Sometimes, creative decisions regarding a game's content are based on the platform's technological limitations. Mario had red clothes on a blue background because the colors looked best on the limited palette of the NES. He wore a hat so Miyamoto wouldn't have to animate his hair. He had a mustache to hide his facial features because it was far easier than creating expressions on his tiny, pixelated head.
Fast forward twenty years, and graphics are infinitely better, but there are still limits. Shadow of the Colossus was critically revered as a masterpiece of modern gaming. The biggest complaint: the PS2 holds down the game from reaching its full potential. Graphics! No way. Can a beautiful game really be faulted with living on a system that is not powerful enough to support its weight? Well, of course it can. There was draw-in in the distance. Textures were grainy. Every creature in the grain had sharp edges that should have been smooth. The scale was terrific, but the game could have been better (read: more beautiful) if it had even waited for one more generation before being released.
For a PS2 game, SotC was pretty. However, when it was released, the 360 was set to come out the next month, and that was much, much prettier. If Colossus had been released 2 years earlier, right in the middle of the PS2's life cycle, it would have been much more appreciated. Comments on its non-beauty would be non-existent. Imagine if it was a lauch title! It would've blown TimeSplitters, Evergrace, and Summoner out of the water. Still, with technological advancements, you need to evolve and innovate. Even graphics. Yes, a game can be good without stellar imagery to stare at while you slice and dice enemies, but the fact of the matter is that you are going to be spending a good amount of hours in this digital world you just purchased, and graphics are the only thing you can see. Taking too long to develop a game (*cough*Too Human*cough*) makes its eventaul release unimportant, unimpressive, and unnecessary. It's a thin line to tread between getting a game on the market quickly and making sure it is bug-free. Gamers don't care about that. They want both.
Showing posts with label Mario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mario. Show all posts
Friday, May 8, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Turtle Power!
TMNT IV: Turtles in Time is going to be released on Xbox Live, and maybe also on WiiWare and PlayStation Network. It's based on the original arcade version (not the SNES one), and has updated 3D graphics. I own the original on SNES (I paid $20 for it too, that's a lot for a non-RPG Super Nintendo game!), and even though I could beat it in half an hour, it was still awesome! I try not to buy games that I already own... but I may have to make an exception for this like I did for Final Fantasy VI when it was re-released on Game Boy Advance. Woe is me!
...Heroes in a half-shell - turtle power! Sorry couldn't help myself. Everyone watched the Ninja Turtles show as a kid, but I got a bit of it on DVD on sale a while back and it doesn't really do it for me anymore. Puns are stupid, and that's all they spouted! Ugh, I used to be a dumb little kid too. Batman: The Animated Series is just as amazing and beautiful as I remember, however. And I just got the old animated X-Men series today too... hope it doesn't suck! I don't know how they determine which shows will stand up over time and still be at least palatable as an adult viewer. The Super Mario Bros. Super Show was a bad as Turtles, yet Sonic is still not bad, despite being voiced by Jaleel "Erkel" White. Now that there just don't make a lick'a sense!
...Heroes in a half-shell - turtle power! Sorry couldn't help myself. Everyone watched the Ninja Turtles show as a kid, but I got a bit of it on DVD on sale a while back and it doesn't really do it for me anymore. Puns are stupid, and that's all they spouted! Ugh, I used to be a dumb little kid too. Batman: The Animated Series is just as amazing and beautiful as I remember, however. And I just got the old animated X-Men series today too... hope it doesn't suck! I don't know how they determine which shows will stand up over time and still be at least palatable as an adult viewer. The Super Mario Bros. Super Show was a bad as Turtles, yet Sonic is still not bad, despite being voiced by Jaleel "Erkel" White. Now that there just don't make a lick'a sense!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Part IV - What makes action/adventure games so great?
Adventure games are the oldest genre that really mattered. Super Mario Bros. revitalized the game industry in 1985 after hundreds of awful games like E.T. on the Atari 2600 nearly destroyed it. The crap games were buried in Alamogordo, New Mexico, and turned into a parking lot. Mario, and other adventure games like it, live on.
First off, there is a difference between action and adventure games, but they tend to play similarly. There are usually more bad guys to fight in action games (think Donkey Kong or Sonic the Hedgehog) while adventure games tend to focus more on exploration (Metroid and Castlevania). However, the controls, demographic, and appeal of both action and adventure games are very similar. I will probably switch the terms action and adventure back and forth throughout. So sue me.
The things that separate action/adventure games from other genres are the fantastical settings, the memorable, often colorful characters, and the opportunity to explore the world and always be able to find something new right around the corner. Also, there's often some platforming, but it tends to feel like more of an afterthought nowadays. This wasn't always the case.
