2314: Games That Deserve the Ys-Style Remake Treatment

Rather than pondering this as it occurred to me last night as I finished writing that day's post, I thought I'd split this off into its own separate post, as it's something that I think is worth thinking about in detail.

For the benefit of those who can't be arsed to read yesterday's post, my thinking is this: Ys I and II have had so many remakes over the years that their most recent incarnations are both recognisably "modern" and authentically "retro" at the same time. In other words, they maintain the feeling of the original games while incorporating modern aesthetic and mechanical standards to make them more palatable and enjoyable to a modern audience, as well as perhaps expanding on things like the overall script and story. This, to me, is a great way to bring a classic game up to date, so I started pondering what other old games might benefit from this treatment?

Here's what I came up with. (Or rather, here's what occurred to me as I wrote this post.)

Phantasy Star II

I played Phantasy Star I all the way through in its Game Boy Advance incarnation — actually just a straight port of the Master System original. I enjoyed it a great deal, despite the necessity of actually getting the graph paper out and mapping the dungeons.

Phantasy Star II, meanwhile, despite being enthusiastically raved about by a Phantasy Star-loving friend as his favourite in the series, just didn't quite "click" with me for some reason. I liked its aesthetic, I liked its battle system, I liked its concept — I just couldn't quite get into it.

Part of the reason for this was its dungeon design. By presenting its dungeons from a three-quarter top-down perspective rather than its predecessor's first-person perspective, they became significantly harder to map effectively — and boy, you still needed to map them. The first big dungeon was a mess of almost identical-looking floors with transitions between them that sent you to all manner of different places, and I found it absolutely impossible to navigate effectively, and moreover, impossible to figure out a sensible, effective means of mapping it.

It's not necessarily the lack of a map facility that was the problem, as both Ys I and II featured some fairly complex labyrinths that I nonetheless managed to navigate without mapping, but there was something about Phantasy Star II that I found irreconcilably confusing. A modern remake would perhaps benefit from a map facility, or perhaps even a rethinking of the dungeon designs — taking the latter approach would have the added benefit of making the game feel like a "new" experience for veterans, though purists would likely thumb their noses at the possibility. Perhaps there could be an option to have "classic" or "contemporary" dungeons according to your preference.

Aside from that, simply an update of the art would be lovely — and take Ys' approach of improving the fidelity of the art without necessarily compromising its style; Ys I and II feature gorgeous '90s anime-style character designs, and they look both lovely and distinctive, so I feel Phantasy Star II could benefit from such a visual update, too.

The Mercenary series

Mercenary and its two sequels Damocles and Mercenary III were defining games in my childhood. Some of the most technically impressive games of the 8- and 16-bit computer era, they were sprawling, open-world adventures that managed to tell an interesting story while giving the player an unprecedented degree of freedom to explore and just generally piss around in the world (and, later, solar system) that developer Paul Woakes had created.

They look very primitive today, though. Built on rigid grid systems with no more than one building per (pretty large) grid square, the environments were certainly large and sprawling, but rather empty-feeling at times. A modern remake could benefit from greater scenery density and perhaps an expansion of the dynamic scenery Mercenary III introduced in the form of its fully functional public transportation system.

There was actually going to be a Damocles remake at one point with full texture-mapped graphics and all manner of other goodies — this was a few years back, too, so I can only imagine what modern graphics hardware would make of this sort of game. Unfortunately, I feel that very few people have heard of this series these days, so I feel it's destined to remain part of history rather than something that will ever get brought up to date and given to a brand new audience.

Shining Force

Sega's classic strategy RPG already had one lovely remake on the Game Boy Advance, but it's since disappeared from relevance everywhere except for the Sega Mega Drive Classics pack available on Steam. And while the Mega Drive version still works just fine, it would be kind of lovely to see a fully up to date version of the original Shining Force, its sequel and even the Game Gear version Shining Force Gaiden (which, fun fact, was also released for Palm devices, of all things).

