The article http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2009/03/16/how-my-opinion-about-race-in-resident-evil-5-has-changed/ bothered me a little bit. I wasn't bothered because it's another discussion about how racism is portrayed or how the author felt unnerved with the game's demo.
What bothered me is that her solution to why she felt better about the actual full scale game was that it was somehow less realistic. The game is set in Africa, which means that most of the zombies will be African. The problem seems to be that Africans are black and therefore killing them is a racist motive somehow. The focus seems to overshadow the setting of the game.
Games have specific settings, and gamers get upset if the setting isn't true to the reality, some people get frustrated about the situation. If we're playing a hunting game and it's set in Alaska, most people would roll their eyes if you were suddenly hunting a crocodile. If the game is set in a specific place on the globe, then how much would we expect the vast majority of the inhabitants to be of African descent?
Do we get annoyed because the game is focused on killing the natives, or do we get annoyed if the realities of the game don't link up with what we know of the real Africa? Nobody seems to be offended if the zombies are white and it's set in midwest America. As long as the zombies and enemies are white guys, nobody seems bothered. The minute the nationality changes, we start talking about race and racism.
I totally understand the background for making an argument for racism for a number of cultures and minorities. However, sometimes it's not racially motivated, it's necessary to keep true to the game.
Monday, October 26, 2009
Monday, October 19, 2009
Business Casual
I really like the idea of a casual game for hardcore gamers. The problem, as far as I can see, is that if a game is considered 'casual', most hardcore gamers aren't going to bother with it for a variety of reasons. One of which is that a casual game tends to be too simple and almost sissy to a lot of people.
One good example is the entire Wii console. A good portion of the console is geared towards these casual games that can be played for a few minutes at a time. Whether it is a game like Raving Rabbids or Wii Fit, they're geared towards the people who prefer to play shorter pieces of games over a period of time. You can play Raving Rabbids for hours to unlock all sorts of accessories and the different mini games, or you can play a mini game or two with a friend to have a giggle.
And what's happened with the Wii? It's become a bit of a laughing stock among 'hardcore' gamers. The announcement that the Grand Theft Auto series would make its move to release a title was met with snickers and something of an "aw, look at the Wii trying to be a real console".
The closest we have to such games are those on the handhelds. They're designed for quick play - not so much because it's an acceptable form, but because the nature of handhelds are to be used when you have spare time while you're out someplace.
How do we respond to the idea of a casual game, without referring to it as some kind of sissy attempt at a game?
One good example is the entire Wii console. A good portion of the console is geared towards these casual games that can be played for a few minutes at a time. Whether it is a game like Raving Rabbids or Wii Fit, they're geared towards the people who prefer to play shorter pieces of games over a period of time. You can play Raving Rabbids for hours to unlock all sorts of accessories and the different mini games, or you can play a mini game or two with a friend to have a giggle.
And what's happened with the Wii? It's become a bit of a laughing stock among 'hardcore' gamers. The announcement that the Grand Theft Auto series would make its move to release a title was met with snickers and something of an "aw, look at the Wii trying to be a real console".
The closest we have to such games are those on the handhelds. They're designed for quick play - not so much because it's an acceptable form, but because the nature of handhelds are to be used when you have spare time while you're out someplace.
How do we respond to the idea of a casual game, without referring to it as some kind of sissy attempt at a game?
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
All Wet
Perfectly Adequate
These two words are what I use to describe the new game, Wet, for the Xbox 360. It’s a game that makes enough attempts at being new and novel to be fun to play, but it’s not really a huge step up from other games of its style. The game mirrors a combination of the old Kung Fu movies and games like God of War. What I mean by that is that the fighting style and feel of the game are very much like the cheesy old movies, partly because it’s set up like a movie. At chapter breaks, they advertise for different concessions and movies. When you get to a point that breaks the flow (like a game over) the scene comes apart as if a reel of film was being destroyed or broken in some fashion.
The story of Wet revolves around Rubi, who is an Americanized version of a martial arts master mixed with a cowboy sense of purpose and dress. She’s met by a businessman who shows up on her Texas ‘home’ and asks her to retrieve his son from the underbelly of Hong Kong. It’s shallow enough to keep out of the way of the action, but vaguely intriguing enough to keep the player moving through each level to find out another small piece of the puzzle.
The action varies between novel and overly frustrating. Rubi’s expertise is in shooting while doing acrobatic maneuvers. If she leaps into the air, runs along a wall, or slides across the floor, a touch to the right trigger initiates a slow motion mode where her firing rate increases and the player can take partial control over her aiming. A circle on a given enemy reveals where her primary target is at and where one of her revolvers will be aimed, while the player has control of the secondary fire in order to help take out two enemies at once. The slow motion keeps the action flowing and gives the player a sense of something extraordinary as Rubi takes far less damage in this mode while dealing a great deal more.
