Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Move

2013-11-12T14:40:00.001-08:00

Because of an on-going issue with comments, this blog has been moved to

http://mistranslationsforthemoderngamer.wordpress.com

I hope to see you there.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

End of a Generation - The Best of the Wii, Xbox 360, and the PS3

2013-11-09T17:23:00.000-08:00

Here we are, internet. The next post I make will be a review of the Playstation 4, meaning that it's time to look back at all of the great entertainment we've gotten throughout the last eight years since the Xbox 360 launched. I figured I would try to showcase as many games as I could and give little awards as I go along to highlight what I see as the shining stars of the current generation.

I shouldn't have to say this on a personal blog, but these are only my opinions
Source

1. The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess

Awards

- Best Launch Title (Runner up - Resistance Fall of Man)

With all of the current talk about launch titles with the PS4 and the Xbox One, it's important to look back at exactly how poor the launches of the PS3 and Xbox 360 were with Resistance Fall of Man, and Kameo (Possibly Call of Duty 2) being the front runners. However, things were a bit better on the Nintendo side because they launched with a new Zelda game. Now I realize that this game was released simultaneously for the Gamecube and Wii, but it still counts as a launch title. Boasting a massive 3D Zelda adventure, no other launch title even began to approach the epicness of Twilight Princess. Even though I would consider it one of the weaker Zelda's made in the Ocarina of Time style, it was still the standout for all hardcore gamers when the last generation kicked off.

Midna made this game.
Source

2. Bioshock

Awards

- Best Environments (Runner up - The Last of Us)

- Best Twist (Runner up - Bioshock Infinite)

- Best Single Player Shooter (Runner up - Far Cry 3)

While Twilight Princess was a wonderful game, it wasn't the first great next gen game. This title is held by the original Bioshock. Released first on the Xbox 360, Bioshock showed the world exactly how great this generation could be. Set in the stunning underwater city of Rapture, Bioshock told a story full of interesting characters and unforgettable twists. They managed to tie all of this around a good shooter. Other single player shooters like Far Cry 3 managed to get better shooting mechanics in place, but Bioshock did the impossible by making a shooting game a far more intellectual affair than it had ever been on consoles.

What does the slave do?
Source

3. Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare

Awards

- Best Multiplayer Shooter (Runner up - Battlefield 4)

- Series Run into the Ground by Yearly Instalments (Runner up - Assassin's Creed)

The way multiplayer works is that it generally gets incrementally better, meaning that Modern Warfare does not currently have the best online shooting. However, I'm choosing to highlight it for such because it completely changed the gaming landscape and sparked off the shooter frenzy that we see today. Equally as influential as Golden Eye and Halo before it, Modern Warfare modernized (Pun!) the first person shooter industry, and has led to innumerable imitators.

It's like Ghosts but slightly different.
Source

4. Bayonetta

Awards

- Best Action Game (Runner up -Castlevania Lords of Shadow)

Bayonetta was not only the best action game of the current gen, but I would hold it out as the best action game ever made by a substantial margin. Building on the incredible lineage of Devil May Cry 3, Bayonetta provided us with one of the most unique games ever made, tempered with a combat system so good and addicting that more people should run out to buy Wii Us just so they'll be able to play the sequel. This game alone is enough for me to consider Platinum Games one of the best studios out there right now.

Why aren't you playing it right now?
Source

5. Rayman Legends

Awards

- Best Platformer (Runner up - Super Mario Galaxy 2)

Platforming is a genre that took off halfway through the generation when indie games became more popular and with them came the retro craze. However, the two best games made are still big studio releases. Rayman Legends is one of the best platformers ever made, and even though it was slated as a next gen title with the Wii U, it's launch on the 360 and PS3 make me feel a little better about placing it here. Rayman Origins was already a very good game, but Ubisoft went above and beyond for Legends and created something very special.

But, if you can, get it for the Wii U or Vita.
Source

6. Fallout New Vegas

Awards

- Best Open World Game (Runner up - Grand Theft Auto V)

- Best Open World RPG (Runner up - Skyrim)

Fallout 3 was amazing. Skyrim was huge and refined. But neither of these games even began to approach Fallout New Vegas. To put it simply - New Vegas had character. It oozed out of every carefully crafted character, every article of clothing and every quest. Where Skyrim had lifeless characters, New Vegas's came alive. It's buggy nature prevented many from enjoying it, but New Vegas is easily the standard by which I now judge every open world RPG, and even every open world game.

Bugs be damned, this is the best it gets until Bethesda lets Obsidian try again.
Source

7. Dead Space

Awards

- Best Horror Game (Runner up - Silent Hill Downpour)

Dead Space has fallen as a series, with Dead Space 3 being scary primarily because of the microtransactions than any real horror design. However, at the time, Dead Space had everything and more. It combined Alien and Event Horizon to remarkable effect. Not to be a horror game with useless controls like Siren or Silent Hill, Dead Space built off of the award-winning formula of Resident Evil 4, crafting a Resident Evil game better than either of 4's successors.

Horror fatigue kills the best of us, even Slenderman fell to it.
Source

8. Final Fantasy XIII

Awards

- Most Disappointing Game (Runner up - Resident Evil 6)

- Best Graphics (Runner up - Metal Gear Solid 4)

I like Final Fantasy XIII. Let me make that clear first and foremost. However, even a fan like me has to acknowledge that the game was disappointing. With all of the hype Square Enix had built around it, I find it hard to believe that it ever had a chance of not being disappointing. If you remember back then, Square was practically alleging that the game would cure cancer. When it was released, people found a story that may have been a little confusing for some, and a deary set of corridors with zero exploration for the first twenty hours of the story. I stand by that this is not an objectively bad game, but it was the biggest disappointment of the generation. All of that being said, this game is still really pretty to watch.

Lightning Returns on the other hand looks phenomenal despite its sketchy origins.
Source

9. Heavenly Sword

Awards

- Best Acting (Runner up - Mass Effect 2)

Never before early PS3 exclusive Heavenly Sword did I realize the potential for acting in a video game. While the game was a fairly generic hack and slash story with an interesting premise, the acting elevated it to something I knew I needed to mention on the list. Andy Serkis's King Bohan is the standout for the entire generation.

10. Kingdoms of Amalur Reckoning

Awards

- Worst Game (Runner up - Don't Care)

There are far worse games than Kingdoms of Amalur out there, so it doesn't deserve the title, but I'm giving it to it anyway. I didn't play a single game this generation that bored me to nearly the extent that this game did. With combat so easy that a turtle could get bored in two seconds, and a story so overwhelmingly generic, Kingdoms of Amalur was a slog, and the worst kind of game.

It's pretty - pretty goddamn boring.
Source

11. Little Big Planet

Awards

- Best New Series (Runner up - Mass Effect)

Many series got their start on next gen. Looking at games like Assassin's Creed, it's tough competition. However, Little Big Planet rose to the top with an ever evolving world and the amazing tool of player generated content. Others have tried to imitate it with varying success, but Little Big Planet has created a niche that I've very excited to see develop in the future.

There's something really unwholesome about this image.
Source

12. Nier

Awards

- Best Music (Runner up - Final Fantasy XIII)

- Best Hidden Gem (Runner up - Journey)

Nier is a game that few play and fewer finish. At first glance, it isn't a spectacular game with its ugly protagonist and basic hack and slash combat. However, nobody has truly played this game until they've cleared it twice. There's a reason why its fans are vocal, and it's because this is one of the most overlooked games this generation. The combat is simple, but it embodies dozens of different styles for bullet hell to hack and slash to basic JRPG. Then there's the music. If you see a list of best video game music and a track from Nier doesn't make the top five, that list is wrong plain and simple.

13. Dark Souls

Awards

- Best Western RPG (Runner up - Mass Effect 2)

- Best Use of Single Player Online (Runner up - Journey)

Dark Souls became a meme for a little while when an IGN article used the term 'Winner Dark Souls' when comparing Dark Souls and Skyrim. At the time, this was a silly boast since nothing was going to approach Skyrim. Well it proved prophetic because Dark Souls is so much better than Skyrim that putting them in the same category is an insult (Note - I'm batting around Skyrim a lot this article, but I do really like it. It's just not at the top). Dark Souls provided a hard journey that was epic in the truest sense of the world. More detail and thought went into each area than whole other games. Which is why Dark Souls is not only the best WRPG, but also the second best game this generation.

And this was probably the easiest boss in the game.
Source

14. Xenoblade Chronicles

Awards

- Best Japanese RPG (Runner up - Final Fantasy XIII-2)

- Best Game (Runner up - Dark Souls)

- Best Story (Runner up - Bioshock Infinite)

I've said it before, and I can't emphasize this enough - Xenoblade Chronicles is possibly the only game this generation that I would consider legendary, one to remember for all future generations in the same vein as Chrono Trigger, or Final Fantasy VI. Xenoblade Chronicles dwarfs every other game on this list for length, clocking in at over 100 hours easily if you DON'T do any side quests. If you try all of them, you can probably extend that to 500. And what's truly amazing is that it's 100 hours of gold. The story is amazing from beginning to end and it really pushes JRPGs to a completely new level. Even the combat reaches the gold standard by combining Final Fantasy XII's basic MMO-style system and making increasing its depth and the strategy required considerably.

Bigger than you could ever imagine.
Source

And that's it, internet, my top list of games from this generation, with a few low points thrown in for good measure. I'd like to say leave your favourite games and memories in the comments but I've been recently informed that the comments on blogger are crazy. So leave a comment if you can, and if you can't then know that I'm trying to work something out.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

What Next Gen System to Buy? - Holiday Shopper's Guide to Video Game Consoles

2013-11-02T06:37:00.001-07:00

It's two weeks until the release of the PS4, and, although, I don't want to feed into the next gen hype machine too much, it seems silly to continue on as if it were business as usual. So here we are with next gen upon us, and we're moving into the holiday rush, which is usually frantic enough for our industry without the launch of totally new hardware. While many people on the internet would have you believe differently, you can't really go wrong with either the Xbox One, the Playstation 4, or the Wii U. They all offer, or are set to offer, great experiences. However, that doesn't mean there isn't a difference between them, and you, as a prospective buyer, want to be aware of them so you can pick the console best for you. There are many info charts and graphs explaining the various inertia of each console, but in the end, what matters most is what games do the systems play. No amount of extra features can make up for a system without good games. Therefore, I want to take you through what games to expect to be able to pick up at the launch of each console, and then what games you can expect to come out early next year/in the future. That way you aren't stuck with great launch games, and nothing else, or bad launch games, desperately waiting for something decent to come out.

You can have them in any colour - as long as it's black.
Source

1. The Xbox One

The Xbox One has come a long way since its PR nightmare reveal. At this point, it's a powerful machine, though slightly less so than the PS4, which does not require a persistent online connection. It retails at $499 US and Canadian dollars, which is $100 more than the PS4. This is because the Xbox One comes with Kinect, which is a motion sensor, while the PS4's equivalent is sold separately.

Launches November 22nd.
Source

a. The Launch Lineup

The Xbox One has the strongest launch lineup of the next gen consoles. Fans of zombie games will love Dead Rising 3. Roman God of War title Ryse, while simplistic-looking could end up being a solid game. And Forza exists for the racing fans. The digital front doesn't look as good with the poor-looking Crimson Dragon and Killer Instinct filling the queue. This is all on top of multiplatform games such as Call of Duty Ghosts, Battlefield 4, and Assassin's Creed Black Flag. Altogether, if you buy the Xbox One, you should not lack for games to play at launch.

Dead Rising 3 is a silly game.
Source

b. Future Prospects

The future looks fair for Microsoft's new console, though it is a little shooter-heavy. Sunset Overdrive, Halo 5, and the impressive Titanfall will grace the system, though Titanfall will be available to PCs and Xbox 360s. Multiplatform for both consoles is heaven with games such as The Witcher 3, Final Fantasy XV, and Destiny coming to both the Xbox One and the PS4. The only issue with the Xbox One, is that, outside of its few hard-hitting exclusives, most of which are launch titles, we don't know very much what to expect. If it follows the same trajectory as the Xbox 360, I wouldn't not expect much in the vein of niche genre exclusives.

No gameplay shown yet, but, more than Titanfall, Sunset Overdrive is an Xbox One exclusive worth keeping an eye on.
Source

2. The Playstation 4

The Playstation 4 is the power juggernaut of the next generation, boasting more power than the Xbox One, and selling at a full $100 cheaper than Microsoft's console, retailing at $399 US or Canadian dollars. While it does not come with the Sony Camera (Kinect equivalent), motion controls are fairly useless to most gamers, and it might be better to not be forced to pay the premium.

Launches November 15.
Source

a. The Launch Lineup

The Playstation 4 has a weaker launch lineup than the Xbox One. Killzone Shadowfall and Knack are its two retail exclusives. Both look good and target different demographics, although, I can't help but wonder if Killzone will get lost in the releases of Call of Duty Ghosts and Battlefield 4. Knack should appeal to younger gamers, a demographic not really represented on Microsoft's console. On the digital front all PS+ users (Which will be everyone due to the free trial) will get the awesome-looking Resogun and equally intriguing Contrast for free. These games look like they'd be worth picking up otherwise, so that's a bonus. As with the Xbox One, there are plenty of multiplatform games on the PS4, and, as all reports have indicated so far, all multiplatform games actually look better on the PS4 as opposed to the Xbox One.

As the only next gen exclusive shooter, Killzone Shadow Fall is likely to be the prettiest of the bunch.
Source

b. Future Prospects

The three big exclusives we know of for the PS4 coming early-mid next year are Drive Club, InFamous Second Sun, and The Order 1886. This lineup is more diverse than the One's. Aside from that, if the PS3 is to be any gauge, the PS4 is likely to be the sole home of a mind-boggling array of niche JRPGs. If you're interested in this genre, then the PS4 is probably the console for you. On top of that, several of Sony's biggest studios have yet to reveal what games they are working on for the PS4, notably Naughty Dog (Uncharted, Last of Us), and Media Molecule (Little Big Planet). Aside from the retail games, Sony is set to get a massive number of exclusive, or timed exclusive indie games, which should retail cheap and keep everyone playing. As such, I would say the future looks a lot more certain for Sony's machine than Microsoft's, though that could change with a slew of announcements.

InFamous Second Son is scheduled for February so PS4 purchasers won't have to wait long for this gem.
Source

3. The Wii U

Yes, the Wii U is next gen, despite running on current gen hardware. It is the cheapest option, retailing at $299 US or Canadian dollars. While weaker than either other system, the Wii U's unique controller, and total backwards compatibility with the Wii and its accessories, make the Wii U a good pick for families and hardcore gamers alike.

Launches like a year ago, people!
Source

a. Games

The Wii U currently has a meagre lineup considering it's been out for a year, but compared to the other systems which are just coming out, it looks much better. With New Super Mario Bros U, Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate, Super Mario 3D World, Zombie U, The Wonderful 101, Zelda Windwaker HD, as well as a host of downloadable games such as Mutant Mudds, the Wii U is the machine to buy this holiday season if you want the system with the sheerest quantity of good games. From a multiplatform perspective, the Wii U doesn't get much. When games do get released on the system, it's a flip of the coin whether the Wii U gets the definitive version such as with Deus Ex: Human Revolution, or the weakest such as with Arkham City.

It's cartoony and familiar, but it's also likely to be one of the best games released this holiday season. Don't ever count Mario out.
Source

b. Future Prospects

The Wii U looks amazingly strong as it winds into its second year. With major 1st party games coming out such as Donkey Kong Country Tropical Freeze, Mario Kart 8 and Super Smash Bros, as well as strong 3rd/2nd party exclusives such as Bayonetta 2, Monolith Soft's X, and Fire Emblem x SMT, Nintendo has a much more bankable future exclusive lineup than either other console. However, for the other consoles, the bulk of their excellent games will be multiplatform, something that the Wii U will fall behind on almost immediately. Therefore, if you buy the Wii U, you're buying it for its amazing exclusives and not the huge variety of multiplatform games.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Monolith Soft's X looks better than anything Microsoft and Sony has thrown at us for their new consoles.
Source

In the end, you can't really make a bad decision. Microsoft has the best launch lineup, Sony has the best price and upcoming games, and Nintendo has by far the best exclusives. Fanboys and girls have already picked a side and demonized the other. There's no need to do this because every system is providing a great experience. For the casual, or just not insane, it is best to look at what games you will want to play. If you want JRPGs, you probably should stick to Sony or Nintendo. A launch zombie game that you can play for years? Then Microsoft is your man. Forget about the little details such as sharing, remote play, MP3 playback and the like. In the end, these are all video game consoles, and what matters most is the games.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Review - Pokemon X and Y

2013-10-26T11:19:00.000-07:00

Pokemon is a series that is a little strange. Unlike the vast majority of games from the nineties, Pokemon didn't simply exist on the tiny screen of the Gameboy. Instead, it launched off a cultural phenomenon leading to television series, movies, merchandise, manga, a card game, among others. For a time, Pokemon was everywhere, and every parent had to deal with the incredible pull it had on children. Nowadays, Pokemon isn't a cultural phenomenon. There are still television series, movies, merchandise, etc., but it is noticeably less impactful. As such, a non-gamer might think that Pokemon is a series that has run its course, whose best days are behind it. The non-gamer in this hypothetical situation would be dead wrong. Video games were what always grounded the Pokemon series, and sales of those games have never really faltered. The series itself is the most important handheld series in history, being one of if not the only thing you need to point at when justifying the need for handhelds - 1996 to today. All of this is to say that Pokemon X and Y are kind of a big deal for gamers, and the gaming industry as a whole.

