tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-62022754882874571882024-02-08T13:41:04.725-07:00Reflections on MultimediaRants and thoughts I have about one of my favorite mediums of entertainment. Also contains info about certain games, such as reviews, or just games I'm looking forward to.Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-52349276512834040492011-03-14T01:43:00.007-06:002011-03-14T02:50:18.833-06:00VIDEO GAMES: Notable Games That Are Dead to Me.Having been gaming since the era of the NES, I've found that two things have changed my tastes in gaming. First, a natural change that's occurred simply from getting older and having experienced much. Second, a change in the industry and the way games are made. There's a bit more too it than that, but these are the base causes of change for me.<br /><br />So, I dedicate this list to games, series, or even genres that I used to like that are effectively dead to me, along with the reasons for why.<br /><br />Let's begin...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Dragon Quest series</span> <span style="font-style:italic;">(previously known in the U.S. as Dragon Warrior)</span>: As one of the series I considered my favorite, and one that holds a game I regard as one of my top three favorite games of all time (Dragon Quest 4), it's only fitting that I start here.<br /><br />This series only recently died to me. After finishing Dragon Quest 9, I've found that the direction they've taken with the series leaves a bad taste in my mouth. A lot of its core mechanics haven't changed, but what they've tacked on has created a lot of tedium in the series. Considering that just a year ago I played and loved Dragon Quest 5, I know it's recent additions that have caused my recent dislike.<br /><br />Much as I'll miss the good times early games brought, this series is essentially dead to me...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Final Fantasy series:</span> This series lasted an even shorter time than Dragon Quest did, though still noteworthy. It died for me after I finished FF9, which is a tad ironic considering I didn't necessarily dislike 9 (I wasn't that big a fan of it either). When I saw the tedious and boring direction the rest of the series was headed in, I knew I'd find no more enjoyable games therein.<br /><br />And since this bears mentioning, for me this series' pinnacle was Final Fantasy 6, not 7. The combat felt more interesting, the artistic direction was far better, the plot more engaging (and less narrowly focused), and the characters more interesting from personality to back-story. It's no surprise this is one of my top favorite games.<br /><br />But with the rest of the games failing to live up to the pedigree of its SNES fore-bearers (excluding the surprisingly boring FF5), the series is now dead to me...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">FPS genre (mostly):</span> I'll try to keep this short. Started with Descent series (if that counts), moved on to Doom (shareware), Quake, Quake 2, jumped ship to N64 for some Golden Eye and Turok 2, came back to PC for Half-Life, Unreal Tournament, and some Counter-Strike, had some Halo in there somewhere, and finally some Half-Life 2 (episode add-ons included) and Call of Duty 4.<br /><br />This genre is dead to me mostly due to lack of substance, overkill of violence and gore (which, ironically, I appreciated more as an early teen), lack of story (or lack of story that appeals to me), and simple boredom. Given that I've lost my interest in competitive, and that the genre has very little online cooperative play, there's multiple reason why this genre is dead to me.<br /><br />(Note: Wondering about the "mostly" bit? I may have a last dip in the genre, courtesy of Golden Eye for the Wii. Being the cheap person I am, I'm waiting for it to drop in price).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">World of Warcraft:</span> Yeah... for all intents and purposes, this should have been one I never got into in the FIRST place!<br /><br />For those familiar with the series, I got into it during the implementation of the Wrath of the Lich King expansion. Started with a 10-day free trial to see what all the fuss was about. My initial impressions of it were poor, but having researched the game a bit before delving in, I had one goal before I intended to quit: Getting druid cat form at level 20. Much to Blizzard's luck, that was what essentially hooked me in, and what followed would be a bittersweet experience.<br /><br />The sweet parts consisted of traveling. I'm a sucker for exploration, and this game had plenty. The game had a plethora of fun stuff for the exploration fan.<br /><br />The bitter parts came mostly at the end, and set off a bit of a reaction and a "eureka!" moment. Spending some time at the level cap trying out some end-game content that I teetered from enjoying to disliking, it all came to a head about a year or two after my initial first steps into the game. First, I realized the game wasn't really all that fun, and that my choice of character sort of duped me into ignoring its rather glaring shortcomings. Second, end-game content echoed of something that I've come to despise in games: grinding, though at this point it stealthily replaced it with repetition-based gear grinding rather than the "see the world, do different things" feel of level grinding (it's all about execution). Third, I had become withdrawn from the social atmosphere of the game... though I wasn't really pulled into it that much to begin with.<br /><br />So, after much teetering back and forth, going in and out of the game, I can officially declare it dead to me and avoid going back ever again.<br /><br />Though it's left a bit of an empty spot for me, and I can only hope it's replaced by the no-subscription-fees Guild Wars 2.