The Colbert Report is taped before a studio audience. Anyone in that audience could have made the edits. Thinking about it... The Colbert Report writers wouldn't have missed a chance to give their Stephen Colbert character a funny username (something vaguely homosexual, or something involving the slaughter of bears perhaps), but the user was named StephenColbert.
It also may have been possible that someone picked up the show early from a satellite feed and then made the Wikipedia edit, at least according to my very limited knowledge of how these cable networks operate.
I saw the episode in question, and it seems to me that there's no why he could actually have edited it *on the air* like that, not with the theatrical keyboard-punching he did on the show while talking at the camera.
This strikes me as a total non-story, or worse, an invented story either to defame the Colbert Report show (possible) or a promotional stunt on behalf of the show.
(Further, anyone who thinks that Stephen Colbert, on the show, urging people to change Wikipedia actually MEANS he wants those people to do that betrays an utter ignorance of what the Colbert Report is: a dead-on satire of the right-wing talk show arena. No one should ever take anything the character of Stephen Colbert says seriously.)
A laser shot from a ship piloted by a level 1 captain shouldn't do any more damage than one shot from the same ship piloted by a level 20 captain--so clearly the traditional method of "leveling" would need significant tweaking.
In fact, I think this standard assumption of the RPG genre is faulty. I don't think a level 60 Superguy should always be able to trounce a level 1 N00bling. It should happen more times than not, sure, but in real life it's generally not skills so much that determine your ability to, say, win fights, as possessions. A person with a gun will just about always be able to take out a karate master, decades of movies and anime notwithstanding. Spaceship weaponry should work the same way.
No running water, no showers, no TOILETS. (I'm almost surprised fantasy games haven't made much of the supposed lack of toilets. Of course, Ultima 7 made it a point to install commodes in its inns....)
No phones, no lights, no motor cars. Not a single luxury! Like Robinson Crusoe, it's primitive as can be.
"I love the spirit of the experimentation," NBC Entertainment president Kevin Reilly says. "And I think if we can actually have something find an audience on the web, gravitate over to the network, continue with a web presence and have them feed each other, that could end up being a really cool thing."
He went on to add, "That spirit of experimentation is awesome especially because we had worked so hard to stamp it out before, with our over reliance on market research and focus groups. Now that there's a forum to showcase originality without an actual need for us to support it ourselves, we plan on taking full advantage of it. Who doesn't like a free lunch?"
That's really what the stories about Japanese Mario 2 are about, whether they realize it or not, perpetuating the stereotype of the Japanese as ultra-obsessed geeks who can buzzsaw through games. Hence the legend of Japanese Mario 2 being "too hard" for Americans.
1. Mario 2 is too hard, but for every damn body. Let's make that clear. I wouldn't doubt if it was that game that caused Miyamoto to start thinking hard about whether video games were getting too difficult for the average player.
2. Some levels and game objects feel hacky in a way that was entirely absent from the original game. "Bad" mushrooms, the springboards that sent Mario into the stratosphere, the wind effect, the final level, "World 9", and especially reverse warp zones, everything about it screams quickie sequel. Many of these effects overturn assumptions in bad ways, like the idea that trying something unexpected and finding a warp zone was a reward. How many gamers must have been shocked by jumping over the flagpole in 3-1 and getting PUNISHED for it? (The game also contained at least one death pipe, where you came out in a place where the only escape was a pit.) It could perhaps be argued that Nintendo learned their lesson regarding sequels with this game, as most of their later sequels make sure to introduce substantial new elements, and usually new game engines.
Meanwhile, Doki Doki Panic had a great design, a cartoony art style, similar secret-based gameplay with all its clumps of grass scattered about and number of secret passages, great monsters, and a license could never, ever, work in the U.S. (It was based off of a Japanese TV show.) They were going to have to rebrand it anyway, and it just so happened they had an unnecessarily punishing, hacky Mario 1 sequel to work around.
Really, their decision was not hard, and arguably the right one. And the game also allowed Nintendo to considerably expand the Mario universe: this was the game that gave us Shyguys, Pokeys and Ninjis, after all, not to mention everyone's favorite androgynous boss character, Birdo. It also elevated Peach to the status of full-player, which has happened surprisingly rarely in the years since, and also had a playable Toad, who's only had a starring role in Wario's Woods since.
Finally, note that, while the U.S. release of Mario All Stars (SNES) had "Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels" in it, the Japanese version had "Super Mario Bros. 2 USA", and in the GBA remake of Mario 2 the Doki dudes are entirely absent. Dreamland has been neatly assimilated into the Mario universe, both in the US and in Japan, and really, both are better off that way.