And somehow the skinny dear version is more popular.
Source

The core experience in Pokemon X and Y isn't substantially different from the original Pokemon Red and Blue. You still start out as a kid in some no-name town, and you still go around to eight gyms collecting badges so you can become the Pokemon league champion, all while catching little critters called Pokemon to do your fighting for you. From the outside, a jaded gamer might remark that the game lacks innovation since the same premise is still being used seventeen years later. However, like the non-gamer above, the jaded gamer would be wrong. Pokemon X and Y is substantially different from even the last Pokemon adventure, no less Pokemon Red and Blue. It would be like comparing Super Mario 64 and Super Mario Galaxy and calling them the same (Which might be a bad example on my part, as many people make the same deluded mistake when looking at the main Mario series).

And yes, Pikachu can be caught early and he says his name like the show.
Source

The story of Pokemon X and Y is, as usual, the game's greatest weakness. None of the characters are interesting, and many of your friends are so generically designed that you forget that they even exist. Without exception, all characters in this game have the flimsiest of characterization, which can be broken down into a single line which never changes or evolves through the game. One of your friends likes to dance. One likes the Pokedex. One is your rival and he wants both of you to get stronger. And one just wants memories, or maybe to love Pokemon? I don't know. Her character is particularly blank. The team you fight, because you have to fight a team, is also blank and vapid. It's still better than the ridiculous waste-of-space Team Plasma, but they're taken way too far by the end, and it's hard to understand why anything actually happens.

Don't expect anything that leaves their mouths to be valuable. Not even once.
Source

I suppose I should be a bit more thorough in explaining how a Pokemon game works for young children and unfrozen cavemen who completely skipped the nineties. Pokemon are creatures of varying types that can be caught in the wild after catching them with items called Pokeballs. You then use your new pet to battle other Pokemon and catch more, all the while going to gyms to battle gym leaders before you take on the championship at the end of the game. From a battle mechanics perspective, Pokemon is a very complex game, although, you don't need to understand all of the mechanics to enjoy playing it. Pokemon are divided into types, each of which as its own strengths and weaknesses. Attacks also have types, which you can use to hit enemy weaknesses. At its core, Pokemon delivers the perfect combination of easy to learn hard to master mechanics, and an addictive monster collection system. It is the gold standard for all monster collection games, and worth a purchase for all of you cavemen.

I'm not saying that you should feel bad if you don't know what Pokemon is, but I sure am thinking it.
Source

Now that we've taken care of the uninitiated, let's look a little at what Pokemon X and Y bring to the table. I discussed how much of a difference the jump to 3D graphics made in this article, so I'll skip that discussion for now. I would say the biggest other change to the game is the introduction of the fairy type. This type is weak against poison and steel attacks, and strong against fighting dark and dragon. The reason why this is a big deal is because of the massive changes this could have to the competitive scene. Poison and steel are often considered the least useful attacking type. Conversely, steel (Who have lost their resistance to ghost and dark), dragon, fighting, and dark Pokemon make up the vast majority of the top competitive circuit. What this means is that fairy types have an opportunity to come in and turn everything on its head. For example, if poison Pokemon become more common, then psychic, their counter, will as well. Dragons and other big name Pokemon will start to have to arm themselves with steel or poison moves, or they'll risk being caught completely off guard, which means that move sets will become less predictable, as there won't be as optimal a coverage. Like the steel and dark inclusion in the second generation, this has the ability to really change how the game is played.

Clefairy/fable, statistically the cutest Pokemon, can now rip dragons to shreds - Justice
Source

Mega evolutions are a big part of this game's story, and are very fun, even if a little over the top. Basically, some Pokemon can hold items that will allow them to mega evolve during battle. These newly evolved Pokemon will gain some sort of benefit for it. For example, Mega Alakazam gets a massive boost to its already massive special attack; Mega Mawlie doesn't get any stat changes. Instead it gets a new ability which doubles its attack stat; and Pokemon such as Mega Charizard X and Mega Gyarados gain a new typing, dragon in those cases. This allows players to add to the general unpredictability of battles, as you never know if that Charizard will be mega evolving or if it is holding a different item such as a focus sash. Mega evolution, while powerful, is not entirely broken. You can only mega evolve one Pokemon a battle, and it deprives that Pokemon of holding a different item, which may be more useful. In-game, players will get a decent use of mega evolutions, but the vast majority of mega evolutions are obtained after you beat the game. Still there's no reason not to enjoy your Mega Gengar, or Mega Lucario, while you wait to unlock the rest.

That's right, Mega Ampharos. You are fabulous.
Source

There are two new types of battles in Pokemon X and Y, and both of them are underwhelming. Horde battles happen occasionally while you're hunting around in tall grass. These battles set your single Pokemon up against five lower level Pokemon. It's a neat concept, but they tend to drag on too long, and too few attacks can hit multiple targets. The other kind of battle is an aerial battle. These battles only operate if you have a flying Pokemon and are essentially unchanged from regular battles other than this restriction. If you're not using birds or the like, you are unlikely to see much of them, and more could have been done to change things up from regular battles. Even though these new types of battles are underwhelming, they join an increasing number of ways to fight in Pokemon, as double, triple and rotation battles return, although in a diminished capacity for the latter two.

One step closer to being able to start my illegal Chansey boxing ring.
Source

Pokemon X and Y is noticeably easier than Pokemon Black and White. This is partially because very few people (Three in the main story) other than you can mega evolve Pokemon, and partially because major fights such as against gym leaders aren't as punishing. Gym leader and the Elite Four have fewer Pokemon than before, and they don't cover their weaknesses as well as in Black and White. Post-game stuff will still provide a challenge, but experience Pokemon trainers will probably find this the easiest game since Gold and Silver. That's not to diminish the fun. Strategy is still important and the game gives you far more tools than previous generations. For example, while there are only a paltry sixty-nine new Pokemon in this game, I don't think there has ever been more available for you to catch. Even as early as the first gym, you have a potentially massive roster, which makes possible subsequent playthroughs far more interesting.

Don't let the fire fool you. You'll probably sweep this without a casualty.
Source

The game also adds tons of tiny little things that make the experience much more enjoyable. You can now customize your character, and I wound up spending a king's fortune on threads on my journey. There's something about customization which makes your character far more personal to you, and it adds a lot to the game. Pokemon Amie is a new option, which allows you to feed, pet and play with your Pokemon in a 3D environment. However, it goes beyond being a simple sim. Maxing out Pokemon Amie affection will lead to your Pokemon getting boosted experience, being able to survive fatal hits, more criticals and dodges, and even being able to shrug off bad statuses. It's surprisingly powerful to play with your Pokemon, and the interface is cure too even if it's begging for pervy gifs. In past games, EVs or effort values were a hidden stat that affected how your Pokemon's stats grow. Now with the ability to super train, you can easily train up your Pokmon's EVs in about an hour. It's a fun, though repetitive mini game, but it is infinitely better than the old way which involved mindlessly killing the same enemy over and over again while keeping a tally in your head. Tragically, IVs or individual values have not been changed.

Nintendo might not have thought this one all the way through. On the bright side, PETA might not have a problem with this part...
Source

Unlike every Pokemon game before it, Pokemon X and Y is on a system with a good online infrastructure, meaning that it can push online in a way no other game can. You can now battle easily and instantly with random strangers across the internet, or trade with them with a touch of the button. These features existed before, but they've never been easier, or problem-free. A new addition includes wonder trading, which is trading your Pokemon for a random one from another trainer. Many people complain about getting nothing but garbage low-level Pokemon from the system and that is mostly true, but you can get some great things. My wife, for example, was able to get a Dragonair and Pupitar, while I'm stuck with Scatterbugs and Pidgeys. O-powers are given to you in the creepiest of ways, but are actually a good idea. You get these bonus powers to increase stats like attack, defence, the amount of money you get after battles, etc., and you can spend them on yourself or friends. The catch is that it's cheaper (You have a regenerating O-power meter) to use it on friends, meaning it's better to have a network to support you. That being said, it's also easy to forget they even exist.

Realistically get ready to see lots of Caterpies as people try to game the system.
Source

Pokemon X and Y is one of, if not the best game on the Nintendo 3DS, a system which has been blessed with a huge number of excellent releases. Not only that, Pokemon X and Y is, in my opinion, the best Pokemon game ever built. The combat is better, and more complex, the world is engrossing and deep. The story is garbage, but it always is. And there's always something to do even in the post game when you're earning BP for rare items or hunting down that next legendary Pokemon. In short, I couldn't recommend Pokemon X and Y enough to any gamer young or old.

Score - 10

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Time For A Change

2013-10-22T10:17:00.001-07:00

As many of you may have noticed, an increasing amount of blog posts are getting cancelled. This is due to a rather large swing in how busy I am, and the fact that each post takes be between an hour and a half to three hours. It has only been getting worse since September and I'm faced with an unfortunate choice: I can either kill the blog entirely, or reduce the number of posts per week. Because I know that there are a few people who actually read this blog, I've elected for the latter.

In short, this blog will now update every Saturday. I'm sorry for any inconvenience this may cause.

Horrible Life Lessons Learned From Pokemon

2013-10-17T06:54:00.001-07:00

Pokemon is a child-like wonder world where children roam the streets and horrific cock-fights are construed as love and togetherness. It combines that kind of Saturday morning cartoon lesson learning and mind-numbing absurdity. While playing through Pokemon X and Y, I, as usual, couldn't help but notice some rather horrible life lessons people could take from the game. I won't cover obvious ones today like sending your ten-year-old out into the world with no supervision, or the aforementioned cock fighting. Those are too easy and have been covered by hundreds of people, including myself, in the past. Today, I'd like to look at some less obvious problems, as well as highlighting some new ones only possible due to the newest game.

Pokemon X may have sold better, but we all know which legendary looks cooler (Note - it's not the deer).
Source

1. Does Evil Pay Well?

In every Pokemon game there has been an evil team. The first two games got away with it pretty well because Team Rocket was supposed to be a crime organization. However, as the games continued, they started giving their teams weird motivations such as whatever the hell Team Magma/Aqua thought they were doing. Most of these teams have been trying to make up some sort of story as to why they do what they do, minus the evil part. For example, Team Plasma made an effort to say that they wanted to free the Pokemon. The problem with this is that the games never address the problems that the rank and file seem to be in on the plan for evil and very little else. Once again, this makes sense from a crime syndicate stand point, but if your leader thinks he's saving the world, and you're still acting like a two-bit thug, there's a bit of a problem. Also, who joins up for a club for evil?

I thought Team Flare was kind of lame. Then one of them used the term 'hot mess,' and all was forgiven.
Source

2. Online Colleges are the Future!

Since the beginning, you could teach your Pokemon moves via items called TMs and HMs. These are essentially disks full of information, which will allow certain Pokemon to learn certain moves. For all of the training your do with your Pokemon, these disks are the most effective way of teaching your Pokemon moves. Regularly learned moves, if replaced, get forever forgotten without the use of a move tutor, while TM or HM moves can be taught over and over again. This is especially strange when, in Pokemon X and Y, you finally get the ability to train your Pokemon in a way that doesn't involve beating up other Pokemon (Strangely though, it does involve balloons and soccer). All I can take from this is that we should all go out and buy the best educational software, because the best learning comes from disks.

Pictures of TMs are boring, so here are two completely sane individuals from Pokemon X and Y.
Source

3. What do you Mean Nutrition?

One of the new additions to Pokemon X and Y is a mini-game called Pokemon Amie. This essentially lets you pet and feed your Pokemon as well as play a couple of small games with it. What do you feed Pokemon, you might ask? The answer is sweets, lots and lots of sweets. If you want your Pokemon to be full, and thus happy, you'd better be force-feeding it a steady diet of chocolate pastries. That's exactly what your animals who were bred for war need. Forget protein (Which is an item in the game by the way), or anything like that. Pokemon creators know for sure that all Pokemon need is an insane amount of empty, empty calories. Now think about that next time someone sets a plate of broccoli in front of you.

And that was how Sylveon and all of my Pokemon got diabetes.
Source

4. Negligent Daycare Workers are the Best.

I said I wouldn't try to hit on anything others or myself had hit on too many times, but this is worth noting again. When you leave two Pokemon at the daycare, they will often get busy, which results in an egg. This confounds the daycare staff, who can't imagine how it happened, before tossing the egg in your hands and getting back to playing cup and ball, while dozens of Pokemon have unsupervised Poke-sex. The worst part of it all is that these idiots have the sprites of Pokemon breeders, but still don't seem to know how reproduction works.

Go ahead, leave your Pokemon with this childless old couple. There's no way anything would go wrong and force you to take a sack of Purloins down the the river...
Source

5. Go Ahead, son. Ride the Rhino.

Part way through the Pokemon X and Y, you get to a mountainous region, and to progress, you jump on the back of a Rhyhorn, think rhino, and he takes you on your way. This is not a trained Rhyhorn, nor are there any signs around to tell you that its safe. No. For all intents and purposes, you are jumping on the back of a two ton wild creature, whose skin is made of rocks and whose horn is big enough to warrant a mention in the beast's name. This is exactly the thing kids should avoid. I don't want kids trying to cross rivers by jumping on a bear's back, or really doing anything they might do in Pokemon to a bear (Seriously kids, don't go near bears). Of course, in the game, your mother is a world-renowned Rhyhorn rider, so it's not like the insanity really stops.

This is the last known picture of Billy before he met a very predictable fate.
Source

6. Nobility Means Fighting and Nothing Else.

In Pokemon X and Y, there is a building called the Battle Chateaux. In there, you are given the title of baron(ess), and set along your way to fight other members of nobility in order to increase your standing in society. What this means, is basically there's a building full of idiots you can battle over and over again, and stronger opponents will appear as your rank increases. Why would they make you, essentially a French noble, only to set you in an ineffectual battle royale against your fellows, while your noble title is worthless outside of the one house...? Actually, that makes a lot of historical sense. Ignore this one.

I'd say it was like Versailles, but by this point in the game, you've already been to Versailles.
Source

These are only a few bits of insanity that I've come across in Pokemon X and Y, but you'd better believe there are more. It's easy to get so involved in the Poke-world that you don't notice it, but the entire thing is batshit crazy. Like how water heals more than painkilling drugs, or how soda heals for more than either, or how lemonade heals the most outside of the hardest of core potions (Which I of course conceptualize as morphine). Pokemon makes no sense, which suits me fine. If I wanted realism, I wouldn't be playing a game about battling and training monsters to compete in the monster leagues in a world completely obsessed with monsters.

-Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Pokemon X and Y - When Graphics Make All the Difference

2013-10-15T06:53:00.000-07:00

Pokemon X and Y were released over the last weekend, and I thought it would be an injustice to not cover it in any way considering that the Pokemon series is one of the biggest in the entire world (Although that didn't stop me from completely ignoring Grand Theft Auto). The biggest change in the new Pokemon games is clearly the fact that it is the first 3D game in the main series. So I thought I would look at how graphical, and aesthetic changes that have greatly improved games. Gamers often argue that graphics don't matter in video games, and that gameplay is the all important factor in determining whether a game is good or not. This is a partial truth. The fact of that matter is that graphics and aesthetic choices can significantly improve your enjoyment of a game, even if they don't add a single thing to the gameplay. Today, I'd like to look at a few examples including the newest Pokemon game.

It's exactly the same except totally different.
Source

There are definitely games where graphical changes aren't noticed. These games are ones who mainly ever tweak the game, or whose subject matter is such that there isn't a massive leap between bad graphics and good ones. A great example of this is modern military shooters. Call of Duty, Battlefield, and countless others might as well be the same game. Even though the latest Call of Duty game looks infinitely better than Call of Duty 4 Modern Warfare, nobody is going to give the team credit for it because it's been so gradual that, truthfully, few people have noticed. It's hard to wow people with graphics when they've seen it all before. Borderlands is a good series for looking at how aesthetic changes can carve out a niche in an overcrowded market place. While many factors come together to explain Borderland's success, the cell shaded graphics definitely set it apart from the throng of identical first person shooters on the market today. Halo, similarly, often shirks traditional browns and greys in favour of larger brighter and funkier levels. Due to this, many people remember more Halo levels than any Call of Duty or Battlefield ones. This isn't to rag on the modern military shooters, but I want to highlight how changing aesthetics can set your game apart and make gamers far more interested in your product.

Could be twenty different games released in the last year or coming up.
Source

Pure graphic enhancements make a difference as well, because, as much as many old school gamers hate to publicly admit, a wow factor does improve people's enjoyment of a game. The immense scope of the now dreadfully dated Final Fantasy VII did something for gamers that no Final Fantasy had before. Gamers like to call this fluff, but it works plain and simple. The best games don't have to be the most graphically intensive ones, but pretty and impressive pieces of work attract people plain and simple. It's naive to believe that they don't. Some games go to far with this, however. Crysis was a bad, generic game that had nothing going for it aside from being obscenely pretty. It hid all of its incredible weak points behind a veneer of polished graphics.

