Batman. One needn't look past the two stellar films to see that it kicked Superman's last Hollywood outing in the butt. But I think it's more the sign of the times rather than one being a better character than the other. It wasn't THAT long ago (maybe fifty years or so) when Superman was top dog.
Thing is, if you look at the world around you, and then you look at what films make it these days and which don't, you can kinda see why Supes is playing second to Bats. Nowadays, with the less than rosy forecast (both economic and climate), people are more... negative... than ever. And that's pretty much Batman. These days, when you hear on the news of so many struggling (to make ends meed, for instance), you also think of... Batman! And it's kinda easy to see why.
Batman, despite his wealth, struggles every time he gets into his Bat suit. Just to get where he is he has to train for years with Tibetan ninjas and whereas Superman can leap a building in a single bound, Batman has to work out everyday just to stay in shape. In today's popular perception, Batman just fits more. Here we have a rich kid with a huge inheritance feeling 'just not good enough' so he has to don his bat costume each day and slave like a dog just to catch criminals who ultimate will always escape jail just so they can be caught again. It's rough being Batman, just like how it's rough to be human, sometimes.
Superman, however, is the total opposite. Here you have a being who's basically just... being himself. The movie Kill Bill told it best when the titular Bill said that Clark Kent is the disguise, while Superman is the real identity. Superman doesn't have to work out. He doesn't have to do anything to be super. He's super just cause of what he is and this is the important lesson. As much as we may value struggle, as much as we may value making it on our own through the sweat off our backs, Superman reminds us that it's enough just to be who you are. You don't have to DO anything to be super. You just have to BE super.
A lot of people, I think, have forgotten that message lately. Sure, we can't fly, or lift cars, or run faster than a speeding bullet but we don't have to. We just have to be ourselves. Personally, I'm a little tired of having to constantly struggle and to prove myself (especially at work). Now, I just want to sit back, relax, be myself, and STILL BE SUPER! And I think that is why I'm more inclined to Superman now than ever before.
Because sometimes, it's enough just to be who we are. Even if it means wearing our underwear on the outside.
Recently, I had a chance to read through all 12 issues of All-Star Superman by Grant Morrison, Frank Quietly and Jamie Grant. At first I wasn't all that impressed (Watchmen is still my favorite graphic novel of all time), but the more I think about what I've read the more it grows on me.
It's no secret that, on the DC side, it's all about Batman. One needn't look past the two stellar films to see that it kicked Superman's last Hollywood outing in the butt. But I think it's more the sign of the times rather than one being a better character than the other. It wasn't THAT long ago (maybe fifty years or so) when Superman was top dog.
Thing is, if you look at the world around you, and then you look at what films make it these days and which don't, you can kinda see why Supes is playing second to Bats. Nowadays, with the less than rosy forecast (both economic and climate), people are more... negative... than ever. And that's pretty much Batman. These days, when you hear on the news of so many struggling (to make ends meed, for instance), you also think of... Batman! And it's kinda easy to see why.
Batman, despite his wealth, struggles every time he gets into his Bat suit. Just to get where he is he has to train for years with Tibetan ninjas and whereas Superman can leap a building in a single bound, Batman has to work out everyday just to stay in shape. In today's popular perception, Batman just fits more. Here we have a rich kid with a huge inheritance feeling 'just not good enough' so he has to don his bat costume each day and slave like a dog just to catch criminals who ultimate will always escape jail just so they can be caught again. It's rough being Batman, just like how it's rough to be human, sometimes.
Superman, however, is the total opposite. Here you have a being who's basically just... being himself. The movie Kill Bill told it best when the titular Bill said that Clark Kent is the disguise, while Superman is the real identity. Superman doesn't have to work out. He doesn't have to do anything to be super. He's super just cause of what he is and this is the important lesson. As much as we may value struggle, as much as we may value making it on our own through the sweat off our backs, Superman reminds us that it's enough just to be who you are. You don't have to DO anything to be super. You just have to BE super.
A lot of people, I think, have forgotten that message lately. Sure, we can't fly, or lift cars, or run faster than a speeding bullet but we don't have to. We just have to be ourselves. Personally, I'm a little tired of having to constantly struggle and to prove myself (especially at work). Now, I just want to sit back, relax, be myself, and STILL BE SUPER! And I think that is why I'm more inclined to Superman now than ever before.
Because sometimes, it's enough just to be who we are. Even if it means wearing our underwear on the outside.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)