The game runs a lot like a survival horror game, although it's told as a multi-part story in many different times with many different characters. The story is tied together with a main character who reads the events of the other chapters in a book, as pages are found throughout her dead grandfather's house, although you don't get to do much fighting with her until the end.
Interestingly for such a dark storyline, there are surprising moments of humor once in a while, mostly through the insanity effects but also in the story every once in a while.
There's some interesting game design elements too. What you do in earlier chapters can affect the game in later ones, as all the characters are tied together with the linking device of the Necronomicon-like book, which is in all the chapters and carries spells discovered in past levels forward into the game. There are a few spell components that aren't sure-finds, encouraging a little exploration beyond the call of duty, and it's possible to find the components of (and even cast!) spells before their recipes are discovered in the game.
Another cool element is a type of enemy who doesn't actually damage you, but attacks by teleporting you into a special level. Sometimes it's actually a good idea to let youself be thus captured, as you can sometimes get your health, magic or sanity levels restored through a visit to those places.
It cannot be a good thing that this reminds me of devices from a particularly evil Paranoia adventure. The one with the gigantic, neurotic robot tank. In which the players are given a box of old-tech land mines and a remote control labeled "ON" and "OFF". When flipped to "ON", the mines sprout little crab-like legs and scuttle off looking for the best places to set themselves, showing up throughout the rest of the adventure at just the wrong time.
And: "These are thinking mines. They go off when they think they're supposed to."
That's a stand-up man, right there. It's a sign he believes everyone should earn their own fortune, no free rides - even for his own children.
That just leaves his vast quantity of Microsoft stock to hand over. Boo hoo for the kiddies.
In any case, I think his kids would be understandably miffed to find out that they'll be expected to make their way as insurance adjusters, hardware store clerks, fast food chefs, etc, after an upbringing of affluence. It's not as cut-and-dried as you make it sound. There IS something to be said for handing down SOME wealth -- just not the entirety of those obscene piles of lucre such as Gates has amassed.
The argument of the guy you're responding to seems like bunk, but I still don't accept that we should all suddenly like Bill Gates for his philanthropy.
It's easy to give away a lot of money when you have it to spare. There are other people who have given away corresponding percentages of their assets to charities, but they don't have nearly enough to make the news, AND they are in much worse situations financially because of it, since half of $50,000 is a lot less than half of five Bs*. Meanwhile, a good argument could be made that philanthropy isn't a billionare's right, it's his responsibility.
Further, while the rise of Microsoft Windows might not be responsible for the great troubles of Africa, it IS responsible for draining billions of dollars out of the pockets of countless people throughout the world. I suspect that this great decentralized wealth would do much more, although unmeasurable, good at the command of its original owners, than it would drawn all into the clutches of our favorite monopolist to be distributed how he sees fit.
* This figure made up for comparison's sake, it is not accurate.
Basically this is one guy ranting about his childhood love of the Genesis and his opinion over the various mistakes Sega has made. It's just one page, no pictures, no research, and not really well-written. It's basically some guy's blog post.
Which isn't to dump on it for having those attributes, but don't expect anything like journalism.
This comment leads me to believe that you in fact don't play Madden games.
I don't play many football games, period. It is true I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of when each Madden introduced each feature (which I do with many other games). There is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem here: if you don't like the games you don't play much of them which makes it hard to argue why you don't play them. But that does not mean the reasons I don't play them are not valid, nor does it mean I'm ignorant of the series in general.
Anyway, I was surprised to hear that the series went back to the Apple II. In my mind, Madden still effectly started on the Genesis. Even since then, however, there's been roughly one release a year for over a decade.
Those are just a handful of features that HAVE been added over the years. The fact that they shove a game out every year doesn't mean the game hasn't changed.
The changes you offered sounded like they -could- be interesting. But they also seem kind of gimmicky. I'm not sure a bucketload of other features like those will make the game more interesting. It also sounds like they'd probably turn some players off, so they're probably optional, so they're not essential aspects of the design.
Perhaps Madden 2006 is a lot like 2005 which is a lot like 2004... 2002. But then when you compare 2006 to 2002, the game is very different, it's evolutionary change.
Then I would submit that the games between 2006 and 2002 are unnecessary.
The nature of the market that game competes in doesn't allow 3 years off, so they introduce changes slowly.