Shining Force's gameplay remains solid today, and with the popularity of Fire Emblem it's not too much of a stretch to say that all it needs is a fresh coat of paint and a remastered soundtrack to make it something people would more than likely happily pay £15 to have in their Steam library or PSN downloads. Hell, I'd happily pay £40 for a physical edition of a Shining Force compilation, including modernised updates of Shining Force, Shining Force II and Shining Force Gaiden, perhaps even with upscaled versions of the various Shining Force III releases for good measure.

And localise the other two Shining Force III games while you're on, Sega, while I'm dreaming.

Alternate Reality

I mention this game quite a lot, because it's fascinating to me. I found it fascinating when I first played it as a child, even if I didn't understand how role-playing games worked at the time, and I still find its complexity and depth fascinating today.

For the uninitiated, Alternate Reality was a proposed series of games that began with The City and continued into The Dungeon, but was ultimately scrapped before its other episodes were completed. The story deals with the player character being abducted by aliens and taken to another world, seemingly medieval in nature but with occasional whiffs of peculiar technology starting to become apparent, particularly in The Dungeon. The ultimate intention was for the player to discover the aliens' plan — a Matrix-style virtual world designed to make its participants believe that they were living a "real life" in this other world, when in fact they were just existing as part of a simulation — but unfortunately this ambitious concept was never brought to fruition.

We have the graphical technology and programming knowhow to bring the complete Alternate Reality concept to fruition today, in more impressive form than ever before. Bethesda RPGs show that there's very much a market for sprawling, freeform, open-world games that the player can tackle as they see fit, and the complete scope of Alternate Reality wouldn't be any more ambitious than your typical Elder Scrolls game.

I would even be happy if it maintained its old-school "gridder"-style dungeon crawling presentation rather than featuring a true, fully modelled 3D open world — I just dream of one day seeing creator Philip Price's original vision brought to fruition, and kind of wish I was able to do something about it myself!

2278: Difficulty Switch A and B

0278_001

Spending a bit more time with Atari Vault over the last few days makes me appreciate one of the most interesting things about the 2600 — and something that, to my knowledge, hasn't really been done on any other console since: its use of difficulty switches and game selectors.

It wasn't unusual to see 2600 cartridges promising "9 video games" or similar on their front covers; by modern definitions, this wasn't entirely accurate, as each cartridge did indeed contain just one game, but tended to have multiple variations available to play. In some cases, these variations were minor — difficulty modes, essentially — but in others, they changed the gameplay fairly drastically. And along with these selectable games, the 2600 also afforded both players the opportunity to select their difficulty independently of one another.

Handicap systems are still found in modern multiplayer games in various ways, the most common of which being racing games' tendency to give the pack's back markers a slight speed boost to allow them to catch up a bit. But on the 2600, this was a revolutionary feature: by setting difficulty levels independently for each player, it became possible for experienced players to play "fairly" with newcomers, youngsters or those who simply didn't have quite the same dexterity and/or ability to handle those horrible Atari joysticks.

The ways that the difficulty switches were implemented varied from game to game. In the case of Air-Sea Battle, for example, the difficulty switches allowed players to set the size of their bullets independently — less experienced players could have larger bullets, making it easier to hit the targets. In Combat, the difficulty switches adjusted the speed of the player's bullets — more experienced players could choose to have slower shots, making it easier for their opponent to dodge. (Of course, you could then tweak the difficulty further by playing one of the variants where you could "bend" your shots around corners by steering after firing.)

It's a really interesting idea, and one of the coolest things about the 2600. I knew about the existence of these switches before — I've played some 2600 games before — but it hasn't been until I've actually started investigating some of these games in detail that I've really appreciated the surprising amount of interest and flexibility that they bring to these rough-looking but surprisingly fun old games.

Plus another nice feature of 2600 games I've discovered is that they're straightforward and easy to learn enough that my wife and I can play together without me having to spend hours explaining how to do things, or for us to play with an enormous skill imbalance thanks to the fact I have more experience than her. Thanks to the 2600's switches, we can tweak the experience to one that we both find challenging, but fair — and, it has to be said, the 2600 had some enormously fun two-player games that, while simple, can get very, very competitive very quickly!

