Let's get serious for a moment.
There's something that's been bugging me of late. It could very well be the fact that everywhere I look, there's no end to the mythological belief that all women are short skirt wearing, big boob owning, makeup dominated creatures of the night life.
I must have missed the memo when they approved all that.
Before you get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a for or against mentality here to those who actually want to dress like this. It's a persons right to decide what they wear and how they act. What disturbs me is how this 'version', for lack of a better word, is the dominant iteration spotted in most forms of media. Especially gaming.
The common excuses for such actions is that gaming is a male dominated society, it's what people want to see. Even I can see that this a dated term, dare I say it a pathetic excuse for nudity or sexual exploitation just for the sake of selling a few extra copies. Yes I'm looking at you, Grand Theft Auto. Coffee anyone?
There's some small level of comfort that a game like, say Mass Effect 2, allowed you to create your own character (male or female) and decide yourself how he/she acts and responds to certain events. It's up to you as the player to choose how they look, to a point. I've also read just recently that gay/lesbian relationships will be introduced into the third game. It's an edgy call to make for a game so well known in the public eye, but does it make it right? Especially when it isn't a believable scenario?
Truth is, as long as video games portray women in a light that deems scantly clad as normal for police officers, detectives, doctors, lawyers, heroes, mothers, scientists, etc, etc, than how can gaming possibly be considered an adult medium, if it's such a childish mentality in design?
There's an argument for and against. For: gaming needs to be unbelievable in order for it to be entertaining. Against: True to a point, but where does that leave LA Noir or (dare I say it) Call of Duty, that rely on realism for the impact of the story to hit home?
Here's another interesting point, relative to this thought process. In the last ten years of video games, only a small number of games with a female lead character have sold in profitable numbers. I dare you to remember at least one of them that doesn't feature a certain Lara Croft. Got one? Okay, was this character in any way like what I suggested above? Big boobs? Maybe even all that?
Hands up who thought of Portal? Congratulations, you picked one of the only games in modern history (not counting the Mario Bros. titles, which depicts a helpless princess ... I'll get to that problem another day) that doesn't follow all the typical rules.
It could be considered unusual that I, being a male, would write on such a topic. I guess, maybe, I have an opinion that doesn't conform with reality. A reality that's become tainted by immoral choices considered 'normal'. I guess that's why it bugs me. Why should it be considered normal in the first place, when clearly it isn't. Gaming or otherwise, it's the ultimate misstep by society, especially when I see fourteen or fifteen year olds dressing like this. It just seems ... wrong. Very wrong.
19.5.11
17.5.11
What's a PSN?
I'm torn. The PSN's back. I found it at the back door, tail between its legs. "Sorry, Master. Next time I'll leave a note." But I'm not really sure if I should let it back in, besides the fact that it's been raining and I just washed the floors.
See, with the network down, I had to find other methods of maintaining my interest. Funny thing is, despite my concern over this thing they call 'real life', I actually found it rather rewarding. More rewarding than trophies, believe it or not. So I opened the door the other day and discovered this thing called 'The Sun.' It's this amazing gas giant that the Earth revolves around (I don't think that's been proven yet, I'll get back to you on that). It warmed my skin way better than my usual microwave technique, I can't believe I didn't discover it before on wikileaks.
Still with me? My point is, we've become such a technology driven society that if something were to go wrong, we'd be bleeped. Totally bleeping bleeped. No emails? No SMS? Forget about the world turning, this is end of the galaxy stuff!
Perhaps, on reflection, I'm judging this a little harshly. I mean, Sony *did* have all our contact details and credit card info stolen. Bad Sony, bad! Go to the corner! But seriously, it's not something to be taking the bleep out of. What annoys me, however, are the endless amount of people complaining that their lives, their weekend plans, their whole supposed existence has been utterly destroyed because they can't pull out a spleen or drop a hole in the ground against a fourteen year old kid in Iceland.
I'd like formally apologise to any readers from Iceland. Clearly not all of your fourteen year olds play PS3 ... what with all that ice around.
I'd like to formally apologise to any readers from Iceland. Clearly your land isn't full of ice. However, if you do in fact have some, my coke's getting warm.
What was I typing? Something about games, I think. Seems like all this time away from them have left me a confused mess. Even my 3DS left fifteen messages for me, but I couldn't bare to answer. That's the moral of this blog post. Now that PSN is back online, don't allow it to take over your life again. Or anything else gaming wise for that matter (I'm looking at you, World of Killing Things!). Go outside, smell the roses, or if you so desire, burn some ants.
I'd like to formally apologise to any readers from Antland. Clearly you are an inferior species, but I love you all the same and I'd never burn you. Besides, I've got Portal 2 co-op to catch up on. Cya in virtual hell folks!