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Castlevania series:</span> Started from the early days, and loved Castlevania 4 and Symphony of the Night, as well as some handheld entries in the series.<br /><br />But for loss of direction (notable in the 3D titles), increased macabre atmosphere, and... other things, this series is dead to me.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Mega Man series </span> <span style="font-style:italic;">and closely-related spin-offs)</span>:<br />Played all entries from 1 to 8, though felt that after 6 it lost its stride.<br />Entry 9 returned some luster, but so hardcore it was I could not abide.<br />X spinoff series got me through SNES era, and these I found more divine,<br />Though once it hit the Playstation era, even these began to decline.<br />The Zero series for GBA created a spark, a rekindle, though just a little,<br />But it was never strong enough to last, and my interest did finally whittle.<br /><br />Many great memories it held, playing a boy robot, blue from toe to head,<br />But with all its best moments behind him, to me, this series is now dead.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Golden Sun series:</span> Admittedly a short series, so I'll keep this shorter. First game, okay. Second game, great story, but not exactly engaging in terms of gameplay. Third game said to be too easy... and that translates into a series that perhaps just died for me.<br /><br />I may be early in writing its personal epitaph, but it's not likely to get better than it ever was...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Elder Scrolls series:</span> These games grabbed my attention more than they should have, but in the end I realized how little value I found in them, and how simplistic they were in areas they shouldn't have been. They are now dead to me.<br /><hr><br /><br />So, with many series, and even full genres, that are dead to me, what do I look forward to? I'll save that for my next post, perhaps...Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-38950748905863720782011-01-27T03:00:00.005-07:002011-03-09T02:29:09.719-07:00Video Game Design Thoughts, part 1: Accessibility and Feedback.Game design thought of the day *** break-it-in versus one-size-fits-most.<br /><br />Having played video games since the NES days, I've noticed that games often fall into one of two camps: simple to get into and feel your way around, or something where you have to learn the nuances of what the game expects you to learn. Or, to over-simplify, easy to learn or hard to learn.<br /><br />Let's do a comparison here. <span style="font-weight:bold;">Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past</span> and <span style="font-weight:bold;">Secret of Mana</span>, the latter being the inspiration behind this post. They're both very respected games, one being considered one of the best games of its era, while the other is a less-known title beloved by those few who stumbled upon it. Both games utilize similar perspective, movement, and even gameplay... except that this is where I start using quotation marks.<br /><br />Legend of Zelda is a simple game for the most part, with combat being straightforward, the menus being quite simple, and overall being very accessible; something that strong enough for a hardcore gamer but made for a casual. Its only real drawback in terms of accessibility is some rather bizarre puzzles that probably shouldn't have been included in the first place.<br /><br />Secret of Mana, on the other hand, is quite a bit more complex. The beginning highlights this quite notably, as the first moment you're thrust into combat can be a confusing ordeal depending on your background. Being someone that's played plenty of RPGs in the past, particularly from this game's developer, I figured out rather quickly what was going on: the game was programmed such that the player had to wait a certain amount of time between weapon swings for full effect (which is pretty much required), had to time attacks based on how recently the enemy had been hit (more critical for later enemies), and had to realize that actual hits to an enemy weren't shown on an enemy until roughly once every two seconds. I actually had a friend who was a Legend of Zelda fan, but couldn't get into Secret of Mana because of how complex and inaccessible it was in his eyes. Beyond that, the menu system likely didn't help matters much either.<br /><br />So with this comparison out of the way, here's the design thought for today: How easy is it for a player to get into your game? Is the game giving player cues and feedback as to how he/she is doing? Or does the game has a bit of an invisible learning curve, where the player is expected to learn certain rules and nuances?Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-74108089014641585852010-12-17T03:50:00.004-07:002011-03-09T02:27:21.804-07:00MOVIES: Legend of the Guardians, and why it's better than most people sayI'm not swayed by media often. To me, much of the media is in a downward death-spiral, dragged down by excessive amounts of filth, lack of soul and heart, and--likely most of the source--cashing in. Doesn't matter if it's books, music, video games, or movies, I always find myself in a bit of a niche in many of these media forms... and often find niches that remain woefully under-tapped.<br /><br />Recently, I discovered one such rare niche with the movie Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'hoole. For all intents and purposes, it looks like a simple by-the-numbers childrens/family movie with the odd distinction of being a tad more violent than most films of its class.<br /><br />And yet, this kind of film has been done before a long time ago...