blow in the game slot

The Difficulty Arc: How frustration ruins the gameplay experience

2008-04-13T01:44:00.002-04:00

The scenario: You, controller in hands, sitting on the sofa, staring at your television with a mixed expression of frustration and anger. You've hit a point in a game where you can't get any further, you don't want the strategy guide, you don't want to go pull up Gamefaqs. You just want to figure the wretched thing out so you can get on with the game you were enjoying up to this point.

The moment is as simultaneously recognizable and detestable as catching a fleeting glance of an ex at a party. The more you try to figure out how to advance, the less enthusiasm you have. It gets to a point where before you even pick up the controller to try again, you can feel it in your stomach -- a kind of grudge you don't even notice developing until it's in full effect. Before you know it, you don't pick up the game anymore at all.

This frustrating little phenomenon is the Difficulty Arc, a slippery slope where wonderful games can easily lose their footing and fall to their death, never to be played again. That perfect marriage of conflict and reasonable challenge rarely find their balance on the Arc. Only the best games manage to delicately hover there, poised as a hummingbird before a flower fat with pollen.

Let's begin with a little video (because somehow pictoral examples make everything seem a bit more realistic.)

Ah yes, that moment. While it rarely gets that bad, sometimes it happens. Perhaps partially the fault of the gamer in question (that lad seems to have some anger management issues.) Regardless, the issue here to focus on is not the gamer but the game: Envision a well-adjusted young man or woman of about 30, sitting with controller in hand seriously fantasizing taking the disc out of the console and hurling it out the window like a shuriken with murderous intent.

What I'm proposing here is that one of the biggest faults of games today is finding the right spot on the Difficulty Arc -- a space that is neither too hard or too easy. Now, all gamers differ, so they can hardly all be satisfied by the same exact point on the Arc, yes? BioShock is an excellent example of the use of difficulty settings: I would have become extremely frustrated (enough so to deter me from the story) had the hard diffuculty been the average, but thanks to the normal, I was able to enjoy the story first and go back to the hard setting later.

One of the worst failings of bad placement on the Arc is when frustration makes a gamer quit altogether. This often happens with excellent games, which seems to me to be a sorry shame. My personal memory of this moment is with Chrono Cross for the PS1. You can beat the last boss in a straightforward fashion, or you can beat it in a complex way, which nets you the best ending. The latter challenge was so elaborately ridiculous that I gave up after a few tries. The frustration here was more mental than physical -- The equivalent of attempting to find a single paper in stacks of thousands.

The physical form of Difficulty Arc failure is more a matter of personal skill and adaption to a game. For instance, some gamers hated the Myst series, citing the puzzles as ridiculously difficult. Others whipped out their graph paper and mapped out elaborate puzzles with relish. Some games have a reputation for being insanely difficult, such as Ikaruga for the Gamecube. This is hardly a failing on the part of the developers, as the title is intentionally intended to be a tremendous challenge.

Dementium: The Ward presents a more recent form of structural slippage on the Arc. The game allows you to save your progress, but you must begin at the start of the chapter each time you die. Sometimes, this isn't such a big deal. After trekking through the entire level to kill the boss six times only to die when you get there and be whisked back to the start, forced to repeat all the same crap, is just a recipe for frustration. This echoes the NES era, but even most of those titles employed checkpoints, rewarding you for your progress and effort. Dementium is a fantastic title, but it did test my patience and I have to admit to putting it down a lot due to that.

Of course, some gamers will tell you they've never been frustrated enough to quit playing a game because of difficulty level (they're likely lying or androids posing as human beings.) You're not a gamer until you've thrown a controller at the TV and screamed SHITFUCKJESUSHOLYASSCOCK loud enough for your neighbor to hear you and look at you oddly the next time you pass them in the hallway. It's simply a classic rite of passage for the digitally addicted. I actually hit a friend in the face with a flying NES controller while playing Super Mario 3 once ... still feel a bit guilty about that.

This is not a rally to encourage harder games to take a hike. Rather, it's a picture of a consistent issue in gaming today: The balance of challenge and difficulty is a delicate one, and to ensure a title is truly enjoyable, there must be a flow to the gameplay. By interrupting this flow with unnecessary amounts of frustration, you are taking the gamer out of the gameplay experience -- exactly what you don't want to do.

I hope the next gen of gaming stands up to the challenge of making more game conflicts that are less ridiculous and more reason, offer level difficulty selection more often, and keep in mind how difficulty works with or against the immersive quality of the title. As long as I'm wishing for stuff I'd also like a miniature pony, a mint condition Delorean and the ability to teleport at will, but for now I'll settle for a few controller-hurling titles that are still within the boundaries of reason. I will try not to hit anyone in the face with controllers again, although it's likely best if the cursing and screaming begin to just get out of the way.

A Thousand Years of Dreams: Mortality in Lost Odyssey

2008-04-13T01:42:00.001-04:00

While playing RPGs, I have encountered situations that sometimes predated me having the same experiences in real life. As a little girl, the first of these I found was comradery, which took me a while to find since I was the bookworm type. This infused the games I played with a sort of private and thrilling magic, which hasn't entirely worn off to this day.

While Mistwalker's new RPG Lost Odyssey does follow the conventions of many other RPGs, it sets itself apart with a feature called A Thousand Years of Dreams, in which you recollect the experiences of your character's past. We've all played games that introduce to our characters' memories, but since Lost Odyssey's Kaim is immortal, the memories are suffused with something more: the absence of mortality.

Much like BioShock and its underlying moral themes, Lost Odyssey presents the player with a richer experience which I believe is the future of RPGs: graphical superiority, yes, but more importantly, having the ability to engage our mortality, including our sense of what it is to be human. Welcome to the next generation -- playing games with the ability to excite your senses, engage your emotions and grasp your own transience.

Hit the jump for more.

Depending on how long you've played RPGs, you may have a very specific expectation of what you want in one. Since I've played them on and off for the last twenty years, I'll chuck a formulaic RPG out the window faster than a hooker administers a BJ. Usually, playing the same old structure isn't enough to hold my interest through eighty hours of game time. At this point, there has to be something different, something that can shake me up enough to make an impact.

Enter A Thousand Years of Dreams, in which the immortal lead character Kaim recalls his memories one by one throughtout the course of the game. Like many other RPGs in which the lead character has lost his memories (ahemcloudahem,) we are intended to develop an emotional attachment about the character we are playing because of his or her past. Since you are playing on a modern console, you would think that Lost Odyssey uses superior graphic capability to its advantage to tell the stories of Kaim's memories, no?