See, with the network down, I had to find other methods of maintaining my interest. Funny thing is, despite my concern over this thing they call 'real life', I actually found it rather rewarding. More rewarding than trophies, believe it or not. So I opened the door the other day and discovered this thing called 'The Sun.' It's this amazing gas giant that the Earth revolves around (I don't think that's been proven yet, I'll get back to you on that). It warmed my skin way better than my usual microwave technique, I can't believe I didn't discover it before on wikileaks.
Still with me? My point is, we've become such a technology driven society that if something were to go wrong, we'd be bleeped. Totally bleeping bleeped. No emails? No SMS? Forget about the world turning, this is end of the galaxy stuff!
Perhaps, on reflection, I'm judging this a little harshly. I mean, Sony *did* have all our contact details and credit card info stolen. Bad Sony, bad! Go to the corner! But seriously, it's not something to be taking the bleep out of. What annoys me, however, are the endless amount of people complaining that their lives, their weekend plans, their whole supposed existence has been utterly destroyed because they can't pull out a spleen or drop a hole in the ground against a fourteen year old kid in Iceland.
I'd like formally apologise to any readers from Iceland. Clearly not all of your fourteen year olds play PS3 ... what with all that ice around.
I'd like to formally apologise to any readers from Iceland. Clearly your land isn't full of ice. However, if you do in fact have some, my coke's getting warm.
What was I typing? Something about games, I think. Seems like all this time away from them have left me a confused mess. Even my 3DS left fifteen messages for me, but I couldn't bare to answer. That's the moral of this blog post. Now that PSN is back online, don't allow it to take over your life again. Or anything else gaming wise for that matter (I'm looking at you, World of Killing Things!). Go outside, smell the roses, or if you so desire, burn some ants.
I'd like to formally apologise to any readers from Antland. Clearly you are an inferior species, but I love you all the same and I'd never burn you. Besides, I've got Portal 2 co-op to catch up on. Cya in virtual hell folks!
30.4.11
The Kombat Distraction
Please note. If you haven't seen Mortal Kombat: Legacy yet, the following may spoil a few surprises. So go watch them first on YouTube, okay? Go on, I'll wait.
...
...
Okay, ready? Good:
I'm all for expanding a universe. No, not this one, clearly that's beyond science. For now.
I'm talking the fictional kind, taking something known and giving it a new slant through other forms of media. It's been done numerous times before. Some work, some don't. Others are called movie flops (no offence to anyone who's seen Prince of Persia and liked it). Largely I enjoy them, especially ones that delve to a point where you never thought you'd see such a thing, certainly not within the original idea, and alter your perspective in the process.
The Dark Knight is a perfect example. The news shorts that doubled as prime time, current affairs style interviews with key players in the movie were an extra treat, as were the many company websites that were later vandalised by the Joker. You could say they weren't really required, most viewers care little for extra incentives, but there's a clear and precise market for it. The best kind of advertising for a product should be the one that goes beyond simply stating 'this product is cool' or throwing endless amounts of celebrities at you push it further.
Games have had their moments too. Remember the live action ads for Metroid Prime and Other M? Or the awesome animated rip on Mario Kart for Blur? ... Okay, maybe not, but I do, so that's all that matters. They're important points of reference, where an ad becomes a work of art, a slice of pop culture that fans can revel in.
So where does that leave Mortal Kombat Legacy? Maybe for this particular Australian market, we should care little for this mini-series, especially considering the prime product it's trying to advertise (to a degree) isn't even available here. That's a blog post for another day, safe to say an R rating is needed. Now.
As of this published article of elegant splendour (proudly sponsored by Apple, if for no reason other than this was typed on one), there are three episodes of the violent, gritty and overly Hollywoodish series that provide a sense of modern day back story to each main character from a franchise that really isn't dead yet. I do say that out of surprise since, out of all the 90's franchises still around, that's the one I least expected. There's only so much you can get out of a few fatalities, right?
Judging from reviews of the latest game, I guess I'm wrong.
But back to the web series. The short note: It's good, so far. Having an entire episode detail the down out and of poor little Johnny Cage is a key highlight, largely because it was so unexpected. The first two parts uploaded to much fanfare were a little underwhelming, to be honest. Fun, no doubt, but I was expecting more from them, especially following on from the high standard set from the leaked 'wing on a prayer' that was the teaser last year. That, by the way, was far more violent than anything seen in this so far.
