1996 in Video Gaming
Recently I was thinking of trying to re-create what it was like to play Resident Evil for the first time. In trying to remember what PlayStation games were out around the time of Resident Evil, I came up with Ridge Racer Revolution, Tekken 2, and Vandal Hearts. I wanted to check the release dates on Wikipedia, and that lead me to the page on
1996 in Video Gaming.
It turns out that Resident Evil, Ridge Racer Revolution, Tekken 2, Vandal Hearts, and Suikoden were all released in North America in 1996. So my memory was pretty decent in that sense. Interestingly enough, Resident Evil came out in March and was out before any of those other titles in North America, although some of the titles were out much earlier in Japan (including Ridge Racer Revolution and Suikoden, which actually came out in 1995).
What surprised me, though, is what a fantastic year 1996 was for PC gaming. Quake, Duke Nukem 3D, Diablo, Daggerfall, Master of Orion II, Rebel Assault II, and C&C: Red Alert all came out in 1996. Other noteable console games included Tomb Raider, NiGHTS into Dreams, and Mario 64. For a dedicated gamer, 1996 was a busy year.
Is there substance to the claim that games used to be better in the 90's? There's some pretty strong evidence happening there.
R-Type Command, Penny Arcade RPG
R-Type Command is pretty much exactly what it claims to be: an R-Type themed hex-based tactics game. I'm not a huge R-Type fan, although I do own a copy of R-Type Final. My allegiance lies more along the lines of Gradius, frankly. But there is a pretty big tactics and war-gaming junkie in me, so R-Type Command really didn't have to be that great in order for me to like it, and I do. It would have been cooler if they'd kept the Japanese name of R-Type Tactics and the Japanese cover art, though.
Earlier today I read
an import review of Final Fantasy IV DS over on RPGFan.com. I was utterly horrified to read remarks such as the following:
Is FFIV really just that amazing? I don't think so [...] the game was hardly revolutionary in its time.
What... the... fuck! James Quentin Clark obviously has a different opinion on Squaresoft RPGs than I do.
For one thing, Final Fantasy IV had the strongest narrative of any console RPG at the time of its release. I suppose one could make an argument for a few others like Dragon Quest IV or Phantasy Star, but in my experience FF IV was clearly the king of its day as far as story and character are concerned.
But perhaps even more significantly than that is the fact that FF IV introduced Active Time Battle. Prior to that, there was no real-time element to the Final Fantasy combat system--or, for that matter, to any earlier RPG combat system that I know of. Even in widening the field to include PC RPGs I can't think up any RPGs that were around in 1992 with a real-time combat system. The RTS genre wasn't even in its infancy yet; the first WarCraft game didn't come out until 1994, for instance. (source: Wikipedia)
Final Fantasy IV played unlike any other RPG known at the time. It's combat system was fluid and engaging, and still holds up relatively well today. The narrative is crude overall, but there are parts of it that are among the best story-telling in the entire Final Fantasy series. To hear James Quentin Clark tell it, Final Fantasy IV just happened to be in the right place at the right time to catch the attention of fans. In my opinion, Final Fantasy IV fought hard to earn its place in RPG history.
That having been said, I do see the logic in that somebody with a lot of modern RPG experience under their belt who is looking for sophisticated RPG experiences could easily be let-down by a remake of FF IV. I just don't think it's fair to say that FF IV is over-rated. The fact that it's one of the most important games in history doesn't necessarily make it fun for everyone, but FF IV is nothing if not amazing.
Speaking of RPGs, I've played some of Penny Arcade's "On the Rain-Slick Precipice of Darkness - Episode One." It's pretty good. Sunny is completely hooked on it too, which is a good sign.
The good news is that PA:OtR-SPoD (mercy!), hereby referred to as the PA RPG, stacks up well against my recent rant on RPG design. The writing is good (particularly if you're a fan of Penny Arcade), the combat system is lively and engaging, the game moves along at a satisfying pace, and it's fun to explore new areas. Overall I'd say this is one of the better RPGs that I've played in the last few years, although I should qualify that with the disclaimer that I haven't played a whole lot of RPGs recently.