It doesn't.

Instead, the developers made a braver choice: they tell the stories using only words.

I can see you reading this now and saying "Words? Like on the page of a book? LAME!" I have two words for you -- you're wrong. It isn't lame at all; in fact, it's the most elegant tactic I've seen used in an RPG since Final Fantasy VII's Cloud Strife floated in a dream world and remembered he wasn't who he thought he was. Instead of taking the obvious route, it does something games did before there were graphics to support them -- tells you an amazing story and leaves your imagination to fill in the rest.

The irony of this approach is palpable. Gamers have been complaining more and more as of late that they don't want to have to read a bucket of text, and now here I am telling you that it's the best thing since goat rape. Luckily, those gamers can skip the dream sequences altogether and still enjoy the action, which is solid enough on its own. The dreams are the best part of the game and flesh out the main story with depth and emotion, but if you want to leave that behind, that's your loss.

This nearly literary approach could possibly be effective on its own, but it is accentuated by something that completes the package: writing brave enough to delve deep into Kaim's lifespan, reflecting back startlingly painful bits of immortality and leaving you starkly aware of the vulnerability of human life. It has been a long time since a game has actually reached my emotions in any way, but Lost Odyssey has finally done it, reminding me that it's worth it to sift through all these RPGs after all.

A Thousand Years of Dreams taps into the very spirit of what makes RPGs great, which is why I can say that I see the future of next gen adventure gaming in its courageous approach. As we come closer and closer to playing games that are indistinguishable from our real lives, they will also have to step up to the plate when it comes to matching the human spirit. Literature and film have long probed topics like mortality and humanity, but games are still new to the territory.

Does this mean that every RPG has to send us into a spiral of existential crisis, leaving us wondering who and what we are and why we live human life? No. Obviously this is heavy stuff, and not always what we want to spend our free time on. Used sparingly however, it can create a gaming experience that is the most realistic gamers have ever encountered. Combine that with graphical prowess, and you have a truly modern interactive experience. Let's hope the anti-game crusaders have prepared well -- they aren't ready for what is to come.

Intelligence and games: a poor pairing?

2008-01-08T20:26:00.002-05:00

Today I read an article about the top games of 2007 in the UK. The chart itself was very different from the popular titles of the United States, but that's to be expected. The biggest difference, as noted by the author of the article, was that 2K's award winning shooter was nowhere to be seen on the UK list. This caused a great deal of discussion among readers of the article. In one disturbing reply, one reader commented in regards to BioShock: "It was a FANTASTIC title, but I'm sure all of this talk about noir, Art Deco, and objectivist undertones must have turned a few of the people off who regard games as day-end relief and not an exercise in artistry. "

While the statement is a factual one, I found myself revisiting it over and over in my thoughts, having discovered a sticking point about it that truly bothered me. I felt true indignation at the idea of being "turned off" by BioShock. The title was the very definition of an intellectual gaming experience - a rich storyline meshed with highly addictable gameplay mechanics. It made an unforgettable impact on me last year, and this article and comment provided a shocking contrast to that, shaking me outside of my own thoughts and into those of others for a few moments.

While it's perfectly understandable that a gamer may not always want a rich, thoughtful gaming experience and sometimes craves something simpler, it's unthinkable for me that a game like BioShock is not a welcome addition to our industry as a whole. More disturbing is the underlying concept, which suggests that "intelligent" games are looked down upon as a nuisance by some people.

I have days where I want to settle down and play a game where all I do is kill shit as much as the next guy. In the case of titles like Diablo, these can be addicting experiences than I go back to again and again. However, twenty of years of playing games puts me in a place where I do crave newness from the hobby I love, and bigger and better versions of what have come before don't always hit the nail on the head. Dynamic storytelling, however, can make all the difference.

If gamers look down on this, and all they want is more of the same, they crush some part of the very craft that creates the things that we cherish. I beg you - if you play games, and they have made a difference in your life, want more for their future than this. In order to continue, games have to be allowed to evolve, and supported by the people who love what they are. You don't have to personally play games like BioShock, but for the love of fucking Christ, use your eyes and see how they have helped break boundaries and push games to be more. They deserve your respect.

The Endgame Syndrome; Why do we abandon games?

2007-10-14T13:23:00.001-04:00

As most of my Destructoid compatriots know, I await RPGs with intriguing storylines more than any other type of game. I enjoy nothing more than to sink myself into a rich plot, get to know the characters, and most of all, experience some form of emotional fulfillment at the end of the story for the work I've put into playing it. To my surprise, the last few I have looked forward to I've gotten fifty to sixty hours into and then simply never picked up again. Why this sudden transformation from game committment to total disinterest?

I clearly remember finishing a lot of the games I played for the NES, and I can't blame it on scarcity of product. Between friends that generously shared large cartridge collections and the game rental store down the street (Performance Hobby! I salute you), I played hundreds of games released for the system during its lifespan. Since I started playing often when I was about ten or so, I know I had the free time to complete them, but it seems to me something more was at work as to why I finished those games.

In the case of the games I was most driven to complete, I was so absorbed in them that I thought about them even when I wasn't playing them. Other new releases didn't get in the way because I wasn't interested in them until I completed the one I was playing. Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy X were great examples. I held them akin to reading a great book - by reading other books at the same time, you distilled the purity of the experience of the story.

In the current state of gaming, releases come out so frequently that we constantly have new "stories" to choose from. The biggest catalyst of "Endgame Syndrome" is definitely this factor. Since production values and budgets have risen to new heights, most games are gorgeous to look at. Some argue that one must wade in a sea of pretty games to try to find the ones that are worthwhile, so consumers are constantly sifting through large amounts of content and don't have the patience to spend on completing a game.

Another major factor seems to be length. BioShock was completely engaging, yet presented the story in a shorter timeframe. The more time you have in which to tell a story, the more challenges one faces to keep a gamer engaged. Considering the average attention span is twenty minutes, it's no small feat to create a game that can remain interesting to a player after 40 hours of play. Structural variance is also a key -- If you're doing more or less the same actions for the majority of the game, are they fun to do?