2276: Video Computer System

0276_001

As I wrote in a few posts recently, I've been checking out the new Atari Vault compilation on Steam. Rather than talking about a specific game today, I wanted to talk a little bit about the value of the compilation as a whole, and why I'm enjoying exploring it.

Atari Vault is a compilation of somewhere in the region of 100 Atari games from the '80s. The bulk of the compilation consists of VCS 2600 games, but there are some arcade games in there too, including the likes of Crystal Castles, Missile Command, Major Havoc and Liberator.

I've owned a number of previous similar compilations in the past, and have typically gravitated towards the arcade games, since they seem more "palatable" from a modern perspective than the extremely primitive-looking 2600 games. I recall growing up with the Atari 8-bit home computers, and in comparison to those, 2600 games looked primitive even back at that time when it was relatively current, and as such, I've always found them a little offputting. I've made a specific effort to explore them a bit more this time around, though, and I've been pleased to discover some really interesting games.

Take Haunted House, for example. This is a fairly straightforward top-down "find all the things" game with an intriguing twist: you're in the dark. With your character represented as nothing more than a pair of eyes, you navigate around by either bumping into walls or lighting matches to illuminate the area immediately around you. A single game of Haunted House requires that you find all the pieces of a… thing… an urn? And you have to do so while using as few matches as possible and losing as few lives as possible, for this being a haunted house, it has a number of unpleasant beasties lurking around just waiting to nibble on you.

Or take Save Mary, a prototype game that never saw commercial release, but which presented an interesting twist on vaguely Tetris-ish block puzzles. The eponymous Mary is trapped at the bottom of a pit which is slowly filling with water. You control a crane and have to drop blocks into the well for Mary to climb up. You need to get her high enough to be able to grab her with the crane and save her. Once you've done this, you have to do it again, only with significantly more awkward-shaped blocks. The peculiar variation on the typical block puzzle formula is the fact that Mary has a mind of her own (albeit a predictable one) and you have to be careful not to squish her with the blocks you drop as she wanders back and forth trying to get to high ground.

Or how about Atari Video Cube, a really simple but surprisingly compelling puzzle game loosely based on Rubik's Cube? Controlling a weird little man (who has a name and a backstory and everything, though I can't remember it offhand), it's your job to pick up coloured squares from each of the 3×3 faces of the cube and lay them down so that each side is a solid colour. To make this more difficult, to pick up a coloured tile, you have to swap it with the one you're holding, and to make it even more difficult, you can't walk through tiles that are the same colour as the tile you're holding, even if they're on a different face of the cube.

The 2600 back catalogue appears to be filled with these sorts of interesting little games that we'd probably find laughable if released as full-scale, full-price commercial releases today, but as part of this compilation, they provide a surprising amount of entertainment value — and, in some cases, represent types of games that are very much deserving of a modern remake.

My only issue with them from a modern viewpoint is the fact that 2600 games tend to end rather abruptly, regardless of whether you "win" or "lose", and this can sometimes make victories over a particularly difficult level feel a bit less than satisfying. Still, this was from an age where gaming was quite a social pursuit — many of the 2600 games are very much designed to be played together with a partner — and so, I feel, a key part of the fun back then must have been making your own fun with the games to a certain extent; similar to how a tabletop game doesn't automatically set off fireworks as soon as you win, neither does a 2600 game. The celebrations and victory rewards are entirely up to you; I recommend betting each other a slice of pizza or a big lump of cake on a game of Combat and see how much you like each other by the end of the evening!

2262: Have You Played Major Havoc Today?

0262_001

Continuing my exploration of Atari Vault on Steam — and partly in honour of the fact that for some inexplicable (but welcome!) reason, Atari founder Nolan Bushnell followed me on Twitter earlier today — I thought I'd take a look at another game I was previously unfamiliar with: Major Havoc.

Major Havoc is one of those games from the early '80s that eschewed sprites, bitmaps and pixels in favour of vector graphics, giving it a very distinctive, recognisable look that stands alongside other vector games such as Asteroids, Battlezone, Red Baron, Tempest and Star Wars. In keeping with the inventiveness of video gaming's youth, Major Havoc is a rather peculiar game with some ambitious concepts, and quite possibly one of the first attempts at cross-genre gaming.