<br /><br />In the 1980s, there was something of a burst of family films that didn't "sugar-coat" the story. Neverending Story was brutal and downright scary at times, even with some levity to counteract it. Land Before Time remains one of the most gritty, yet still accessible, animated films in history (and ironically spawns one of the worst chain of terrible sequels in the history of the medium). And, of course, a special mention goes to The Secret of NiMH.<br /><br />Yet between that decade and the current time, I can think of nothing that holds the rare distinction of being a gritty, dark, yet poignant family film. Yes, I've witnessed much of the Disney, Pixar, and Dreamworks films, but lets face it: Lion King only dark moments occur when Scar was in close enough proximity (something which hasn't been pulled off so well since Sleeping Beauty), The Incredibles embodies too much inspiration from cartoons and comics to be taken too seriously (that's superheroes for you), and Dreamworks... well, I'll concede that How to Train Your Dragon has its moments, but isn't even close.<br /><br />Where Legend of the Guardians makes its mark is that it's tied closely to character development. Its strengths lie in keeping characters true to their personalities, and their development a function of that. The situations presented feel powerful enough to strike home the idea that the characters choices amplify who they are. This sounds simple on the surface, but rarely do you see such character development occur for both a protagonist ("good guy") and an antagonist ("bad guy") that are thrust in the same situation, until one choice splits them apart, sending them down different paths which they each chose to remain on.<br /><br />For all the simplicity of the story flow, and how poorly the rare few scenes of levity seemed to have been crafted (ergo, I didn't laugh much), the character development and themes in the movie became a shining example of what's missing in most modern family movies: thematic elements that are <span style="font-weight:bold;">deeply</span> rooted in the characters themselves, not just the plot.<br /><br />While my favorite movie this year may still be How to Train Your Dragon, for its wonderful balance of plot, action, and humor, Legend of the Guardians will take a place as one of the rare, few movies where I was moved to tears by a deep, thematic truth. This is the mark of a movie where the heart and soul put into it make it better than the sum of its parts.Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-79482182335991059252010-08-30T00:56:00.004-06:002011-03-09T02:31:01.674-07:00MEDIA: The Marketing Machine, and Why it is Despised.Marketing is everywhere. This fact is indisputable. From the early days of people shouting out about the wares they're selling in a marketplace, to the modern-day plaster ads almost everywhere, the marketing machine is almost as old as mankind.<br /><br />Marketing itself isn't bad, since in and of itself it's merely a way of getting your product noticed, thus ideally making the seller happy to acquire cash and the buyer happy to acquire an item.<br /><br />Emphasis on IDEALLY.<br /><br />With marketing everywhere, it's a raging behemoth that ranges from simplistic awareness creation promising little more than what is shown (think grocery store ads), to entire, massive, elaborate ads that may often be a complete scam.<br /><br />Having grown up with media, I've witnessed the marketing machine personally in several aspects. When I was growing up, video games often employed a simplistic form of marketing: name recognition. When the original Nintendo system became popular, games that sold well would often have sequels released later. The most notable of these was MegaMan, managing to span six full games before moving on to another system and getting a spin-off series. Though a bit shameful, this particularly series pretty much lived up to it's pedigree, each game pretty much built on the same formula as the one before it, except different levels and a slight retooling.<br /><br />Other times, this was employed in absolutely shameful ways, such as Double Dragon 5, which had a tenuous tie at best with its predecessors (it wasn't even in the same genre!).<br /><br />Switching gears to something more mainstream, there's a form of the marketing machine that's become quite insidious in the film industry. In movies, Lord of the Rings and Star Wars have become (or will become, in the case of the latter film) notorious for re-release schedules that seek to milk all they can out of the audience. For Lord of the Rings, it started out simple enough with theatrical DVD releases of each movie. Then came the extended editions, which was understandable but problematic, since these versions could've been released at the same time as the theatrical versions (there have been standard and director's cut releases in the past). By itself, people could let that slide. But then, the Blu-Ray version came out... theatrical length, not extended edition. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Lord-Rings-Picture-Theatrical-Editions/product-reviews/B000X9FLKM/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1">The review score alone shows</a> that much of the online populace have caught on, and demand nothing less than at least having the extended edition as an option, one way or the other.<br /><br />In another scenario, a supposedly minor edit from one version to another changed the face of another film production. BBC, being well known for their nature documentary series, releases another one, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-narrated-David-Attenborough-Blu-ray/product-reviews/B002UXRGM0/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1">much to the delight of many people</a>. However, Discovery Channel acquired the rights to re-release it, and as with the Planet Earth series they decided to change the narration. Why? No one knows but them, though it can only be guessed they were going for name appeal (because more people know of Oprah Winfrey than David Attenborough). Either way, from both my experience, and the experience of many others, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Life-Blu-ray-Oprah-Winfrey/product-reviews/B0039UTDFG/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1">the move was both bad for the audience, and everyone else for that matter</a>. But who knows, maybe they got more money from it. I sincerely hope not, though.