Laughable now and not long after even, but this was one of the most impressive games ever to a whole generation of gamers.
Source

As part of this is the dating of games. What worked ten years ago may look horrible now. This is due to the progression of graphics and gameplay enhancements. For example, System Shock 2 was a massively impressive game when it came out, and, in many ways, it stands superior to Bioshock. However, few gamers playing now would be able to get into the cumbersome, and unfortunately ugly game. Many older PC games are held back by today's standards because of poorly designed, overly complicated gameplay. However, the changing standard in graphics also plays a part in fewer gamers going back. I don't want to derail this post by continuing to far down this path, but my point is that people care about graphics, and they can actively shape which games they play or not. And it's not a new phenomenon. It's existed throughout the medium with slogans like "Blast Processing," being thrown about in order to entice Nintendo gamers to the Sonic fold.

Sonic - the original graphics whore.
Source

So graphics matter and aesthetics matter, but what does this have to do with Pokemon? The reason I'm lumping these topics together is because it is important to note how important graphics are to a game before I tell you how pretty Pokemon is. We've seen Pokemon in 3D before, but never like this. Pokemon X and Y is a complete breath of fresh air, and much of that can be attributed to its graphical overhaul. Some reviewers have noted that the feeling is mostly superficial and the core Pokemon experience has changed very little in the generation jump. They don't understand the importance that graphics have on the consumer. The core game is more or less the same as it was when Pokemon Red and Blue hit the western shores, however, to say that the graphical change is superficial is underestimating how much people care about the visual component of video games. Gameplay is king, but visuals can enhance and excite ways that pure gameplay cannot do. And in this way, Pokemon X and Y's major graphical overhaul has been a massive success.

Don't forget about how fabulous Mega Ampharos looks.
Source

It's easy to dismiss Pokemon's graphical enhancement as being nothing more than 3D Pokemon, but it goes much deeper than that. The world feels considerably more alive than it ever did. Journeying long distances actually feels like a journey instead of simply moving from one screen to the next, even though that is exactly what you're doing. It's immersion which this jump has helped the most. Sure the 3D Pokemon models and the battles look better than ever, and are surprisingly also the fastest they've ever been, but its the world that really jumps out. Character models, though wasted a bit with forgettable rival designs, make characters jump out instead of being relegated to a scrunched collection of hard to see pixels without any character whatsoever. What is more impressive with the game is that Game Freak did all of that while making the game definitively feel like a Pokemon game. For all of the differences, I never once feel like I'm playing something different even though I am. This is a person who criticized Black and White 2 as overstepping it, and expressed a worry that Pokemon was growing stale. Only a few months later and I'm convinced that Pokemon is as strong as it's ever been. Why? Graphics to back up the already strong gameplay.

It may not look impressive on your monitor, but it certainly is in-game.
Source

I can't pretend my opinion on the importance of graphics in video games is a popular one nowadays. The people who follow the prettiest game are often dismissed as casuals by gamers as if that were an insult. However, even hardcore gamers follow the allure of graphics even if they don't notice it. Aesthetics and graphics go hand and hand, and when a gamer talks about the charm of an old school-looking game, they are making a judgment based on its aesthetics. Not everyone is going to jump to the most graphically powerful game, but to say that graphics don't change one's enjoyment of the media at all is short sighted.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Why Do We Love Horror? - (*Hint - We Don't)

2013-10-03T07:19:00.001-07:00

Why do we love horror? Why does our society pay money in order to get frightened by imagined horrors? These are questions I've heard raised many time, usually followed by a detailed answer. You get chemical incentives, there is a giddy thrill that comes from putting yourself in real or imagined danger, and so forth. I've heard all of the reasons, and I'm here to tell you that the answer to 'why do we love horror,' is that we don't. I personally love horror games and movies, but that doesn't mean society as a whole does. We don't value horror in any way, shape, or form. It's a niche market plain and simple. Fans of horror are passionate, and vocal, but isn't that the case with all niche interests? This is why horror is only profitable at a low budget. Whether Halloween, Paranormal Activity, or Resident Evil 1-3, pure horror movies and games are always kept cheap because the cold and simple truth is that very few people will buy or see them compared to larger blockbuster movies or games. That's not an indictment of the genre. I personally find the best horror movies and games are built with a shoestring budget. It forces directors and developers to be creative. However, it does tell you a lot about the valuation of the genre, which is important to note as we proceed forward in the games industry. Because, in the games industry, we don't have surprise hits like the Conjuring. Instead, we have failure after failure for horror games to make any impact, and this may lead to the genre wilting away.

Above: Everything wrong with the horror game industry
Source

This article was inspired by an interview from famed developer Shinji Mikami, the creator of such mega hits as Resident Evil and Devil May Cry. In the interview, he discussed the change in focus of the Resident Evil series from horror to action in the development of Resident Evil 4. The primary reason he cited was the fact that the Resident Evil Remake ("REmake") was a massive commercial failure. The REmake is what every old school Resident Evil fan wanted. It's scary as hell, dark, hard, and has tons of great ideas packed into a lengthy campaign that is great for speed runners who know exactly what they're doing. It is, in all honesty, a masterpiece. However, it failed miserably. There are many factors involved in its failure including being a Game Cube exclusive in a PS2 dominated generation, but the fact of the matter is that its failure led to Capcom turning away from horror in order to grab a bigger market. Resident Evil 6 was being developed to be more like Call of Duty (Capcom's words) because there is a bigger market for big action blockbusters, and, if they're going to sink so much into development costs, there has to be a big enough market to pay off.

This is a Game Cube game, and it's glorious.
Source

This isn't just Resident Evil though. Dead Space was everything horror junkies wanted with its Event Horizon-meets-Alien tale of enclosed spaces and the horrifying boogeymen who live there. But the sequel started trimming away the horror elements and upping the action. Then the third game came out, and I would hesitate to call the series a horror series now. Why did EA do this? It's simple: Dead Space was good and had a fanbase, but there is a bigger audience to reach if you can break into the action market. The carrots of Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto impact the industry more than most people will ever know. There is a good reason that first person military shooters have taken over this generation, and that a huge number of next gen games are going to be open world. Even in different genres, the influence is felt and the quest for more profit inevitably leads developers down the dark road of de-horrorfication.

Maybe in the fourth game we'll find out this one was all an illusion. I'd even pay microtransactions for it.
Source

This leaves us with the true great horror games of this generation. Slender, as I've mentioned before is everything you need in a horror game. It's tense, powerful, but simple. More importantly, it was so cheap to make that it was free to all. Cheap games don't have to worry as much about profit generation as the bigger blockbusters, which is why great horror games such as the Amnesia series don't have to compromise their horror principles. However, don't think for one moment that, if any of the indie horror greats got big enough, they wouldn't start to cut corners. Money demands a return. The less you spend, the less return you need to keep doing what you're doing. This is why series like Silent Hill are floundering. They're trying to work that magical balance between appealing to the tiny horror crowd, which is their main audience, and the action/adventure crowd, which is the audience they need to stay afloat. This is especially hard because, by appealing to the bigger audience, they risk alienating their base.

Amnesia: A Machine for Pigs is the cure for the horror blues
Source

What will happen in the industry is determined by the next batch of big budget horror games. Shinji Mikami's The Evil Within is set to be a true survival horror game. If it fails to make much of a splash, we may be at the end of the big budget horror game. If it comes out of left field and makes a massive profit, it could end up revitalizing the genre in the same way Dark Souls did for the brutally hard hack and slash adventure. The same is true for the next Resident Evil which is said to go back to its survival horror roots, although, I'll have to see that before I take Capcom's word for it. These games will determine the commercial viability of the genre in the industry. Costs to develop are only increasing as we jump to next gen and if these games cannot turn a profit then horror fans will be left with indie games, and the big horror developers will either have to downscale their projects or bleed out until the publisher kills them out of mercy. There has been a major change in the market. With the jump to the current generation, cost of development hit a new high, which has barred a lot of genres including JRPGs from being commercially viable. Horror seems to have fallen into this pit, and I cannot imagine what will happen to it when costs go up further in the next generation.

If any game can save the genre, it's this one.
Source

So we don't love horror games, and by we I mean the public at large. If we did. If we valued horror as much as the rabid horror fan then none of these problems would exist. There would be a viable and powerful market incentive present in order to drive the development of huge big budget horror games. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent to me that, like Hollywood, big budget horror games are simply not viable, and it is the smaller scale indie games that are going to emerge out of the wreckage. I hope The Evil Within turns this misfortune around, but at this point it looks like big budget horror could be on its last legs. Maybe it's a blessing though. Niche games developed by small teams often have the biggest impact. But I will still mourn the passing of a previously viable genre, which might get kicked out of the big leagues.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Valve and the Steam OS - Brilliance or Arrogance?

2013-10-01T06:13:00.000-07:00

I wanted to wait until today before I posted anything on Valve's new idea because they kept saying there was going to be more information leaked, and then there was information on the Piston revealed yesterday, which we'll cover later. I cannot stress enough that leaking barely enough information for an article over the course of a week is incredibly frustrating, and I'm not thrilled that Valve decided to do it. Anyway, Valve announced the Steam OS over a frustratingly long period last week. It will be a linux-based gaming OS to be used in Steam Machines, which is apparently what they want us to call Steam Boxes now. On top of this announcement, Valve also released information about their new controller, which is replacing analogue sticks with strange, touchpad-styled trackpads. Both the Steam OS and the controller are fairly major news in the gaming world as Valve continues to buck tradition in favour of innovation. It's a bold move to be sure, but I want to look at whether it is going to be a commercially viable move for the company.

Because basing something on Linux, the least popular legitimate OS is a smart move.
Source

Valve is one of the major players in the video game industry. Prior to the popularization of Steam, I would have told you that PC gaming was a lumbering beast with no chance for survival. Steam breathed new life into it, and made PC gaming far more possible than it ever had been under a secure, cheap banner. Valve is also know for its games including Half-Life, Portal, Left 4 Dead, and Team Fortress. The Valve faithful will tell you that these are some of the best games and sequels ever made, but, truthfully, Valve's tiny release schedule makes it hard for these games to outshine the infrastructure they designed with Steam. As such, increasingly, I have been seeing Valve not as a video game developer, but as something larger, something more akin to a Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo.

People would kill for this game. Me? I didn't think the first two were special.
Source

The Steam OS allegedly allows you to use and access any steam game through a Steam Machine and play on a television in the same way you can with a console. It's probably best to ignore the fact that you can already do this through your PC. The idea is that Valve will open up PC-only games to a wider audience who might not be able to afford, nor desire a gaming PC. It's supposedly a way to make a PC console. Despite the fact that Valve has said nothing about the big three console developers, it is inherent in their message that they also wish to compete with and dominate them as well as the PC market. They have one massive advantage with their OS and that is Steam. Unlike the new console generation, which, with the lone holdout of Nintendo, is bucking off backwards compatibility (Unless Sony's promises with the nebulous Gaikai are true), Valve will launch the Steam OS with thousands of games playable from the get go. It is a massive advantage in any market.

This is what Steam Machines bring to the table. But if you already have a PC, there isn't anything new here for you.
Source

That being said, Valve is almost certain to come out on top because they aren't taking any of the risk of console development. All they're doing is providing the controller and OS, while other companies can take on the massive costs of actually making a console. It's a smart move from a cost standpoint, but it also highlights Valve's greatest weakness: they are the most arrogant video game company I've ever seen. They are completely willing to give up control of manufacturing and development of individual consoles because A. they want to force the cost onto other companies; and B. they are so sure of their success that giving up control isn't a problem. The issue with the Steam OS is Valve's assumed success. They don't seem like they care to try and sell the product, only to reveal it and wait for the money to come in. Much of the internet is full of people frothing at the lips for anything Valve related, but if Sony or Microsoft tried this, they'd be attacked on all sides due to the announcement and plan's lazy nature.

But they can't be lazy. They gave us hats.
Source

Valve's controller is an unknown variable. We've gotten hands-on impressions from various developers, but I would trust their highly publicized first look opinions as much as I'd trust someone telling me they found a talking dog. It is a radically different control scheme that allegedly works with all games on Steam, and it's so effective that all games that weren't ever designed for a controller work perfectly. I'm skeptical to say the least. Lacking physical feedback on your main camera and movement controls feels to me like a surefire way to imprecision. However, I do value what Valve is trying to do. Innovation is smart even if it's stupid. If their controller works and works well, then we could see a revolution in controller technology. However, if it doesn't work as well as they claim, or is no better, then other developers won't have to waste research dollars into looking at trackpads.

I'm not buying the trackpads at all, but my opinion is worth nothing until I actually try it.
Source

Finally, I want to look at the Piston to highlight Valve's biggest problem with the Steam OS. The Piston is not in anyway affiliated with Valve, though it's developers strongly hinted at it awhile ago. However, the Piston is set to do the exact same thing Valve is promising they will do, but it isn't encumbered by a blind fanbase. It's a thousand dollar machine that is supposed to bring PC gaming to the living room. Here is my question: who wants that? PC gamers have PCs, which can be superior, and can already hook up in the living room. Console gamers have their cost-effective consoles with unique games that you won't find on PCs. Casuals are attracted more by gimmicks and Grand Theft Auto than Steam, and they actively fear the word Linux. What market is there for these machines? This is something that is actively questioned for the Piston, but Valve's getting a pass even though they are doing the exact same thing. I don't think it's possible for Valve to sell this system to PC gamers, who are their primary customers, and there is no value in it since all of its games are already available on the PC. That leaves console gamers as the only real target market, because nothing Valve has can sell to the casuals more than Mario and Master Chief. The problem with targeting the console market is that it's already overcrowded and nobody is particularly interested in having to spend more money. That is also ignoring the stranglehold the big three have on the industry, which they will use to try and prevent a viable fourth option. As such, I see two non-existant markets for this thing, and one, which is already completely overcrowded and highly competitive.

If anything we should praise the Piston for doing what Valve is planning way earlier.

Of course because of Valve's shoddy work on announcing this thing, we don't know enough about their Steam Machines in order to really determine how viable they are in the market. If they went the way of the Ouya and priced their machines at one-hundred dollars, they could actually make significant headway by undercutting the market and forcing everyone else to radically drop their prices. Of course, Valve isn't making the hardware so I doubt they can control the cost at all. I really think it does all come down to cost. People will buy it if it's cheap, and laugh at it if it costs anywhere close to what the Piston does. Really, unless it costs less than the PS4, I seriously doubt we're going to see Valve striking gold here. That being said, Valve has turned impossible markets around before, so I wouldn't put anything past them, and they have a much better chance of breaking in and becoming a runaway success than either Apple or Google.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Mobile Phone Games and Japanese Developers - Starting to Get Worried

2013-09-26T06:58:00.001-07:00

People calling themselves analysts, who have absolutely no clue as to how the industry works, have been saying that mobile phone games are the future of the gaming industry, mostly due to the fact that Angry Birds was successful. I can say without doubt that mobile gaming is here to stay for a whole slew of reasons including: consumer base, cost, and time. However, the idea that mobile phone games are going to replace large-scale gaming is just as laughable as when these same analysts were saying that gaming is doomed because of Facebook games, based on the success of Farmville. I don't usually consider mobile phone games to be of the same market as large-scale gaming, so it doesn't really concern me. But there's an issue that's starting to pop up. Japanese developers have been building an increasing amount of mobile games instead of console/PC/handheld games. This is more of a reflection on the rising costs of development and the weakness of the Japanese market than it is of the successes of mobile gaming, but this is something that chafes somewhat. The reason for this is simple. I, like many others, grew up with various Japanese gaming franchises, and to see them reduced to a pile of microtransactions and weak gameplay mechanics hurts. So today, we're going to be looking at this increasing occurrence.

Classified as a warcrime.
Source

I understand the appeal of mobile phone games from a developer perspective. They are incredibly cheap to make, costing a fraction of even the most paired down handheld game. On top of this, they have hidden potential to make a huge amount of profit. The idea is that a popular franchise can be made mobile, garner millions of cheap or free downloads, and then soar to massive profits via microtransactions. Simpsons Tapped Out is a free game that has made millions because of this model. That being said, this business model relies on a huge number of sales since many people won't ever spend a dime. This cuts out a lot of independents who simply won't get enough downloads on average to recoup their costs. But for big developers such as Square-Enix or Capcom, being able to profit from mobile phone games is about as easy as tossing an orange into the toilet, which is to say very.

Millions
Source

Square-Enix has already confirmed that an increasing amount of resources are going to be funnelling into mobile phone development. This began in Japan a long time ago with Before Crisis, a Final Fantasy VII spinoff game that the west was denied. Nowadays we have games such as the mediocre, but inoffensive Final Fantasy Dimensions, and the clearcut winner for worst game of the decade Final Fantasy All the Bravest. Coming up on their roster, we have a sequel to as of yet Japan only Final Fantasy Type 1, called Agito, which was Type 1's original name. Other large developers are dipping their fingers into this pocket as well. Capcom, to the screams of a million fanboys, announced they would be making a new Breath of Fire game, but it would exist purely on mobile devices. These companies have the brand recognition, they want to cut costs, and they live in an urbanized country where massive commuting is a daily thing. It makes sense, but it's still a bad thing.