Major Havoc is split into several phases. First of all there's a quasi-3D shoot 'em up section, where you control Major Havoc's spaceship at the bottom of the screen and shoot incoming enemies as they come towards you. The interesting thing about this part is that it's not just straight Space Invaders-style waves of enemies: the first level features enemies that turn into a different form and home in on you when you hit them; the second features Galaxians-style swooping enemies, and the third starts with swirling, spiral enemies that draw lines on the screen, which subsequently become a maze you have to navigate your ship through as you approach your destination. (I can't get past this one, so I can't speak to what comes later!)

Following this, you have a Lunar Lander-lite section where you have to land Major Havoc's ship on a flashing white platform atop the target you were approaching in the first phase. Then Major Havoc gets out of the ship and you're seamlessly taken into a side-on platformer with weird gravity (hold the jump button down and you keep rising; let go and you'll fall) where you have to find a reactor, set it to explode and then get back out to your ship before you blow up with it. After that, the process repeats with a different wave of enemies, different platform to land on and different maze to negotiate.

It's a really cool game that tries some things I certainly haven't seen before, and the blend of space shooter and platforming hasn't really been attempted again (to my knowledge, anyway) until FuturLab's very recent Velocity 2x on PlayStation 4 and Vita.

It's also a stark reminder and interesting reminder that differences between Eastern and Western games have always been very apparent, though not always in quite the same way as today — Atari's games of the early '80s capitalised on the popularity of futuristic sci-fi thanks to Star Wars and made effective use of technologies such as vector graphics to create that aesthetic, while Japanese games of a similar era were often based around pixel art with cute aesthetics and more mascot-like characters.

Major Havoc, then: pretty neat, and another nice discovery from the Atari Vault. Looking forward to discovering more. (Also, hi, Mr Bushnell, if you're reading, which you probably aren't. Thank you for following.)

2260: Have You Played Liberator Today?

0260_001

I like retro compilations, not just for the ability to play games from my youth on modern hardware, but also to discover some classics that, for whatever reason, I missed out on when they were first released.

Such has been the case after just a few minutes with Atari Vault, a new release on Steam that packages together about a hundred Atari 2600 and arcade games from the late '70s and early '80s — including a few previously unreleased prototypes, which is kinda cool.

One such discovery I made today was an interesting (and surprisingly impressive for the time) game called Liberator, a quasi-sequel to Missile Command that flipped the concept of the original Cold War-inspired game on its head by putting you in the role of the aggressors, attacking enemy bases on planets in order to liberate the population from the villains.

Liberator, I've discovered, was quite a rare game even on its original release, which might explain why I've never come across it before. According to Gaming History, the original arcade machine sold for a whopping $2,000 and did not prove particularly popular, with only somewhere in the region of 760 cabinets actually being made — all this despite it being a game absolutely made for cross-promotion with Atari's "Atari Force" comic series. The curse of old-school Atari constantly and consistently failing at marketing strikes once again, I guess.

Anyway. The game plays quite a bit like Missile Command in that it's a somewhat different take on the shoot 'em up. Rather than firing directly at things, you fire at a crosshair on screen, and your missiles detonate when they reach the point you fired at. Thus, to destroy things, you have to cause explosions at locations where the enemies will be when your missiles arrive — usually meaning you have to fire ahead of them carefully, anticipating their movements.

Much like Missile Command, you can fire from several different places on screen, and these missile launchers — here depicted as starships orbiting an enemy planet — can be independently destroyed, acting as your "lives" for the game session. The game, then, becomes a matter of balancing your offense on the planet surface, which requires you to destroy enemy missile bases on the rotating globe ahead of you, and defending yourself against incoming missiles and other attacks. Not every attack is guaranteed to hit you, either, so you also need to spot which things you need to prioritise destroying and which you can safely ignore.