The problem with the mode, though, is that your regular running and gunning attacks are pointless. Her rate of fire is horribly slow and difficult to aim while running, which means that most of your time will be spent making pointless leaps and slides just to gain the effect of actually damaging enemies. The only useful attack outside of the slow motion is the sword attack, which actually does more damage than the guns. Most early enemies fall with one or two swipes from the sword, where the guns can take five or six shots per enemy to drop them.
In addition, her jumping ability is as accurate as my ability to balance a check book – which means it’s basically a hit and miss attempt. No matter where she tries to jump, whether it’s up a six inch step or over a four foot gap, she makes a dramatic flailing leap of faith. Unfortunately, Rubi also lacks enough common sense to grab a ledge while the player is still focused on shooting. More than once, I attempted to leap across a gap and gun the men down before catching the ledge. Sad to say, she failed go grab hold of the ledge, and instead she did a nose dive into the ground. Normally this would be a little damage if she landed on her feet and she’d get right back up and keep going. If she lands face first while still shooting at the wall she failed to grab, she dies and you’re left to start the section over.
Another area where the game breaks a good flow of action is with quick time events. There’s little warning when a cut scene will suddenly prompt you to hit a button. If you miss the prompt because you thought that you could grab a quick drink, you get to start over. They’re not horribly difficult, but the fact that they forget to give you some warning, tends to throw off the flow of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Despite the problems, the game is still not horrible by any means. The graphics are nice enough but don’t quite meet what the machine is capable of. The shooting and action is functional in that enemies fall if you hit them and the more dramatic you make your motions, the more bonus points you get to power up Rubi and her weapons. The game is linear, usually herding the player through a series of alleys, underground pathways, and the occasional open room of sorts with most of the exits blocked off.
The other novel idea is what they call Wet mode, being the namesake of the game. While traveling through the story, Rubi will occasionally make an attack on an enemy and be covered in blood. The first time this happens, she shoots an oncoming enemy in the head at point blank range, splattering her face red. She gets a borderline insane grin on her face and as play resumes, the entire world is colored in black, white, and shades of red. Killed enemies leave a hanging cloud of blood material, jumping off points are colored in a bright pinkish color, directing the player where to go next. She gains significant speed and agility while in this mode, which makes killing enemies simple and interestingly fun.
Is this enough to make the game really worthwhile? Not entirely. It’s novel and fun, but it’s a rather standard run and gun, get from point A to point B game. There’s not really a lot of exploration to be had and the few hidden collectables aren’t really challenging to find. It is fun for a while to make leaps and slides to kill enemies while tumbling through the air. It feeds on our desires for the old west style cowboy justice, and the Asian martial arts style of fighting. As I said in the beginning, this game is perfectly adequate for what it was made for. However, for the attempts at doing new novel things with it, they aren’t always helpful improvements.
I would highly recommend people who enjoy these styles of games to rent it and try it for a while. It has its merits, and its unique points. The trouble is that the game feels very shallow and lacking if people are looking for more in the way of stronger storyline and cohesive fighting style.
These two words are what I use to describe the new game, Wet, for the Xbox 360. It’s a game that makes enough attempts at being new and novel to be fun to play, but it’s not really a huge step up from other games of its style. The game mirrors a combination of the old Kung Fu movies and games like God of War. What I mean by that is that the fighting style and feel of the game are very much like the cheesy old movies, partly because it’s set up like a movie. At chapter breaks, they advertise for different concessions and movies. When you get to a point that breaks the flow (like a game over) the scene comes apart as if a reel of film was being destroyed or broken in some fashion.
The story of Wet revolves around Rubi, who is an Americanized version of a martial arts master mixed with a cowboy sense of purpose and dress. She’s met by a businessman who shows up on her Texas ‘home’ and asks her to retrieve his son from the underbelly of Hong Kong. It’s shallow enough to keep out of the way of the action, but vaguely intriguing enough to keep the player moving through each level to find out another small piece of the puzzle.
The action varies between novel and overly frustrating. Rubi’s expertise is in shooting while doing acrobatic maneuvers. If she leaps into the air, runs along a wall, or slides across the floor, a touch to the right trigger initiates a slow motion mode where her firing rate increases and the player can take partial control over her aiming. A circle on a given enemy reveals where her primary target is at and where one of her revolvers will be aimed, while the player has control of the secondary fire in order to help take out two enemies at once. The slow motion keeps the action flowing and gives the player a sense of something extraordinary as Rubi takes far less damage in this mode while dealing a great deal more.