On the bad side, the PA RPG really shows its indie gaming roots by lacking polish. It's a budget game, which makes it easy to forgive the small interface glitches and the not-so-next-gen graphics, especially since the game is bursting with so much creativity. One problem that rears its head repeatedly is how difficult it can be to target a specific NPC to talk to, but these sorts of things haven't done much to deter me from enjoying the game.
The worst thing that I've found about the PA RPG is that the combat system is frantic. I would have preferred a game with slower-paced combat that focused a bit more on tactics than on timing one's button presses. In a battle involving five or so enemies, things get crazy enough that it's difficult to keep track of everything all at once. This style of gameplay does make the combat challenging and interesting, even if it is a bit much, so once again I find myself enjoying the game and accepting it for what it is.
I should also mention that I'm playing the PA RPG on Xbox Live, rather than the PC version. I'm curious as to whether the PC user interface is better or worse.
Have a good weekend, at any rate.
Braid
There's an Xbox Live Arcade game in development called Braid:
http://braid-game.com/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braid_(video_game)It isn't out yet, but I've had the opportunity to play an in-development version of it on PartnerNet and it is good... in fact, excellent. What is particularly interesting is why it's excellent.
Braid is a puzzle/quest game wrapped in a stock platformer shell somewhat reminiscent of Super Mario Bros. 2--the American SMB2, not the Lost Levels. It has a gutsy art style and a surprisingly compelling fairy-tale like plot. It features quirky time-manipulation mechanics not unlike the ones in Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. Gamers interested in the independent developer scene will immediately be drawn to Braid, but that's not why it's excellent.
What really caught me off-guard about Braid is how well paced it is. It is rich enough in flavour that it can unfold at a leisurely pace and still keep the player engaged. The result is a cinematic experience that reminds me of Out of This World. Playing Braid for a half-hour invoked a nostalgia in me for exactly those kinds of old PC quest games. Perhaps I happened to just be in exactly the right mood for it.
The soul of Braid is not its tech or trendiness, but its design and core themes. It's been said that while games of old had high design standards and low production standards, modern games have low design standards and high production standards. Braid is one of those brave vanguard games that flips this ratio back. It makes effective use of a more modest development budget and focuses on being an interesting _game_ rather than being a flashy video game. The world needs more games like this.
Xbox Live Arcade seems to be on the verge of exploding this year. Previously I ranted about the great Capcom games coming to XBLA this year (including 1942: Joint Strike, Commandos 3, and SSF2T HD), but other titles in development include Soul Calibur, Castle Crashers, and Braid. It's difficult to keep track of them all. I haven't nabbed the just-released Penny Arcade game on XBLA, but I will as soon as I can get a break from work.
Up until the start of this year, I don't think it would have been entirely unfair to describe XBLA as a wasteland of mediocre game experiences. There are some particularly great experiences to be had for fans of a specific title--for instance, the Prince of Persia remake on XBLA is good, if you happen to be a fan of Prince of Persia. It's not the kind of experience that just any serious gamer can pick up and get lost in, in my opinion, but it is a nice throwback to the old-school PoP.
These days there are three XBLA games that are core staples for me. I manage to play these games almost every week, if not several times a week, and they provide an excellent break from the typical next-gen game experience. This is my Top 3 list of the best XBLA games to date:
#3. Geometry Wars
Geometry Wars will certainly go down in history as an XBLA classic, as it is one of the titles that XBLA is best known for. There are few better games for killing just a few minutes. This one is also available on Steam for non-Xbox gamers.
#2. Ikaruga
Ikaruga is a masterpiece shoot-em-up by Treasure and perhaps the greatest game of its genre. Originally it was available as a Japanese arcade game and an import Dreamcast title. Eventually it made it out in America as a GameCube game, and now it has been ported to HD on XBLA. What makes this version of Ikaruga especially great is the ability to download replay data from the Xbox Live leaderboards and see how the world's best Ikaruga players play.
#1. Pac-man Championship Edition
This is a true Pac-man sequel not to be confused with regular Pac-man (which is also available on XBLA, separately). It is an impeccably designed update to the original and is easily one of the most addictive games that I've ever played. My respect for this game is so great that it was actually an influencing factor in my decision to buy an Xbox 360 in the first place (rather than having just a PS3; not that I have a PS3, yet).