Most difficult of all is the experience of playing an enjoyable game and then abandoning it after committing many hours to the storyline. Eternal Sonata, I'm sad to say, fell into this category. I was pleased with the story, but I didn't think about it when it wasn't in front of me. It leaves you feeling disappointed when Endgame Syndrome kicks in in these instances. I did want to see the ending, but the drive to do so just evaporated, leaving me as confused as waking up naked with an otter. ( I need to stop drinking at those Zoo-To-Do events.)

Is it that games aren't what they used to be, or is it that gamer attention spans have shortened over time? I fear that some of both are present, although I am always hoping to be pleasantly surprised. The shape of the industry that creates these games has dramatically changed. In 1985, few people would have dreamed that games would one day rival the film industry. As a result, more experimental projects may have turned into playable results, which at the very least promoted creativity.

Whatever the secret formula is, recent feedback proves even RPG giant Square-Enix can't always hit the nail on the head anymore. Avoiding Endgame Syndrome is simply a matter of being choosy about what titles you take home -- and even then, there's no ensuring you'll feel the spark. For me, those unforgettable stories that are worth finishing are worth the search, no matter how many duds I have to sort through to get there.

Video Game crushes: Wanting to rape your imaginary friends

2007-09-20T12:29:00.001-04:00

After five hours of Eternal Sonata, I can finally admit it to myself: I have a crush on Frederic Chopin. Before you start laughing, think back over all the games you've played. Maybe you were so absorbed in the storyline you didn't even realize it. Put down your controller in hushed reverance for all of Sephiroth's cut scenes? Waited patiently for all the moments you could get extra glimpses of Lara's endowments? Maybe your heart even fluttered any time Balthier was dashing and debonair, dangerously straddling the line between androgny and rampant homosexuality. Either way, more of you are guilty of this crime than you'd like to admit: The Video Game Crush.

Your average non-gamer (or even some gamers who have never experienced the phenomenon) will be quick to say,"Why would you get a crush on someone who isn't even real? That''s stupid." Stupid, perhaps, but I can't help but think about all the imaginary people I'll fallen a little in love with, and not just in video games. Ender Wiggin in the Orson Scott Card novels is one of my long standing not-real crushes. How can any logical person find themselves in this position? The answer is simple: The heart is not logical, and a video game is an ideal setting to entertain illogical things. You're already flying along the coast of the Etrian Sea Universe in an armored flying narwhale wearing a crown of igloos, so why not fall in love with the Princess of Obscuria?

It also seems that when we play games, we get to meet many characters who we will never meet the real life equivalent of. I am pretty much assured that I will never meet anyone as metrosexual as the Final Fantasy boys until I head straight to the streets of Harajuku, so it makes sense that those characters might be a little fascinating. As far as female crushworthy characters are concerned, the formula is even simpler: Few real world women kick ass and look as sexy doing it as the Lara Crofts and Chun Lis of the world. Then there's the sweet and helpless formula, which Aerith of Final Fantasy fame is the reigning queen of. She looks so sweet while she's being stabbed through the chest with a sword, doesn't she?

Some people think it's ridiculous, but in my mind having a crush on a character in a game is as normal as getting choked up when a great game ends. If the character designers meshed well with the writers and did their job right, they created characters that were ultimately real enough to emotionally engage you -- something that seems to be getting harder and harder in RPGs every day. It's a compliment to their skills that I can't stop thinking about that dreamy Chopin. The voice actors, of course, are the glue that holds it all together. In a modern era of gaming that makes fully voice acted games the norm, they bring these characters to life or leave them behind to blend into the scenery.

So, got a crush? You can admit it. It's okay. Unless your crush happens to be Pyramid Head, in which case you're an ill little gerbil and really should be confined to a damp room with no doors. Really, it takes all kinds.

Eternal Sonata initial impressions

2007-09-19T00:42:00.002-04:00

The only thing that could excite me after the holy sacrament of scrumptiousness that was BioShock was a good solid RPG. I was expecting something a little more utilitarian as RPGs have not broken the mold much lately, so it was a great surprise to play Eternal Sonata at E3 and find not only an exquisitely beautiful title, but one that seemed to have a truly unique storyline as well. I raced to the store today and snatched up the last copy, eager to dive headfirst into the game.

As shallow as it is, I have to say it: For a dying guy, Chopin is SMOKIN HAWT. I think it's his voice actor making it so, as I want to melt his voice into sweet cream butter and rub it all over my nubile flesh. Now that we've gotten my kinky bits out of the way, I don't have to keep making unintelligible references throughout this article. Eternal Sonata is ten times as beautiful in actual play as it is in screenshots and clips -- for some reason, they can't seem to do justice to this title. Playing the first few minutes literally feels as if you've submerged into a completely different universe, which is something RPGs have been failing at a lot lately. Of course, atmosphere can only go so far.

The first half hour of play is as story heavy as you might expect. While the demo may lead you to believe the game will be very simplistic, there is a rich story concept at the heart here. I expected nothing left from a game that is about the dreams of a dying composer, but it's nice to see the story unfolding well even at this early stage. Players annoyed by cut scenes may be bothered and want to get to the gameplay, but luckily these scenes can be skipped if you like. They add a lot to the story though, so be warned you may miss some great details if you do.

So far the fighting is good, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it great. I like the free range movement and the way the attacks feel while landing, but the initial few areas have you meet the same creature through the level over and over, and the battles get a bit repetitive. I'm hoping as music becomes more involved, it will help with this. Turn based fighting can kill a game in the modern player's eyes, so it needs something to keep it interesting (demonstrated beautifully in the old PS1 title The Legend of Dragoon.)

Bottom line: If you love RPGs, pick it up. It's beautiful, the story is interesting and so far the play is comfortable. I'm fascinated with the use of music and can't wait to learn how to use it. Frankly, regardless of whatever the games' weaknesses may be (listed here or not), it beats the hell out of fighting poop monsters in Blue Dragon. Whose idea was an enemy made of poop, anyway?

Cho Aniki Seinaru Protein Densetsu translates to "Shoot your Holy Protein in my face"

2007-09-14T13:31:00.000-04:00

I'm joking. Partially. I was browsing about the interwebs today when I stumbled upon this gem and felt I needed to enlighten any readers that are not privy to the delights of the Cho Aniki series. For those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, Cho Aniki is a shooter series famous for its large army of greased, muscled, suggestively homoerotic men doing suggestively homoerotic things. It debuted in 1992 on the TurboGrafx 16 and has been wreaking its own special brand of WTF? over Japan ever since. (Actually, considering the Japanese culture, they probably don't blink twice at this title.)