<br /><br />In closing, I'll tell you the sad tale of what befell one company when marketing took over.<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">There once was a game developer named New World Computing. They weren't a very big company, nor the very best, but they were successful in their own right and had two popular franchises (technically one with a spin-off series) under their belt.<br /><br />But the leader of the company had big aspirations. He dreamed of games played online in a massive virtual environment, something that was only starting to happen in the game industry. To achieve these goals, he would need to acquire backing from a publisher.<br /><br />He went to 3DO, a company that had recently failed in their hardware business attempt, but had developed a respectable MMORPG; exactly the direction New World Computing wanted to take their franchise! The two companies talked, and eventually New World Computing was bought by 3DO and became part of the family.<br /><br />It all went well at first, but slowly things worsened. 3DO began to impose tighter deadlines on the company. Throughout this initial threat, NWC still managed to release some good games, even if not polished as well as they'd like. But as the deadlines grew tighter and tighter, and the demands higher and higher, the quality fell further and further. At some point, the demands reached a point where the work was four times beyond what the company should be expected to make in such a timespan!<br /><br />In the end, NWC never got to make that MMO they dreamed of creating, and soon ceased to exist altogether. When the 3DO ship sank, NWC went with it.<br /><br />Now their franchise is in the hands of another company, not much better off than it was before.<br /><br />In the end, the marketing department is said to have been the final nail in the coffin for 3DO, as their insistence on deadlines and numbers left no room for the quality that gamers craved.</span>Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-91247139965319970092010-07-31T15:15:00.002-06:002010-07-31T16:08:37.499-06:00POLITICS: Information Misinterpretation.Despite what the title may make you believe, this won't really deal much with politics itself or the media. Yet both will be key players in this post, particularly because I will be mentioning a hotly-debated topic here.<br /><br />So, I was discussing with a friend something about Arizona's proposed sb1070 immigration law that has been everywhere in the news. Anyway, this discussion went on after a judge blocked portions of the law from going into effect, one of which essentially read, "If an individual is stopped for a violation, and the officer has probable cause to believe the individual is an illegal immigrant, the officer may ask for papers" (poor summary, I know, but you get the idea). However, my friend interpreted that part of the law as meaning, "An officer may stop anyone they suspect is an illegal immigrant."<br /><br />Thus, I promised to look it up online. A Google search and several re-reads of a tightly-worded legal document later, I find that what I heard was correct, meaning a person had to be stopped for another violation before immigration status could be checked.<br /><br />Admittedly, he wasn't concerned one way or the other, but I can imagine a simple interpretation like this being the focal point for someone who wouldn't ordinarily be concerned about the actual wording to go up-in-arms over a misinterpretation.<br /><br />Definitely something to keep in mind, especially since there are rumors that even certain politicians didn't read the actual proposed-law in full before they decided whether or not to attack it.<br /><br />For reference, look up the original text at www.azleg.gov. sb1070 is the original bill, and hb2162 is a revising of that bill (supposedly the revision came April 30th, which seems to be after it hit the media).<br /><br />Best to study an issue at its source before deciding whether you support it or are against it, so as to avoid letting hysteria engulf your thinking first.Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-15841012850050904562010-06-29T02:25:00.002-06:002010-07-05T05:41:33.412-06:00MOVIES: Month of the Animated Movie Trailer.It seems that June is the month when all of the animation studios--both good and bad, known and unknown, new and older-than-the-hills--decide it's time to release a trailer for an upcoming film of theirs. One even decided to release ANOTHER trailer, just months after their previous first trailer. The list includes upcoming films such as Tangled, Rio, Alpha & Omega, Smurfs, and a second trailer for Legend of the Guardians. Here's a quick, quick synopsis of my response to each trailer.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Tangled:</span> Interesting, to say the least, but the finished product could swing either way. I'm betting critic average response will be a few notches below Bolt (which sits at 88%), and viewer response may be about the same, give or take. As for me... no idea. Not that interested, but not repulsed either. Speaking of which, I still need to watch Bolt...