It's an interesting game; very simple, but undoubtedly addictive in the same way that Missile Command is. It's a good-looking game for the time period (1982), as well, with some decent pixel art for "Commander Champion", who briefs you on your mission, and a well-done 3D rotating globe effect for the planets you're orbiting. Sound effects, meanwhile, are the same bleeps, burbles and booms from Missile Command — nothing special, but certainly iconic of this particular period in gaming.

There's a lot more to explore in Atari Vault, but I anticipate that Liberator will be one I keep coming back to!

#oneaday Day 993: Why You Should Probably Play Quest for Glory

It feels like a good time to explain Why You Should Probably Play Quest for Glory, because 1) the complete series is available on GOG.com for $3.99 for one more day and 2) the Squadron of Shame just released a podcast detailing exactly why it's awesome. You can listen to it in the player below and go leave a comment here.

Quest for Glory remains to this day an aberration in both the point-and-click adventure and RPG genres, in that it is both. For those who have no experience of the series, the basic gist of all games in the series is that you have the mouse-driven "walk, look, use, talk" interface of an adventure game coupled with the stat-based system of an RPG. You wander around, you find out about quests, you get into fights, you save the sleepy Germanic valley/city/African-style savannah region/world.

Sounds simple, right? After all, RPGs and adventure games already have a lot in common — mainly the fact that both often involve a lot of talking — thus it's not much of a stretch to imagine an RPG with a point-and-click adventure game interface (or, in the case of earlier games in the series, text parser).

Except Quest for Glory doesn't stop there, because it makes its games noticeably and significantly different depending on whether you initially choose to play as a fighter, magic user or thief. (It's also worth noting that the "thief" class is a proper thief who breaks into houses and nicks stuff for personal gain, none of that namby-pamby "rogue" nonsense)

That's right — join the quest as a fighter and, for sure, you'll be doing a lot of fighting, but you'll also be using your brawn to solve non-violent problems. Become a thief and you'll be using your agility, climbing ability and stealthiness to sneak around and solve problems from the shadows. Become a mage and over the course of the various games in the series you'll outfit yourself with a diverse array of spells, only a couple of which are of the traditional "throw fiery objects at opponents" variety.

Best of all, if you're the sort of indecisive person who likes to play as a "hybrid" class, you can spend a few extra points on character creation to take a skill that doesn't normally belong to that type of hero. Want to be a wizard that's good at climbing? Go ahead. A thief with a good line in magic tricks? Sure! A fighter who knows what the word "sneak" means? Knock yourself out! All skills that are at higher than zero can be raised through grinding — the Quest for Glory series subscribes to the Final Fantasy II/Elder Scrolls mentality that skills should be raised organically as you use them rather than at arbitrary level boundaries. Crucially for the whole fun factor, though, it's relatively rare that you'll need to grind a skill, unless you're specifically aiming to do and see absolutely everything the game has to offer. (And if you are, you're a masochist.)

Then there's the fact that the Quest for Glory series was one of the first series that allowed you to transfer your save file from one game to the next. Beat one game and you'd be invited to export your character ready to import once the next game released. This was remarkably forward-thinking (and confident) of the developers at the time — and also somewhat symptomatic of the different times back then. Now, sure, we have franchises like Mass Effect and Dragon Age allowing you to import your save file from the previous game, but each game in the series didn't specifically include with a promise of the next one. In other words, whether or not a game gets a sequel these days isn't necessarily preordained — it's often dependent on sales. In Quest for Glory's time, it was built in to the design from the very beginning, even as technology improved over time.

This is one of the other interesting things about playing through any of Sierra's old adventure series. You can see how gaming technology evolved from game to game. Quest for Glory I and II initially used 16-colour 320×200 EGA graphics and a text parser, though Quest for Glory I was subsequently rereleased with 256-colour 320×200 VGA graphics and a mouse-driven interface. Quest for Glory II never got the same treatment officially, but a fan-made free remake (approved, but not funded or assisted by, the original team) brought it into the latter days of the 20th century rather nicely. Quest for Glory III then brought the series officially into the 256-colour VGA age, and Quest for Glory IV was the first CD-ROM based episode, featuring none other than John "Gimli and That Professor Bloke I Can't Remember the Name Of from Sliders" Rhys-Davies on narration duties.