Fascinated yet? If you feel strangely drawn to the concept, I have just the thing for you: the fabulous Hudson has announced that they are going to be releasing Cho Aniki as one of the first of a series of Turbografx CD and TurboGrafx Duo titles coming to the virtual console, along with Y's Book I and II. It likely will not be Cho Aniki Seinaru Protein Densetsu, as there are more popular games in the series, but can you imagine using the Wiimore to shoot your 'Holy Protein" around? CAN YOU? Releases like this are likely stabbing the collector's market in its theoretical face, but there will always be those people that have the have Cho Aniki mint in box with collectible figurine of greased nude male with flowerpot growing from head.

[Via Kotaku]

Moral ambiguity makes a defining mark in BioShock

2007-08-30T19:55:00.000-04:00

I have been playing BioShock for a week and a half or so, just like the rest of you. Of course, the relationship between the Big Daddy and the Little Sister had been often discussed by the time the game was released, and everyone was already aware that there was a moral choice involved in harvesting or saving the Little Sisters. It sounded easy enough, and as I've killed plenty of innocents in my time behind the controller, it seemed the obvious route was to harvest the little girls and take them for all the Adam they're worth. We want to win at this game, after all.

I thought this until I attempted my first harvest. Not only is the result profoundly disturbing, but you're left feeling dirty somehow, and the corpse of the fallen Daddy next to you is somehow ominous even after its fall. Even more clever is what happens if you choose to rescue the Little Sister - her reaction to your kindness is somehow sadder than any violent reaction could have been. Even after taking down many of these creatures, I realized I still could not perceive Big Daddy as an actual enemy, even though it was more than capable of pummeling me into a useless pulp. It does not harm the player when it is not aggressively attacked. What are we to make of such a creature?

Some would say we are emotionally affected by this experience because of morals or personal beliefs. Some perceive the Big Daddy as a father, even though it clearly has no relation to the Little Sister in a physical manner. It could also appeal to the empathies of parents who feel the powerful drive to protect their children. Since I have not experienced either being a parent or having the father/daughter connection as it is portrayed here, I know that I must be affected by something else, perhaps a more primal instinct.

The Little Sister test is one which may say a great deal about the player as he or she chooses the child's fate. Perhaps it can be explained away as simple empathy or the desire to take care of others. We are presented with a situation that is affecting either way it is played out. The lines are not as clear as good and bad though; there is a moral ambiguity present here. Is it wrong to kill something that's clearly evil? Or is everything worth saving, regardless of how far gone it may be?

PAX 2007: Destructoid came, saw, conquered

2007-08-27T15:39:00.000-04:00

Everywhere this Destructoid gang goes, the party seems to follow. At the very least, that's how it seemed this weekend at PAX 2007. This was our first PAX as a group and we were fortunate enough to have a lot of our insanely supportive community come out as well as a fistful of editors. We saw hundreds of amazing games, some really great parties, and a whole lot of photos of the robot in action. You'd be surprised how many people have always longed for a pic of themselves with Mr. Destructoid.

The PAX show floor was well assembled, showing such titles as The Behemoth's Castle Crashers, Mass Effect, Rock Band (which I got to rock with Weekly Geek's Chris Furniss and Kotaku's Flynn DeMarco), not to mention a fine selection of MMO's to sample if that's where the action's at for you. I was personally most pleased with NCSoft's offerings as they have forever impressed me with their stellar City of Heroes. Titles shown at their booth included Dungeon Runners, Tabula Rasa and Aion. Thank heaven for life beyond WoW!

For swag whores disappointed with the lack thereof from E3 and GDC, this was the event to be at. I got tons of shirts and posters, keychains shaped like Wiimotes and stickers galore. We're doing a giveaway over at Destructoid shortly, so if you want to win some stuff keep your eye on the site for an upcoming photo contest.

By far this was my favorite gaming event I had ever attended. On the whole events are fun to attend but also are a lot of work and effort. PAX felt like a vacation from that, allowing us to check out bands like The One Ups and Freezepop in the evenings and entertaining us with keynote speakers such as Wil Wheaton during daylight hours. It seemed more than anything like an event that allowed gamers to unify and enjoy common interests than an event for breaking news and such. At any rate, I had a great time and I will certainly be attending PAX 2008!

The King of Kong review: Go see it, like, yesterday

2007-08-18T10:55:00.000-04:00

Our beloved Tiff at Destructoid was kind enough to post the trailer for The King of Kong for us last month, and I've been patiently waiting ever since to see the full film in the theatre. What I was expecting was a light hearted tale about competitive arcade gaming. What took me by surprise was how affecting of a story it was. When you're laughing one moment and moved the next while watching a film, you know someone's done a good job. Add in that the film is about games, and my admiration of it soars even higher.

I only had the vaguest idea of who Billy Mitchell was before I had seen this film, but in case you don't know, he's like a hybrid of mullet toting proud American hick and Darth Vader. He also holds the top arcade score for Donkey Kong in the world (apparently it was increased by him recently, but it has not been offically approved yet). The story is about the duel between himself and Steve Liebe, who currently holds the Guinness World Record for the high score.

Liebe seemingly emerged from nowhere after losing a job and rigging up a Donkey Kong cabinet in his garage to perfect his game. In the long run he succeeded, and the story runs from there as he travels out to Hollywood, Florida to the legendary Fun Spot arcade to do it all live. To say that the story that naturally develops between Mitchell and Liebe is fascinating hardly begins to cover it. The men are such complete opposites that the roles of light vs dark are inevitable.

Producer Seth Gordon and Director Ed Cunningham have done a clever and memorable job telling a hell of a story, making it well worth the ticket price. Some good PR chap made sure the theatre it premiered at in LA had a Donkey Kong cabinet in the lobby, and by the time I got back outside, it had gained a line of moviegoers waiting to insert their coins. Somehow it does my heart good to see the tradition of arcade gaming still thriving in the modern day, regardless of how advanced next-gen becomes. Now get out there and support flicks like this so we can keep arcades alive!

[Special note: Keep your eye open for special guests from The King of Kong on Destructoid's RetroforceGo! podcast coming soon!]