Looks pretty for a mobile game. Would I rather it on any other system ever? Yes.
Source

Why do I think it's bad, you might ask? I don't hate mobile gaming, but I see it for what it is: a distraction. It's something to do while in a waiting room, or in line, but none of it has any depth, or scope. One of the most lauded mobile game series out there is the Infinity Blade series. I've played them, and I would give them very high marks, something in the realm of a 9, if I were reviewing them based on mobile phone standards. However, compared to even the weakest game on the 3DS, I wouldn't give any of them more than a 5. The reason is because they are completely different. These games don't offer the same gaming experience, and that's a problem as we see more and more familiar franchises get gutted in order to transition into the new medium.

An on-rails game where you swipe to win. Do you think this would score high on consoles/PC/handhelds?
Source

Following this, the issue isn't that All the Bravest exists, but the fact that it was enough of a success that Square is going to be pushing an increasing number of games. There is a cost to everything, and development times, teams, and branding is a cost of mobile phone development. The profits that can be generated from mobile phone gaming prompts the question as to why you'd bother developing for consoles/PC/handhelds. Sure millions of gamers want those games to exist and will gladly pay $60 for the right to play them. But the development costs are so much higher that they simply don't bring in the level of profit unless you make a massive hit like Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty, which no Japanese developer has managed to do over the last generation. Mobile phone development is a siren, leading unweary developers to their doom, or, in this case, irrelevance. I don't like seeing the Japanese market stagnate the way it has been, and mobile phone gaming, while profitable is going to make things significantly worse. If a company is choiced with making risks on a new IP, or pushing a middling franchise in a big way, or copping out and releasing a stripped down mobile phone game, which is guaranteed to make profits, there is a serious chance that IPs and former great series might end up disappearing into the void that is mobile gaming.

The only good thing about this announcement is that now people can stop fighting whether Dragon Quarter was Breath of Fire 5 or a spinoff.
Source

In the end, I hope I'm reading too much into the recent mobile phone game announcements from Japanese developers. It's starting to look like a trend, which worries me greatly. Mobile phone gaming is great, and it's a field that will likely grow by leaps and bounds over the years. But it doesn't hold a candle to any large-scale gaming. I like it when developers make good games, the medium they use doesn't matter. However, when I see developers taking short cuts, and creating weak, subpar games in order to maximize profits through microtransactions, I can't help but be angry. All of this has been to say: I understand the temptation to make mobile games. The profit available is huge, and the effort is minimal. That being said, I feel that this temptation leads to weak games, and prevents the development of better ones. Japanese developers are more susceptible to this temptation than most due to their relative failure to keep up with rising development costs. And yes, I'm still really bitter about the new Breath of Fire game.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Citizens of Earth - An Kickstarter Worth Plugging

2013-09-24T06:44:00.000-07:00

Today I want to take a look at a game that doesn't exist, but one that may hopefully see the light of day at some point. This game is called Citizens of Earth and it's being created by indie developer Eden Industries. Like an increasing amount of games, indie or not, Eden Industries is looking for funding via Kickstarter. I must admit that I don't usually trust Kickstarter projects. They often promise far too much, and the ones that get funded usually run into a whole host of issues that they didn't foresee, and thus get delayed or even cancelled in some cases. However, despite my hesitation with Kickstarter in general, it is undeniably an interesting way of getting a game, or other project funded, which skirts around a lot of the major red tape that has been leading to some really nasty business practices such as microtransactions, and the general move to make as many games as possible in the Call of Duty model in order to maximize profits, while removing innovation and charm from the mix. Those of you who read my blog consistently would know that I don't usually plug video games with the last one being shilled because it was for a charity. But Citizens of Eden is a game that I legitimately feel could be an excellent game, and one worth highlighting.

Kickstarter Link

Check out the rather detailed information from the team.

He watches you with his solitary dead eye, just like every good politician.
Source

So what is Citizens of Earth? To put it plainly, it is an RPG in the same style of Earthbound. Eden Industries makes numerous mentions of the famed cult classic as an inspiration and it's not hard to see Earthbound's influence permeating every pore of the game. The charming, cartoonish locals, characters, and the comedic tone all point strongly at that game. As does the stripped down battle system. I have read several people online complaining that they are ripping Earthbound off, but that isn't a fair criticism. Most games are built off of the shoulders of bigger past games. We wouldn't have Dark Souls if Miyamoto hadn't struck gold (While possible on Peyote) with Super Mario Bros, or The Legend of Zelda. Earthbound might be a cult classic, but it also is a game that has not been emulated very often. This is one reason why the game remains so unique, but it also makes it a rather untapped mine of inspiration and possible innovative thought.

While still minimalistic this seems to go much further than we've seen in the Mother series.
Source

The basic concept of Citizens of Earth is that you control the Vice President of World Congress of Earth. For reasons that are not clear yet, you will be recruiting average, and sometimes wacky citizens in order to combat something. It's vague, but remember the game hasn't been created yet. There is a certain collection mechanic to this game as many different party members can be recruited. It's a great concept and it's interesting to see what way they'll go with it. Will each party member lose their personality when they join you as they did in Chrono Cross? Will there be a plethora of optional recruits or is it primarily story-based. I can see a lot of potential with this mechanic if handled correctly. The key is that recruiting and fighting with citizens has to be a rewarding experience and can't become mundane. That happens in a lot of RPGs which employ collection mechanics of this nature, but the ones which pull it off really hit hard.

I certainly hope the mascot's name is Fryguy.
Source

One of the striking features of this game is undeniably the artwork. As mentioned in the lengthy and thorough video on the Kickstarter page, it would have been a simply option of going for a retro 8/16 bit look as so many indie games have. However, they decided, quite rightly, to go a different direction. Using charming art that resembles something more out of Plants vs. Zombies, the characters and world of Citizens of Earth are what makes me feel that this game has the biggest shot of being good. It's one thing to promise innovative combat, and a funny story, but you can currently see that the art style of the game is incredibly charming and worth looking into. That's a major advantage for a Kickstarter since many of them are full of such nebulous ideas that never really pan out.

Small, cartoony, but very detailed and, more importantly, charming as hell.
Source

Fortunately, I'm not at all concerned about this project being made should it be funded. Eden Industries is not an entirely unknown entity. They have shipped a puzzle game called Waveform, which received good review scores. Their staff also worked on several games, some impressive such as Luigi's Mansion, while others less so such as X-Men Destiny. That being said, since we don't know the exact involvement of which member, it is hard to fault or praise them for these games' relative success or failure. The point I'm making is that these people have made video games before, and the company has actually managed to ship one. That's a feat that few can claim. However, they aren't so experienced that it becomes ridiculous like when Peter Molyneux posted a Kickstarter as if he couldn't get funds otherwise (I feel bad for kicking Peter so much recently, but it's a good example). Kickstarter is often a trap because of inexperience and over-ambition. From what I've seem, neither of these are a problem here.

It's no New Age Retro Hippie, but who doesn't like to beat up protester?
Source

The Kickstarter is five days in and has reached ten percent of its goal. At this point, they are still a long ways off, especially since early funding and last minute funding are usually where the most money comes from. That motivated this post somewhat. I feel like I'd be doing an injustice if I didn't shill for a product that I believe in, and while the product as of yet does not exist, the people at Eden Industries through the thorough information posted on their Kickstarter page has convinced me that this product is worth checking out. If it meets its goal, the game will ship on PCs and Macs. However, if it makes 60% more than they are asking for the team will port it over to the Wii U, while 70% will see a release on the 3DS. These are lofty goals, but they are the versions I think would benefit the team the most, which is why I hope that spreading word of mouth will lead to a massive spike in backers. Seriously, this game looks and feels like it belongs on a Nintendo console, and I'd be disappointed if it stayed purely on the PC. So everyone check out the Kickstarter page, and see if this is a game you'd like to have made.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

It's Time to Stop Listening to Professional Gaming Sites About Next Gen.

2013-09-21T14:15:00.000-07:00

Today I'm going to be posting a short cynical look at click baiting at the beginning of next gen. I do this because I'm tired.

The transition between generations of consoles is always a major event, and even though Nintendo already has its next gen system on the market, it is Sony and Microsoft's machines that everyone is watching now. As such, a disproportionate amount of time and energy has been spent on almost every possible little detail. At first, this constant barrage of information is critical as gamers try to find out exactly what's going on with each major company. However, the information eventually dries up, which leaves a lot of hype and nothing to say. For example, information was critical about Microsoft's oppressive DRM regime, and it was equally important to find out that they reversed all of their policies. It is also important to know what exclusives are available on each system, and what the launch lineups are going to be. That time is over. We know almost all of the information, and what we don't know isn't going to be coming to light before the launch (such as Gaikai).

I read many sites daily, and I can say that IGN is the biggest offender by a significant margin. It doesn't make it a bad site, but there are some issues.
Source

So what we have been getting since Gamescome (Sorry TGS, but you weren't even worth covering this year) has been a fairly constant stream of editorials, speculation, and outright hype-mongering. For example, how many articles need to be posted about the relative power between the PS4 and the Xbox One? We know the specs of both systems, a fact that could be conveyed by a single article after E3. Despite this, I've been reading about what Microsoft employees think about the Xbox's power (unsurprisingly good) and what Sony developer think about the PS4's power (equally predictable). Even in supposedly neutral opinions, there is no content here. We aren't playing two games side-by-side to see who is at the top. No, all we're getting is a continuation of a conversation nobody is going to win, which exists for the sole purpose of fanning the console war.

This is pretty much it. If you don't understand tech gibberish, know that bigger numbers means better.
Source

And I'm sick of review sites pushing the console wars. All it does it further create some imaginary divide as if your ownership of a piece of technology actively creates an unbreakable allegiance. As I said, information is one thing, but a constant feed of "____ says ____ is marginally better than ____" is beyond useless and it's starting to get tiring. We've reached that magical period between the announcement of new consoles and their release where not a single piece of information is really going to change anything. For the most part, everything is on the table. It has to be because both systems are in production as we speak. If you found out tomorrow that Peter Molyneux supports Sony instead of Microsoft would that actually change anything? What if, as tends to happen in these cases, what he said was a minor comment in a much larger interview and that opinion had no content whatsoever? In both cases, the answer should be "no I don't care," but the second one is more annoying because that's what we're being fed constantly. We're all being told that Peter Molyneux and people like him have opinions that matter and aren't entirely biased. Why are we told this? Because if you think their opinion matters then that's another article to click on. Also for the record, Peter Molyneux is less important to the game industry than the Virtual Boy, not that you'd know that with how much he promotes himself.

He's trying his best to put his ego in the most flamboyantly grandiose terms.
Source

I hate sounding like a conspiracy nut, accusing professional review sites of click-baiting, but I'm seeing it on a more frequent basis, and it's starting to grate. It's not their fault. Everyone wants to talk next gen, and, without new content, they have to invent content that sounds like it matters even when it doesn't or risk losing a readership. It'll all go back to normal when more news starts coming out, but right now, there aren't many sites who are avoiding the practice. This is why I'm saying that it's time to hunker down. Next gen is coming, and there's going to be a lot more drama stirred up on every side. However, almost none of it will actually make any impact. I'm not saying to boycott or to stop reading your favourite site, only that the time for relevant next gen articles are pretty much over until launch, and that's something to keep in mind as various sites attempt at stirring up skirmishes between fans with alarmist article titles.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

When to Apologize - Final Fantasy XIV vs. The 3DS

2013-09-19T14:42:00.000-07:00

Today I want to look at apologies from developers in the game industry. When a video game developer makes a mistake, even a massive one, the best gamers can usually hope for is a flimsy verbal apology and maybe some free DLC if it's that kind of game. Publicized messes like Diablo 3 or Sim City can lead to minor recourse, but most disappointed gamers will never see anything. For example, Gearbox's Aliens Colonial Marines, a game that sold itself almost entirely on footage and concepts not found in the game, was released to massive outcry and there wasn't even an apology for the dishonestly sold and broken game. That's not to say that all bad games deserve to be apologized for, but there are circumstances where people expect them, whether rightly or not. Truthfully, the vast majority of the time, when gamers ask for apologies, they should not get them. Gamers, especially ones posting online, tend to be a bit of an entitled bunch and every developer ever would have to permanently assume a supplication pose in order to assuage their hungry egos. However, sometimes it is beneficial for developers to apologize even if they don't have to, and today I want to look at two high profile apologies: Final Fantasy XIV: A Realm Reborn, and Nintendo's 3DS. They will help me illustrate when it may be appropriate to apologize to the gaming community and when it's probably a bad idea.

Kitties make everything better...
Source

Final Fantasy XIV is strange. I'm not talking about it being a revolutionary MMO (it isn't), but for its unique development cycle. Originally, the game was released to almost universal scorn, a first for a numbered Final Fantasy game (even the currently reviled Final Fantasy XIII was given good reviews). Apparently, the game was about as broken and un-fun as it possibly could be. So much so that Square-Enix decided that instead of trying to patch the monstrosity, or simply move on to the next game, Capcom-style, they would rebuild the game from the ground up. A Realm Reborn exists as an apology to gamers, and rebuilding a game as an apology is quite a strange thing to do. Many developers are unwilling to pay for a team to patch a game, even a broken one let alone build an entirely new game on top of the old framework. At this point, it is difficult to imagine Final Fantasy XIV as anything less than a financial black hole for Square-Enix.

...Especially cat-boys.
Source

So why would they spend the money and commit the resources? Pride and branding of course. The fact of the matter is that the Final Fantasy brand has been sliding. While Final Fantasy XIII, and XIII-2 have their supporters, nobody supported Final Fantasy XIV. It was a black mark that even Square saw as an embarrassment to the franchise. The downside to Square's decision to rebuild the game is purely financial, however, there are several benefits which offset these costs. Firstly, there is the transparency, which Square has been trumpeting recently, where gamers and journalists have been able to track the game's progress. This led to a lot of positive press surrounding the game. Positive press cannot be understate, especially for a brand such as Final Fantasy which obtains a metric ton of hate on the internet for every millisecond that passes. It is clear that Square never intended to garner anything other than goodwill on this project, as evidenced by the fact they were unprepared for the huge volume of people desperate to play the game upon release. I use this game as my example of a good way to apologize. You provide a better product and are recognized by the gaming populace as going above and beyond.

Unfortunately, this still isn't going to calm the storm against Lightning Returns.
Source

The 3DS is my second example, and one I am far more hesitant about. Nintendo isn't great with launches, at least not recently. And the 3DS was hit almost as hard as the Wii U was with next to no games upon release and a schedule that didn't look much better a year later. To combat flagging sales, Nintendo took several steps, chief among them being an almost unprecedented first year price drop. Gamers who bought the 3DS at launch were justifiably upset. After all, they were the Nintendo faithful who supported the Mario factory before the 3DS became the juggernaut it is today. In an entirely unprecedented move, Nintendo listened to their complaints, and, along with a public apology from Nintendo's president, created the ambassador program. This program granted all early adopters a selection of exclusive Virtual Console games, and it was pretty universally accepted with applause.

This is the best reason to have bought a 3DS early by the way.
Source

This move, like the Final Fantasy XIV one, was done to save face. However, this one cost significantly less and set an incredibly damaging precedent. While Nintendo was playing nice, they also basically admitted to the world that the 3DS was a failure. But the 3DS wasn't a failure. It was simply waiting for games to come out. The whole affair made Nintendo look incredibly weak in the eyes of the media and stockholders. More damaging is the entitlement they brought. Prior to this, a price drop was just that. However, now, especially with Nintendo, there are murmurings of being owed something if you own a system that is having its price dropped. You don't. But that hasn't stopped people from rising a fuss over the newly price-dropped Wii U. The precedent set by this move by Nintendo coupled with the unconfident position it placed them it, make me feel strongly that Nintendo shouldn't have done this even if I personally benefitted.

Stop that, Iwata!
Source

In the end, an apology from the developer is always one that must be taken seriously. By apologizing, the developer is admitting to a mistake, a rather big mistake at that since the apology is public. Most developers, even ones that make less than perfect games, are still proud of their product, and generally unwilling to cower before fickle fans on the forums. The last thing that the industry needs is a tradition of apologies, which fans can demand every time a game doesn't meet their, often, unrealistic standards. Square's grandiose apology is probably going to end up costing them in the long run, but the good press should help to offset that cost. Nintendo's on the other hand seems to have created a particularly bad precedent. It's great for gamers who have been scorned to receive something from the developer, but, in general, it still isn't a great idea to issue apologies unless the developer can get something beneficial out of it, while minimizing the negative aspects. Admitting your mistakes is great if you're just one person, but a company has to be far more careful with how it portrays itself to the public.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

An Antisocial Gamer Enters a Room - And in that Room is an MMO

2013-09-14T12:51:00.000-07:00

Today I'm going to be a little more personal than I usually am, so bear with me.

I don't like playing online. That's not true. I don't like communicating with people. If I don't have to talk with anyone than I'm perfectly fine like in non-team deathmatches, or in Dragon Crown's simplistic online. You see, I like to play games at my own pace, and I especially hate having to deal with idiots nattering on and on about nothing. Hell, I don't like it when what they're saying is completely relevant. To me, gaming is an isolated hobby, only shared occasionally by friends who are in the same room. It generally stems from the fact that the vast majority of the people I know have little interest in video games, and the ones that do either don't have the same level of interest as I do, or are entirely interested in singleplayer experiences. I'm also a fairly private person, who isn't particularly interested in getting worked up by a bad online experience. As such, I'd rather shoot myself in the foot than go anywhere near something like League of Legends. I play video games for many reasons, one of which is to relax, and a bunch of people of varying age groups yelling at me, or actively trying to sabotage my efforts is the epitome of frustrating.