Maybe it was the fact that the first episode spent half the time watching seven of nine in slow motion. Or that the fight between Jax and Kano wasn't a brutal affair that the video games are well known for. It just didn't click for me. Since all this is a prequel to MK, before most of these characters have all of their particular traits and signature looks, I can forgive all 'lacks of', like Kano's eye (besides, by the end of episode two they've made up for that rather well.) Still, I really wanted more, especially Stryker, if only to make him seem like a viable fighter I'd want to play as, for once. That, and I've met Tahmoh Penikett. He's cool.
And then Cage came along. The tongue in cheek, former Power Ranger (I chuckled at that one) needing one last pay cheque, pitching a reality show in order to become a hit again... a far better narrative than the stock standard action flick that came before it. I really did feel sorry for him, especially having to resort to cheesy one liners to try and win over the rather typical executives with an eye for a bigger prize. Whoever chose Matt Mullins to play Cage chose well, he fits the role perfectly both as an actor with the right look and the fighting chops to pull it off.
And I looked it up. He wasn't in Power Rangers despite the references, although he DID play a role in the similarly styled 'Kamen Rider', so there you go.
It's early days yet, but I'm liking this series so far. It's building up nicely, but the question remains whether they can pull off key characters Sub Zero and Scorpion without them coming off poorly conceived, much like the original movie versions. If they can at least be believable while also kicking all kinds of ass, I'll be relatively distracted by the lack of local Kombat. Some what. Or maybe not at all, I haven't decided yet.
...
...
Okay, ready? Good:
I'm all for expanding a universe. No, not this one, clearly that's beyond science. For now.
I'm talking the fictional kind, taking something known and giving it a new slant through other forms of media. It's been done numerous times before. Some work, some don't. Others are called movie flops (no offence to anyone who's seen Prince of Persia and liked it). Largely I enjoy them, especially ones that delve to a point where you never thought you'd see such a thing, certainly not within the original idea, and alter your perspective in the process.
The Dark Knight is a perfect example. The news shorts that doubled as prime time, current affairs style interviews with key players in the movie were an extra treat, as were the many company websites that were later vandalised by the Joker. You could say they weren't really required, most viewers care little for extra incentives, but there's a clear and precise market for it. The best kind of advertising for a product should be the one that goes beyond simply stating 'this product is cool' or throwing endless amounts of celebrities at you push it further.
Games have had their moments too. Remember the live action ads for Metroid Prime and Other M? Or the awesome animated rip on Mario Kart for Blur? ... Okay, maybe not, but I do, so that's all that matters. They're important points of reference, where an ad becomes a work of art, a slice of pop culture that fans can revel in.
So where does that leave Mortal Kombat Legacy? Maybe for this particular Australian market, we should care little for this mini-series, especially considering the prime product it's trying to advertise (to a degree) isn't even available here. That's a blog post for another day, safe to say an R rating is needed. Now.
As of this published article of elegant splendour (proudly sponsored by Apple, if for no reason other than this was typed on one), there are three episodes of the violent, gritty and overly Hollywoodish series that provide a sense of modern day back story to each main character from a franchise that really isn't dead yet. I do say that out of surprise since, out of all the 90's franchises still around, that's the one I least expected. There's only so much you can get out of a few fatalities, right?
Judging from reviews of the latest game, I guess I'm wrong.
But back to the web series. The short note: It's good, so far. Having an entire episode detail the down out and of poor little Johnny Cage is a key highlight, largely because it was so unexpected. The first two parts uploaded to much fanfare were a little underwhelming, to be honest. Fun, no doubt, but I was expecting more from them, especially following on from the high standard set from the leaked 'wing on a prayer' that was the teaser last year. That, by the way, was far more violent than anything seen in this so far.
Maybe it was the fact that the first episode spent half the time watching seven of nine in slow motion. Or that the fight between Jax and Kano wasn't a brutal affair that the video games are well known for. It just didn't click for me. Since all this is a prequel to MK, before most of these characters have all of their particular traits and signature looks, I can forgive all 'lacks of', like Kano's eye (besides, by the end of episode two they've made up for that rather well.) Still, I really wanted more, especially Stryker, if only to make him seem like a viable fighter I'd want to play as, for once. That, and I've met Tahmoh Penikett. He's cool.
And then Cage came along. The tongue in cheek, former Power Ranger (I chuckled at that one) needing one last pay cheque, pitching a reality show in order to become a hit again... a far better narrative than the stock standard action flick that came before it. I really did feel sorry for him, especially having to resort to cheesy one liners to try and win over the rather typical executives with an eye for a bigger prize. Whoever chose Matt Mullins to play Cage chose well, he fits the role perfectly both as an actor with the right look and the fighting chops to pull it off.
And I looked it up. He wasn't in Power Rangers despite the references, although he DID play a role in the similarly styled 'Kamen Rider', so there you go.