Then why I say they should do is sell one game every four years, and then sell roster update disks for a small amount while the teams work on the next big game.
Anyway, the problem I have with Madden isn't so much its existance (if people like to play it then great), but that its success has helped to poison the market away from designs I like to play. Just like how the rash of one-on-one fighting games in the early 90s contributed to the demise of the "good" Atari Games. The people who ultimately control the direction of gaming aren't designers but management, the people with dollar signs in their eyes.
To those people, and everyone who views the success of a game solely in terms of the profit it brings in, the Madden development process will seem like The Way to make games. If it wasn't for that influence, I wouldn't have a problem with Madden.
Good call on those. I assume the authors of the article considered those ultimately competitive, although certainly neither player will do well at those games if played that way.
I love searching these articles for errors. There are fewer than I expected -- attributing the origin of a health total to a game by *SNK* seemed obviously false at first, but the game offered, Ozma Wars, came out shortly after Space Invaders. (That's real early.) And I respect the writers for remembering Gaplus.
Doesn't mean the article's entirely accurate though:
Power-ups: I'm reasonably sure Pac-Man wasn't the first.
Chain Reactions: Missile Command's "matchbook" explosions far predate those of Bomberman.
Time Manipulation: Ladybug has a freeze-the-enemies item, as does Q*Bert.
Spread Shot: Oh please, Contra was NOT the first game to do this.
The essential rules of all those games remains: a) navigate a maze to collect all the items b) dodge enemies c) collect powerup to let you destroy enemies
Objection #1: I suggest that this also describes many first-person shooters. I submit that a description that allows a FPS to be confused with Pac-Man is too simplistic.
Objection #2: Both Super Pac-Man and Pac-N-Pal add fundamental elements that challenge each of these three points. In Pac N Pal, another character roams the maze and collects the objects you're chasing, and while you don't get points for the ones she gets, they are counted towards completing the level. Super Pac-Man contains a second kind of energizer that provides invulnerability instead of invincibility, and with careful management and use of the sprint button it can change the entire thrust of the game from one of enemy avoidance to careful energizer rationing. Pac-N-Pal doesn't have energizers at all, but instead two special items in each board that merely paralyze the monsters for a time. And both games have deformable mazes that contain gates that must be defeated.
In a more complicated game, additions like these seem insignificant, but Pac-Man is not a very complex design to begin with. Football, on the other hand, is a very complex game. No matter what you add to a football game, it will always be constrained by the requirement that it remain football.
Just as Madden remains football, but introduction of features like: analog passing - requires the player not just to identify passing target but also judge timing and distance sprint button, spin, highstep - prevent being tackled with correct timing blocking control - directly control a second player on the field change how the game is played.
I admit, these are interesting features. I think adding these things could indeed renew the game for one, perhaps even two whole sequels. Madden, according to the quick websearch I just performed, has been around since the Apple II. I only even remember it back to the Genesis!
You would have to list a much larger number of additional features to successfully defend Madden. The big feature they end up selling is updated player rosters.
On your big list of game genres, you lump together games from different eras. An early parser-based Sierra On-Line adventure plays differently (arguably better) than their more recent point-and-click games.
Further, adventure games are a bit of a special case, as one plays them for the story more than the raw mechanics. Infocom called their games "interactive fiction" for a reason. Zork might be the same general thing as Planetfall, but it's very different in the story it has to tell. And even then, Infocom made some really unique text adventures: Nord and Bert Couldn't Make Head or Tail of It is really a different kind of game altogether.
RPG: Ultima, Wizardry, "Gold Box" & other SSI games
There's actually a good amount of variation between these. ("Other" SSI games? You mean strategy war games?)
Platformers: Donkey Kong, Mario (DK spinoff)
The Mario games were very different from each other up until Super Mario Bros. At that point, the games were closer in design to each other, but made up for it with the level design and other changes. Yoshi's Island is very different from Super Mario World though.
Sidescrolling shooters: R-Type, 19xx, etc
Yeah, and I would have complained about it then as much as you expect. The decay of computer game design is not a sudden thing by any means, but it has definitely gotten worse over the years. If I had to pick a time when it was starting to cause real harm, I would have chosen the fighting game glut of the 90s.
Beat 'em Ups: Can't think of any franchises with alot of sequels, but there were a lot of clones: Double Dragon, Bad Dudes, TMNT, heck even The Simpsons
Double Dragon had multiple sequels, and TMNT had an arcade sequel. Golden A
Which is my point. Pac-Man went through the same evolutionary transition that Madden games have. Taking advantage of better graphics and technology to add little bits to gameplay.