Platforming games that require the player to make precise jumps and perform specific actions to advance have fallen out of favor. On the 8- and 16-bit systems, nearly every side-scolling action game required at least some platforming: Mario, Donkey Kong Country, Sonic the Hedgehog. Now, however, all the platformers that are left really are kids' games (especially Disney games). Maybe this is because platforming is seen as simple and uncomplicated kids' stuff, but other games like Mirror's Edge have shown that with the right setting, running and jumping can be just as harrowing as old-school shooters like R-Type and Defender.
In adventure games, an interesting setting is required. Beyond Good and Evil, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider. You might be traipsing through a lush jungle, or you might be scaling over rooftops, or you could be on a freighter in Alaska, but you need to have a setting that sets your game apart. Even real-world-setting adventure games like Bully or Leisure Suit Larry have aspects of reality distorted or maimed to cater to the fact that this is a game. Unlike an FPS, you are not your character. You merely control them, and you listen to their story instead of being the star of your own.
The characters are really what sell the game though. If you have a generic main character like, say, Jet Brody from Fracture or whoever that guy with cornrows was in Haven: Call of the King, then people aren't going to buy or remember your game. If your main character is a bright orange bandicoot, people might pay attention. Until your games start to grow stale, then they'll quit caring. Sorry, Crash! The kind of traits that make a good main character will have to be another post, but let's just say that they need to be memorable to the players in order to make them want to buy a sequel. The game industry is a business, so you have to create cool characters to even have a chance of succeeding. Or you can make a plumber with a red hat and make millions... somehow. Hm.
Finally, the exploration aspect. My favorite level in Super Mario Bros. by far was Level 6-3. You know the one. The ice world. Nothing changed except the color palette but it made that one two minute level different from the entire rest of the game. That's memorable. If you have the first five hours of the game set in one huge city, then you break out of the walls a la Final Fantasy VII, you discover a whole huge other world. You aren't giving the player these experiences - he is discovering them for himself like they have always been there. You can always find something new, and that's why adventure games will never go out of style.
First off, there is a difference between action and adventure games, but they tend to play similarly. There are usually more bad guys to fight in action games (think Donkey Kong or Sonic the Hedgehog) while adventure games tend to focus more on exploration (Metroid and Castlevania). However, the controls, demographic, and appeal of both action and adventure games are very similar. I will probably switch the terms action and adventure back and forth throughout. So sue me.
The things that separate action/adventure games from other genres are the fantastical settings, the memorable, often colorful characters, and the opportunity to explore the world and always be able to find something new right around the corner. Also, there's often some platforming, but it tends to feel like more of an afterthought nowadays. This wasn't always the case.
Platforming games that require the player to make precise jumps and perform specific actions to advance have fallen out of favor. On the 8- and 16-bit systems, nearly every side-scolling action game required at least some platforming: Mario, Donkey Kong Country, Sonic the Hedgehog. Now, however, all the platformers that are left really are kids' games (especially Disney games). Maybe this is because platforming is seen as simple and uncomplicated kids' stuff, but other games like Mirror's Edge have shown that with the right setting, running and jumping can be just as harrowing as old-school shooters like R-Type and Defender.
In adventure games, an interesting setting is required. Beyond Good and Evil, Jak and Daxter, Ratchet & Clank, Metal Gear Solid, Tomb Raider. You might be traipsing through a lush jungle, or you might be scaling over rooftops, or you could be on a freighter in Alaska, but you need to have a setting that sets your game apart. Even real-world-setting adventure games like Bully or Leisure Suit Larry have aspects of reality distorted or maimed to cater to the fact that this is a game. Unlike an FPS, you are not your character. You merely control them, and you listen to their story instead of being the star of your own.
The characters are really what sell the game though. If you have a generic main character like, say, Jet Brody from Fracture or whoever that guy with cornrows was in Haven: Call of the King, then people aren't going to buy or remember your game. If your main character is a bright orange bandicoot, people might pay attention. Until your games start to grow stale, then they'll quit caring. Sorry, Crash! The kind of traits that make a good main character will have to be another post, but let's just say that they need to be memorable to the players in order to make them want to buy a sequel. The game industry is a business, so you have to create cool characters to even have a chance of succeeding. Or you can make a plumber with a red hat and make millions... somehow. Hm.
Finally, the exploration aspect. My favorite level in Super Mario Bros. by far was Level 6-3. You know the one. The ice world. Nothing changed except the color palette but it made that one two minute level different from the entire rest of the game. That's memorable. If you have the first five hours of the game set in one huge city, then you break out of the walls a la Final Fantasy VII, you discover a whole huge other world. You aren't giving the player these experiences - he is discovering them for himself like they have always been there. You can always find something new, and that's why adventure games will never go out of style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