Bioshock demo liveblogged

2007-08-13T03:38:00.000-04:00

Let me preface this post by saing that even though I have attached a picture to it, it does this title absolutely no justice whatsoever. Seeing screenshots and gameplay videos does not compare to the experience of seeing the world of Rapture open up before you.

I can say with all surety after playing this demo that 2k has made a masterpiece that is going to redefine the medium and perhaps create it's very own genre altogether. The game is marketed as a shooter, but is is infinitely more than what I know shooters to be, even at their very best. The average shooter lacks a story, and Bioshock is the absolute opposite of that. From the very first moment you emerge into the world, choking on water as you watch the airplane you crash landed in sink slowly into the sea, the story is already pulling you in with urgent intimacy. By the time you step through the golden doors of Rapture, you'll have completely forgotten about everything else.

Total immersion is not a good enough descriptive term for the first ten minutes of Bioshock. We are given a few moments to absorb this flawlessly designed universe before things go completely haywire. The atmosphere has a Art Deco-just-barely-masking-an-underground-cult vibe that somehow manages to strike the perfect balance between melancholy and madness. Meeting some of the residents of Rapture nails it down -- you've stumbled from real to surreal in a transition so smooth you never even noticed it was happening.

One thing I found remarkable about the game was how it exhibits features of multiple genres, but abstractly so, as you may smell many fragrances in a single perfume. The beginning reminds me a bit of the Myst series with it's incredible detail and immersiveness, but there are also traces of PC titles and indie games that it reminds me of. Most of all, Rapture reminds me of a world of adventure gaming we are rarely lucky enough to see anymore, and to see that merged with a popular genre like shooters gives me hope that I may continue to see more of the same -- or the birth of completely new genres altogether.

The only complaint I have is that the demo is short -- I was done in about 30 minutes, and I took my time looking around. Still, it has the intended effect of leaving you drooling for more. Had I been sitting here with the full title rather than a demo, I could have easily played until dawn and probably not have even noticed. It's everything you hoped it was and more. There aren't too many titles that I feel I can claim for the "games as art"argument, but Bioshock truly fits the bill. It's simply astonishing.

Eternal Sonata demo impressions

2007-08-12T11:41:00.001-04:00

Pretty! Pretty! Pretty!

No.....really. This demo is gorgeous like I can't even begin to explain to you. The art style is triumphant, the details are perfect, it moves fluidly, the music is gorgeous. More importantly, even though there isn't any story revealed in the demo, it doesn't suffer from that feeling of hollowness that many current RPGs seem to. While playing, I had an echo of the way I felt while playing Final Fantasy 7 for the first time, which I can only think of as a good thing.

I haven't enjoyed an RPG battle system as much as Eternal Sonata's in a long time. While Final Fantasy 12 seemed to master the art of free movement and flow for battles, there is something about the way this system works that I find very satisfying to play. You have a bar of time, which does not begin until you move, to use in any way you like. You can get in a few attacks, heal and even cast a special attack all in one turn. It's basically the indecisive player's dream come true.

For me, Eternal Sonata also nails a difficult middle ground in that it is cute without being completely nauseating. Sometimes the little phrases before or after a battle literally make a game distasteful for me; I feel as the writers chose to speak down to me as the player when the character personalities are too dumbed down(Blue Dragon was a perfect example). While I prefer no catchphrasing at all, the title seems to balance out it's tone well, and I don't want to throw any of the characters out the window yet, which is always a good thing.

My only negative point about the demo is that I wanted to see more of the musical aspect of the game, as I have been fascinated with that concept since it was announced. You can speak to someone in a town about it, but there's no ability to experiment. My hopes are high for how this will work into gameplay and storyline. The title is already a pleasure to play, even without this additional feature.

Eternal Sonata's impact on 360 may dictate the possibility of more RPGs for the system, which is something I would really like to see. It's been the only thing that held me back from buying it when so many other gamers were already enjoying theirs. I enjoy it for what it is, but no matter how advanced a console is, it's useless to me without a selection of games I enjoy. If Microsoft keeps expanding their horizons, 360 truly could end up as king for some time -- especially if Sony keeps struggling. Regardless, after playing this demo, I look forward to the release more than ever. This one looks like a winner.

E3 2007: Square Enix Online store preview

2007-07-15T22:07:00.000-04:00

I'd like to save face and say I'm faking the expression up above, but that's pretty much exactly how I was feeling as I walked to my E3 appointment with Square Enix. They were showing multiple upcoming titles, but Destructoid will be sharing the details with you in a post coming shortly. The scoop I have for you is about the launch of the online merchandise store, and that you will soon be buying your Cloud Strife sculptures directly from Square instead of sending your money to a black market yakuza in China who wrestles three alligators and fights the ghost of Shiva in order to get your goods.

We saw some amazing merchandise ranging from the FF12 figures you see above to highly detailed recreations of the battle scenes between Cloud and Sephiroth from Advent Children.Thankfully there was no way we could buy any of what we saw because I would have hurled my credit card at them with surprising force. Anyway, America gets access to all this goodness and more later this year, although a date was not specified. I'll just save all my money until then, order ten of everything and fill up my bathtub with them, and lay in it.

Dungeon Runners not quite Diablo, but better than cold toast

2007-07-10T00:12:00.000-04:00

I was reading Play Magazine a few days ago when I saw a blurb for the new NC Soft MMO Dungeon Runners, which featured two Colette- friendly selling points: no initial subscription fee (but if you do want the full version of the game, it's $4.99 a month, cheaper than your Mountain Dew habit) and comparisons to Diablo 2. Cheap is good, but not if it sucks. However it is a known fact that if you compare Grandma's Blood Pressure Challenge to Diablo 2, I will try it for at least five minutes. My D2 addiction is still alive and well a good ten years after the first time I played it, and still nothing to this day has quite hit the sweet spot of stabbing wraiths in the face. Still, I keep hoping.

After a little hands on time with Dungeon Runners, I realized it was actually an amalgam of several other games. It has quite a bit of Diablo in it, a bit of WoW, and a pinch of Kingdom of Loathing. It has the point and click action and non-intrusive background soundtrack, and the inventory menu is an almost direct steal from the famous demon slaying adventure. WoW comparisons come in when you get quests and speak to NPCs, complete with question marks above heads. In my initial inventory, I found a red bottle called "Potion of the Daring Noobosaur." You clever geeks, you!

