After finally getting a copy of the game and playing for, oh I don’t know, two
minutes over the past two days, I thought I’d write up my initial impressions of
the game. As we all know, I wanted this game to transport me to a magical gaming
nirvana, but that doesn’t happen much these days (last time I felt “compelled”
to play a game was when I discovered the awesome combat of Final Fantasy XII…
I actually would wake up early and play it before work. Then I got tired of it
after a week, since level grinding is level grinding).
Here’s the deal: it’s pretty cool. I have to come to the realization that I just
can’t have Mario 64 ever again. That game was the reason for the jacked-up N64
controller, and although subsequent Nintendo controllers have been even more
jacked, none of them have the capability for camera control that the N64 had. We
just gotta cope with it.
Mario Galaxy does what it can, though. The camera is quite a bit better than
Mario Sunshine’s; in fact, it feels very similar to a Zelda-style system, in
that pressing “C” will center the camera behind Mario. I wasn’t adjusting the
camera very often, actually, simply due to the nature of the way Galaxy works.
Most levels are made up of small (usually spherical) planetoids, and the camera
is usually pointing almost straight down on Mario, and has to adjust very
quickly because of the constant curvature of the “planet.” So far I haven’t
gotten frustrated with the camera, which is good news.
I’m still not totally sold on the Wii remote’s functionality, though. You use it
to direct a cursor to pick up/shoot Star Shards, little bits of colorful debris
that stun enemies. It just doesn’t seem to be that useful… it might have been
cool to be able to pick up coins or something. You can also shake the remote or
nunchuck to make Mario spin – what might now be considered his default
attack. Spinning tromps enemies, as well as breaks crates and crystals. Jumping
on enemies seems to be a bit harder now than it was in the past, mostly because
of the crazy differences in the camera.
Right now I’m loving the fact that each area in the game is more linear. We
don’t have to run through the same levels in the game over and over, it seems.
Expect a full review to come once I have a bit more time to actually play the
darned game.
EDIT: Yeah, it’s good. I played for a while this morning before work, and
have found little negative to say… maybe the worst thing is that you go
through the levels so quickly.
A few weeks ago, I went to go see The King of Kong after reading a review by the Filthy Critic. His reviews are usually pretty accurate, and the verdict of "pants-shittingly good" plus the subject matter of the movie (video games!) made me actually get up and go see it.
The crux of the movie is the Donkey Kong world record. Set in 1982 by Billy Mitchell, it remained unsurpassed for over 20 years. Seems crazy, right? You'd think that someone would have beaten the record in that time, but apparently not.
The "protagonist" of the movie, Steve Wiebe, was a Boeing employee who got laid off right after he bought a new house. As a way of managing his stress, he begins playing Donkey Kong. After he learns of Billy's world record, he thinks he can beat it, and actually does so.
However, this sets off a rather strange sequence of events. Steve's tape of his record-breaking game is considered "invalid" by Twin Galaxies, the official record-keeping organization. To prove himself, Steve is asked to play on the "official" machine at an arcade in Florida. After he repeats his high score with a referee watching, Steve is one-upped by a shady video recording sent in by Billy Mitchell (who until that time had been a proponent of playing games in front of audiences).
The rest of the movie revolves around Steve's attempt to challenge Billy to a live match of Donkey Kong, ostensibly to be put in the Guinness Book of World Records. Billy keeps evading this challenge, and through the end of the movie, is never actually seen playing the game.
For me, this movie was pretty interesting. It gives a fascinating look at a gaming subculture with which I have had absolutely no contact. In addition, it's simply well put together: the narrative flows well, and even though the sequence of events doesn't end how most people would like, it's clear who the winner is. I would be pretty interested to know if Shigeru Miyamoto has seen this film, and if so, his thoughts. I definitely recommend this movie.
The reason I actually went to the trouble of pro-actively scoring a Wii (as opposed to waiting until I could buy one at someplace like Target) was because of Super Mario Galaxy. Super Mario Sunshine suuucked, but I liked Super Mario 64 so much that I was yet again willing to blow a ton of cash to recapture that awesome feeling of when I first played 64 at a kiosk in Wal-Mart.
A digression: back in 1996, I was a total Playstation convert, and had no interest in a Nintendo 64. Mario 64 freaking blew me away. You cannot imagine how amazing that game looked in my 15 year-old mind. After I played at that kiosk, I realized that I had to have a 64, if only for that one game. In this sense, it's history repeating as I bought a Wii to play Galaxy (although I haven't actually tried the game yet, in this case).
I didn't pre-order the game, simply because there are no game stores that are really convenient for me to go to. But I did want the stupid pre-order bonus: a Mario-embossed coin. I would have ordered from someplace on the 'net, but I also didn't want to pay for shipping (are you sensing a theme here? I am one picky bastard). In the end, laziness and cheapness win: I don't pre-order, and decide to just go buy the game on Monday when it is released.
So, yesterday after work I go to the Gamestop near the OSU campus. Imagine my annoyance when the morbidly obese, indifferent employee tells me that "it's not released yet." Yes, yes, it is released, you cretin, you just don't have any copies due to distribution differences. He then advises me that I "better pre-order" the game, and since I'm there already, I put down money for the darn thing.
So embittering... the thought of playing that game was the only thing getting me through work yesterday. And I'm not going to have time to play today until after 10PM at the earliest. Ugh!