It's early days yet, but I'm liking this series so far. It's building up nicely, but the question remains whether they can pull off key characters Sub Zero and Scorpion without them coming off poorly conceived, much like the original movie versions. If they can at least be believable while also kicking all kinds of ass, I'll be relatively distracted by the lack of local Kombat. Some what. Or maybe not at all, I haven't decided yet.
25.4.11
And Thor Makes Three
The following blog is classified G. It contains no spoilers and possibly a lot of squeeing.
I've seen Thor twice now. I'll tell you this for a start, I'm relieved. Why? This was the biggest stumbling block for Marvel, trying to convince not only ardent fans but also newcomers to the franchise that a God, for ease of explanation, can exist within a mortal realm of technology, war heroes and scientists. And Tony Stark.
The good news is, they've done it right. Thor works both as a mythology that's believable, and as a character people can rally behind and enjoy. Even if he's a little over ambitious and more humorous in the early stanzas. Not that I didn't like that, probably better to go that route than to have him as the utmost deity of Asgard so soon into the franchise (as in the most recent comic book series. If you haven't read that yet, what are you waiting for?!)
Surprisingly, I enjoyed it better the second time around. Of course, Imax can be classified the culprit. The 3D seemed to work better on the bigger screen, at the right angle. It's largely subtle, which is something a lot of people who bicker and moan about the tech don't understand. Things don't always have to jump out at you for you to enjoy it. The little flakes of snow drifting across the wastelands, the level of depth providing a better idea of how big the main throne room and subsequent areas of the kingdom are. The height at which Thor rises off the ground, or how deep the crater is. I like it that way, far better than some stupid gimmick leaping out at the screen just to remind you of the glasses you're wearing.
But that's just me.
I think Thor works better as an opening stanza than Iron Man did, and it's in a better position to be granted sequels and expansions. IM2 had to fit in a lot of references and characters to open out the franchise to the Avengers. Thor, and hopefully Captain America, don't have to rely on that as much. They both need to ensure the two leads stand out from the crowd, before the eventual get together. That means more time concentrating on their worlds and enemies, their story arcs and the minor characters that belong to said worlds. More importantly though, it gives each lead actor a chance to shine, before Robert out does them all. And believe me when I say, I can't wait for Thor, Cap and Stark's bickering between each other, while Hulk plays smash and grab in the corner.
Out of everything, even the team based action in waiting and Caps first 'here's my shield, ain't it cool' moment, I'm now more excited to see Asgard and the six unseen realms. The possibilities here could be far and wide. I just love the fact that this, of all the Marvel movies so far, feels more broader in tone and substance. We're talking Gods and Monsters here, not just technology and smart asses who accidentally stumble into their super human arcs. It's as close to a breath of fresh air for the super hero genre yet ... but not quite. See, if Thor can get away from Middle Earth ... sorry, Midgard, that should be Midgard ... and travel the depths of the galaxy seeking justice and such, than this could be the real core franchise Marvel's been looking for.
Better yet, if they follow the lead of its script writer, they could always destroy Asgard and bring it to Earth. Trust me, that worked better in the comics than that sentence.
Or it could just be another reason to continue adding new characters to the long line of cameos. THANOS BABY, YEAH!
Sorry, what? ... Oh, a rating? Really? You haven't read every other review out there already? This is a blog, you know ... *sigh* Oh alright. I'll give it ... umm ... say four easter eggs out of five. But only because I ate the fifth one. It tempted me, with its foil shining in the sunlight, melted butter and cocoa calling my name like a Goddess' desires.
What was I talking about again?
I've seen Thor twice now. I'll tell you this for a start, I'm relieved. Why? This was the biggest stumbling block for Marvel, trying to convince not only ardent fans but also newcomers to the franchise that a God, for ease of explanation, can exist within a mortal realm of technology, war heroes and scientists. And Tony Stark.
The good news is, they've done it right. Thor works both as a mythology that's believable, and as a character people can rally behind and enjoy. Even if he's a little over ambitious and more humorous in the early stanzas. Not that I didn't like that, probably better to go that route than to have him as the utmost deity of Asgard so soon into the franchise (as in the most recent comic book series. If you haven't read that yet, what are you waiting for?!)
Surprisingly, I enjoyed it better the second time around. Of course, Imax can be classified the culprit. The 3D seemed to work better on the bigger screen, at the right angle. It's largely subtle, which is something a lot of people who bicker and moan about the tech don't understand. Things don't always have to jump out at you for you to enjoy it. The little flakes of snow drifting across the wastelands, the level of depth providing a better idea of how big the main throne room and subsequent areas of the kingdom are. The height at which Thor rises off the ground, or how deep the crater is. I like it that way, far better than some stupid gimmick leaping out at the screen just to remind you of the glasses you're wearing.