The problem with the mode, though, is that your regular running and gunning attacks are pointless. Her rate of fire is horribly slow and difficult to aim while running, which means that most of your time will be spent making pointless leaps and slides just to gain the effect of actually damaging enemies. The only useful attack outside of the slow motion is the sword attack, which actually does more damage than the guns. Most early enemies fall with one or two swipes from the sword, where the guns can take five or six shots per enemy to drop them.
In addition, her jumping ability is as accurate as my ability to balance a check book – which means it’s basically a hit and miss attempt. No matter where she tries to jump, whether it’s up a six inch step or over a four foot gap, she makes a dramatic flailing leap of faith. Unfortunately, Rubi also lacks enough common sense to grab a ledge while the player is still focused on shooting. More than once, I attempted to leap across a gap and gun the men down before catching the ledge. Sad to say, she failed go grab hold of the ledge, and instead she did a nose dive into the ground. Normally this would be a little damage if she landed on her feet and she’d get right back up and keep going. If she lands face first while still shooting at the wall she failed to grab, she dies and you’re left to start the section over.
Another area where the game breaks a good flow of action is with quick time events. There’s little warning when a cut scene will suddenly prompt you to hit a button. If you miss the prompt because you thought that you could grab a quick drink, you get to start over. They’re not horribly difficult, but the fact that they forget to give you some warning, tends to throw off the flow of what you’re trying to accomplish.
Despite the problems, the game is still not horrible by any means. The graphics are nice enough but don’t quite meet what the machine is capable of. The shooting and action is functional in that enemies fall if you hit them and the more dramatic you make your motions, the more bonus points you get to power up Rubi and her weapons. The game is linear, usually herding the player through a series of alleys, underground pathways, and the occasional open room of sorts with most of the exits blocked off.
The other novel idea is what they call Wet mode, being the namesake of the game. While traveling through the story, Rubi will occasionally make an attack on an enemy and be covered in blood. The first time this happens, she shoots an oncoming enemy in the head at point blank range, splattering her face red. She gets a borderline insane grin on her face and as play resumes, the entire world is colored in black, white, and shades of red. Killed enemies leave a hanging cloud of blood material, jumping off points are colored in a bright pinkish color, directing the player where to go next. She gains significant speed and agility while in this mode, which makes killing enemies simple and interestingly fun.
Is this enough to make the game really worthwhile? Not entirely. It’s novel and fun, but it’s a rather standard run and gun, get from point A to point B game. There’s not really a lot of exploration to be had and the few hidden collectables aren’t really challenging to find. It is fun for a while to make leaps and slides to kill enemies while tumbling through the air. It feeds on our desires for the old west style cowboy justice, and the Asian martial arts style of fighting. As I said in the beginning, this game is perfectly adequate for what it was made for. However, for the attempts at doing new novel things with it, they aren’t always helpful improvements.
I would highly recommend people who enjoy these styles of games to rent it and try it for a while. It has its merits, and its unique points. The trouble is that the game feels very shallow and lacking if people are looking for more in the way of stronger storyline and cohesive fighting style.
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
New Journalism?
Is this new discourse really new? or is it an extension and formal presentation of discussions going on between people? I tend to think that there's always been varied levels of discussion between people. The conversations I have with my best friend about videogames and the conversations I have with my boyfriend's gamer friends are totally different. It's not so much because the level of maturity isn't there, but there's a difference in how they approach games.
For instance, there's not much I have to explain to Jeff about videogames (Jeff being the boyfriend's friend). He's one of those people that you hand the controller to when you get frustrated and stuck. Unfortunately he's also the same person who will tell you how much you suck for not being able to get past it. Many times, our answer to any problem goes something like "Well, Jeff can do it" "well yea, he's Jeff".
When talking about games, Jeff and I can start from a better understanding and skip a lot of the overview about what's happening and the mechanics of it all. I don't have to explain Bowser's Inside Story, because he's already played it and beat it. So we jump right into the problems and merits of a particular game with an advanced vocabulary about what we think and how the other one is wrong.
On the other hand, my best friend doesn't play much. I helped her beat Scooby Doo once for the PS2 by finding a jump point she hadn't seen in her months of playing it. Whenever we try to talk about other games, the discussion is completely different because she probably hasn't played it, and if she has it hasn't been at the same level. She's not worried about graphics and sometimes worried about the lag between when you ask the character to jump and when he actually does jump. Because of this, our discussions seem to start at a much lower level and revolve around the "I like it" or "I don't like it" discussions.