Quest for Glory V marked a bit of a turning point, however, not just for the series, but for Sierra's fortunes and the adventure game genre at large. Being a CD-ROM only multimedia extravaganza with 256-colour 640×480 Super VGA visuals, polygons and a prerendered intro sequence that, while impressive at the time is utterly laughable if you watch it now, Quest for Glory V marked the point where, for many, the franchise lost its way. There are plenty of people who adore the game, of course, but those who grew up with the earlier entries in the series can't help but mourn the direction it took with its fifth instalment and its subsequent demise.

This wasn't the only time Sierra did something weird with one of its established series. In fact, almost all of Sierra's classic, long-running series ended up as something completely different to their original forms — King's Quest became a 3D action RPG with its eighth instalment; Police Quest became the tactical SWAT series after its fourth incarnation (later dropping the Police Quest moniker altogether); and Leisure Suit Larry just went off the rails altogether after its sixth episode (which, naturally, is called Leisure Suit Larry 7). In comparison to these other titles, Quest for Glory V's changes were actually relatively modest — but still enough to put some off.

Perhaps the saddest thing about the demise of the Quest for Glory series is that we really haven't had anything like it since. We've had a resurgence of point-and-click adventures in the last couple of years, sure, but nothing that so deftly blends two genres together with interesting stories, a genuinely amusing sense of humour and satisfying gameplay.

However, there's some good news for fans of Lori and Corey Cole — they're working on something new called Hero U, and will be opening a Kickstarter funding drive some time later this month. More details here. I'm pretty excited — they've said outright that it's not going to be a new Quest for Glory game, but it will incorporate some of the things they learned from making those games. Sounds awesome, right? Of course.

Hope you enjoyed the podcast. We certainly spent long enough recording it — and then I spent even longer editing it. 🙂

#oneaday, Day 82: The Pile of Shame

Hello everyone! Late again. I'm just going to stop writing that at the start of my posts, as it appears that 2am is prime blogging time in my stupid world. Oh well. I could have worse vices at 2am. Or indeed at any time.

Few fun things to report. Well, one really, and one I can't talk about yet until I know a bit more. First up, I'm going to be writing for an upcoming retro-gaming site called B4HD, which specialises in games from the pre-HD era. (B4 HD. Geddit?) It was brought to my attention by the lovely and talented Jennifer Allen, who is also partaking in this One A Day nonsense (one of the few people who are still left) and also happens to be the deputy editor of the site. So thanks, Jen, for pointing it out. It's right up my alley. Now I just need to write something ready for its launch.

I also have several potential freelancing irons in the fire, so we'll have to wait and see if those come to anything. I'm being more proactive about it now, though, and badgering people I haven't heard from for a while. It's not really in my nature to act like that, but I'm learning. Assertiveness and all that. Plus journalism can be pretty cut-throat, so I better toughen up, right?

For the remainder of this post, I think I may just be lazy and list my current Pile of Shame – in this case, games I haven't finished – since it was Jen's post I linked to that inspired this one. So here goes. Starred games indicate games that I have at least started and played a reasonably significant amount of in the past. Non-starred ones have either not been played at all or very little. Some of these I will probably never get around to ever. But they're still there, mocking me.

PS1

Final Fantasy V
Final Fantasy VI

PS2

Final Fantasy XII*

ICO

Metal Gear Solid 3

Resident Evil 4

killer7

Persona 3 FES*

Odin Sphere

Project Zero/Fatal Frame*

Psi-Ops

Shadow of the Colossus*

GameCube

Resident Evil Zero*
Resident Evil Remake

Xbox 360/XBLA

Borderlands*
Numerous titles in the Sega Mega Drive Ultimate Collection (particularly the Phantasy Star series, Story of Thor, Shining Force II and Shining in the Darkness)
Alien Hominid*
Braid*
Castle Crashers*
Forza 3*
Lode Runner*
Perfect Dark*
Puzzle Quest*
Shadow Complex*
Splosion Man*

PS3/PSN

Matt Hazard: Blood, Bath and Beyond
Final Fantasy XIII*
Disgaea 3
Shatter's last two Trophies
Uncharted 2 multiplayer
Building a level in LittleBigPlanet

PC – god-damn Steam sale in early January saw to this one.