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Alpha & Omega:</span> This movie will fail. I could smell the fail from the moment I laid eyes on the first picture (didn't know it was possible to give an animated wolf such a bad hairdo that it could look like a creepy, dull flower). Critical panning and tepid viewer response are practically guaranteed, not to mention crude humor will abound. I certainly won't be watching it.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Rio:</span> The good new is it seems it may be a bit above the quality of the last two Shrek movies. The bad news is it shows signs of containing similar crude humor, so don't expect this to vie for a How To Train Your Dragon or Kung Fu Panda level of quality. Still, it'll become a success among the viewers I'm sure.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Smurfs:</span> Not much of a trailer here (technically a teaser), so too early to tell. Still... the animation style that was shown has me doubting how this will turn out...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Legend of the Guardians:</span> The new trailer shows more balance between character personality/development and an epic storyline, so this trailer has me a bit more hopeful than usual. Still, I can't believe it's being headed by the people behind Happy Feet. <span style="font-style:italic;">*shudder*</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Rango:</span> Uh... what the... I think this film is stuck in some sort of flux. In fact, I don't know what to think of the trailer (the recent one, released June 29th). The art direction's actually surprisingly good for the style of film it is, but in that same breath leaves me unable to know whether it will turn out well or become a weird outlier. Unique for sure, yet surprisingly hard to tell where this will go.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight:bold;">Megamind:</span> Think of this as Shrek rebooted... but with blue alien styles, a more antagonistic main character, and, well, lower expectations from me. Along with that, I'm expecting mediocre response from critics, but passable response from audiences. Doesn't appeal to me, though.<br /><br />That's it for my impressions. I'm intentionally leaving Despicable Me out of the list due to its imminent release, and the bucket load of trailers out already.Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-31820105343063690152010-05-07T02:48:00.003-06:002010-05-23T02:06:28.370-06:00MOVIES: A Trailer to Feast the Eyes and Ears.Who knows what the passage of time will do to the movie at hand, as more than a decade of being subjected to promotional materials has taught me that an excellent preview does not equal an excellent movie.<br /><br />But regardless, <br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pikm7QJSmOM">I'd have to say this is perhaps the most awe-inspiring trailer I've seen in ages!</a><br /><br />Almost makes it hard to believe this is the same studio behind Happy Feet (a movie that's about as ludicrous as its name).Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-34766612287649370032010-04-24T20:49:00.003-06:002010-05-07T02:56:50.968-06:00MEDIA: Not-so-Friendly Family-Friendly.It's official. The term "family-friendly" seems to have lost half of its meaning these days, though I'm sure that started within the last decade or two.<br /><br />Of course, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised. The most notorious example in existence right now is ABC Family. Their tagline is "A different kind of family," which I agree... it's a dysfunctional family.Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-55482107971286411782007-12-05T13:21:00.001-07:002007-12-05T13:30:48.314-07:00Commentary: Why I'm a rabid Nintendo fan.A comment I made on a <a href="http://gonintendo.com/?p=30905#comment-1703632">news article</a>* at Gonintendo.com<br /><br /><blockquote>As for my personal take on the systems... well, I'm going to be extremely frank: I bought the Wii just for Nintendo's games. Motion sensing or no, my decision would've been the same. There are very, VERY few companies I like outside of the Nintendo bracket (unless you count NES/SNES era games). I found that out the hard way with the PS2, where I only have half the games of the Gamecube and have a lower like/hate ratio compared to the Cube. While it's obvious that I'm going to think along those lines with ratable content (Nintendo pretty much is the Disney/Pixar of the game industry), I was surprised at how much I hated most PS2 games on a gameplay standpoint. The Dark Cloud series was disappointing, Suikoden 3 was lukewarm, and the two big platformer series ("Jak" and "Ratchet & Clank"), while rather surprising in their own regards, were merely passable in my view.<br /><br />Frankly, the only games keeping me from getting rid of my PS2 are the Kingdom Hearts series and Shadow of the Colossus. If I had the KH series and Team ICO's games on the Wii, I would need nothing else.</blockquote><br /><br />I never really thought about it till recently, but even though aiming towards more family-oriented content is more than enough reason to stick with Nintendo's stuff (as it's hard to find anything good elsewhere that isn't filled with profanity and insubordinate amounts of sexually suggestive material), I came to realize that I didn't care much for many of the games I had on the PS2 from the gameplay standpoint.<br /><br />By the way, I should make it clear that I have no delusions of a Team ICO game heading to any non-Sony platform. They are definitely an in-house Sony team, and I'm sure anything that changes that would be extreme and probably result in the team disappearing from the industry rather than switching publishers.<br /><br />*(note: Link goes to an unmoderated comments section. Click at thy own risk!).Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6202275488287457188.post-46341006174882407122007-10-14T19:17:00.000-06:002007-12-05T01:54:56.773-07:00My views on what I like about video game RPGs.This was from a recent post I made on a forum (Nsider2) in <a href="http://www.nsider2.