Does that mean all this new journalism about videogames is 'new'? No, it just means that people are finding out that there are others out there who can start at that later stage in the discussion. If they refer to Sephiroth, then there are a lot of other gamers out there who will know exactly what they mean and they can skip all the dumbing down of the writing.
For instance, there's not much I have to explain to Jeff about videogames (Jeff being the boyfriend's friend). He's one of those people that you hand the controller to when you get frustrated and stuck. Unfortunately he's also the same person who will tell you how much you suck for not being able to get past it. Many times, our answer to any problem goes something like "Well, Jeff can do it" "well yea, he's Jeff".
When talking about games, Jeff and I can start from a better understanding and skip a lot of the overview about what's happening and the mechanics of it all. I don't have to explain Bowser's Inside Story, because he's already played it and beat it. So we jump right into the problems and merits of a particular game with an advanced vocabulary about what we think and how the other one is wrong.
On the other hand, my best friend doesn't play much. I helped her beat Scooby Doo once for the PS2 by finding a jump point she hadn't seen in her months of playing it. Whenever we try to talk about other games, the discussion is completely different because she probably hasn't played it, and if she has it hasn't been at the same level. She's not worried about graphics and sometimes worried about the lag between when you ask the character to jump and when he actually does jump. Because of this, our discussions seem to start at a much lower level and revolve around the "I like it" or "I don't like it" discussions.
Does that mean all this new journalism about videogames is 'new'? No, it just means that people are finding out that there are others out there who can start at that later stage in the discussion. If they refer to Sephiroth, then there are a lot of other gamers out there who will know exactly what they mean and they can skip all the dumbing down of the writing.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Are All Videogames Art?
Videogames are, at least mostly, considered a type of art. The question is whether all videogames are considered art or is there a distinction between them? Is it a matter of some games being art and others not, or is it merely the difference between some being better examples of art? I tend to agree with the latter. In general, they all have artistic qualities to them, whether it’s in the story or in the graphics; However, some are better examples than others. Just because a horse may not be fully healthy and may have deformities, it doesn’t mean that the horse is not a horse. What it means is that it’s not the best example of a horse.
There are some games with evident artistic intent. Games like Okami, where the art is done almost like a painting come to life, especially when the Japanese writing brush is used to alter the landscape, itself. The use of color and the overall feel draw the player in and being able to interact with the pictures on the screen reinforce this idea of playing a piece of art. Everything from the backgrounds, characters, and story were taken into account to give a beautiful and engaging piece of artistic presentation.
However, there are some games that choose between story or graphics and decide to focus on one particular part more than another. Would that make a game less artistic? Perhaps in some areas. In games that focus more on storytelling than on necessarily pretty pictures, they remind me more of novels. Some books contain pictures scattered through them and although the pictures are rarely very that awe inspiring, the focus is on the novel’s story. A lot of RPGs fall into this category, focusing more on storytelling than showing the story. For instance, recently I replayed Final Fantasy 8 for the PlayStation. At the time, the graphics were the best they could be on the technology, but replaying them nearly ten years later made it look quite poor compared to what we’re now used to. But that lack of graphics quality didn’t detract from the enjoyment of following the story laid out. The storyline was a piece of art, and that is what endures through the years and fond memories.
In contrast, there are some games that rely quite heavily on the graphics engine rather than any extensive storytelling. The example that comes to mind is the Metroid series. The newer games have been created with a lot of detail. Just some of the detail revolves around the weather effects on the visor, which can obstruct your vision as if you’re walking through fog, or water droplets obscuring your vision. However much detail was put into the graphics, there really wasn’t a lot of extensive improvements on the basic premise behind the series: get off the planet before it blows up. There’s more plot details that keep the player engaged enough to keep continuing, but the graphics is what draws the player into the environment. Once the player is engrossed in the environment and the feel for the particular level, there needs little motivation other than to get from point A to point B in order to defeat the boss.
At the bottom rung of the ladder lays a great many games that were made for the sole purpose of making money from the pure sale of the game. Granted almost all games are made with the purpose of making money, but some are put together with little thought to the artistic quality of it. More of the notorious games like this rely on marketing through the name association of the particular game, such as Batman (sans Arkham Asylum), Superman, MegaMan, and supposed sequels of older games. The graphics can be ok, but many times they’re glitchy like characters walking through walls or getting stuck within the structures. The storylines are often uninspired and are either shallow enough to be unable to support the action, or are overly complicated to the point that the player loses connection with the entire game. Does that mean that these games are not Art? Not necessarily, it just may mean it’s not very good art. It’s like a caricature: it’s made with some artistic intention but you’ll probably never expect it to be a masterpiece.