League? Hell no! Give me something I can do without all of those... people.
Source

As I've stated elsewhere on this blog, at the basest level, I'm an RPG gamer with various outlying interests. Due to that core interest though, I have dabbled in the mythical beast known as the MMO, which is short for MMORPG, which means Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (Be thankful we shortened it to MMO). My first experience was with Ultima Online, a game I joined far after practically everyone who cared had already left. It was an interesting dalliance to say the least, but I never progressed to any meaningful level. My next attempt at the genre came with the original Guild Wars. It felt a little like Diablo II, which was a huge bonus for me, but in the end, I just couldn't deal with playing with people. So I pushed my Necromancer as far as I could without grouping with people, and basically got my money's worth. However, my primary MMO experience came from Final Fantasy XI, which I played quite a bit (In my terms).

I think I killed an ettin once in this game.
Source

Final Fantasy XI had a strange build up. I played it on the PS2, which meant getting my PS2 online, which was probably one of the most convoluted and difficult things I did with the machine. However, I was steadfast in my resolve as I dreamed of creating Dark Knights and Paladins, and a huge world that was mine to take. The actual payoff was not as wonderful as I dreamed. I ended up playing as a Red Mage, and I made it as far as gaining the ability to subclass. As hardcore XI players know, this is not very far, but in order to get there, I did play with people. I learned what tanks were, how to manage aggro, and I really loved my debuffing role in a party. So much so that I think XI has the best interpretation of the Red Mage class in the entire series. However, I hit the wall with XI due to another major problem I have with MMOs and online games: obligation. As soon as I feel obligated to play a game, when it becomes more of a job than relaxation, is when I jump, pretty much cold turkey. This happened to me in XI, and I simply couldn't play it anymore. Then I lost the ability to go online with my PS2, and I really couldn't play it anymore. Still, I really had fun with my Red Mage.

My Red Mage looked like every melee class because I was at too low a level to look interesting.
Source

That was all prior to the current console generation, which is the generation that has really brought online gaming to the forefront. In some ways I find this funny. For an entire generation, the one where most people have jumped online, I have almost doggedly avoided it. Sure, I'll play the occasional deathmatch or the like, but I don't even own a head set, nor do I ever intend to buy one. It generally suited me fine because MMOs don't generally come to consoles, and I like to play a wide variety of games so I don't really have time for such a huge life-absorber such as World of Warcraft or the like. As I'm writing this, I feel like I'm coming across as being behind the times, stuck in some Nintendo-esque world where online gaming doesn't exist or is at very least fringe. I'm not. I fully embrace online gaming and what it has brought to the industry. The problem I have with it is personal: I don't like talking to strangers while playing video games. That doesn't mean I don't approve of where the industry is going, however.

Why should this have online multiplayer? It isn't like it would be the perfect game for it /sarcasm.
Source

MMOs are pretty much all social, so I should probably avoid them, which should be easy, right? It's not. And that's because I'm a fan. I'm a fan of many series from Shin Megami Tensei to Zelda. But one series that's particularly close to my heart is Final Fantasy. It's the reason I played online for XI at all. Now Final Fantasy XIV has been relaunched to almost universal praise, especially considering how unplayable it apparently was before. I'm an antisocial gamer, and I don't play with people. However, here I am, an Arcanist playing on Diablos. Why have I made this, probably disastrous, plunge again? Truthfully, I'm not sure. It's probably some combination of having few major releases before next gen launches in earnest, the ability to upgrade to the PS4 copy for free, my love of Final Fantasy games, and the fact that I know someone playing it right now.

It has the "fun so far" seal of approval.
Source

Either way, I've found the game very enjoyable from what I've played. However, I've yet to need to group with anyone, which will be the major tipping point. The real question is whether this antisocial gamer can get over himself enough to enjoy an MMO all the way to the end, or will I cut out as soon as the social element cuts in? Odds are on me cutting and running, but I feel like I have a chance this time, maybe that's a testament to Square's attempt to revitalize XIV, which seems like something I should cover soon.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

The 2DS - It's Not For You

2013-09-11T19:36:00.000-07:00

After Tuesday's brief look at Sony's new Playstation Vita TV, I thought it only appropriate to look at Nintendo's latest piece of handheld hardware, one which has been garnering no shortage of complaints. It was a bit of a surprise announcement that Nintendo offered the world. For their third SKU of the 3DS brand, they will be offering a cheaper handheld system that lacks the 3D slider, thus the 2DS. Since its reveal, the internet has been awash with hate. The design has been attacked for looking cheap and uncomfortable. The lack of 3D has been attacked as being confusing and debilitating. But all of these concerns ignore what Nintendo said when they revealed the system: it isn't for gamers. That's a simple, yet often overlooked explanation for the entire plan. The 2DS was meant for children under seven, and nobody else. Today, I'll tell you why the outrage is completely unfounded, but, if you want to skip the entire thing, here is the cliff notes: it isn't for you.

Repeat after me: this product is not for me, and that's okay.
Source

The 3DS is Nintendo's little handheld that could. Despite the hype it generated at E3, it launched to nothing but complaints from gamers who thought the system lacked decent titles, and, bafflingly, a second analogue stick. For its first year, the 3DS suffered to get a foothold, and professional gaming sites were quick to release any damning article on the machine. However, upon the release of Super Mario 3D Land, and Mario Kart 7, everything turned around. Sales picked up, and the 3DS very quickly became a juggernaut, garnering some truly classic games, and being well on its way to beating the Nintendo DS for lifetime sales. Even the 3DSXL, the first redesign, which still, bafflingly, didn't include a second analogue stick as standard was a massive success. At this point, Nintendo has pretty much a license to print money with their handheld, and the 2DS isn't going to be an exception.

Come on, Nintendo. There's a spot for a second stick right there!
Source

The 2DS is meant for children - entry level gamers. The reason given for the lack of 3D is because Nintendo has to give warnings for every 3DS that the 3D effect may be harmful to the eyes of children under seven. This basically means that Nintendo, whose games are traditionally kid friendly, is cut out completely from the child market. This is really an unacceptable situation to be in, and an obvious solution immediately presents itself. Nintendo got rid of the 2D effect, and designed the system as if they were making it for children. That's why the machine is ugly and boxy. Have you ever seen anything from Fischer Price? It all looks like that. Basically, the machine is built for the clumsy inaccurate hands of a child. The rounded edges take hits easier, and the lack of hinges means that there is one less part to break. It isn't perfect. I haven't heard anything of better screen protection for instance, but the design clearly has a target audience.

This is your multi-ethnic audience right here.
Source

But won't it be confusing, you ask? Gamers were quick to point out that clueless parents will be looking through stores for 2DS games, and have problems consoling the fact that the 2DS can play DS games and 3DS games, but there are no 2DS games. It's a hilarious situation to be sure, but one that is quite unrealistic. I'm not saying it won't or can't happen, but it isn't hard to grasp the concept that a machine "can play all the games in the following sections." Dumb parents not understanding technology is something that the internet loves to make fun of, but most people have enough sense to understand such a basic concept. Is the marketing clear? No, not at all. Will people be able to deal with it? Yes.

"I thought this was supposed to play Nintendo games, but where do I put the cartridge?"
Source

The other major complaint is the lack of 3D. While many gamers play almost exclusively without moving the 3D slider up even a little bit, there is a dedicated group that is adamant that no 3D means that some games, particularly Super Mario 3D Land will be completely unplayable for 2DS users. This is a completely ridiculous claim. Super Mario 3D Land is the only game I've seen that uses the 3D in such a way that you need the 3D slider turned up to win. However, these are only for a handful of bonus stages inside levels, which are by no means necessary in order to beat the game. Every other game on the system doesn't require 3D in order to pass anything. In fact, many gamers care so little for the 3D that I doubt total removal of the feature would bother too many.

Not only can children play this game on the 2DS, but I also thoroughly recommend it.
Source

Finally, Nintendo may be idiots when it comes to marketing and strategizing around their console, but they know handhelds really well. They were the ones who secured Monster Hunter on the day the Vita launched after all. In a similar display of cunning, they are launching the 2DS with Pokemon X and Y. If you've been living under a rock, Pokemon is a massive worldwide phenomenon which simply won't stop, and every game is enough to sell millions of systems. It is also incredibly kid friendly, and Nintendo will be packing a cheaper, kid friendly machine with these games. It's a brilliant idea, which should result in a ton of sales right of the bat.

He's not throwing a pokeball. No, he's pointing at victory.
Source

The fact of the matter is I don't want a 2DS, nor should I. It isn't for me. It isn't for gamers, and it isn't supposed to be some new redesign that will replace all of the others. What it is is a system that can be sold to a much younger clientele, and at that job, it succeeds. It doesn't even need to sell exceptionally, as it's just one more part of the 3DS' global dominance of the handheld market. As such, I see no reason for flaming wars, or massive protests across the internet. That would be like complaining over the large, toddler-sized Lego blocks because they weren't as awesome as the spaceships or castles. Gamers aren't the target audience here, and, as much as that hurts, that's not a bad thing.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Playstation Vita TV - A Brilliant Idea, or the Last Nail?

2013-09-10T07:00:00.002-07:00

The other day, Sony announced at a pre-Tokyo Game Show event, that they would be bringing a new type of hardware to the market. Dubbing it 'the Playstation Vita TV,' this tiny little box connects with you television and allows you to play Vita games, PSP games, PS1 classics, and stream various services such as Hulu or Netflix. This is a bit of a shock for me, personally, as Sony tied this announcement with a cheaper redesign of their premium handheld, which removes the amazing OLED screen, replacing it with a regular LCD one. From what I can tell, there is a slot in the side of the box, which accepts Vita games, or Vita memory cards. You will then be able to access essentially all of the content you have available on the Playstation Vita. Most interestingly, this system comes in at the yen equivalent of $100, meaning it is significantly cheaper than the Vita itself. The real question, which we're going to be looking at briefly today is whether this device is a smart more, a waste of money, or, more troubling, a terrible omen for Sony's flagging handheld.

I will admit, having R2 and L2 sure as hell beats that horrible back touch screen.
Source

Firstly, I'm old enough to remember the Super Gameboy. This wonderful device allowed you to plug your Gameboy cartridges into the Super Nintendo and play them on the big screen. There was also a version of this for the Gameboy Advance that you could use on your Game Cube. Basically, the idea of playing your handheld games on the large screen isn't new or innovating, and the only reason Nintendo probably haven't done it since the Gameboy Advance is due to the requirement of two screens for DS and 3DS games (Although, the Wii U should fix this limitation). The Super Gameboy and its successor were undoubtably fun, especially due to the fact that Gameboys and the original run of GBAs were rather cumbersome, neither of which being backlit, which meant finding a proper light source in order to play. It also allowed you to pretend that Pokemon was a console game, which was enough of a selling point for many people.

Nobody is going to declare this a pretty machine, but it worked and it worked well.
Source

Cutting to the chase, the big problem I see with the PVTV is that it removes the necessity to actually own a Vita. Of course, if you want to play portably you'll still need a machine, but if you're simply interested in several of the games, you now have a much cheaper alternative to buying the system itself. I see this as a fairly dangerous gamble considering that the Vita has a huge attach rate, but rather low sales of the hardware itself. Both the Super Gameboy and the Gameboy Player came out years after the release of the original handheld, which allowed that handheld to establish themselves quite effectively. The Vita still has a long way to go in order to convince the gaming populace as a whole that it's relevant, and this seems like it could prove the exact opposite.

Of course, if you're interested in Uncharted, just buy the ones on the PS3.
Source

The reason I'm worried about this is due to the general ideology that has come with developing for the Playstation Vita. Unlike the 3DS, which touts purely handheld games, the Vita has always marketed itself as being a portable gaming console. I point to this marketing as the primary failure of Sony's machine. Most games developed for the Vita feel like watered down ports of games that are done better on consoles. Despite the fact that it is a success to have such an experience portable, it makes it harder to justify a machine for a game you already own in some capacity. As more unique games come into the Vita, this will be less of a concern, but, as it is now, the Vita is hard to justify over a Playstation 3 for many people and handheld gaming systems don't sell simply on the virtue of being portable. Games are what entice gamers. Having a new piece of hardware that puts Vita games on the television only furthers the image that the Vita is simply a poor man's PS3, which is exactly the opposite Sony wants to go considering that they are currently running the premium handheld against the far more economical and kid-friendly 3DS.

Nope, this never disappointed anyone...
Source

Of course, to the consumer, this is a wholly beneficial development. Now Vita owners have the opportunity to play any Vita game in a completely new environment, albeit at a lower resolution. And PSP games that should have been made for consoles to begin with (Valkyria Chronicles 2) finally have a chance to be on the big screen. And non-Vita owners now don't have to shell out over two-hundred dollars in order to play Persona 4: The Golden. The consumer wins here, but Sony might lose, which is bad for the consumer in the long term. If the Vita's sales don't pick up (And Sony is trying their hardest to push the little machine) then fewer games will be developed for it. And, more frightening, if the PVTV outsells the Vita, then what we're left with is completely failed handheld and an almost mimicry of the Ouya.

Personally, I don't care how you buy this game, just do it.
Source

It's unclear at this point exactly what effect the PVTV will have on the market. Worries such as mine could be completely unfounded, and this may only continue to push the Vita as a brand name. Truthfully, along with its significant PS4 integration, the Vita could become very popular very fast. At the same time, I can't help but feel that Sony might be obsoleting their machine, creating a primary hardware instead of a complementary one. The last thing I think Sony wants is for people to be buying a Vita so they can play PVTV games portably. That being said, everything I've read for the PVTV has been mostly positive, unlike Nintendo's 2DS, which has been getting a huge backlash, so maybe I'm just reading in problems where none exist.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Review - Rayman Legends - A Cut Above the Rest

2013-09-05T09:20:00.000-07:00

Rayman Legends is a game that is not without some controversy. Originally, it was a Wii U exclusive that was set to be released earlier this summer. However, due to Wii U's less than impressive sales within those early months, Ubisoft decided to port it to every other system under the sun. Unfortunately, this led to a fairly substantial delay so Ubisoft could release all versions at once. Due to the last minute nature of the porting, Rayman Legends looks and feels like a Wii U game, to the detriment of almost every other platform. Truthfully, the experience is so different between 360, PS3, and Wii U, that I actually wouldn't recommend this game on any platform other than the Wii U with the possible exception of the Playstation Vita, whose touch screen remedies many of the problems found in other versions. That is, of course, if you have any intention of ever buying a Wii U. For those who have no interest in Nintendo's new machine, then I most assuredly recommend picking it up on another platform with the caveat that you are getting a significantly inferior version. Those of you with Wii Us have the option of picking up what I would consider the best 2D platformer since Donkey Kong Country 2, and I don't make that statement lightly.

Gender and amphibian equality for the win.
Source

I don't know what Rayman Legends is about. Never having grown up with the Rayman series, I can't identify any of the characters and the game doesn't go out of its way to explain anything. This suits me fine as Rayman Legends mimics many old platformers in its sheer insanity. You will be collecting a variety of blue guys called teensies, who are held captive by evil blue guys who seem to be nightmare versions of those teensies. However, you don't care. All that matters is the gameplay. Rayman himself isn't even necessary in this game as you have the ability to change what character you play as from the get go. In fact, after unlocking the female warrior line of characters, I never played as Rayman again. In some cases, barebones stories like this don't work. But this harkens back to the old style where plots were meaningless, and it was best to just accept what was going on. You don't need to know if some princess was captured, only that there are enemies to kill and random things to collect as you constantly move to the right.

Its best not to look for logic in this world.
Source

Rayman Legends follows the amazing gameplay and graphical style that was seen in the critical darling Rayman Origins. You'll spend most of your time travelling to the left of the screen. There is a run button, a jump button, an attack button. Really, the controls are standard for the kind of platformer it is. The big advantage this game has over others is the level of precision found in the controls. I've heard complaints that this game has flighty controls and I couldn't disagree more. Clearing many of the challenges and levels at high levels has done nothing but prove to me that Rayman Legends has one of the most accurate and precise controls out there, miles ahead of the stiff, often clunky controls found in Donkey Kong Country Returns. If the controls were poor, many of the game's challenges would be simply impossible, which makes me wonder on the credibility of the game's detractors.

I can't even imagine why people think the controls in this game are anything less than stellar.
Source

There are five main worlds in Rayman Legends. Each one contains various levels of four main types: platforming, Murphy, boss, and music. Platforming levels are the most common. These are basic 'make it to the end' levels with various hidden teensies in between. It is basic fare, but the level design is far above what you see in traditional platforming. One moment, you'll be going through a regular jungle, and the next you'll be avoiding search lights in an secret submarine decked out in an early James Bond theme. Murphy levels are why the Wii U version is completely superior. During these levels, you will control Murphy the fly on the touch screen and clear a path for the an AI, or player controlled friends. These levels make great use of the gamepad, and tend to do so in interesting and unique ways such as holding a shield above players to avoid bouncing fireballs, or clearing a path through delicious pastry. For non-Wii U users, a button press does the same job, but it takes the entire fun out of the levels. The biggest problem for non-Wii U users is that there are almost as many Murphy levels as there are platforming ones, meaning nearly half of the game is more or less a chore.