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=24667">this thread</a><br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-style: italic;">User SafariSuz asked:</span> I'm trying to figure out if your tastes in RPGs apply to an art style, a menu style, a turn-based versus real-time style, etc. I mean, Square did have at least one Mana game on PS1. I really have a hard time figuring out the arguement against some sequels.<br /><br />What aspects of the early Mana games did you enjoy that were taken out of later ones?</blockquote><br /><br />Excellent questions. I believe it's a mixture of all of these, and the end result is like an equation where the pros and cons come together to create a final score that determines how much I like or dislike a game. With that in mind, lets group this into sections.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Art Style:</span><br /><br />For art style I'll throw story and mood into the mix, since they're all closely tied together. This is by far the most variable and shifty of all the classification for me, as my tastes aren't so easily defined. For example, while I mostly hate moods that are "dark," some elements of dark mood I feel factor into a story really well (for example, villain motivations, culminating events, etc...).<br /><br />So, first, lets pick apart light and dark. I'm a major fan of the whole good vs. evil thing, especially when developers see fit to implement things that can be considered a "good intentioned evil," an example of which is what is called a "forced utopia." This one I can't think of any specific examples of, but everything from religion, to politics, and even forms of entertainment have had this. Russia's Communism is a good example of this. Good intentions of putting everyone on equal ground, but not something that can be done without 100% consent (and even then...). True paradise does not exist in this world because not everyone seeks the same goals, or, rather, doesn't agree on the path to those goals. Thus, games that go multi-tiered on the light and dark themes get bonus points in my book.<br /><br />Factoring mood into the light and dark thing is important. I can't stand when games go overboard on the dark mood bit. Having a little bit is important for those scenes where the world is going to chaos with a vengeance is important. However, if a game wants to keep a light mood to it, they can easily do it. Secret of Mana pulled this off with aplomb. I'm not sure how, but my guess is that they implemented the concept of hope. Not something limited to characters saying "we still have hope!" That's cheesy and cheap. Mana injected this feeling into every fiber of the game. The story, the music, the visuals, and, yes, even character dialog, just to complete the package. Furthermore, the game was not under the shadow of complete oppression for very long. By comparison, how long did FF7 have a giant meteor floating in the sky? Oh, about 2 full discs (the 2nd being shorter, due to being the last disc and holding long FMVs). That's pretty much more than 50% of the game. That's a flaming long time to be under the doomsday scenario, and it showed in the mood of the game, which frankly ruined the mood of the game for me. Furthermore, they saw fit to make every character and every aspect of the game THRUST this mood upon you in nearly every blasted byte of the game! With FF6, another game that had a long doomsday scenario (more of an oppression scenario, but close enough), your put into the position of a gradual building hope that adds more and more with every character you find, not to mention the mega-boost provided by finding out that there's ANOTHER AIRSHIP! That moment was pure awesome! It was there that I almost forgot that the world was a complete disaster, or that a monster roamed the skies. The world was my oyster once again, and it was a new world that seemed to fill reinvigorated the more that you accomplished (with FF7, you didn't really feel all that much accomplishment until you took out Sephiroth... talking story-wise, of course).<br /><br />Another thing is levity vs. seriousness. In any form of entertainment, the best epics have a nice balance of these. Too much levity make it feel like a Disney flick (not a bad thing in and of itself, but not useful for epics), while too much seriousness makes it feel far too dramatic. The interesting thing is that Mana seems more tied to levity while FF6 seems more tied to seriousness, yet both games show a surprising amount of the opposite side of the spectrum that creates a fine mixture of both, like a good recipe that makes a yummy dish (Mmm... food analogies!). Like I said, nothing wrong with either side of that spectrum, but, in my view, RPGs are best aided by a great blend of both in just the right amount.<br /><br />As far as actual art style goes (visuals), a lot of those previous statements tie into that. Part of the reason I love Flammie's in-game design (and the one piece of artwork they actually did right... the one for Children of Mana) is that it's so inventive, whimsical, unusual, and lovable, all while avoiding being too asinine. The character is pretty much an echo of the game itself, showing that levity and seriousness can work in the same package (e.g. it looks fluffy and cuddly, but you know it's capable of causing destruction given the right circumstances... a concept that Square-Enix clearly ran with when making the FMVs for Dawn of Mana, which are pretty cool). Now, if they only worked on their gameplay a lot better, the recent entries could be right up there with Kingdom Hearts, which also does the levity/serious balance quite well.