But that's just me.
I think Thor works better as an opening stanza than Iron Man did, and it's in a better position to be granted sequels and expansions. IM2 had to fit in a lot of references and characters to open out the franchise to the Avengers. Thor, and hopefully Captain America, don't have to rely on that as much. They both need to ensure the two leads stand out from the crowd, before the eventual get together. That means more time concentrating on their worlds and enemies, their story arcs and the minor characters that belong to said worlds. More importantly though, it gives each lead actor a chance to shine, before Robert out does them all. And believe me when I say, I can't wait for Thor, Cap and Stark's bickering between each other, while Hulk plays smash and grab in the corner.
Out of everything, even the team based action in waiting and Caps first 'here's my shield, ain't it cool' moment, I'm now more excited to see Asgard and the six unseen realms. The possibilities here could be far and wide. I just love the fact that this, of all the Marvel movies so far, feels more broader in tone and substance. We're talking Gods and Monsters here, not just technology and smart asses who accidentally stumble into their super human arcs. It's as close to a breath of fresh air for the super hero genre yet ... but not quite. See, if Thor can get away from Middle Earth ... sorry, Midgard, that should be Midgard ... and travel the depths of the galaxy seeking justice and such, than this could be the real core franchise Marvel's been looking for.
Better yet, if they follow the lead of its script writer, they could always destroy Asgard and bring it to Earth. Trust me, that worked better in the comics than that sentence.
Or it could just be another reason to continue adding new characters to the long line of cameos. THANOS BABY, YEAH!
Sorry, what? ... Oh, a rating? Really? You haven't read every other review out there already? This is a blog, you know ... *sigh* Oh alright. I'll give it ... umm ... say four easter eggs out of five. But only because I ate the fifth one. It tempted me, with its foil shining in the sunlight, melted butter and cocoa calling my name like a Goddess' desires.
What was I talking about again?
24.4.11
The PSN Debacle
It's the easter holidays. People of all creeds are enjoying the time off, whether they follow the words of a certain religion or simply appreciate the finer chocolates in life. But for some, the weekend has been lost and spoilt by an invisible hand, an unknown enemy that seeks to destroy all known entertainment in the universe.
Or I could be wrong.
Either way, Playstation gamers haven't had the best time of it lately. Between countless technical issues resulting in online downtime, to the issues surrounding blu-ray rights with LG, it's been an up and down year. I guess it's no surprise that someone, somewhere, decided to attack the PSN servers on this holy of weekends to disrupt things just that little bit further. I mean, why not, it's the time when everyone's at home with nothing to do, right? ... Okay, maybe that's just me, but my point still stands.
Truth is, I don't play online much these days. Sure, I just bought Portal 2 and I'm keen for some co-op action, but I'm not hanging out impatiently waiting for an update from Sony. But I know how it must feel. The disruption doesn't just annoy those who wanted a quick COD or Mortal Kombat, it shuts down DC Universe, closes off LittleBigPlanet and SOCOM, and who plays single player FIFA or NBA this late in the season? (don't quote me on that though, I'm probably wrong.)
So the obvious question is why. Not why now, that one's obvious. But why would someone want to do this in the first place. Making a statement is one thing, but it's been done before (to death, I might add), so this isn't a new experience. Clearly Sony are so concerned that they've shut down completely and are rebuilding the network (almost) from scratch to ensure it doesn't happen again, whatever 'it' was.
I'm not necessarily concerned. Like I said, I don't play online much. But if there's a bigger reason than just 'we can't play online', perhaps a security loophole as discussed in the last effort, it might be better for Sony to come clean this time, tell us all what's really going on instead of covering it up. We all know there's problems with the service, and no matter how free most of it may be there's no excuse to have a system in this day and age that can be hacked so easily.
I do hope to play Portal 2 soon enough, single player is my preferred method of playing right now so I'm enjoying it. But the longer this one gets dragged out, the more likely it is I'll defer back to my old Xbox Live account. Or, dare I say it, start playing my Wii again ... do you think Portal will ever be a Wii2 game? Worth a dare, maybe.
Or I could be wrong.
Either way, Playstation gamers haven't had the best time of it lately. Between countless technical issues resulting in online downtime, to the issues surrounding blu-ray rights with LG, it's been an up and down year. I guess it's no surprise that someone, somewhere, decided to attack the PSN servers on this holy of weekends to disrupt things just that little bit further. I mean, why not, it's the time when everyone's at home with nothing to do, right? ... Okay, maybe that's just me, but my point still stands.