Final note: there's an awesome editorial on The Escapist called Game Design Sketchbook. It's worth a read:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/gamedesignsketchbook/
PS3 Performance Critiqued
I stumbled across the following post (from a game developer's blog) about the PS3's hardware:
http://jbooth.blogspot.com/2007/10/ps3-misconceptions-and-spin.htmlA lot of what he is saying is new to me. In brief,
- The Xbox 360 has significantly better fill rate than the PS3.
- The PS3 Blu-Ray drive is slower to load data off of a Blu-Ray disc than the 360's DVD drive is to load data off of a DVD.
- Multi-threading game code to take advantage of the cell processor is challenging for game developers.
The general point that he's trying to make is that the common belief that the PS3 has much better hardware than the Xbox 360 is, in his opinion, misguided. I have to admit, I still have some trouble letting go of the idea that the PS3 is easily more powerful. :) But then, I haven't seen a PS3 game yet that looks much better than the best looking Xbox 360 games.
Notes on RPG Design
I used to consider console RPGs my favourite genre of video game, and in many respects I still do. But RPGs have changed a lot since the days of Lunar and Lufia, and I've constantly struggled over the last five years or longer to maintain an interest in them. The exact reasons for this have often been difficult to explain, but there are some cases in which I can put a finger more-or-less on some of the problems that keeps me from fully enjoying the latest console RPGs.
Tedious GameplayOne of the most potent kill-joys of the RPG genre is when the gameplay falls flat. Generally speaking, there are two types of gameplay that an RPG should focus on: exploration and combat. RPGs can often live without one of these elements, but at least one of them has to be done right in order for the game to be any fun.
There are lots of different ways to do RPG gameplay mechanics; in fact, a large draw of the genre is that it is so varied. That having been said, some elements of exploration and combat are fairly universal. The goal of the exploration element of an RPG is to make the user feel good about discovering and searching new areas. The goal of combat is to challenge the user's tactical decision making skills and add an element of strategy to the game.
For example, a simple RPG formula is to have a town and dungeons to explore. The town is where the player acquires supplies and upgrades, while the dungeons are where dangers are encountered and awards are earned. A typical challenge is to have consumable resource (MP, potions, etc.) that are used during combat, which occurs in the dungeon areas. The player's skill influences how quickly these resources are consumed, which in turn affects how far the player can proceed into the dungeon before getting into trouble. The player must also decide when to turn back to town in order to avoid getting killed and suffering whatever penalties are associated with that.
Even in this relatively simple game design, there are many ways to ruin the fun of the game:
- Broken Economy - The rewards from the dungeon are so great or so little that either there is no challenge in managing resources or the game becomes a tedious grind because progress is so slow.
- Boring Environments - The user is not motivated to explore new areas because there's seemingly nothing of interest in them.
- Slow Combat - Battle encounters unfold at such a slow pace that the user cannot remain in the mood to explore the dungeons.
- Over-Simple Combat - Battle encounters provide no real tactical challenge, so they feel like a waste of the player's time.
- Broken Learning Curve - The game introduces too much needless complexity too quickly, so that newcomers to the game are hard-pressed to make sense of it. Conversely, the game ramps up so slowly that the player loses patience while waiting for it to get interesting.
A lot of balance and design effort is required to make even a simple RPG formula work, so one can see how matters become much more complicated as the RPG genre strives to push the envelope for more sophisticated designs.
Over-Abundance of Story SequencesIn the 16-bit era, story sequences in video games tended to be so few and far between that players relished them. These days some games--particularly RPGs--have bounced back so far the other way that in the first hour of a game it's not unheard of for more than half of it to be taken up by story sequences, including pre-rendered movies, scripted scenes, and even cage-like areas where the player must trigger some event to proceed.
RPGs shine as a story-telling medium, and when they get it right I am enthralled with them. But some RPGs are so over-eager to cram story down my throat that they become a waste of my time. Story-sequences have long since ceased to be exciting by default (that is, impressive just by existing), and in order to be effective they should meet certain criteria:
- Consequential Developments - A good story sequence should advance the plot or develop character. A story sequence that spends several minutes showing the main character making small talk with a supporting character is going to bore me just as much in a video game as it would in a TV program.