It’s not so much whether a game is art or not, but what kind of art. Just like the artist, the piece of work is often made with specific intentions and the decision is whether those intentions were successful or not. Some games will be amazing pictures of storylines or beautiful worlds we could hope to visit. It’s a lot like walking into a book store. You can find a lot of very good books but only a few are classics and a vast number of them are barely coherent. Much of art is the intention of what the artist wants to be perceived and enjoyed of any particular piece. The last little bit is the success of those intentions and how well they convey what was originally meant to be. Some are good, some are bad, but all are art.
There are some games with evident artistic intent. Games like Okami, where the art is done almost like a painting come to life, especially when the Japanese writing brush is used to alter the landscape, itself. The use of color and the overall feel draw the player in and being able to interact with the pictures on the screen reinforce this idea of playing a piece of art. Everything from the backgrounds, characters, and story were taken into account to give a beautiful and engaging piece of artistic presentation.
However, there are some games that choose between story or graphics and decide to focus on one particular part more than another. Would that make a game less artistic? Perhaps in some areas. In games that focus more on storytelling than on necessarily pretty pictures, they remind me more of novels. Some books contain pictures scattered through them and although the pictures are rarely very that awe inspiring, the focus is on the novel’s story. A lot of RPGs fall into this category, focusing more on storytelling than showing the story. For instance, recently I replayed Final Fantasy 8 for the PlayStation. At the time, the graphics were the best they could be on the technology, but replaying them nearly ten years later made it look quite poor compared to what we’re now used to. But that lack of graphics quality didn’t detract from the enjoyment of following the story laid out. The storyline was a piece of art, and that is what endures through the years and fond memories.
In contrast, there are some games that rely quite heavily on the graphics engine rather than any extensive storytelling. The example that comes to mind is the Metroid series. The newer games have been created with a lot of detail. Just some of the detail revolves around the weather effects on the visor, which can obstruct your vision as if you’re walking through fog, or water droplets obscuring your vision. However much detail was put into the graphics, there really wasn’t a lot of extensive improvements on the basic premise behind the series: get off the planet before it blows up. There’s more plot details that keep the player engaged enough to keep continuing, but the graphics is what draws the player into the environment. Once the player is engrossed in the environment and the feel for the particular level, there needs little motivation other than to get from point A to point B in order to defeat the boss.
At the bottom rung of the ladder lays a great many games that were made for the sole purpose of making money from the pure sale of the game. Granted almost all games are made with the purpose of making money, but some are put together with little thought to the artistic quality of it. More of the notorious games like this rely on marketing through the name association of the particular game, such as Batman (sans Arkham Asylum), Superman, MegaMan, and supposed sequels of older games. The graphics can be ok, but many times they’re glitchy like characters walking through walls or getting stuck within the structures. The storylines are often uninspired and are either shallow enough to be unable to support the action, or are overly complicated to the point that the player loses connection with the entire game. Does that mean that these games are not Art? Not necessarily, it just may mean it’s not very good art. It’s like a caricature: it’s made with some artistic intention but you’ll probably never expect it to be a masterpiece.
It’s not so much whether a game is art or not, but what kind of art. Just like the artist, the piece of work is often made with specific intentions and the decision is whether those intentions were successful or not. Some games will be amazing pictures of storylines or beautiful worlds we could hope to visit. It’s a lot like walking into a book store. You can find a lot of very good books but only a few are classics and a vast number of them are barely coherent. Much of art is the intention of what the artist wants to be perceived and enjoyed of any particular piece. The last little bit is the success of those intentions and how well they convey what was originally meant to be. Some are good, some are bad, but all are art.
Monday, October 5, 2009
What Is Wrong With Us?
Although I haven't had specific experience with a real royal jerk online directed at me, I do see a lot of online bullying - especially with games. Sometimes I think that people feel empowered to do whatever they want because they're anonymous. Like the old men going online to try and meet some thirteen year old little kid: it probably wouldn't be as bold in real life, but it would probably still happen in some capacity.
People who act like assholes online are usually to some degree the same in real life. I'm talking about the passive aggressive people who will make snyde comments about someone, or tease them behind their back. Online just makes it easier to do directly to a person while still having that 'behind the back' feel. They're still doing the teasing and the belittling, but they're doing it directly at the person. However, they're still hidden from view and from reprimand.