The control is not bad, but I think the thing that no game has mastered since D2 is the ease of control. This game allows you to point and click as Diablo did, but something about it is more awkward and wooden. The battles are slowish, and although they feel fine, sometimes I have to admit I just want to kill things faster. It's a huge point of importance for me how battles handle in a game, and can eventually make me give up or addict me for life. How does each weapon feel in use? Is a kill blow satisfying, or just there? A resonant crunch or the timing of a swing when my character uses a mace can make all the difference in the world.

I can't really tell you if Dungeon Runners is worth your money since you don't have to spend any to play it, so let's say it might be worth a download if you like features of the aforementioned games and want to play something free. I'm not disappointed by the game as much as I don't really have a lot to say about it. I have high expectations for MMOs these days. On the other hand, I don't mind a clone if it's a clone done well (see The Legend of Dragoon in your nearest gaming dictionary). Either Blizzard is the greatest developer in the land -- and it makes you wonder when you look at WoW numbers -- or no one has managed to copy their timeless formula well. If they ever make time for Diablo again between WoW and Starcraft, maybe then I can finally get the fix I've been endlessly searching for.

Would you play a horror MMO?

2007-07-04T21:40:00.000-04:00

My Fourth of July was spent taking it easy (this is a chic phrase for slacking). I stayed in, played some old emulated games, and watched a couple of movies. I've been on a horror kick lately, and I haven't seen a Nightmare on Elm Street film for at least 5 years, so I borrowed a few from a friend and settled down for some bloody camp and bad dreams.

That was a pretty accurate description of what I got, too. Maybe they were scary in the eighties and nineties, but as a hardcore horror fan, I was only enjoying them because I was watching them through my retrogoggles -- and nothing more. I found them most non-frightening when Freddy Kreuger was onscreen, or even worse, when he had actual dialogue. (When were catchphrases EVER cool for evil demons?)

As usual after watching a horror film that I thought could have been more than it was, my inner mental diatribe immediately started on how horror isn't what it used to be, it isn't scary, why can't someone do something decent, and thank God there's a Silent Hill series at my disposal when I want to remember what it's like to be afraid. Magically, the topic of horror flourishing in games blended into another idea before I even realized what I was thinking of. Would I play a horror MMO?

You know, I would. HOLY COCKS YES I would. Immediately, all the secondary ideas came to mind. How would it work? Would people want to log in to a consistently frightening world? Why would it be frightening? Could an idea like Event Horizon's haunted ship be translated into an entire dimension? Bioshock has definitely got the idea -- The Rapture should unnerve many an explorer. However, that's an FPS adventure...and would greatly differ from the logistics of a dynamic world.

One major point of difference is that a horror is rarely a social experience, whereas MMOs thrive on the interactive aspect. Some gamers would say that one difference kills it off before the idea even gets started, but somehow this clash makes me more interested. Could it be possible to play with other people, but only through a complex system (you must rescue a friend or undo a curse before you can play with them)? Would an MMO that made you work to gain interactivity push players to work for it, or simply shut off their PCs in frustration?

Another common complaint of MMO players is that all they do is grind and that the games lack an emotionally engaging story. Perhaps an MMO in a post-apocalyptic setting could kill two birds with one stone -- creating a backdrop of consistent unease and fear while telling a story that all human beings can relate to the terror of. Add in zombies and you could be playing 28 Days Later Online. Imagine the pressure of having to avoid being infected every time you logged in to play, or permanently losing your character if he or she was.

I would like to see the MMO genre electrified, as even consistent WoW players admit to boredom or quitting the game because they just aren't having fun anymore. Bioware claims to be making an online title focused on "story, character and emotion", which gives us something to look forward to. When I think about playing a game that would keep me on the edge when I played, unsure of what could happen each time I logged in, I think that just might be the thing to make me interested in MMOs again. The question is, How do you execute it to strike the ideal balance between fear and playability?

Will great gameplay save the galaxy?

2007-06-20T21:01:00.000-04:00

Rewind back about a year, to the erection-arousing time of Next Gen console announcements. Everyone expected slick appearance, top-of-the-line graphics, and the inclusion of technologically superior Blu-Ray in the PS3. What gamers didn’t expect was a price tag that would make them stammer and sweat, but that's what they got. It was obvious that Sony had chosen to aim for the high end adult market, which perhaps was a wise decision in their eyes. However, as a gamer who fell in love with the NES at age 8, it was difficult for me to be able to support their new direction. I knew had I been that same child today, my parents would not have been able to afford the PS3 and I would have missed out on the experience that has defined a great deal of my adult life.

In the meantime, Nintendo chose to take a different route with the Wii, announcing a campaign that focused on the inclusion of people from all walks of life. The Wiimote was extremely easy to use and unlike any other controller that had hit the market previously. Because of Nintendo’s decision to focus on ease of function over graphical superiority, they captured not only the general market and Nintendo’s dedicated fanbase, but also a demographic that had never played console games before. Gamers now had a console they could share with anyone from their kid brother to their grandmother. The system also made an impact on the elderly, brightening up many a retirement home with a previously forgotten sense of challenge and fun.

The competition at this point seems strongly in Nintendo’s favor; however, many Sony fans claim that as the PS3 sees more games it will ultimately be the winning system because of its capacity for longevity. Meanwhile, Wii continues to fly off shelves faster than retailers can stock it. As a retro gamer, it makes me realize that there is a big question at hand: What is more important to gamers? Graphics or playability? Microsoft seems to be straddling the fence with the 360, offering strong graphics and online play at a more affordable price point, but it seems the two extreme ends of the spectrum are PS3 and Wii – not to mention the ones generating the most buzz.

Since my experience with gaming was landmarked by the NES, obviously my love for it didn’t spring from amazing graphics (although when 16 bit hit the market, I thought my little heart would explode. It looked so good!). The games that made the greatest impression on me obviously possessed something more at that time that drew the love of millions of kids my age. Around the time of the PS3’s release, I clearly recall walking into a Gamestop with a PS3 display and an NES display at the counter with The Legend of Zelda in it. To say I was like a moth to the flame would be an understatement; even though I had never touched the PS3, I was perfectly happy to chase Octoroks instead, despite the fact I’d done it a hundred times before. What’s the secret?