So, as I'm sure most everyone who actually cares knows by now, I bought a Wii last week. In the process of setting it up (connecting to the internet, trying to stabilize the annoying jitter on the remote), I decided to also "test out" the WiiWare/Virtual Console service. Although, like I've already said, I'm probably not going to be investing heavily in the Virtual Console, one small subset of games might be a target for future purchases: Famicom games that were never released in the States. The reasoning behind this? While I can play Japanese Super Famicom/Nintendo 64 games on my North American hardware (with slight modifications), the Famicom form factor is totally incompatible with the NES. And, as of right now, I don't have a Famicom › NES adapter. So basically, unless I want to spend money to buy the physical versions of these games (which is totally a possibility in the future), it's way easier to just download the Virtual Console version.
The first game I bought was the Japanese version of Super Mario Brothers 2. It's subtitled "The Lost Levels" here in the States, to prevent confusion with our Super Mario Brothers 2, which in Japan is called "Super Mario USA." It was released as part of the Super Mario All-Stars compilation, with reworked graphics, but never in it's original form.
After playing for a while, a couple thoughts struck me regarding this sequel.
First of all, it's pretty rare these days for a console to see multiple games in a series on it. Although the NES had three Mario games, the SNES only had two, and N64/Gamecube both had one each. My interpolation of this is that gamers expect way more technological progress between games in a franchise. Plus, even with those multiple sequels on the NES, there were some major gameplay differences between each of the entries. Super Mario Bros. and SMB2 were both side-scrollers, and the main characters were from the Mario universe, but those were about the only similarities. A similar example of drastic change between games in a series would be The Legend of Zelda and Zelda 2. Zelda 2 kept similar characters, but the game had very few of the same elements that made the first so popular.
What makes the Japanese SMB2 so different in this regard is that, at first glance, not much seems to have changed. The graphics are in the exact same style as the first game, which (I may hazard to guess) almost never happens (I can think of a few examples, but not many). These days, it would probably be referred to as an "expansion pack;" new levels and Luigi as a different, playable character are about the only differences one can see. That's only taking the game at face value, however.
When the player delves a bit deeper, they find that it may share the look of the first Mario Bros., but as a game, is much more punishing. Jumps get rapidly more difficult, progressing to the point where the player cannot actually see where he is jumping to. Small differences get noticed, such as Poison Mushrooms which damage Mario, or red Piranha Plants that bite even if Mario is standing next to the pipe.
Some of the new design elements introduced in SMB2 seem deliberately placed there as a "screw you" to the player. For example, it's possible to find Warp Zones, but be careful: some zones actually lead backwards, to previous levels. Sometimes the player will make Mario (or Luigi) run along a platform for a long jump, only to hit an invisible block at the optimum jumping point, causing Mario to fall to his untimely death. Of course, this sort of "cheap" kill will only fool you once or twice, but you have to either remember that particular spot, or else proceed much more cautiously when playing the game. In the first game, some castles required following a certain path to proceed (i.e. always go down the pipe after you cross lava in World 8-4). SMB2 takes this idea to fiendish levels, making the player follow a much more (completely arbitrary!) pattern in some of the castles. Without a strategy guide, the only recourse is to keep playing until the solution is found... something that a child might have patience for, but I sure don't.
Other elements have been added to the game as well, such as the strong winds that Mario must allow to blow him through some levels, and the super-bouncy trampolines, that rocket him above the visible playing area for a few seconds, allowing him to cross otherwise-impossible gaps.
In other words, the game's designers took the existing, already successful SMB engine and added just a few new features. The true value of the game is in it's difficulty, and the way it plays off assumptions players have about the way they expect the game to work. Most sequels simply have improved graphics, lots of new gimmicks, and larger game worlds. They are usually not more challenging. What makes SMB2 different is that it was truly a game for fans — those players who wanted more, and who had already mastered the first game. I really find these sorts of sequels to be satisfying. Since both the first game and the sequel are released on the same console, superficial improvements (like graphics) can't be relied upon — the way the game plays is where the fun is. A similar example of this might be Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask, both for the Nintendo 64. Majora's Mask used the same engine as Ocarina, but was much more challenging (and satisfying, I think).
If more sequels of this sort could be made, the world would be a better place.
While browsing through backup directories, I came across some old Warcraft III replay files. This triggered a fit of nostalgia, since I probably spent at least as much time watching replays as I did actually playing that game. You know all those people who go ape for watching professional sports on TV? Well, game replays are basically the same thing: vicarious experience. However, unlike many sports watchers, gamers directly benefit from watching replays, since they can learn valuable strategies. Saving a replay of a game you lost can provide insight into what exactly went wrong. In addition, it's always fun to watch replays of elite gamers taking your favorite game to a level that you may never reach, but can enjoy and appreciate.
So I spent about an hour watching some replays of myself that I had saved early in my Warcraft III career. Apparently I didn't play much past patch 1.05, which was actually really early in the lifespan of the game. Even so, I could see how strategy evolved so quickly in the War3 community... watching my replays was somewhat tortuous. Although I discovered the importance of Heros early on, the idea of "creeping" was practically unknown to me. Through each replay, I could see bad Hero choices, bad skill choices, and bad micromanagement. Somehow, though, I was able to win a lot of these games (or at least most of the games I had saved).
Warcraft III was really a very worthy addition to the Warcraft franchise; watching these videos almost makes me want to bust it out on Battle.net. Almost.