But is there a difference between this and the typical bashing we do while playing together? For instance, while playing with my boyfriend and his friends, there's a lot of trash talk and teasing. The difference is that we have clear knowledge of where the limits are and even if something wrong is said, we understand it's not meant to be harsh. I think some of this happens online as well, but we don't have the social context to take it the same way.
Does that mean we should accept treatment like in the article "Bow Nigger"? No. What I mean is that there are the absolute assholes that are doing it to be intently harming to another person. But there are some who are trying to take the same friendly-kidding trash talk that we do in real life and using it on online games. Maybe it's a combination of having more respect for people and being able to take a (possibly mishandled) comment here and there.
Just remember -
1- There's no social context online for when you're kidding.
2- Racial slurs or group stereotype talk is not ok.
3- Guys hate being beaten by girls - especially if it's pointed out in public.
People who act like assholes online are usually to some degree the same in real life. I'm talking about the passive aggressive people who will make snyde comments about someone, or tease them behind their back. Online just makes it easier to do directly to a person while still having that 'behind the back' feel. They're still doing the teasing and the belittling, but they're doing it directly at the person. However, they're still hidden from view and from reprimand.
But is there a difference between this and the typical bashing we do while playing together? For instance, while playing with my boyfriend and his friends, there's a lot of trash talk and teasing. The difference is that we have clear knowledge of where the limits are and even if something wrong is said, we understand it's not meant to be harsh. I think some of this happens online as well, but we don't have the social context to take it the same way.
Does that mean we should accept treatment like in the article "Bow Nigger"? No. What I mean is that there are the absolute assholes that are doing it to be intently harming to another person. But there are some who are trying to take the same friendly-kidding trash talk that we do in real life and using it on online games. Maybe it's a combination of having more respect for people and being able to take a (possibly mishandled) comment here and there.
Just remember -
1- There's no social context online for when you're kidding.
2- Racial slurs or group stereotype talk is not ok.
3- Guys hate being beaten by girls - especially if it's pointed out in public.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
I Have Chortles!
When I picked up the game Mario & Luigi: Bowser’s Inside Story, it was very much like the last few installments put out by Nintendo. The graphics are similar to other Mario games, with the company opting to keep the cartoonish design. The animations are still fairly limited, considering it’s on the DS, but in keeping with previous titles it serves to keep the fan base feeling comfortable with the way the animations are done. There are no cut scenes with the characters looking realistic. All of the computer based storyline moments are kept within the same graphics to keep the game fully in tact and seamless.
The story itself is rather interesting which sets up a dual control scheme. We’re introduced to Fawful, the new enemy, who speaks amusingly bad English and manages to get the one-up on everyone – pun intended. He disguises himself and feeds Bowser a mushroom that compels him to vacuum up everyone within Peach’s castle, including everyone in it. Most of the game is played out with Bowser in the outside world while Mario and Luigi are working from within Bowser’s body to achieve a variety of tasks.
Bowser returns as his boastful, bullying self. One of the best parts of this game is that he actually takes center stage of the game, allowing the player to spend a decent amount of time as him. Peach, Mario, and Luigi are all there as expected. Peach, this time, is captured by our new villain, Fawful. He speaks in a broken sort of English, uttering phrases like “I have chortles” which basically means ‘I laugh at you’. He’s charming enough to share the spotlight, and even more so that he’s the villain to our beloved Bowser.
For the most part, the gameplay itself is reminiscent of the Gamecube versions. It’s an RPG feel with turn based combat but much like Thousand Year Door, where the player takes an active role within those turns. Play alternates between Bowser and the Brothers. When playing as Bowser those turns are controlled with the X and Y buttons. While playing as the Brothers, A and B are used for each character (Mario is A, Luigi is B). Both defending and attacking use both buttons in turn in response to the enemies. Each enemy has a certain tell, giving the player a heads up about how to react. The reactions for Bowser are either to duck and use his shell for defense or to punch the enemy. For the brothers, it’s either to jump or use their hammer.
The controls start out simple enough, but it takes practice to pay attention to the enemies’ tells and then reflexes to respond to them. In the beginning they are quite easy and as the game progresses, the enemies aren’t as evident in their tells, and at some point the reaction time to dodge attacks becomes very finicky. Timing becomes difficult both because of the small screen as well as the split screen. When an enemy launches something into the air it travels to the upper screen and as they drop down, the separation between screens can make timing rather frustrating. Most of the time, reactions come either a little too early or barely too late. There were many times when I released the button as the item fell, which meant that I was too late and ended up releasing as the item hit Mario in the head. Originally this isn’t much of a problem, but later in the game and the enemies start hitting harder, the difference between 10 points can come between another turn and a game over.