King's Bounty
King's Bounty: Armored Princess
Mount & Blade
Uplink*
Jade Empire
KOTOR as Dark Side
Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark
Neverwinter Nights 2
Baldur's Gate 2*
Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal
Icewind Dale
Icewind Dale: Heart of Winter
Morrowind* (played EXTENSIVELY, never got anywhere NEAR finishing)
Homeworld 2
Dungeon Siege 2
The entire Myst series
Gabriel Knight 3*
The Police Quest series
King's Quest IV
The Witcher*
Freelancer*
Startopia*
Ghost Master
Martian Memorandum/Mean Streets
Realms of Arkania
Relams of Arkania 2
No-One Lives Forever 2
Unreal Tournament 3

Yeah, that's right. Kicking it old-school with some of those PC games. It's actually quite fortunate I have little-to-no money coming in right now as I clearly have a backlog to last me until the end of time. Couple that with the fact that I'm in a World of Warcraft phase right now (halfway to level 75 with my best character now) and there's clearly plenty to be getting on with. So a big middle finger to all the triple-A games that have come out since Assassin's Creed 2.

Of course, when Blur and Split/Second come out soon, this will all go to pot. Still, never mind.

#oneaday, Day 65: Step into my Game Room

This post makes me sad, because I can't help thinking a lot of people on that thread are missing the point somewhat. I'm hugely excited for Game Room. I wasn't at first, but since hearing that there are not only arcade treasures in there but also Atari 2600 and Intellivision games too, my interest has been steadily growing until now I'm at the stage where it's just after midnight and moments ago, I switched on my Xbox just to see if they released things at midnight, or in the morning. (It's in the morning, for those who were curious.)

The arguments made in the first post are ones that we're hearing a lot – not just in the context of Game Room, but also in the context of digital distribution in general. The biggest concern people have with digital distribution is that one day, your content will be switched off and, despite having paid for it, you'll no longer be able to use it. This is a fair concern, as no-one likes splashing the cash on things that they won't be able to use at some point in the future – but when you think about it, in the world of tech, this is nothing unusual. Products come and go, specifications increase, chipsets change – and at some point it's necessary to leave the old behind. Did people complain that the Amiga wasn't backwards-compatible with the Commodore 64? Do music enthusiasts complain that it's getting harder and harder to find a cassette deck to play those old albums that you only bought on cassette because they were cheaper?

Well, yes, they probably do, but that's beside the point. What I guess I'm trying to say is this: isn't the "built-in obsolescence" of digital distribution the same thing? I have a stack of PC games in a box here, some of which it isn't possible to run any more. Okay, maybe with some tweaking and playing with software like DOSBox it's possible to get it going – but to a (for want of a better word) "casual" user, they're defunct and obsolete. The only difference with potentially-expiring digitally distributed products is that there's no workaround like DOSBox. Once the content's gone, it's gone. And yes, that's not a great thing, but it's not something to be surprised about.

The other objection people have is that Game Room will charge you again to play titles you already own Xbox Live Arcade versions of – titles like Gauntlet, Smash TV and the like. The simple solution to this is, of course, to not buy them again – but there's also the fact that the Arcade and Game Room versions are actually rather different beasts. The Arcade editions of the games are generally enhanced with leaderboards, online play and in some cases, new graphics. The Game Room versions are exactly as they were all those years ago. It may be that some people will be more than happy to buy a game again for the sake of having a completely authentic experience – others should simply avoid those games that they have already purchased.