Truth is, I don't play online much these days. Sure, I just bought Portal 2 and I'm keen for some co-op action, but I'm not hanging out impatiently waiting for an update from Sony. But I know how it must feel. The disruption doesn't just annoy those who wanted a quick COD or Mortal Kombat, it shuts down DC Universe, closes off LittleBigPlanet and SOCOM, and who plays single player FIFA or NBA this late in the season? (don't quote me on that though, I'm probably wrong.)
So the obvious question is why. Not why now, that one's obvious. But why would someone want to do this in the first place. Making a statement is one thing, but it's been done before (to death, I might add), so this isn't a new experience. Clearly Sony are so concerned that they've shut down completely and are rebuilding the network (almost) from scratch to ensure it doesn't happen again, whatever 'it' was.
I'm not necessarily concerned. Like I said, I don't play online much. But if there's a bigger reason than just 'we can't play online', perhaps a security loophole as discussed in the last effort, it might be better for Sony to come clean this time, tell us all what's really going on instead of covering it up. We all know there's problems with the service, and no matter how free most of it may be there's no excuse to have a system in this day and age that can be hacked so easily.
I do hope to play Portal 2 soon enough, single player is my preferred method of playing right now so I'm enjoying it. But the longer this one gets dragged out, the more likely it is I'll defer back to my old Xbox Live account. Or, dare I say it, start playing my Wii again ... do you think Portal will ever be a Wii2 game? Worth a dare, maybe.
23.4.11
Project Cafe: Why I'm Worried
There's a lot of rumours floating around regarding Project Cafe, i.e. Nintendo's new home console. Now I'm not one to normally NOT be excited by rumours of a new console by the big N, but in this particular case, I can't feel anything but concern.
For starters, it seems as if Nintendo are reverting away from their 'we do it our way' mentality, by having a console that's not only fully HD, but possibly 3D compatible too. I realise that's a silly thing to say considering the 3DS, but that's a glasses free technology. Unless this supposed Wii2 does the same, then this is simply an additional system requirement that puts it in line with the competition, instead of surpassing it. It's one thing to say 'we can do it better', it's another to say 'we can do it differently', and the latter is what Nintendo are known for. This doesn't have that feel to it.
What set the Wii apart from everyone else was its ability to provide a different kind of experience, whether it be a first person shooter, a 3rd person platformer or a part title. It's two part control system was like nothing else, and it came as no surprise that Sony and Microsoft launched their own 'point and click' control systems ... okay I lie, Kinect isn't a point and click, unless you consider your finger as a clicker. Can't wait for the day I mockingly point my finger in the shape of a gun to play Gears of War. Oh sarcastic joy!
Enter my second concern. Supposedly, Nintendo are working on a controller that incorporates a touch screen into the pad itself. I'll be brutally honest here before I go any further. I love the DS. I love the 3DS. But I DO NOT WANT the same touch screen tech on my console controller. It doesn't belong there, it doesn't seem right there, and it doesn't make any sort of logical sense in terms of advancing video games. If it's a gimmick, something that most developers can ignore, than I can forgive the decision. But until such time that someone shows me the benefits of having to look away from the action to garner more info on what I'm doing, or having to move my hands away from a comfortable position to 'tap' at it ... see where I'm coming from?
Which makes me wonder. Has Nintendo hit the brick wall, so to speak? Have they finally run out of ideas now that the 3D barrier has been broken? Until such time as that can be taken forward into larger screens, is there anything left to do? Patching together a DS into a dual stick control pad seems like a haphazard approach to the next generation, in my non-professional opinion. And if you've stumbled into this article by chance through a google search for more clues ... sorry to annoy you with that thought, it just doesn't make sense to me why a touch screen would ever be a valuable solution. Motion control always made sense, but not this.
But don't get me wrong here. I love the idea of playing Zelda, Mario and Kirby within a full HD space, complete with 7.1 surround sound and further advancements in visual superiority. But not like this. Not with a console that seems to be trying too hard to distance itself from the Wii, when it should be embracing it. If anything, Nintendo should follow it's very own design methodology of its handheld history.
Every portable Nintendo has either made use of a trusted visual method or previous look and feel to get its point across, hence the constant sense of the familiar with each iteration. The DS as evolved four times over, but each one gives off that 'hey, remember me?' feel, and that's what makes it special. But every Nintendo console, since the SNES upgraded the NES, has tried to up the design so much that there's no consistency. From black, one joystick designs to purple boxes, Nintendo has taken the approach to be so far fetched and different, it's almost alienated itself from it own brand awareness. If it wasn't for the Nintendo logo and the familiar characters, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was designed by someone else.