But no, I don't buy your point here. Super Pac-Man and Pac N Pal do not add little bits, there are major rule changes in these games. And it's also worth noting that Ms. Pac-Man, the first sequel, was the last truly popular Pac-Man game.
Getting back to your orignal statements that "knockoffs are the industry" it has been so since the birth of the industry. There was a bunch of Pong, Pac-Man, Space Invader, and Asteroid clones.
THe difference there is that, then, most games sold weren't clones, and the most popular games then tended to be ones that were relatively unique. Now, generally it's the same franchises that get the lion's share of the attention. The word "franchise" wasn't even applied to video games until relatively recently.
This is not necessarily the case. The Sims is different in these days (not a comprehensive list): - It discards the "always on" real-time component of Tamagotchi. - Having discarded that, it also doesn't have to be portable, so it can be played on computer. - There is a house design component, and figuring out good paths for your Sims to use is a major part of the game. - The upgrading of house components and careers. - Resource management, in the areas of time and money, which is entirely absent from Tamagotchi. - Continuity. A Tamagotchi doesn't remember its state beyond each moment other than concerning a handful of internal variables. - Special events can happen to Sims, which provide situations that must be overcome or taken advantage of. - There is a huge "metagame" connected with The Sims, in the construction of new objects, that can easily be more engaging than the main game to an interested player.
As for Second Life there was some innovation in being able to exchange real world money, but the core game is very much like MUSHs, just with graphics.
(This is a less complete list.) - Second Life exists in a different kind of space than MUSHes. The transition from a room-oriented world, as in Infocom adventures, to a 3D space is more than just graphical flavoring, it involves many new programming challenges and makes many things possible that weren't before (and some things much harder, too). The greatly increased visibility of the world allowed to players, by itself, would be enough to - Graphics *can* improve a game too, by allowing the player to perceive and interact with a world in a more natural manner. - Do not underestimate the effect the real-world-money connection has upon the game! In a way, it makes Second Life part of the largest game humankind has ever produced: economics. It is very possible for the intrusion of real-world money to ruin a game, but Second Life seems to have done it right.
Essentially this is an AI tweak to make the game more challenging, same thing they do for every Madden Game.
There are two ways I can attack this statement: 1. Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man have much less "space" between the player and the design. When it comes down to it Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man are their AI, so changing it makes a much bigger difference in a game than one based upon what is ultimately a complex real-world analogue. It's not a difference that should sustain more than one sequel, but it is substantial. 2. One would be a lot more willing to forgive the initial sequel to a game than the tenth. Madden has had more than ten sequels!
Note, also, that Pac-Man has inspired more varied sequels: Super Pac-Man and Pac 'n Pal are both maze collection games, but they are much more different from Pac-Man than Ms Pac-Man. The maze collection game example you gave, Lode Runner, is a very different game from Pac-Man: it contains puzzles, guards whose AI must not only be thwarted but taken advantage of, multiple types of one-way passage, multiple secret board elements, "dots" the enemies can move, a unique system of game physics that must be learned (timing of hole-digging, using enemies as platforms, the special aspects of ladders and handbars) and of course all these aspects are mixed through 150 levels.
That doesn't change the core gameplay, it changes how the player plays the game.
Not so, once you know a Pac-Man pattern, the game becomes memorization and recall on demand, not pathfinding in response to a dynamically-changing set of obstacles.
Just as AI tweaks in Madden don't change the core gameplay (football), but can significantly affect how the game is played.
I will happily admit that it is possible for a sequel or two to fundamentally improve upon a predecessor. But I cannot accept that Madden has successfully reinvented itself over and over since the Genesis days.
Further, Madden updates the player interface, which gives additional choices and strategy. Imagine adding a "sprint button" to Pac-Man.
Imagine adding a "sprint button" to Pac-Man.
Super Pac-Man has such a button.
but to put the transition from Pac-Man to Ms. Pac-Man on a pedestal is laughable.
I didn't choose it just to defeat your argument, but in order to purposely pick a borderline case. I don't just argue to win, I do so to clarify my opinions in my own mind. This way, I like to think I'm more likely to be convinced if someone responds with an accurate rebuttal. If I can successfully argue this, then I'm more confident in my opinion afterward, instead of just parroting what I've always thought true. If I can't, then maybe I should think things through a bit more.
Which is why multiplayer play is so interesting, it is the modern equivalent of dynamic content, and provides a far more interesting challenge than just speeding the game up.