That's Murphy down there. He's either a great change of pace or a complete waste of time depending on the version you're playing.
Source

Boss levels are a little underwhelming. The bosses themselves are huge and fun to look at, but none of them are anyway harder than the levels you cleared to get to them, which is a shame as they could have been much more epic if the difficulty was above easy. There were some great ideas here, particularly the giant luchador fight, but simplicity made them pretty much an after thought. Musical levels on the other hand are the highlight of the game. At the end of each world, you are treated to a chase level where music plays in time to your jumps and attacks. It's truthfully something I've never seen before in a platformer, and something I'm extremely keen to see again. While few of the musical levels are as inspiring as Castle Rock, which is included in the demo, all of them are major reasons to want to push through the five worlds.

This is after crawling through an endless variety of butter platforms and snake-ridden cakes.
Source

With only five worlds, which can be cleared within five hours, you'd think that Rayman Legends is a game devoid of content. You would be wrong in this thought. There are trophies attached to each level obtainable by collecting teensies and getting enough lums (think coins) in each level. This gives you an incentive to go back and play again. Trophies are tied to a universal 'awesomeness' rank which serves little purpose outside of online bragging rights. By collecting enough lums in a level, you unlock scratching tickets which randomly award you various things. These include more lums which are used to unlock a rather large variety of character skins to play as; a creature, which are collectible pets you can view and earn more lums from daily; teensies, which are used to unlock more levels in the main game; and revamped Rayman Origins levels. These levels are numerous, and each has been tailored to fit with Legends' new mechanics including new collectible teensies. Also, as you collect more lums, previously beaten levels will be invaded, which basically lets you play a speed run version of that level. On top of this, the challege app that was released for sore Wii U users back when the game was first delayed is in the game in its entirety. This means there are daily and weekly challenges for you to compete across various leaderboards. This alone gives, Rayman Legends more content that the vast majority of platfomers on the market.

The Vita version currently doesn't have the invasion levels, but they are being patched in soon so don't fear.
Source

Graphically, there isn't much more I can say that the screenshots I've posted don't. This is an amazingly beautiful game. Not only are the graphics crisp and well animated, but the art style is one that will keep you coming back again and again. Musically, the game is also a triumph, reminding you of times when platformers had some of the best music in the business. There isn't really any voice acting in the game. The team made the decision to have each character and enemy speak gibberish most of the time with only the occasional familiar world to ground it in some kind of reality. This generally works due to the cartoony style of graphics, and, I for one, have no interest in any dialogue or story getting in the way of good gameplay.

This game can be called many things, but ugly isn't one of them.
Source

For Wii U users, Rayman Legends is now the best game on the system. It makes The New Super Mario Bros U look like a complete joke by comparison. Unfortunately, for PS3/360 users, Rayman Legends is still very much tailored to the Wii U, meaning that a large portion of the game has its fun drained away. Even so, Rayman Legends is a triumph, one that I have a very hard time coming up with any significant downsides. Therefore, for the Wii U version, I'm giving it a perfect score, while you can safely deduct up to two points for the PS3 or 360 version. It's a shame, but too much of the game was based on exclusivity to a unique platform, and the game suffers for it.

Score 10

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

And Now We Hate Independent Games - Console War Madness

2013-09-03T06:29:00.003-07:00

While I was on vacation, Sony highlighted its commitment to indie developers at its Gamescom presentation. The juggernaut company announced fifteen games that would be coming to the PS4/Vita either as pure exclusives, console exclusives, or timed exclusives. Overall, it was very impressive with a slew of unique games being released, and it was prescient on Sony's part to understand exactly how critical it is to court the independent market, which is the fastest growing market out there. AAA game development on the other hand is becoming increasingly more difficult and fewer publishers are willing to take any risk. Even if you don't play many independent games at the moment, it is still a massive deal that Sony is putting so much of its resources in this market, which should ensure a slew of unique and constant content for the new system. However, we must not forget that prior to a console launch, the console wars are raging at their very hardest, so Sony's Gamescom conference was not met with any of the praise it deserved, but is instead ridiculed for strange and sad reasons. Today we're going to be looking at this backlash.

I know Sony's trying to tell us something, but I can't tell what it is...
Source

The first bit of backlash comes as a predictable by-product of the console wars: Xbox One fans are going to ridicule it. Dubbing the system, the Indiestation 4, these fans have decided that Sony blew the Gamescom conference because they didn't announce anything that blew them away. In truth, it wouldn't matter what Sony announced. Fans, both of the boy and girl variety, are in their very nature blind to any positives from the other side and all have a tendency to prop up their own position, whether to justify their purchase, or simply due to an incomprehensible sense of brand loyalty. The attack waged against Sony by these isn't that they are supporting indies (Microsoft is as well after a little arm twisting), but more how much they are supporting indies, believing that Sony is putting way too much emphasis on this because they don't have anything worth showing.

Aside: I feel bad for Killzone. It's always compared to Halo, and never allowed to stand on its own.
Source

This same attack has been levied by Sony fans as well. Microsoft has been getting a lot of good press ever since it revealed to the world that every single thing they told us about the Xbox One is no longer true. As such, Microsoft is looking very competitive right now, and Sony fans are worried about this. Sony itself said that they had a lot planned for Gamescom and these fans assumed that there was going to be some massive reveal that would put Microsoft "in its place," or some other console war rhetoric. Theories ranged from more launch games, to a new Uncharted or God of War, to even Final Fantasy XV becoming PS4 exclusive. This wild speculation led to disappointment when Sony's actual announcement was a continuation of its E3 policy to support indie gamers. Disappointment is a powerful force on the internet. While regular people in real life, people on the internet react to disappointment with all the poise and decorum of a two-year-old getting their favourite toy taken away from them. Disappointment led to Final Fantasy XIII being not simply a mediocre Final Fantasy game, but an appalling stain on our culture. The same is true here. Despite the variety of great announcements, the lack of surprising major AAA titles meant that Sony's conference was going to disappoint many, and these people were going to let you know.

People actually expected to see a sequel to this game (Cancelled), so there was going to be disappointment no matter what.
Source

A big part of the problem is that most gamers didn't watch the Gamescom conference, nor did they watch any of the videos. All they did was see a slew of unfamiliar titles, file them away in their head instead of watching any videos, and move on. This has led to many gamers pretending as if indie was a genre, and the PS4 is going to be over saturated by indie games. Indie is not a genre, people. Indie games range from huge sprawling RPGs, to racing games, to platformers, to adventure games, to action games, and everything in between. Some have a retro art style or design, while others utilize more modern aesthetics. There isn't any indie game that you can point to and say "All indie games are exactly like that." Despite this, many gamers believe strongly that all indie games are 8-bit platformersIt's the charm of independent games that they are so different. As mentioned, most people don't even know what games were announced, only that they were "indie," meaning something cheap in many people's eyes. This is true to an extent. Indie games are often, if not always made with less money that games that go through a publisher. However, by offering more concise and unique experiences, indie games can impress way more than games with larger development budgets.

Also, Journey is on sale now for half price ($3.75 for PS+). Buy it now, you fools.
Source

People know so little about what indie games are that they don't even realize that many of the smaller games Sony showed at Gamescom were not indie games at all. For example: Resogun is a really fun looking arcade-style 2D shooter made by the people who brought us Super Stardust HD. It will be a great game by the looks of it, but it is not an indie game. It's an understandable mistake as lower budget, or smaller experience games tend to be lumped together as indie. I, for example, cannot find definitively whether Rime, the beautiful Shadow of the Colossus-meets-Ni No Kuni game, is an indie game or published by a major studio. Some people list it in the indie category, while others stringently do not. I think this confusion has led to even more problems. People have their own opinion what an indie game is, and the confusion surrounding the entire label leads to a lot of misleading messages.

Indie or not, you're going to want to play this game.
Source

Perhaps the problem is with the word indie itself. We use it mainly as a label to underscore why certain games aren't AAA, rather than to celebrate independent developers. The growing use of the word has led, as mentioned earlier, to many people believing that indie is a new game genre instead of a label, which is, truthfully, useless to most gamers. The fact that all retro-style and arcade-style games are immediately called indie games tells you that there's a problem with the label. It isn't even all negative. Some amazing games are titled as indie when they are anything but. The problem is, as indie games become increasingly popular, this mislabelling will only grow more cumbersome. Indie being treated like a genre by companies such as Sony or Microsoft is part of the problem, as is how it's dealt with in gaming media. The truth is that some people are trying to celebrate independent developers, while gamers are looking for what the game is, and the two collide in an unfortunate way.

The Witness on the other hand is most assuredly an indie game, and I don't see 8-bit platforming anywhere.
Source

In the end, me waxing on and on about the specific label given to that kind of game isn't important. What is of value is that we don't dismiss a game simply for being independent. That's the madness. Sony is getting a positively massive influx of compelling and unique games, and it baffles me that more people aren't celebrating it. Most of the time, companies such as Microsoft and Sony are behind on trends (Like with the motion control frenzy at the beginning of the current generation). However, very few people in the industry will try to argue against the opinion that independent games are coming, and they are going to flood into this market in a way that AAA games could never do. With all of the death and gloom that has recently been associated with AAA development, it is this smaller, hungrier type of game that will really change how we see the next generation. Of course that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Kinect No Longer Necessary - Microsoft Doing Their Best at a Comeback

2013-08-13T06:36:00.000-07:00

Yesterday Microsoft announced that its Kinect sensor would no longer be required to operate the Xbox One. At this juncture, it will still be included in every Xbox One package, but it may be turned off indefinitely while you play games or use features that do not utilize the peripheral. This is, I think, the last of a long line of policy reversals from Microsoft. Their Xbox One reveal was greatly ridiculed and hated by the gaming community for its restrictive features, chiefly: used game restrictions, 24 hour online checks, and an omni-present Kinect sensor that is always watching. Over the past few months, Microsoft has done an excellent job of taking in user feedback, and tailoring their product to it. We lost the 24 hour online check-in restriction, and the used game policy was switched over to the conventions of this generation. This was already a massive coup for gamers who thought the system was extremely restrictive in areas that were traditionally free. Now, the final major piece of the puzzle, the oft-reviled Kinect sensor will no longer be necessary. This leads them open for a possible price drop in the future to bring a Kinectless system out at price parity with the PS4.These are changes that gamers should welcome with open arms, but it is important to remember how we got to this point.

Why would anyone have cared that this looming this was always watching you?
Source

I can't help but feel a little sorry for the tech giant. They attempted to show a product, that I'm sure many people believed in when creating it, but they were so divorced from the reality of the market that they didn't even consider that many of its touted key selling points would not fly among their base. I'm guessing this is why we had such knee jerk reactions from Microsoft soon after the reveal, with Don Mattrick himself saying that those who don't want to be online all the time should buy an Xbox 360 instead. It was said by many Microsoft employees that the Xbox One could not operate without an online connection, and that Kinect was so in-built that it could never be removed from the hardware proper. Famously, gaming celebrity, Angry Joe, interviewed Microsoft's Major Nelson, who chastised him for suggesting that they could simply flip a switch and remove the online restriction, stating that it would be impossible to remove it. We know now that these were all lies, but they are understandable lies if you look at it from the perspective of a group that was completely caught off guard by the reaction. After all, they couldn't do anything at the conference, so the safest thing to do was to simply, bullheadedly, defend their product.

It's still pretty funny.
Source

They should have known better, however. About a year or two before either new system was launched, rumours of used game restrictions and always online talk was circulating about the gaming community, and they always sparked near universal hatred from gamers. Anyone who spent more than three seconds doing market research would have understood how much of a stupid idea all of these policies were. It's been argued they were banking on Sony doing the same thing, so everyone would have to accept it, and this is certainly the more sinister interpretation. But after giving it a lot of thought, it doesn't make sense. I don't think they had any idea that these policies would be controversial in any way. I think they were blissfully creating a machine that the bulk of the gaming population would despise. If they were banking on Sony, this would require Microsoft to be aware how unpopular the policy was. Of course, I'm treating Microsoft as if it's a person, and the reality is that there could have been people all over the place that realized the folly of such policies, but the ones in charge seemed to be caught completely off guard.

Of course the best thing Microsoft did was loose itself of Don Mattrick. Now he's Zynga's problem/messiah.
Source

I hate Kinect. I want that bias out before I start writing about the useless sensor. The way I see it, Nintendo struck gold with their simple and intuitive motion controls that never worked outside of Wii Sports. As soon as Microsoft and Sony saw the green that Nintendo was raking in, they started their own motion control projects. Sony simply copied Nintendo, putting out the more accurate, but incredibly uninspired Playstation Move, while Microsoft tried to work on something bigger, something far more expensive. Kinect was, and still is, heralded by Microsoft as controllerless play. This is true to an extent, but instead of revitalizing the industry, it never really did anything. Voice commands and hand waving on menus are a cute novelty, but Kinect fails hard in the one matter that it was designed for - gaming. The only games that can make Kinect work are stationary games such as Dance Central or various Wii Fit knock offs. No other game has successfully integrated Kinect in a way that justifies the $99 peripheral. I, personally, see the novelty in shouting Fus Roh Dah at the television maybe once or twice, but after the fortieth time, I'd be begging to go back to my simple and unintrusive button inputs. I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't think there is a single gaming element that Kinect brings to the table that isn't eclipsed by NES-era technology.

You're telling me I don't have to flail my hands around or shout at the television? All I have to do is press a button? That's genius!
Source

One of the major problems with Kinect was that it always had a small user base as it was a late-in-life peripheral, and only a fraction of the Xbox 360 userbase actually owned one. This meant that fewer developers were willing to design pure Kinect games. By packaging Kinect with every Xbox One and forcing its use, Microsoft may have been hoping to broaden the amount of developers willing to take a chance on it. A problem with this is that the motion controls bubble burst. Nobody in the industry has any respect for motion controls. They all still exist in some form this generation, but they're more dying husks and what-ifs than they are legitimate means of gaming. Microsoft is the only one who's pushing them hard. This means that few if any multiplatform games will actually focus on motion controls and those that exist will be minor at best. Kinect being stripped of it's 'all important,' status may have an effect on this as well. If Kinect is truly completely unnecessary, then many developers won't bother with it. It is much easier to develop a game on a PS4 or Xbox One and port it exactly as it is onto the other. There is little reason to bother with something like Kinect unless Microsoft pushes it through using their own dollars, something that they are pretty fond of doing.

Not one of these is any good. It's time to realize that. It was an interesting experiment, but it's over now.
Source

Over the past couple of months, Microsoft has gone a long way into restoring faith in the company. Their blissfuly ignorant arrogance surrounding E3, and the reveal was something that completely alienated them from the base, and many of these gamers will not be returning due to how they were treated at these events alone. However, Microsoft has stepped back. They've changed the dangerous and harmful policies that they were trying to push. We shouldn't forget that they did it, but we should be happy they stopped. Now the choice for next gen system (Ignoring the Wii U), is whether you want a $400 system or a $500 system with motion controls. Exclusives look great on each side with more on the way at Gamescom and the Tokyo Game Show, I would assume. For gamers, these exclusives are what matter, and, if people start focusing on exclusives, Microsoft looks a lot better than they did in June.

- Mistranslations For The Modern Gamer

Review - Dragon's Crown

2013-08-08T06:12:00.000-07:00

Dragon's Crown has garnered quite a bit of controversy, which may have been a good thing for developer Vanillaware, as it certainly got the new brawler's name out across the various professional video game sites out there. Vanillaware has mostly gone under the radar. It has a massive cult following after the release of Odin's Sphere back on the PS2, and its Wii endeavour, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, was popular enough to be ported onto the Playstation Vita earlier this summer. It has been awhile since gamers received a pure, new brawler game. Recent releases into the near-dead genre have simply been rereleases of old classics such as Double Dragon Neon, or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled. It's certainly nice to see developers giving old genres a chance. It worked very well with Telltale's The Walking Dead, which brought a lot of interest into the adventure game genre, and it works here. Due to the quasi-revival nature of the product, Dragon's Crown is quite different than any game on the market. Although, the trappings of many different genres permeate the game's core, as a relatively pure brawler, the way Dragon's Crown utilizes and blends these elements is quite different. Oh, and it happens to be a joy to play as well.

You wouldn't think you'd see a lot of ass and breasts while playing this game by looking at this cover. You'd be wrong.
Source

A brawler, more specifically a 2D brawler, is a genre that is typified by non-stop action and hack and slash. Being popularized by the likes of Streets of Rage, Golden Axe, and Double Dragon, brawlers enjoyed a bit of time in the sun during the NES and SNES eras. These games are as linear as they come. You have your character and you move to the right, killing every single thing that crosses your path with a relatively limited movepool. Dragon's Crown doesn't really change this basic formula up too much. Fans of the genre will enjoy being able to pick up various items to use against enemies, as well as the ability to ride two of the game's beasts. You will pick one of six characters and you'll be running through one of Dragon's Crown's nine stages over and over again as you lay waste to all of the enemies in your way. However, Dragon's Crown has added a loot system on top of the basic scoring mechanics. A rogue character will always be with you, and you can use him to unlock doors and treasure chests along the way. These chests will contain random loot ranked D-S and will match whatever level your character is at. This is a tiny change to stage design, which makes it more fun to replay. On top of this addition, there are various points of interactivity in stages, ranging from hidden passages, to runes scattered about that can be used to create powerful rune effects such as invincibility, or a healing aura. With these minor tweaks, Dragon's Crown doesn't get old nearly as quickly as the standard brawler.