It leads me to believe that while there are tons of gamers waiting on the next Halo or Madden to grace their HD sets, there are more than we realize looking for a different kind of gaming experience, whether it be retro, indie or just a totally different category altogether. The public has been complaining as of late that the Wii only offers “party” titles, which I would consider to be a mostly true statement with the exception of titles like Twilight Princess and Super Paper Mario. The Wii may be rapidly approaching its crossroads – if it doesn’t break the pattern, will people lose interest? Nintendo hasn’t welcomed a lot of third party titles since the SNES days.

On the other hand, this could be the fount from which Sony draws strength. PS2 had one of the most varied libraries in history since the NES, offering everything from Metal Gear Solid to Mister Mosquito. A Sony fan can’t help but hope that PS3 could have a similar future despite the long line of mishaps that have come with the new console’s launch. Here’s some food for thought: If you could be reassured that the PS3 would have the same future as the PS2’s past, would it be worth it to you to shell out the 600 bones to add one to your gaming shelf?

What is more important to you as a gamer – How your games look? Or how your games feel to play? Have we become shallow as consumers, only wanting the best looking games even if they’re devoid of solid content? If you could only choose to own one of these consoles, which would you pick?

Best Hook , Line and Sinker: Silent Hill

2007-04-29T13:14:00.000-04:00

This has been a weekend for playing old games. I'm not really feeling the next gen right now, so I've been sifting through older titles that I loved to play. I was thinking about what I think of as the Hook, Line and Sinker of a game - the part that captures you and gives you the drive to play it through. I believe this phenomenon is also responsible for making you hum the game's music at work and in elevators, but that's another article all on its own.

It was during this dig that I started to replay Silent Hill. I found myself reminded that this game has one of my favorite opening ten minutes of any game I have played, old or new. Shall I remind you of the terror that lurks within?

I will admit the intro had me before I started to play the actual game. A couple standing in a graveyard holding a newborn baby? A little girl disappearing into the fog? The whole thing just left my brain fizzing and wanting more. Hilariously, I remember marveling over the quality of the graphics as well (any person who played this game and tries to go back to play it now will tell you it looks like crap).

Chasing Cheryl's image through the fog, Harry runs down an alley and through an iron gate. The first thing you see after going through the gate appears to be the bloodied corpse of an animal. The designers used angles to great advantage through this sequence, seeming to skewer the world further and further as Harry proceeds down the alleyway. I love the pacing of this careful descent - it created unforgettable emotion.

I remember clearly that as the sequence got darker, I felt a definite sense of dread. Little details like the squealing sound of the wheels of a broken wheelchair lent a great deal to the atmosphere. As Harry finally stumbles into the heart of the fold, he finds a dessicated corpse strung up to the fence and is attacked by tiny creatures which are surely not of this world. After passing out, he awakens in a diner and we are introduced to Cybil, the officer who will help him throughout the rest of the game.

The graphics are rough, the dialogue is wooden, yet why did I replay this title with such interest? A game like Silent Hill proves yet again that a powerful story transcends any graphical limitation - and why the technology of next gen gaming may mean nothing in the long run when it comes to making a great game. I'm hooked by it just as much now as I was when it was released eight years ago. We need more of this kind of storytelling in the modern gaming world. I can only hope developers and writers truly know it.

Guesting on The Weekly Geek podcast

2007-04-23T15:45:00.000-04:00

I was a guest on The Weekly Geek podcast last night thanks to the ever amazing Chris Furniss. Check it out for some Wii doubt via Super Paper Mario, fan voicemails and why violence and video gaming have as much to do with each other as Michael Jackson and healthy sexual desires.

Tied The Leader Interview

2007-04-13T18:21:00.000-04:00

Tied the Leader was kind enough to interview me for their 22 Questions feature. While you're there, check out the website: they are a blog to be watched. The Foundation alone is one of the coolest examples I've seen so far of the approach to gaming with a meaningful cause. Its independent ideas like these that create the diversity of the gaming community and inspire others to come up with their own ideas. Cheers to that.

Total 180 for the 360

2007-04-01T13:00:00.000-04:00

Rewind back to the golden days of November 2001. After repeated delays, Microsoft finally reveals their contribution to the gaming world with a console known as the Xbox. The first system to boast a hard disk drive under its hood, Xbox seemed to be trying to approach the market from a more advanced angle, which was welcomed by many gamers. As with all new consoles, I was anxious to try it out.

Hands on, Xbox was a little uncomfortable right off the bat for me, and I don't think I have to tell you why: controllers the size of the Hulk's fists are not generally comfortable for the normal female hand size. The console itself also weighed in at a whopping 8.8 pounds, larger than the average newborn. Size fixations, anyone? Regardless, it's the games that make a system, not the housing, so I chose to ignore the big black daddy attack and focus on the offerings yet to come.

Of course I played Halo, which ran flawlessly and I could see the reason why so many gamers were addicted. But as I went through the launch titles available, something started to slowly come into the clear: every title for the Xbox was masculine in nature. I wasn't looking for Barbie's Pony Adventures here, but I think the average gamer girl tends to avoid titles like Brutus' Mega Mutilation Spree of Testicular Glory. Still, being the patient lass I am, I was willing to watch the release schedule and give it another shot when the titles came out that sparked my interest.

The clock ticked. The releases came out. NFL Fever 2002. Project Gotham Racing. Moto GP. Mech Assault. Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon. Halo 2. A slew of fine titles, looking their best thanks to the Xbox's advanced graphical capability. Most notable to this gamer, however: no RPGs, no platformers, few strategy titles, and absolutely NOTHING cutesy. Xbox was a console for a real man. Welcome to the birth of my resentment towards Microsoft. I don't give a shit about being a female in the gaming universe; it's mostly an irreverent detail. But the alienation of any minority by a console maker seemed an ugly snub to me. If Xbox had been the only console to have when I was a 9 year old, I wouldn't have become a gamer. Thank God for Nintendo.

I turned my attention to the other consoles on the market and ended up spending the majority of my money and time on Sony's Playstation 2, which covered all genres of play and did a fine job establishing itself as one of the strongest consoles of all time. When Xbox discussions happened, they sailed over my radar. I had lost respect for Microsoft completely. When the 360 was released, I expected a prettier version of the same Xbox, and seeing it in the beginning of its lifespan, I still found myself unable to care.