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Menu Style:</span><br /><br />Eh... not sure why you mentioned this one. Good menus are nice, but that's a technical thing that goes under the umbrella of gameplay. Simply put, whatever isn't too needlessly tedious is good in my book. FF Tactics (and even Tactics Ogre for GBA, to a lesser extent) had FAR too much customization for me. I like to customize, but FF Tactics seemed geared for those with obsessive-compulsive tenancies (not to be confused with having the actual disorder).<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Turn-based vs. Real-time</span><br /><br />Egh! This one will open up a can of worms. There are two terms I'd like to add to this, which are Action and Strategy, which can be added to these terms, such as Real-time Strategic RPG.<br /><br />I like all styles, but the different styles have a tendency to do something I hate. I'll focus on this per genre.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Real-time Strategic RPGs:</span> This term I use for any RPGs that implement a queue or click method of battling (most of these are common to PC games). More often than not I'm going to hate this. If it's like Baldur's Gate 2 (PC) where you control multiple characters directly, that's fine. Gives it that quasi-Strategy game feel and leaves a ton of room for strategic planning (especially since they allow you to pause to change your tactics). A great example of a Real-time RPG with a queue system that works. What I DON'T like is RPGs that only let you control one character directly. This destroys a lot of the Strategy for me. This is why I was particularly disappointed with Neverwinter Nights, and why I will never play any of the current MMORPGs. I know NWN was aiming for that multiplayer feel, not to mention that classic D&D feel, but it really shafted the combat for me. Although, more atrocious than this is the game Diablo. Ahh! The game is a click fest! If I wanted that, I'd play a REAL action game, something where I'm not mindlessly clicking monsters to perform an attack.<br /><br />(note: I know most of you are thinking of Phantom Hourglass after these statements. The game goes under Real-time Action RPGs... if you could even call it an RPG. Though there is a form of queuing in this game, it is very minimal and the game still uses lots of action elements. I like Phantom Hourglass so far).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Real-time Action RPGs:</span> Yep, this is where favorites such as Kingdom Hearts and Secret of Mana fit in... though Secret of Mana has a weird dodge stat that adds a slight strategic flavor to it. Kind of weird.<br /><br />The key here is Strategy. Yeah, sounds a bit odd considering the last category had Strategy in the title, but the difference here is you feel like you are the character rather than some overlord that commands his/her every movement. Everything you do is instant, and only magic or items are queued at times (they're weird like that). The key here is for a game to keep you on your toes. I don't want to feel like I'm just hacking monsters over and over in redundant fashion. Those are "hack 'n slashes." They're okay for multiplayer, to a degree, but that format in games with an RPG mold is worthless to me. Make me feel like I'm the actual character! Make me feel like I'm actually employing some form of tactics in the form of how I move, how I approach, and how I strike! This is how even the simplest of Real-time Action RPGs can manage to immerse me into the game.<br /><br />Lets do a quick comparison. Lets compare Kingdom Hearts 2 and a hack 'n slash (either Dungeons and Dragons: Heroes or Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, both Xbox games that I've actually played on my brother's system). So, in the hack 'n slash games, I can control a character's movements instantaneously. I can attack with melee weapons and/or ranged weapons (either bow & arrow type or magic... depends on the character chosen). I can use items instantaneously. In Kingdom Hearts 2, a lot of the same thing, but attacks work differently. Both styles of games are essentially button-mashing in their method of combat. So what's the difference that makes me like Kingdom Hearts 2 more? Firstly, the lock-on system adds a sort of swordsman flair to the game. Normally a lock-on system would seem to degrade the tactics a bit, but somehow it adds a weird depth to it because they make certain enemies attack in a way that's varied and different, meaning your as much focused on attacking as much as dodging (the latter coming into play more with boss fights). With the hack 'n slash games I mentioned above, I mostly feel like I'm controlling a little action figure whose tactics are all about going up to the enemy, bashing it a few times, and running away if I'm being hurt too much or surrounded by too many enemies. Furthermore, types of attacks are limited mostly to whether it's close-range or long-range attack, and what type of attack the enemy prefers. It's like a big game of chicken, except with variables that mix things up enough to make you think it's not a giant game of chicken. So, basically, Real-time Action RPGs win me over when they offer diversified strategic elements (which, I'll admit, are a bit limited in Secret of Mana, but the weapon system and magic system make up for it due to the different tactics associated with those).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Turn-based Strategic RPGs:</span> Ah... this is where I got my introduction to the genre (unless Zelda counts... which it kinda does to certain degrees). Dragon Warrior 1 was my first game of this type, and, surprisingly, I still like it a bit. What?! But it only has one character in your party... which I guess doesn't make it a party. So what explains this paradox? Probably a mixture of different elements, but lets start with characters in combat.