Everyone loves to ride the derp dragon.
Source

The six characters also go a long way in providing variety. You have the choices of Fighter, Dwarf, Wizard, Amazon, Elf, or Sorceress. Each character has a completely unique moveset, stat progression, and skill set. For example: the Elf spends much of her time relying on her bow and ranged attacks, while the Amazon builds up a berserker rage as she attacks which allows her to attack faster, and hit harder. There are some minor balance issues, but the game isn't built like an MMO, and it doesn't really matter if the Amazon has significantly higher DPS (Damage per second) than most of the cast. The point is each character is fun and varied, which encourages replay. As you complete quests and level up, your character receives skill points which they can use to customize their layout. Each character has a completely unique set of skills, as well as nearly a dozen of generic skills such as increasing maximum HP. The unique class skills are wide ranging. Some of them are of limited uses during each dungeon, while others are add-ons to your main attacking buttons. Some classes, particularly the Sorceress, have support skills, but don't think that this is similar to a game like Dragon's Dogma. Team balance is almost a complete afterthought, and you can safely enjoy playing with any configuration of players. Support is nice and useful, but it isn't mandatory when player.

Lots of "support" options here.
Source

In total, the game has nine dungeons. Each individual dungeon isn't particularly long, which may give the impression that Dragon's Crown is a short game. This is far from the truth. In true brawler style, Dragon's Crown is meant to be played over and over again, and these nine stages go very far. The important factor, is that these stages don't get boring. For a brawler, there is actually a fairly significant amount of enemy variety, ranging from towering knights, to wood golems, or even an orc army. However, each regular enemy is dispersed easily enough. It is the bosses that provide the bulk of the game's challenge and excitement. Each stage has an A route and a later-unlocked B route, and each route has a different boss at the end of them. These eighteen bosses are extremely well designed and Vanillaware did an excellent job of varying them. For example: you will find yourself hacking a harpy to death, which is fairly standard; you may need to defend a cannon while it hammers at an enemy-spewing gate; or you might need to kill a Chimera before it falls through three stories of a tower. Truthfully, the bosses never feel old, and the game is much richer because of them.

Just in case you want to skip The Hobbit trilogy and get right into dragon killing.
Source

Normally I open my review by giving you the basic premise of the plot. However, the plot in Dragon's Crown is so barely present that it isn't worth giving it the headlining space. Basically a Dragon's Crown is used to control dragons and you, as a random adventurer, want it. There are some tiny elements of palace intrigue and a couple of generic NPCs here or there, but they aren't worth remembering. Vanillaware treats the generic tale in a tongue-in-cheek manner, but that doesn't stop it from being as bland as bland can be. That isn't horrible though, as it gives incentive to skip all dialogue since its so useless and boring. Dragon's Crown is purely about the gameplay, and a huge well crafted story would simply be wasted here, so I can't fault them too much. A narrator narrates the entire game, which isn't terrible, but he isn't particularly good at it, and there is a ton of repetition, as the game insists on giving you the same narration even if you've beaten an area a thousand times.

"Good day, my boy," the most generic wizard ever said. "None of us NPCs have a single thing worth hearing."
You made a mental note to always skip their dialogue in the future.
Source

Vanillaware is known for its amazing 2D visuals. They are the reason I'd like to see more 2D games on the market. Every touch is exaggerated and embellished in the perfect way. Backgrounds feel more alive than any 3D game, and characters are adorably quirky. However, the artist's depiction of female characters, particularly the butt-out Amazon, and the buxom Sorceress has garnered a lot of negative attention. They are exaggerations meant to imitate the old 80s and 90s style of barbarian adventure art, in the same way that the heaving masses of muscle that pass for the Dwarf and Fighter are. It was handled a little callously, but it fights with the overall aesthetic. What should be garnering negative attention isn't the playable characters, but the NPC portrayals of women. You will frequently see an entire screen spread of a female character nearly naked and in a suggestive pose, and you are able to poke and play with her in order to make her moan and twist. If it happened once, I wouldn't have given it a second thought, but it happens frequently in the game, and that isn't good in any way. The game is still amazing to look at, but Vanillaware should have been a little more attentive to what they were portraying. I've seen people defend this game as a 'man's game,' but let's face facts, a huge number of female gamers are into fantasy games, and even if it were a 'man's game,' that doesn't excuse the frequent poor depictions of women.

Poke her to make her twitch.
Source

And a fun genderswap for everyone.
Source

The online system for this game works beautifully. It is really easy to slot yourself into a random stranger's team as you progress through a dungeon. If you don't like playing online, you can craft your own team from NPC adventurers, or even go solo, but online is almost entirely a bonus in this game. Relatively early on, you obtain the ability to chain run dungeons. Each additional dungeon you run before going back to town gives you an increased bonus to score, money, and loot. This synergizes really well with online play as it leads to fast and fun dungeon exploring with little downtime. There is a bit of strategy involved, however. Weapons are put on a durability system, meaning you won't be able to fight your best if your axe/sword/rod breaks. This encourages you to carry spare weapons in extra bags that you can switch out, and it puts a limit as to how many dungeons you can effectively run; although, there are ways around the limit. Dragon's Crown is not in any way a co-operative game, meaning, you don't need to co-ordinate with other players t have fun. For those of you like me who hate using a headset and would rather play through a co-op game solo than to have to actually talk to some stranger online, this is a massive bonus.

I don't know... this team could use another Elf.
Source

Dragon's Crown is an excellent game. It calls back to a time where a basic fantasy brawler could be very successful, but it never rests on nostalgia. Vanillaware has delivered extremely tight gameplay to push a very polished game and this is much appreciated. Their unfortunate dalliance into sexism aside, the game looks beautiful and is a complete joy to see in action. The important thing about the whole procedure is that the game is fun. If it weren't then the nine levels and a single normal playthrough wouldn't last more than a handful of hours. Even with the massive replayability, the game will be too short for some, but, when it clicks, I can see some gamers playing this game for years to come.

Score - 8.5

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Dragon's Crown Controversy Copout

2013-08-06T06:35:00.002-07:00

Polygon, a website that very few people even go to posted a review criticizing the new brawler, Dragon's Crown, for being sexist. This has led to an insane backlash from the community who will not tolerate the word sexist (See last Saturday's post). I was going to write a post about the insane amount of reaction to the Dragon's Crown art style, but I fortunately don't have to. The most recent Jimquisition from Destructoid's Jim Sterling summed up my opinions of the whole matter very neatly. It primarily deals with gamer and media reaction to the whole event and how people just need to calm down. It's good advice. When people stop having such amazing knee jerk reactions to everything, a discussion can actually occur. At this point, the vitriol is so thick that even the mention of the controversy is enough to spawn an endless wave of screams from angry fanboys.

Yes, I will keep making this joke
Source

Jim Sterling gets a lot of flak from gamers for a multitude of reasons, but I can't help but feel that he is one of the sanest video game celebrities out there. Since he did my job for me, here is his first video on the controversy, which I dug up on Youtube while trying to find the second:

And, since I can't find a video to embed for the second one, here's the link:

Jimquisition: Dragon's Frown - Destructoid

Sorry for the copout, internet, but if I made a blog post on this subject, I'd be plagiarizing. The controversy over Dragon's Crown is ridiculous, not because it's a controversy, but because of how people are dealing with it.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Why is Feminism Such a Sore Spot Among Gamers?

2013-08-03T05:50:00.000-07:00

I hate discussing gender in video games. I lose so much faith in humanity every time I'm foolish enough to open my mouth or to click on a thread with the word 'feminist' in it. The slightest mention of it is enough to get an avalanche of attacks from gamers who are desperate to believe that the industry, as it is now, is perfect. This is why I haven't posted anything to do with gender roles or sexism for quite some time. However, I'm breaking my silence in order to finally highlight a major frustration: that many gamers respond with hostility to any mention of the word feminism.

Oh Lightning, how many names have you been called based on your gender alone?
Source

Yesterday, the third instalment of Anita Sarkeesian's Tropes vs. Women was released to the public. As what happens every time feminism or sexism is brought up concerning video games, it has led to a massive backlash from the the internet gaming community. Sarkeesian has quickly become a very polarizing figure with plenty of people ready to run to the streets to defend her, while another segment will consistently send rape threats across twitter. Her videos are meant to highlight what she perceives as sexist tropes in video games, particularly the damsel in distress trope that is prevalent in an alarming number of games. I don't think her videos are perfect. She has a tendency to jump to conclusions and she cherry picks her examples (As do we all). However, I think the broader purpose of the videos is very admirable, if not up for criticism. The problem isn't the intelligent criticism, or any disagreement. The problem is the death threats, rape threats, and general misogyny coming from the community. This is something that the gaming media has focused on quite a bit, rightly, in my opinion, because there is a major problem with the community here. Of course, this does not represent the entire community, otherwise this article wouldn't exist, but I've never seen the word feminism or sexism used in reference to gaming without it being a problem.

By the way: creating these memes doesn't help your point when trying to attack Sarkeesian. It just makes you look like a dick.
Source

This Kotaku article on the subject takes the counterpoint by criticizing gaming media for focusing on the negative commenters and blowing the entire affair out of proportion. I wanted to link to the article because, although I don't agree with its conclusion, it is very well written and makes some solid and intelligent criticisms against Sarkeesian. It likens much of the abuse that Sarkeesian received to Youtube commenters, which isn't entirely inaccurate. For those who aren't aware, Youtube is a cesspool of trolls and aggression where a Sesame Street video is likely to spur on some racist chatter. However, Sarkeesian is only the most recent example, and, most of the time, the gaming media is not there to point it out. If you look at any gaming site that isn't specifically dedicated to feminism, you'll find a disheartening discussion every time the word feminism, feminist, or sexist gets brought up. This isn't even a new trend. People have been getting their backs up over these problems for a very long time, and it isn't limited to Youtube-style shouts of ignorance. These are often people fighting tooth and nail against any possibility of there being a problem. I agree with the author of the article in that not all gamers are sexist and to portray all white male gamers as misogynist pigs is equally as offensive as labelling all women as weak frail little princesses. However, the segment of the gaming population that has a major issue with feminism is one that should be examined and not ignored as some sort of creation of sensationalist media. I've been around for far too long to believe that to be true.

Don't be fooled by misogynist pig's adorableness. This guy's a real asshole.
Source

So I want to take some time to muse as to why this is such an issue among gamers

Firstly, I feel there is a fundamental problem with how the internet works in anonymity. I'm not talking about the famous Penny Arcade anonymity equation, but the fact that everyone is treated by everyone else as if they are in the same age, social, racial group, etc. This is a problem when it comes to feminism and how people react to that word. A twelve-year-old may not understand what feminism is and his reaction to the word will be drastically different than a twenty-five-year-old. In real life, we can choose to dismiss certain opinions or at least distinguish them based on a huge multitude of factors. However, on the internet, there are generally two kinds of people: those who agree with you and trolls, with no way to mitigate a frustrating or ridiculous opinion without assuming it comes from a troll. This can lead to a disproportionate number of bafflingly sexist opinions, which would, in real life, hold no sway over anyone, and it may be a possible explanation to the explosion of anti-feminist feeling among gamers.

So incredibly true.
Source

Of course, that brings us to one of the most fundamental problems with how much of the online gaming community deals with feminism - what is feminism? I have heard many definitions across various forums, groups and comments. These range from 'feminism is a doctrine for women who want to be superior to/insult men,' to 'feminism is a doctrine used by people who are too politically correct to justify the stick up their ass.' In reality feminism really means one thing: equality of the sexes. A woman declaring herself a feminist who's driving purpose is female supremacy is as much of a feminist as I am a tomato. The fact that many gamers (And I do mean many) confuse these two definitions is a major problem, and a possible explanation why so many people fight so hard against the very mention of the word.

Sweet tomato eases the pain.
Source

Then there are people who don't see any of the anti-feminist or sexist arguments as a problem. These are the people who recognize problems but sweep them under the rug for various reasons. Whether it is based on intent (The developer wasn't trying to be sexist), ego (It doesn't bother me so it can't bother anyone), or any number of other reasons, some of which are perfectly legitimate, these gamers often rely on the old chestnut that any talk of feminism or sexism is political correctness gone mad. As I mentioned, sometimes this opinion is perfectly valid, but not always, and I see this get thrown around at pretty much any mention of political correctness no matter how minor or major. The problem is that when people freak out and make a huge deal over tiny things, the people who don't care for whatever reason, see it as a trend of political correctness, instead of seeing a potential problem. This line of thought is so often joined with a lack of empathy and inability to see outside of one's own privilege. The backlash against political correctness is another possibility as to why gamers are, on average, opposed to discussion about sexism.

The presence of political correctness shouldn't derail an entire argument, but it so often does.
Source

My own personal theory lies in the history of gaming as a form of entertainment. As gamers we are, unfortunately, used to having to justify our existence to people. Sometimes it's to your parents, who, if you were born in the 80s, likely see video games as a child's toy and not a legitimate hobby. Other times it's to society, and society has a knack for using video games as a scape goat. The recent attack of video games as the source of increased violence in the United States and various other countries is one such scapegoating. Video games have also been accused of 'promoting the gay agenda,' 'brainwashing youth,' and 'secularization.' Gamers see these accusations and many have had to make their own excuses to their family, friends, significant other, etc. As such, we, as gamers, are used to having our hobby come under constant attacks from people with a political agenda. When someone like Sarkeesian comes along and makes bold statements, it triggers the same reaction within us as if someone was telling you that you're going to commit a murder because of your fascination with Call of Duty. In this case, feminism ins't actually the problem. I don't believe the bulk of gamers are sexist in any way. In truth, I think that we're just so weary from defending what we love, we get really knee-jerky when it comes to outside attacks, and sexist accusations are often seen to come from without.

You wouldn't believe the mushrooms I've killed since I played this game... I'm a monster.
Source

That being said, in reality, there are many reasons that many gamers have such a problem with the discussion of feminism, and not a single one of my ideas could possibly apply to all people. I had hoped that this sore spot for feminism would fade over time; however, it seems to be on the increase. Every mention seems to fill up threads, which is very disheartening. It seems like a large portion of gamers are in denial. I watched a video refuting Sarkeesian earlier today, and he stated with an overabundance of confidence that the damsel in distress trope exists because it's easy as part of the hero's journey, and it's most commonly men saving women because men are the ones who play and design video games. There are several fundamental problems with his argument, but I'm going to leave you with that to figure out on your own. I've spent enough time digging my own grave today.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Microsoft Doesn't Understand the Internet - Playing Redlight Greenlight with Reputation

2013-08-01T06:27:00.001-07:00

Microsoft pioneered online gaming for consoles. They built up the infrastructure; the invented achievements; and they brought out the games that showed the world that online gaming wasn't simply a trend, but the direction of gaming's future. To put it mildly, Microsoft has given the console gaming world, the best online service bar none. As we sit on the cusp of the next generation, everyone has caught up with Microsoft's previous innovations, even Nintendo for the most part, so it's only sensible that Microsoft wants to remain on top of things. This has led to the reveal of their revamped reputation system. It's a system that has its heart in the right place, but fundamentally doesn't understand its market, userbase, or even the industry itself. In a nutshell, Microsoft wants to create a system where players with bad reputations are called out on it, and their gamercard will be flagged red if they've received too many reports and Microsoft's reputation algorithm decides they should pass into red. Conversely, players that live in a fantasy world of happiness and togetherness will keep a default green, while those with only a few complaints will be flagged yellow. This will work because if there's one thing that the internet is full of: it's sensible, respectful individuals.

That's what gaming needs, Microsoft, more judgment from strangers!
Source

Firstly, I want to deny the benefits of a reputation system even if it worked perfectly, which it wouldn't. When you're playing online, how often are you micromanaging the people you're playing with? Sure, there's team games where you want to create a solid team, but a lot of the time, speed is more important that selection. How many times are you playing a death match, and you're spending most of your time vetting the rest of the people on the server? Wouldn't you rather get back to shooting at them than scrutinize. This creates almost a metagame of trying to min/max your experience by slotting the right reputation of players in your game, and some people would get paranoid about playing with red card players. Fighters have their own matchmaking system based on skill, and a red card will only confuse people. You see, that red card could have been earned from say Call of Duty, but people may think that person is a disconnecter in the unrelated fighting game. You have you ask yourself: if everything was perfect, would this game improve gaming? I don't believe it would.