- Good Dialog - A common turn-off for me, personally, is when I have to sit through a lot of dialog that makes one of the characters sound like a fifth grader (unless, of course, that character is supposed to sound like a fifth grader). In real life, people who articulate themselves poorly and/or have nothing interesting to say are boring. This is true of RPG characters as well.
- Short and Sweet - RPG story sequences sometimes drag on in a way that tests my attention span. Stop doing that.
Weak MoralsI once had a discussion with a non-gamer about the inherently violent nature of RPGs. It's true that a typical fantasy universe populated with monsters and the heroes that slay those monsters is violent. Given that, it's important for the characters in an RPG to have some moral fiber--something that offsets the psychopathic nature of venturing out into the wild in order to slay things.
Many RPGs tell a variation on the classic "coming of age" story of a young person who ventures out to find fame and fortune while growing and becoming stronger. There is nothing wrong with this, however it should be recognized that the motivation of seeking power for its own sake is more fitting of a villain than a hero. It seems that too many RPG protagonists are inclined to make statements like "I want to be the best!" or "I have to prove that I'm the strongest!" This works well for certain characters with some complexity to them (eg. Naruto), but for others it comes off as making them seem like a bratty sociopath.
Consider "The Lord of the Rings". That's a pretty kick-ass, epic story, wouldn't you say? Not one of the "good guys" in that story is interested in attaining power for its own sake or proving their strength by imposing their dominance on others. In fact, that is exactly the behavior of the villains in that story. The only thing that the heroes really want is attain happiness, which they are certainly willing to struggle for. This is a powerful theme that many classic RPGs follow, and one that many bad RPGs neglect.
It's easy to misunderstand the point of RPGs to the extent of thinking that they're essentially about ambition, but it deeply bothers me when the protagonist of an RPG doesn't seem to want anything more than to become more powerful. There are other ways in which the moral values of RPGs as a story-telling medium may falter, but I find that this one in particular is very common and doesn't seem to bother most RPG fans. I would hope for RPGs to carry exactly the opposite sort of message: that blind ambition tends not to end well, and that there are more important things in life than the pursuit of power.
Story-telling works best when it imparts valuable messages about the world. RPGs about simple-minded characters who are on a quest for personal glory and power for its own sake generally fail to accomplish this.
Failure to be EpicDuring the 16-bit era, and particularly during the height of Squaresoft's classic SNES RPG trio of Secret of Mana (Seiken Densetsu 2), Final Fantasy III (FF VI), and Chrono Trigger, I remember Nintendo Power throwing the word "epic" around a lot. The Nintendo Power reviewers had a mind that the end goal of RPGs is to provide the player with an epic experience, and I wholeheartedly agreed with them. The high points of RPGs are when the sense of drama and adventure are overwhelming--those are the moments that players revere.
It seems silly to me, then, that many RPGs these days strive to be "hip," "edgy," or maybe even "emo" rather than "epic." The stereotype of what console RPGs represent has become seriously corrupted by the influence of spiky-haired kid protagonists with obvious insecurities. Is this seriously what players want?
The art direction of an RPG is crucial in making the game epic. This applies to the visuals, the musical score, the storytelling, and even to little touches like the user interface and sound effects. Being a big budget title helps a great deal, of course, but I find that even more modest RPGs benefit a lot from taking themselves seriously where it matters.
Some RPGs are made for kids, and I'm fine with that. Some RPGs are maybe even reacting against the stereotype of the typical "dark fantasy" universe that is so derivative of Tolkien's work. But lately I've sometimes felt like there aren't many developers still trying to create classic style RPGs, and that leaves me wanting. World of WarCraft is successful in large part because it puts its emphasis on being a simply epic experience. Other MMOs that put their focus on being hip or cool may appeal to younger audiences, but it's hard to take them seriously.
The simple idea behind "be epic" also ties all of my other points together. A tedious game system that keeps the pace of the game too slow or fails to provide enough challenge isn't epic. Dull environments or little content to explore isn't epic. Watered-down story sequences where little of consequence occurs aren't epic. Characters whose motivations are shallow or selfish aren't epic. A bag full of gimmicks designed to draw players in and leave them little of lasting value is not an epic game. RPGs are the game genre that's all about being epic, period.