I know what you're thinking, I'm good at that. Sega never followed that design with their consoles. Neither Atari, for the most part. The NES didn't exactly have any visual connections to the SNES, per se. And the PS3 has no relation to the PSOne Classic. I'll give you all that. But there are plenty of past moments where a design manifesto has carried over different designs, not just as a basic money saving opportunity, but within the purpose of maintaining the brand. Commodore's, original Atari's, most of those consoles looked similar to each other in most respects. These days, it's the controller that carries that on.
If anything, Nintendo should look to improve the console's output to future proof it. Look to blow out the visual architecture far beyond what the PS3 or Xbox 360 can do, force the two rivals' hands in that regard. But maintain the control scheme, keep the two piece remote style, just improve it further. Sony made that correct decision when choosing its controller for the PS3 (thank God, I'd hate to have to play God of War using a batarang.)
Whether all this talk and speculation (and no offence to IGN, but post proof or retract, douches!) is real or not, the fact we're all taking about it is proof positive that Nintendo will always be an important part of the industry. If anything, we look to them to revitalise our interests in an industry that can go stale quickly, which the 3DS has done with aplomb. I'm nervous. I'm concerned. I'm playing my 3DS anyway, so make me care, Ninty!
For starters, it seems as if Nintendo are reverting away from their 'we do it our way' mentality, by having a console that's not only fully HD, but possibly 3D compatible too. I realise that's a silly thing to say considering the 3DS, but that's a glasses free technology. Unless this supposed Wii2 does the same, then this is simply an additional system requirement that puts it in line with the competition, instead of surpassing it. It's one thing to say 'we can do it better', it's another to say 'we can do it differently', and the latter is what Nintendo are known for. This doesn't have that feel to it.
What set the Wii apart from everyone else was its ability to provide a different kind of experience, whether it be a first person shooter, a 3rd person platformer or a part title. It's two part control system was like nothing else, and it came as no surprise that Sony and Microsoft launched their own 'point and click' control systems ... okay I lie, Kinect isn't a point and click, unless you consider your finger as a clicker. Can't wait for the day I mockingly point my finger in the shape of a gun to play Gears of War. Oh sarcastic joy!
Enter my second concern. Supposedly, Nintendo are working on a controller that incorporates a touch screen into the pad itself. I'll be brutally honest here before I go any further. I love the DS. I love the 3DS. But I DO NOT WANT the same touch screen tech on my console controller. It doesn't belong there, it doesn't seem right there, and it doesn't make any sort of logical sense in terms of advancing video games. If it's a gimmick, something that most developers can ignore, than I can forgive the decision. But until such time that someone shows me the benefits of having to look away from the action to garner more info on what I'm doing, or having to move my hands away from a comfortable position to 'tap' at it ... see where I'm coming from?
Which makes me wonder. Has Nintendo hit the brick wall, so to speak? Have they finally run out of ideas now that the 3D barrier has been broken? Until such time as that can be taken forward into larger screens, is there anything left to do? Patching together a DS into a dual stick control pad seems like a haphazard approach to the next generation, in my non-professional opinion. And if you've stumbled into this article by chance through a google search for more clues ... sorry to annoy you with that thought, it just doesn't make sense to me why a touch screen would ever be a valuable solution. Motion control always made sense, but not this.
But don't get me wrong here. I love the idea of playing Zelda, Mario and Kirby within a full HD space, complete with 7.1 surround sound and further advancements in visual superiority. But not like this. Not with a console that seems to be trying too hard to distance itself from the Wii, when it should be embracing it. If anything, Nintendo should follow it's very own design methodology of its handheld history.
Every portable Nintendo has either made use of a trusted visual method or previous look and feel to get its point across, hence the constant sense of the familiar with each iteration. The DS as evolved four times over, but each one gives off that 'hey, remember me?' feel, and that's what makes it special. But every Nintendo console, since the SNES upgraded the NES, has tried to up the design so much that there's no consistency. From black, one joystick designs to purple boxes, Nintendo has taken the approach to be so far fetched and different, it's almost alienated itself from it own brand awareness. If it wasn't for the Nintendo logo and the familiar characters, you'd be forgiven for thinking it was designed by someone else.
I know what you're thinking, I'm good at that. Sega never followed that design with their consoles. Neither Atari, for the most part. The NES didn't exactly have any visual connections to the SNES, per se. And the PS3 has no relation to the PSOne Classic. I'll give you all that. But there are plenty of past moments where a design manifesto has carried over different designs, not just as a basic money saving opportunity, but within the purpose of maintaining the brand. Commodore's, original Atari's, most of those consoles looked similar to each other in most respects. These days, it's the controller that carries that on.
If anything, Nintendo should look to improve the console's output to future proof it. Look to blow out the visual architecture far beyond what the PS3 or Xbox 360 can do, force the two rivals' hands in that regard. But maintain the control scheme, keep the two piece remote style, just improve it further. Sony made that correct decision when choosing its controller for the PS3 (thank God, I'd hate to have to play God of War using a batarang.)