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Multi-character combat:</span> When you go to a battle, you gotta bring friends! It adds to the strategy and gives you someone to carry your dead body back to town to be revived if you should fall in battle (or revive you on the spot, as many RPGs do now). It's a no-brainer that more characters makes things more fun, so lets move on to the other categories that are, more or less, independent of this one.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Preparation and Knowing When to Quit:</span> This one is a major key to the Dragon Warrior/Quest games, and probably the only reason I don't hate DQ1 completely at the moment, even with it's 1 vs. 1 combat. The thing is, Dragon Quest dungeons are notorious for not having save points (at least all the NES ones I played). Even with the addition of quick saving to the GBC remakes, the concept remains the same: you go into the dungeon with whatever you have, and that doesn't include exorbitant amounts of major healing items or reviving items. In DQ 2-4, you could only have one reviving item at a time (the World Tree doesn't look kindly upon greedy types), and only a certain amount of herbs could be held. Healing herbs didn't do much healing later on in the game, and there were no items to remove all status effects, just specific ones for poison, paralysis, and so on. This means it's a tough life for any warrior that travels the world without a magic user. Even then, a magic user can only do so much before he/she needs rest to replenish precious MP (of course, if you have a Wizard Ring, those help, but they can only replenish so much before they break, and they're not exactly easy to find).<br /><br />Similar to this, knowing when your being overwhelmed in combat comes into play in the DQ series. If everyone in your party but your mage is asleep due to enemy spells/attacks, you have a few options. You can continue to attack in hopes that everyone wakes up without being put to sleep again, or you can run, knowing that the odds can turn against you quickly (don't ask me how sleeping party members manage to follow). Both options have their pros and cons and involve a lot of luck, but sometimes trying to think of what option would be best is part of the strategy. Also, if you are so low on MP and HP that you don't think you can handle anymore battling, it's likely a good time to go back to town and rest. Just make sure you prepared before hand by having a return item, or leaving just enough MP for your mage to cast outside and return (in DQ2, this required 6 each for a total of 12 to get you from a dungeon to town).<br /><br />DQ1 obviously has less of these options available, which is why I say it's aged faster than any other game in the series, but it shows the strength of these tactics in the rest of the series (which is good enough to make DQ4 my favorite DQ game despite the forced AI... hopefully the DS remake fixes this, like the PS1 remake did).<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">Exploration:</span> All games benefit from this in my book, but it holds a special place in my heard for Turn-Based games. These games THRIVE off of having you explore vast worlds, deep dungeons, and tall towers. This sort of thing isn't seen to the same degree in most Real-time Action RPGs.<br /><br />Developers need only avoid one thing in this regard. Don't make the dungeons feel like a maze. Diversify it a little so that I actually know where I'm going, because that's how most real-life locations are. The only games that have failed me noticeably here are Phantasy Star 2 and pretty much any RPG that has one of those old-school 3D dungeons that really ARE mazes (the walls are all the same, for crying out loud!).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Turn-based Action RPGs:</span> Um... isn't this an oxymoron? Is it even possible for these to exist?<br /><br /><br />So, there's my view of a lot of different factors that come into play regarding why I may like or dislike certain RPGs. It's a lot to read, I know, but some of you may find it to be an interesting read.<br /><br />Now, as for the mana games itself (which I mentioned a bit before, but didn't delve into), it depends on which game you speak of. First, I should mention that the only post-SNES Mana game I've ever played was Legend of Mana... and I wasn't impressed. The game discarded the standard Mana formula for something else, and that something else didn't sit well with me. It's like they turned it into a quasi-beat 'em up, but without the fast movement associated with beat 'em ups. In fact, it almost reminded me of my comments about hack 'n slash games that I mentioned above. Bear in mind that I only played through one dungeon (it was a friend's copy), and we were playing it multiplayer, but I got a feel for the game very quickly. Legend of Mana series felt to Secret of Mana what Chrono Cross felt to Chrono Trigger, except more radical (Chrono Cross mostly tweaked the battle system, but had the same form of exploration).<br /><br />Sword of Mana I actually wish I'd tried. I would probably have liked it (albeit, probably not to the degree of Secret of Mana), but being on the fence so long made me pass it by.<br /><br />As for Children of Mana and Dawn of Mana (again, never played them), reviews say they basically became mission-based dungeon crawlers, and that didn't sit well with me, not to mention the combat flaws that all the reviewers mentioned. I learned just how much I can't stand dungeon crawlers after playing Shining Soul 2 (FYI, Shining Soul and Children of Mana have the same developer!). If someone insists I try Dawn of Mana, I may give it a rent, but what I've heard doesn't sound pretty... well, except the visuals.Taldurashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00795283877721014053noreply@blogger.com0