Boss battles are a nice balance between skill and effort. They aren’t easy in the sense that they’re push-overs, but they each have their own tactic to beating them. The battles are evenly balanced between Bowser, Mario and Luigi, and Big Bowser. There are some battles that invoke something of a fury from Bowser and he grows to be as large as his rival which is often a building. In these battles the DS makes use of the stylus as well as the microphone. When Bowser punches, the stylus is used to build up the strength of his punches. However, when he uses his fire breath, the player blows into the microphone as long as they can to increase the damage. The combination functions well, even if blowing into the microphone makes you look like a weirdo while people are nearby.
Between battles, the player can direct Bowser through the real world to find new areas and move between necessary areas. He gradually gains abilities that unlock new areas, such as the super punch or the ground pounding jump ability. These abilities keep Bowser from wandering into areas he’s not ready for but come often enough that the need to wander back through areas isn’t that great. More often than not, wandering through an area more than once is due to storyline and not necessity. You do acquire the option to transport Bowser from one area to another between translocation points, but the usefulness is more for finding missed treasures than a real need to revisit places.
The game’s strong point and weak point comes with the variety of mini games. Throughout the game, Mario and Luigi are used to travel through Bowser’s body and help him out when he needs it. They serve to stimulate Bowser’s leg power to push harder against things, revive him if he’s been knocked out, or even to make him sneeze from flower pollen when he gets lost in the scent of them. At first the mini games are novel as you coordinate Mario and Luigi’s actions. In one game, they take turns bouncing back and forth to stimulate Bowser’s leg muscles. Timing is important as well as using the right button press as each one lands. They don’t take much time, but they do break up the game play.
The problem with mini games is that some of them can be frustrating, couple that with the fact that they’re sometimes mandatory, it becomes a serious downfall. Mini games should be a relief from the story and do something minimal to add to the story, itself. In Bowser’s Inside Story, however, the mini games become an annoyance and I find myself repeatedly saying “oh crap, not again”. One game in particular, which helps to revive Bowser, takes a fair bit of skill since every time you get hit three times, you have to start the whole mini game over again. It wouldn’t be so frustrating, but there is also no way to practice them. Going to that area of Bowser’s body when he doesn’t need the help is the equivalent of entering an empty room.
In addition to the downfalls of the mechanics of the mini games, most of the time that you have to use them are times that the story won’t advance and you can’t do anything without winning. Bowser is incapacitated and the only option is to play Mario and Luigi through that particular mini game. The only solution is to keep replaying it until you win. Otherwise, Bowser stays unconscious while Mario and Luigi can’t do anything productive in any other part of his body. In effect it’s a Do or Die Mini Game.
Overall the game is successful because it is an RPG that keeps the player engaged with what is going on at every step. The battles get progressively more challenging, almost to a fault sometimes. The graphics fit with the traditional Nintendo titles and focus more on the fun of the story and the relatively simplistic controls. Most people can pick the game up and play it without too much difficulty and the story is both simple and insignificant enough that there’s not a lot to try and figure out apart from where your next goal is. However, the reaction times during fights can be a major problem if your timing is off. Any single turn can cost around an extra 40 hit points just simply from bad timing to avoid hits. Plus, the mini games can be fun for people skilled or stubborn enough to be able to beat them, but otherwise it can make or break the experience. It’s definitely a game worth a try if you liked the previous Mario & Luigi based RPG titles, or if you like them in general. Whether it’s worth finishing is another story.
Final Score – 8/10
The story itself is rather interesting which sets up a dual control scheme. We’re introduced to Fawful, the new enemy, who speaks amusingly bad English and manages to get the one-up on everyone – pun intended. He disguises himself and feeds Bowser a mushroom that compels him to vacuum up everyone within Peach’s castle, including everyone in it. Most of the game is played out with Bowser in the outside world while Mario and Luigi are working from within Bowser’s body to achieve a variety of tasks.
Bowser returns as his boastful, bullying self. One of the best parts of this game is that he actually takes center stage of the game, allowing the player to spend a decent amount of time as him. Peach, Mario, and Luigi are all there as expected. Peach, this time, is captured by our new villain, Fawful. He speaks in a broken sort of English, uttering phrases like “I have chortles” which basically means ‘I laugh at you’. He’s charming enough to share the spotlight, and even more so that he’s the villain to our beloved Bowser.