Whether all this talk and speculation (and no offence to IGN, but post proof or retract, douches!) is real or not, the fact we're all taking about it is proof positive that Nintendo will always be an important part of the industry. If anything, we look to them to revitalise our interests in an industry that can go stale quickly, which the 3DS has done with aplomb. I'm nervous. I'm concerned. I'm playing my 3DS anyway, so make me care, Ninty!
11.4.11
What's in a Name
I was sitting in a well loved and enjoyed institution the other day (more commonly known as 'Maccas'), when a young boy sprinted past with his Dad close behind calling out his name. I normally don't take much notice of parents attempting to chase down children clearly fitter than they are, but in this case I had no choice, considering the name used was 'Boston'.
Yup. Boston.
Who calls anyone a city that isn't from Hollywood? A Celtics fan? A drug addict? Is it short for something I don't know about? Bostlivonion, a well known Russian King? (to save you the time in googling, that's a fake king. He's actually Greek.)
This all got me thinking. What if people began naming their kids after video game characters. Famous actors or pieces of fruit be damned, this has to be the way of the future. I'm not just thinking of Mario either, that's too obvious. Say, for examples sake:
Marcus - This one's clear cut. A simple name that I've already met once or twice before, but unbeknownst to those who use it, also a reference to one Gears of War. Just be wary of anyone naming their kid 'Chainsaw' or 'Multikill'.
Link - Zelda would also work, in fact it's considered rather normal by today's standards (there's even a few well known novels that use that name.) But if someone came out with the name Link, that would be killer. Unless he started raiding houses and throwing chickens.
Lara - Okay, so this one is rather obvious again, unless it somehow becomes a boy's name, which would just be confusing with fewer boob joke opportunities.
Peach - A certain Geldof is half way there, but I doubt it was a reference to the Princess of the Mushroom Kingdom.
Ken - Barbie's toy boy (get it?) or Street Fighter brawler? Close call, unless he's born with a headband and red garments.
Duke - Although it might not get the same reaction if he doesn't grow up into a rude talking, sex loving, alien crushing hero, but hey, at least you can start talking about how cool the Nuke is again, what with the 'on again' rebirth of said character. More on that later.
Sonic - Nah. Too 80's.
Bowser - Nah. Too dinosaur centric.
Maybe, if the time ever did come to name a child, something like Alan (Wake) or Chris (of Resident Evil) would be less obvious more still an insiders joke. Truth is, we've become so enthralled with baby names being as unique as possible, it's more a publicity stunt than being thoughtful about the future of these kids. Perhaps we should revert back to traditional names.
Because, dare I say it, I'd hate to have to vote for President Wii any time soon.
Yup. Boston.
Who calls anyone a city that isn't from Hollywood? A Celtics fan? A drug addict? Is it short for something I don't know about? Bostlivonion, a well known Russian King? (to save you the time in googling, that's a fake king. He's actually Greek.)
This all got me thinking. What if people began naming their kids after video game characters. Famous actors or pieces of fruit be damned, this has to be the way of the future. I'm not just thinking of Mario either, that's too obvious. Say, for examples sake:
Marcus - This one's clear cut. A simple name that I've already met once or twice before, but unbeknownst to those who use it, also a reference to one Gears of War. Just be wary of anyone naming their kid 'Chainsaw' or 'Multikill'.
Link - Zelda would also work, in fact it's considered rather normal by today's standards (there's even a few well known novels that use that name.) But if someone came out with the name Link, that would be killer. Unless he started raiding houses and throwing chickens.
Lara - Okay, so this one is rather obvious again, unless it somehow becomes a boy's name, which would just be confusing with fewer boob joke opportunities.
Peach - A certain Geldof is half way there, but I doubt it was a reference to the Princess of the Mushroom Kingdom.
Ken - Barbie's toy boy (get it?) or Street Fighter brawler? Close call, unless he's born with a headband and red garments.
Duke - Although it might not get the same reaction if he doesn't grow up into a rude talking, sex loving, alien crushing hero, but hey, at least you can start talking about how cool the Nuke is again, what with the 'on again' rebirth of said character. More on that later.
Sonic - Nah. Too 80's.
Bowser - Nah. Too dinosaur centric.
Maybe, if the time ever did come to name a child, something like Alan (Wake) or Chris (of Resident Evil) would be less obvious more still an insiders joke. Truth is, we've become so enthralled with baby names being as unique as possible, it's more a publicity stunt than being thoughtful about the future of these kids. Perhaps we should revert back to traditional names.
Because, dare I say it, I'd hate to have to vote for President Wii any time soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)