Soon after, something great happened. It became public knowledge that the sales of the 360 in Japan were really poor. After all, the Japanese are responsible for a huge chunk of the game buying community. What do the Japanese like to play? RPGs and quirky titles. Just what Microsoft wasn't offering. So in the long run, they got the ultimate kick in the pants -- shitty sales figures. How's that for motivation, guys? Blue Dragon was their answer to the quandry, and as of January 2007, it holds the award as the best selling title in that territory. Dag, maybe those role players are important after all.

XBLA was already gaining steam by the time this took place, and the weekly releases were starting to make me perk my head up again. TMNT Arcade? Alien Hominid? They were blowing the Virtual Console's wilted selections right out of the water. Most of my friends were raving about the fun of online play, and titles like Dead Rising were starting to look damned yummy to me. By the time I got 10 minutes with the smooth interface of XBLA, I was hooked. Upcoming titles like Bioshock and Assassin's Creed are giving me major happy pants, and with Final Fantasy being discussed as a possibility to no longer be a Sony exclusive title, it seems I am right on the edge of finding the new perfect console. Who've ever thought it?

I'd like to delude myself by thinking that Microsoft decided to rethink their decisions about this console because they realized they were alienating a lot of gamers with the original Xbox. I know better though. It all came down to the almighty dollar, and since this is still a business last time I checked, I do understand why. Regardless, I'm happy to see a console I once felt I couldn't interact with at all become the best the market has to offer. Perhaps PS3 can become a competitor for this title later in its lifespan, but for now, the 360's got it going on, and I'm pleased to have been converted. Keep the RPGs coming!

The rise and fall of the classic arcade

2007-01-21T13:29:00.000-05:00

According to recent reports, the average gamer is about 30 years of age. Rewind your inner clock and that means your first system was either the Atari or the NES. By the time arcade gaming was getting truly huge, most of us were about 8 years old and probably just a tad too young to be feeding all our quarters away into Galaga. However, if you born in 1970, you would have been about 13 when arcades were hitting their peak popularity in the early to mid eighties, making you the perfect age to become obsessed with your own personal high score.

Yesterday I found myself standing in an arcade, looking around me at what I felt to be a pretty poor showing. Although not large, the majority of the floor seemed dedicated to Dance Dance Revolution style games and first person shooters. I have no problem with either of these genres (although the DDR kids mystify me in a way I should save for another post altogether), but the only vintage machine I saw was a beat up Pac - Man/ Galaga stand up. No House of the Dead, no Street Fighter, no Rampage. All it once it occurred to me - the modern arcade sucks. It's an afterthought thrown together by movie theaters and theme parks. Thankfully there are a few modern establishments (such as the illustrious Ground Kontrol) that still take the legacy of the arcade quite seriously, but for the most part, we're on our own. This seems tragic to me, as there are very few prestructured enviroments in which people can gather and focus on the enjoyment of gaming.

On the other hand, the "Game centers" of Japan are still healthy and thriving. Seeing a place like the Joypolis exists kinda makes me squirm with envy, although it's obvious the Japanese consumer is still more than happy to pour quarters into a game while the American consumer would rather just buy a console. Looks like if we want our ultimate arcade, we'll have to create it ourselves. Well, at least the arcades are surviving in some format somewhere. In the meantime, we'll all have to cluster about our Wiis and hope no one impales anyone else with a flying Wiimote.

The Cloud Strife syndrome: what makes an RPG matter?

2006-12-31T17:04:00.000-05:00

Gather round, little bots. Tonight I have for you a little known tale about the wretched bucket of experiences people fondly refer to as childhood.

Visualize with me, if you will a girl of about 10: short for her age, long mousy brown hair, wearing a ridiculous sleeveless Tour de France shirt, uniform regulation gym shorts and lavender oversized glasses. She's sitting in front of the television playing Phantasy Star 2 for the first time, totally fascinated and absorbed by the characters she's just been introduced to. She's the loner type and doesn't have friends, so while other children enjoy the throes of popularity, puppy love and underage drug abuse, her after school days thereafter are spent exploring Paseo and forgetting the real world existed at all.

Yeah, that dorky little kid was me, and without emotionally rich games, I wouldn't have had the rich experiences that made me fall in love with games in the first place. This thoughtful article from Gamasutra got me thinking about the games that made the biggest impact on me and why.

1. Phantasy Star 2: The opening credits still make me kinda tingly. This was the first game I've ever played that had the balls to kill off an important character. For those noobs who think FFVII did it first, I'm sorry to disappoint you. It was also the first RPG I ever played that chose a futuristic setting instead of the traditional medieval setting. Yeah, it looks like ass next to RPGs of today, but as a kid, I thought about Nei's death for days afterwards.

2. Chrono Trigger: This game is just gold from start to finish. At the time of it's release it was lauded as revolutionary; the multiple endings specifically drew a lot of attention. It never took the heavy route - instead it seemed to keep a brisk pace, always moving forward with lots of events and character interaction. It's weaving of the topic of time travel into the game was so fluid, you never even realized you were exploring major roads of philosophical thought, because you were simply too busy having fun.

3. Final Fantasy VII: Well, you knew it would be on the list, so for those of you who hate it, bitch in the comments. There's no explaining why so many players cared so much about a spiky haired kid with a shitty attitude, but maybe it was the Han Solo formula. Whatever it was, this game is beloved in the annuals of RPG gamers' memories for a reason. Fantastic characters, engaging plot, and a world so highly detailed it was hard to remember it wasn't a real place. If Sony does ever decide to stop taunting us and remake this baby for the next gen, there's going to be a joy stampede.

4. Silent Hill 2: This game is so freaking perfect it makes my head hurt just thinking about it. Masterfully suspenseful and frightning, it draws you into the story effortlessly with absolutely no idea of what you will face in the end. I actually cried at the conclusion. Being so emotionally engaged with a story that you elicit such a reaction is a surefire sign that the creators have done their job well. It's been recently mentioned that the SH team are drawing on this game's feel for the creation of Silent Hill 5, which makes me a happy little muppet indeed.

5. Final Fantasy X: A lot of people didn't like this one and are going to disagree with this choice. Luckily, this is my article and not yours, so feel free to suck it. Playing through the opening sequence between Tidus and Auron completely fascinated me and made me want to play it through to the end. Of all the FF characters in the series, these were the most real to me. The pilgrimage to Zanarkand really absorbed me as well, and the ending is both completely sad and heartbreakingly beautiful. If you care about being truly engaged in your games, this one is a must.

All joking aside, what are the games that engaged you the most as a player?