This will improve gaming, right?
Source

Of course, there's no possible way that this system wouldn't be a laughing stock. Firstly, Microsoft mentions an algorithm, but also references complaint reports sent in by players. It seems that the algorithm likely sorts these complaints, because there isn't an algorithm out there that can monitor classy behaviour in something so diverse as every online video game to ever exist. So it's left to player reports. Players are those people who will send death threat messages if you beat them in Street Fighter; who will accuse you of cheating because they believe in their own inherent superiority; who find some sort of twisted pleasure at making other people angry. Your reputation will be in their hands. Microsoft has said that a couple of reports won't change your reputation status, but we're never talking about a couple of reports. If you play online for any amount of time, you will get dozens, hundreds of reports from people that you beat, or simply people who don't like that green card you're parading around. As such, I don't expect green cards will be the norm. And if they aren't the norm, if yellow or even red is the basic standard then what's the point? A green card may actually signal the opposite of what its supposed to: that the gamer barely touches online. If the system works like this, and it will, then nobody is going to pay attention about what kind of card you have. For all we know, a red card could come to symbolize a really good player, and not a cheater. Now what you're left with is a system that penalizes the anal retentive, who never want to lose their precious green reputation, while doing absolutely nothing about the problem it allegedly was supposed to fix.

Yeah, the internet isn't full of these.
Source

That brings us to unwanted harassment. If you start getting complaints, Microsoft won't just boot you down to red or yellow. No, they're going to give you all sorts of warnings to change your behaviour, and likely a chance to refute the charges. This is a horribly broken idea. Now, simply for playing online, gamers will get constantly harassed, not by other players, but by Microsoft itself. When you are on your downtime, and want to relax with a game, do you really want constant messages from Microsoft to tell you that you're doing it wrong? It's a horrible idea, and one that will spark not gratitude but annoyance from gamers. I don't want to hear from Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony if they're praising me, and I certainly don't want to think that some company out there is judging me based on the feedback of strangers with too much time on their hands.

More mail from Microsoft? -Delete
Source

And that's why Microsoft doesn't understand the internet. They seem to believe they live in a world where the slightest annoyance isn't met by a barrage of death threats. This is the place where developers like Phil Fish can be bombarded with hate mail against him and his family for not doing anything of consequence. In what world is a reputation system a good idea? How long until red cards will be paraded around as a point of pride among troll-hungry gamers, and will anyone actually care? Microsoft is trying to stay one step ahead of the game in terms of providing the best online service possible. Its an admirable goal, but this only shows how completely disconnected they are with reality. It's a waste of time and money. Microsoft is no stranger to wasting money on its entertainment division, but this idea is just pathetic.

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

The Unfortunate Position of AAA Titles - Ubisoft and the Need for Franchises

2013-07-30T06:03:00.002-07:00

Throughout the years, I have heard people claiming the incoming death of AAA titles and I have always thought that such a position was fairly naive. After all, I don't think that the demand for AAA titles is going anywhere. However, recently, I've come to question my belief. The awful business practices of video game publishers have recently been weighing on my mind. When Square-Enix said that the new Tomb Raider was a financial disappointment even though it sold over three million copies, I knew something was wrong. That number of sales should have made the game an unequivocal success, but it didn't. What ungodly amount of money did Square waste in delivering that product? It isn't just the Final Fantasy factory, however. Recently, Tony Key, of Ubisoft, announced that his company wanted Watch Dogs to be a series. This wasn't upsetting, really. I'm sure many people would want a Watch Dogs sequel even though the first isn't out yet. The problem is that he followed up that statement that Ubisoft wouldn't even consider making a game that couldn't be made into a franchise, as the cost of creating games is too high. This statement is troublesome for many reasons, and that's what we're looking at today.

Remember - U as in you, and not as in ew.
Source

Let me be clear from the get go: I love franchises. There are a whole stable of franchises that I watch intently. I intend to buy any special edition version of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII that may be available, and that's a series within a series. The problem with franchises, which I have already discussed at length is that they can stifle innovation and end up as nothing more than cash grabs. I like to see great games get turned into great trilogies, but it scares me that games are starting to be designed with trilogies in mind, that no AAA game can possibly stand on its own without a bunch of cheaper sequels to rush in and pick up the tab. It's backwards to me. Publishers are deciding to make sequels and long running series of games that they don't even know if they're good or not, and, in many cases, they'll spend an insane amount of money in advertising in order to convince the public at large that the game is good even though it might not be.

Why stop at an already unplanned trilogy when there's money afoot!
Source

I understand that sequels are cheaper. If you go to the lengths to create a massively powerful engine, you're going to want to use it for more than a single game. But there are problems with that mentality. Some games don't need to be series, and some series don't need to continue ad infinitum. Looking at Ubisoft, I point my finger directly at Assassin's Creed as an example of a stagnant series, which they will drive into the ground until so many people hate it that they'll end up abandoning the property. It's a yearly franchise, one that makes so few changes to the core gameplay, and one that keeps tacking on an increasingly unhinged story to justify more games. If Assassin's Creed is what Ubisoft means by they want to franchise every game they make, I cannot support them. Ubisoft has 14 Assassin's Creed games made or in development as well as a plethora of cheap novels, comics and films. The series started in 2007. This is madness. People complain about the Final Fantasy series, but at least its massive amount of games have come parsed over twenty five years, not six. Is this the future of all of Ubisoft's games? There can't be any more stand alone products, so we need to whore out our franchises as much as possible and ignore quality and, almost more importantly, common sense?

Why make better games when you can make the same mediocre one over and over again?
Source

But what if there's truth to the assertion that they need to do this in order to fund their games? I don't accept that, and a quick internet search will have you seeing developers speaking out against the practice. What I see is nothing more than greedy publishers, who care nothing about the industry, trying to squeeze every last drop out of game titles. Call of Duty happened, and people have been chasing that mythical best-selling dragon every since, convinced that the right elements of generic and sleaze can make them billions. You see this in companies like Capcom, who seems steadfast in its position to add microtransactions to games, not because they need it or that the game would be improved by them in anyway, but because they want to grab onto you and squeeze every last dime out of your pockets. You see it in lazy mobile phone development like the atrocity that is Final Fantasy All the Bravest, which sold enough, and cost so little, that Square-Enix has redoubled their mobile commitment, not to bring a good product to the market, but to grab more money from you with cheap gimmicks.

It tells you how much companies listen to their fans when this game is spurring development instead of spurning it.
Source

Going back to paragraph two: I love franchises, but there's a limit. There are many games out there that wouldn't be benefitted from being made into a series. Some games simply want to tell a concise, self-contained story, and to force them to franchise is perverted. What was once a very intricately planned story is now some ungodly mess of plotholes and retconning such as what we see with Assassin's Creed, or the Kingdom Hearts series. This is one of those "die a hero or live long enough to become the villain," situations. Most JRPG fans love Chrono Trigger, and would kill for new instalment into the quasi-series. However, if we were on Chrono Trigger 12 right now, would we be looking back so fondly on the original, or would we be in the position that the whole thing has been undermined by time travel paradoxes and poorly thought out storylines?

I've played every one of these games, and even I'm a little lost.
Source

What worries me is this belief that AAA games are unsustainable. Publishers are now spending so much money on the highest calibre of graphics, Hollywood voice actors, and constant advertisements in hope that they'll strike it big, that it is now only a remote chance that a single game will turn a profit. This is horrifying. As many have stated, publishers and developers are spending too much. If your product can't possibly turn a profit without years of sequels, then there is a problem. Development costs need to be scaled back, and there's a lot of fluff that can obviously be cut. Why are publishers pushing Hollywood actors to take a turn at voice acting? Voice actors have never sold games, so why would you spend money on individuals who have no experience voice acting? Nobody cares if Angelina Jolie does a voice in a new game. People seem to think acting is universal, but voice acting is a separate skill, and there is a proud stable of talented voice actors out there, who won't cost companies six or seven figures for a single run.

Richard Epcar - The face of a real voice actor. Not as many people know his name as compared to George Clooney, but he's everywhere in the industry and his work is excellent.
Source

It is unfortunate, but AAA development as it is now, may disappear. The incredibly shortsighted business models run by people in board rooms who care nothing about the product their developers are delivering, may be the end of this era of gaming. Actually, maybe it's a good thing that AAA development as it is now is unsustainable. I'd rather developers and publishers not go under, to learn from this obvious impasse, but instead of learning, they seem more hell bent on robbing gamers with an explosion of exploitative DLC and more damning of all - microtransactions. When Ubisoft says they won't make a game that can't be made into a series, I lose faith in the industry. What they are saying is that their own business model is so broken that they can't make money. And there are those who wonder why people think independent developers will usher in the future of gaming...

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer

Review - Shin Megami Tensei IV - I Love the Smell of Morality Systems in the Morning

2013-07-25T14:09:00.002-07:00

To the bulk of people, Shin Megami Tensei ("SMT") is just that weird title that accompanies the word Persona on their favourite games. It's not hard to see why there's this disconnect. After all, the SMT series is a little strange. Basically, there is a larger SMT metaseries that includes games such as Persona, Digital Devil Saga and Devil Summoner, and there is also a main series called Shin Megami Tensei. Of this main series, only two games have been released in the west: SMT Nocturne (SMT III), and SMT Strange Journey, which isn't a numbered entry, but is considered part of the main series. It goes without saying that SMT IV is the biggest release the main series has ever had. It has gained a lot of notoriety based on Nocturne's staggering reputation, and the fact that Nintendo is giving you $30 for buying it and Fire Emblem Awakening (Which you should already have). This makes SMT something of a gamble. The main SMT series is much darker than most RPGs, and considerably harder. There is a market for that, of course, but Nintendo is betting a lot on this $30 give away.

If the cover didn't blatantly give away who's the chaos and law hero, their generic personalities will.
Source

The premise of SMT IV is that your character, Flynn (You can rename him, but he gets a default name, so I'm sticking with that), is a member of the lower class (Casulry because Atlus ran out of money for writers) in the Eastern Kingdom of Mikado, which is a fantasy kingdom based on a mix of Medieval European and Japanese culture. Flynn gets inducted into the order of Samurai who are sworn to defend the kingdom from demons. The premise is a little weak and strange to SMT veterans, but it does pick up considerably as you explore your first dungeon, and get introduced to the much more interesting world below. The story and characters have been called the weakest part of this game by numerous review sites, and that's true to an extent. The story meanders around early on, and again in the middle, however, when it does pick up around 60% through the game it provides an incredibly and engaging thorough look into human nature the way that only SMT games can. The characters aren't bad per se, but we've seen them before. There is one character that is supposed to represent law and another who represents chaos. These characters are incredibly predictable, and those who played Strange Journey might just suspect that Zelenin and Jimenez have been shoved into the game in different bodies. However, the supporting cast is considerably more interesting especially after you leave Mikado. In short, the story is actually really good, but the main cast is a little cookie cutter.

Here are three more interesting faces. And yes, Strange Journey fans, that Demonica is wearable.
Source

SMT IV is a dungeon crawler RPG at heart. You'll be running through a variety of dungeons as you explore the world and complete quests. There are no random battles; however, enemies will materialize randomly from the ground. When they do so, you can choose to avoid them or strike them for a preemptive attack. As you explore the world, you'll encounter relics, which are items that can be scavenged to sell at shops. This is vital as enemies do not drop Macca (The game's currency), and if there's one thing you'll never have enough of, it's Macca as it's used for buying incredibly expensive equipment and resummoning old demons from your compendium. Due to the limitations of the hardware, the bulk of character models are in 2D, meaning that you'll only really encounter NPC's in solitary rooms, or in towns. This means that many dungeons seem a little empty. This is generally not a problem because the bleakness fits extremely well with the theme of the game.

Are you looking at the bleak world, or the complete lack of fashion sense of this player?
Source

Battles follow the same basic press turn concept as introduced in Nocturne. You will form a party of four, with up to three demons being able to join your main character. Every demon in the game has a unique set of weaknesses and resistances, and, by playing your cards right, you can wipe out all enemies before they get a chance to act. You will begin with as many turns as there are members in your team (3 for 3, 4 for 4, etc). By hitting any enemy's weakness, you'll gain another turn to use with a maximum of eight turns if all four of your demons hit an enemies weakness. Conversely, if your attack is nulled you will lose two turns, and you'll lose all of your turns if your attack is absorbed or reflected. This system means that you want to study your enemies closely and build a very balanced team. You must make sure that you can cover the various weaknesses: physical, gun, fire, electric, ice, force, light and dark. It is also vital to not expose your team to enemy attacks, as enemies work with the same rules you do when it comes to turns, and there's nothing worse that having your weaknesses exploited and finding yourself at knocked out.

New horde battles are especially dangerous.
Source

The entire SMT metaseries relies heavily on fusing demons and this game is no exception in this regard. Throughout the game, you will be negotiating with demons and fusing them together to create stronger ones. The negotiation system is a little random, which makes each encounter a little tense, or frustrating, or rewarding depending on your luck. SMT IV gives us perhaps the best fusing system of the entire series. Gone are Nocturne's random system of inheritance. Now you can choose every skill your demon inherits from its fusion parents. Newcomers are given a bit of help in that the fusion guide will give you fusion recommendations which change depending on your level and demons you have available. For the more experienced, you have a huge variety of options, such as including demons available to be purchased in your compendium in the search function. It's all fairly straight forward and it doesn't take long to get the hang of it. Also a first, is the ability to get a brief explanation of the historical background of each demon. Since demons are drawn from mythologies throughout the world and history, this is a very interesting feature.

This is Mara and she, yes she, actually has historical roots - wiki
Source

Leveling in SMT IV is a mix of traditional in inventive. As you gain levels you will get five stat points to distribute between strength, dexterity, magic, agility, and luck. Not all stats are created equal, however. Strength is utterly useless as it only increases your basic attack's strength and physical skills a tiny bit. Since dexterity increases physical damage far more, there is little point to strength. It is a shame that this minor issue wasn't ironed out, as the rest of the stats are very useful. When leveling, you will also obtain app points, which you can use to buy perks from your summoning gauntlet. This is always fun, and it's great to feel that power when you upgrade the amount of demons you can carry, or gain the ability to heal mp with each step. You can only summon or recruit demons at your own level baring an app upgrade, so getting a higher numerical level also gives you more options for fusion. Demons will also level up and get stat points, but you will be unable to assign them. They also learn new skills upon leveling up, usually being able to learn between one and three depending on the demon. When a demon has learned all of their skills, they will whisper then to your main character, which means you can select which non-passive skills you want to inherit, which means you can craft your main character as a magic nuker by giving them all of the elemental attacks for coverage, a physical bruiser by giving them gun and physical attacks, or really anything you want. If your main character is a little weak, demons can pick up the slack.

I was going to find a relevant image; however, BUUUUUUTTTTS!
Source

There are weaknesses in the combat, however. There is no more vitality stat, or actually any defensive stat. When you buy new armour, they will give you a boost in stats, hp, and each chest piece has a different set of weaknesses and resistances. This lack of a defence stat means that there is no way to really mitigate damage from demons that should be beneath you, and there's nothing worse than getting surprise attacked by a horde of weak demons and getting completely wiped out because they kept hitting your weaknesses. This is why the game is difficult. Fortunately, strategy can overcome this problem, and dying isn't a game over. Actually, for the first time ever, your main character dying isn't the end of the game, and you can get revived, for a price, if your party gets wiped out. If you die twice, you'll unlock the easy difficulty, which is a boon to beginners who may get lost. Physical skills also now use mp instead of hp to use. This seemed like a good thing at first because it made them less dangerous, but it was a mistake. Physical demons tend to have really high hp and low mp, meaning they can't use their skills very often, and regular attacks aren't worth the time. It is an unnecessary burden on physical demons, who don't quite match up to their magical counterparts until much later in the game when mp issues become non-existant. One minor issue which is personal to me, is the fact that armour changes your appearance. I don't know about you, internet, but I'm a vain person, so I can't stand using ugly armour even if it's better. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, armours don't really drastically obsolete one another, and that really expensive mid game biker jacket is only a little better than that cheap slab of chain mail you bought earlier.

This is Charon, ferryman of the dead. You'll probably see him a bunch.
Source

The world map has taken some flack by reviewers and fans alike. Through much of the early game, you'll be progressing to dungeons based on a series of menus, however, after the first major dungeon, you'll unlock the overworld. In this, your character is represented by a blue arrow and you can meander around to various locals. All SMT games have had the same kind of set up, and it's supposed to be a reference to them, however, it is a little dated. The bigger problem is the fact that early on, the world map is so big, it can be hard to know where to go, and going to the wrong place can get you stomped by impossibly difficult enemies. This lack of direction is also present in challenge quests, which are optional. You are often told the name of the place you need to go, but not the directions for how to get there. As you become more comfortable with the world, these issues disappear, but they make the early portions of the game a little dicey.

Not the prettiest map ever.
Source

Overall, SMT IV is fantastic. It is everything an SMT fan would want, especially for fans of the earlier games. Nocturne was a little smarter in its character design, forgoing the use of a cookie cutter law and chaos hero, and it had a more cohesive theme from beginning to end; however, SMT IV manages to refine gameplay to such an extent that these issues are rarely an issue, especially when the story really takes off. What you have here is probably the best fusion system in the metaseries, excellent combat that often requires thought and strategy more than time and leveling, and a wonderfully crafted world and setting, particularly when you leave Mikado. SMT IV is a triumph; although, it is one that is more designed for the hardcore than the casual, and I fervently recommend it to fans of RPGs. Along with Fire Emblem Awakening, it is one of the finest games on the 3DS, so buy both and put that $30 towards Pokemon X/Y, or Earthbound on the Wii U.

Score 9.5

- Mistranslations for the Modern Gamer