For the most part, the gameplay itself is reminiscent of the Gamecube versions. It’s an RPG feel with turn based combat but much like Thousand Year Door, where the player takes an active role within those turns. Play alternates between Bowser and the Brothers. When playing as Bowser those turns are controlled with the X and Y buttons. While playing as the Brothers, A and B are used for each character (Mario is A, Luigi is B). Both defending and attacking use both buttons in turn in response to the enemies. Each enemy has a certain tell, giving the player a heads up about how to react. The reactions for Bowser are either to duck and use his shell for defense or to punch the enemy. For the brothers, it’s either to jump or use their hammer.
The controls start out simple enough, but it takes practice to pay attention to the enemies’ tells and then reflexes to respond to them. In the beginning they are quite easy and as the game progresses, the enemies aren’t as evident in their tells, and at some point the reaction time to dodge attacks becomes very finicky. Timing becomes difficult both because of the small screen as well as the split screen. When an enemy launches something into the air it travels to the upper screen and as they drop down, the separation between screens can make timing rather frustrating. Most of the time, reactions come either a little too early or barely too late. There were many times when I released the button as the item fell, which meant that I was too late and ended up releasing as the item hit Mario in the head. Originally this isn’t much of a problem, but later in the game and the enemies start hitting harder, the difference between 10 points can come between another turn and a game over.
Boss battles are a nice balance between skill and effort. They aren’t easy in the sense that they’re push-overs, but they each have their own tactic to beating them. The battles are evenly balanced between Bowser, Mario and Luigi, and Big Bowser. There are some battles that invoke something of a fury from Bowser and he grows to be as large as his rival which is often a building. In these battles the DS makes use of the stylus as well as the microphone. When Bowser punches, the stylus is used to build up the strength of his punches. However, when he uses his fire breath, the player blows into the microphone as long as they can to increase the damage. The combination functions well, even if blowing into the microphone makes you look like a weirdo while people are nearby.
Between battles, the player can direct Bowser through the real world to find new areas and move between necessary areas. He gradually gains abilities that unlock new areas, such as the super punch or the ground pounding jump ability. These abilities keep Bowser from wandering into areas he’s not ready for but come often enough that the need to wander back through areas isn’t that great. More often than not, wandering through an area more than once is due to storyline and not necessity. You do acquire the option to transport Bowser from one area to another between translocation points, but the usefulness is more for finding missed treasures than a real need to revisit places.
The game’s strong point and weak point comes with the variety of mini games. Throughout the game, Mario and Luigi are used to travel through Bowser’s body and help him out when he needs it. They serve to stimulate Bowser’s leg power to push harder against things, revive him if he’s been knocked out, or even to make him sneeze from flower pollen when he gets lost in the scent of them. At first the mini games are novel as you coordinate Mario and Luigi’s actions. In one game, they take turns bouncing back and forth to stimulate Bowser’s leg muscles. Timing is important as well as using the right button press as each one lands. They don’t take much time, but they do break up the game play.
The problem with mini games is that some of them can be frustrating, couple that with the fact that they’re sometimes mandatory, it becomes a serious downfall. Mini games should be a relief from the story and do something minimal to add to the story, itself. In Bowser’s Inside Story, however, the mini games become an annoyance and I find myself repeatedly saying “oh crap, not again”. One game in particular, which helps to revive Bowser, takes a fair bit of skill since every time you get hit three times, you have to start the whole mini game over again. It wouldn’t be so frustrating, but there is also no way to practice them. Going to that area of Bowser’s body when he doesn’t need the help is the equivalent of entering an empty room.
In addition to the downfalls of the mechanics of the mini games, most of the time that you have to use them are times that the story won’t advance and you can’t do anything without winning. Bowser is incapacitated and the only option is to play Mario and Luigi through that particular mini game. The only solution is to keep replaying it until you win. Otherwise, Bowser stays unconscious while Mario and Luigi can’t do anything productive in any other part of his body. In effect it’s a Do or Die Mini Game.
Overall the game is successful because it is an RPG that keeps the player engaged with what is going on at every step. The battles get progressively more challenging, almost to a fault sometimes. The graphics fit with the traditional Nintendo titles and focus more on the fun of the story and the relatively simplistic controls. Most people can pick the game up and play it without too much difficulty and the story is both simple and insignificant enough that there’s not a lot to try and figure out apart from where your next goal is. However, the reaction times during fights can be a major problem if your timing is off. Any single turn can cost around an extra 40 hit points just simply from bad timing to avoid hits. Plus, the mini games can be fun for people skilled or stubborn enough to be able to beat them, but otherwise it can make or break the experience. It’s definitely a game worth a try if you liked the previous Mario & Luigi based RPG titles, or if you like them in general. Whether it’s worth finishing is another story.
Final Score – 8/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