I think the most exciting thing that a lot of people are missing, though, is that Game Room represents possibly the first fully-legal console-based multiplatform emulator out there. The constantly-rehashed argument from Game Room objectors is that "you can get all those games for free online". Yes, sure you can, but via means of questionable legality. Downloading a ROM for an arcade title is, legally speaking, only allowed if you actually own another copy of the game in question. Of course, people ignore this rule all the time – especially for the sake of hard-to-find games – but I for one think that it will be pretty neat to have these games available legally and without having to do any command-line or front-end faffing like you have to do with emulators like MAME. Again, it's a point in favour of the casual users, many of whom probably haven't even heard of an "emulator". Let's not kid around, either – it's also going to be nice to play some of these from the comfort of the sofa rather than the computer desk.

So I for one am firmly in favour of Game Room, particularly if the rumours of there being over a thousand games set for release in it over the next few years have any truth. Yes, it is a means for Microsoft to make money – but this is just the same as a whole lot of things on Xbox Live already are, much as a lot of things on PSN make money for Sony, and the Wii Shop Channel makes money for Nintendo.

What do you think? Are you going to be downloading Game Room and any games? Or are you going to be leaving the past in the past?

Retro or "Inspired By"?

turtles-in-time-reshelled-screenshot-now-only-10-dollars

Tolkoto's recent Exploding Barrel rant about reviewers' reactions to the recent Turtles in Time remake on Xbox Live got me thinking. What is it that gets people so excited about some "retro" games and not others? I agree with him, in fact – reviewers' reactions to Turtles in Time was somewhat harsh, particularly considering it's only 800 space dollars. Criticising the gameplay of the original by measuring it against modern yardsticks clearly isn't acceptable… or is it? It's difficult to say. After all, this may be some gamers' first encounter with an early-90s brawler (although XBLA has hosted the previous Turtles arcade game along with the magnificent Streets of Rage 2 and the diabolical Double Dragon) – what gives? And how come Castle Crashers – fundamentally the same game in many respects – gets smothered in adoration?

A common criticism of the brawler genre is that it's "too simple". But let's take a look at another genre in the form of the PSN's recent brick-breaker Shatter, which has garnered almost universal praise since its release a couple of weeks ago. Shatter is, let's not kid around here, Arkanoid. Okay, you have a "suck" button. And a "blow" button. (Stop sniggering at the back.) But fundamentally, it's still Arkanoid. You're a bat-shaped spaceship hitting a ball into bricks that are floating in space with some flimsy justification laughably called a "plot" buried somewhere in the Help menus. There are powerups, including one where you can just shoot down the bricks. Pretty much the sole point of the game is to achieve as high a score as possible – and high scores are something the game does well. It's a simple game. Everyone loved it for this fact.

So in terms of gameplay, Shatter adds little to the Arkanoid formula save a few fancy bits of physics, some HD art and a kickass soundtrack that I love and Feenwager hates. So why is this game awesome and Turtles in Time a bit steaming turd to reviewers? God knows.

The important thing is, of course, what the player thinks of all this. Those who enjoy the brawler genre or have fond memories of playing Turtles in Time on the SNES will have an absolute blast with the new XBLA remake. Similarly, those who enjoy bouncing things around and smashing walls will love Shatter. But are people more predisposed to like Shatter as it was designed from the ground-up to be a new game rather than a "re-imagining" of Arkanoid? Arkanoid LIVE on the 360 released to mixed reviews and has, it seems, been mostly forgotten already. Shatter, on the other hand, gives me the impression that people will perhaps be more inclined to give it a go, particularly given its very generous price point ($7.99 in the US store, £4.79 over here) as a result of the few things it does a little bit differently.

This pattern follows us around a great deal. LittleBigPlanet for PS3 is a 2D platformer, and unashamedly so. Yet plonk someone down in front of that, then down in front of, say, Rolo to the Rescue and see which they prefer. Actually, that's perhaps not strictly accurate. Plonk someone down in front of an HD version of Rolo to the Rescue sold for $10 on XBLA or PSN and ask them which they prefer. Would the answer still be LBP? Judging by what has happened with Turtles in Time here, it may well be, though many players, particularly those who have played and loved both, may feel a bit differently.

This has been yet another rant without any real point but do feel free to comment if you have any feelings. I'm planning a new music post very soon – those take a bit more preparation though. 🙂