Agreed, although I don't think it's always better than a solo game. Further, there are some multiplayer games that are almost impossible for a new player to get into because the established pool of players is exceedingly skilled. New players trying to get into, say, a FPS, and getting consistantly schooled by everyone they play against, are not going to stick with it for very long.
Well, I'm just tired of everyone screaming for innovation, yet nobody ever specifies what that innovation is supposed to be, or what it could be.
Hm, understood.
In my view, innovation means the creation of new kinds of gameplay. I don't necessarily mean that all games must be completely different from each other, but most games now are ultimately older games with different data sets.
The best way to understand what innovation could be is by example, and some of the best examples I can think of come from Electronic Arts, back in their pre-behemoth days. In the 8-bit and even during some of the 16-bit era, they were well known for the ingenuity of their releases. One of the most-acknowledged classics of game design, MULE, was actually published by them back then. Around the time when EA began changing into Mr Hyde Inc, word is that creator Dan Bunten and Electronic Arts reached loggerheads over producing a sequel on the Genesis when Bunten refused to compromise his principles by including weapons into the game. Never mind that weapons wouldn't make sense in MULE's careful balance of competition and cooperation, the project was shut down because EA mandated Bunten change his game to chase a trend.
What I ultimately mean by innovation, in a word, is more games like MULE. Not exactly like MULE (for that wouldn't be innovation so much, although it'd be a welcome change from what I see now), but at least willing to try something new.
But how well would it handle it? It would have to work so well that it doesn't feel like it's just generated by the game. It would also rule out voice acting. I prefer handcrafted content as opposed to automatically generated content, and I don't see any massive demand for Crawford's system. I could be wrong, of course.
How well? Well, the way we percieve a game is determined by its presentation. In a game which is represented close-up, the player will expect more detailed behavior than one which is viewed at a distance. In the Sims, you don't view your characters closely enough to understand exactly what they're saying, so they don't actually have to say anything, they just get word balloons with symbols. In SimCity, individual people aren't simulated at all, they're viewed in the aggregate. I think if a project using Storytron technology reaches market, it won't be as noticable since the interface and presentation will be in a way that make it less noticable in this way, abstracted out, with some text generators surrounding it to ease the presentation.
As to "prefering" hand-crafted content and voice acting, allow me to make a bold statement:
People don't know what they prefer.
They make snap judgements, they approach things in a biased manner, they refuse to give things a chance. This is just human nature of course, but it is not admirable. Everyone wants to judge instantaneously instead of giving things a chance. Maybe this is unavoidable in the long run, but it doesn't mean we should accept it.
What can he possibly accomplish by staying on the sidelines?
He can start his own company and work on Storytron. Further, Crawford himself has rejected this (and as far as I know still does) but there's the casual games market, there is great potential for originality there... if it can get far enough away from the shareware sea of Tetris clones and Breakout variants.
However, there are many games that appeal to the so-called general public, and that should be enough. I wasn't trying to cherry pick anything.
I just thought it was interesting that two of your examples were games that I myself would have chosen specifically for bucking the trend. And two more of them were genres that certainly contain plenty of failures for each success.
Tamagotchis are not the same thing as Sims. MUDs are not the same thing as Second Life. MUSHes are closer, but still different.
Both of the later games draw from earlier things (as all created things must), but both these things add substantial new elements that makes them greatly different from their predecessors.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, the edits could have been made by a studio audience member after taping.
You do realize that the show is not live don't you?
I don't see how the fact the show is taped proves they did or didn't make the edits.
The Colbert Report is taped before a studio audience. Anyone in that audience could have made the edits. Thinking about it... The Colbert Report writers wouldn't have missed a chance to give their Stephen Colbert character a funny username (something vaguely homosexual, or something involving the slaughter of bears perhaps), but the user was named StephenColbert.
It also may have been possible that someone picked up the show early from a satellite feed and then made the Wikipedia edit, at least according to my very limited knowledge of how these cable networks operate.
I saw the episode in question, and it seems to me that there's no why he could actually have edited it *on the air* like that, not with the theatrical keyboard-punching he did on the show while talking at the camera.
This strikes me as a total non-story, or worse, an invented story either to defame the Colbert Report show (possible) or a promotional stunt on behalf of the show.
(Further, anyone who thinks that Stephen Colbert, on the show, urging people to change Wikipedia actually MEANS he wants those people to do that betrays an utter ignorance of what the Colbert Report is: a dead-on satire of the right-wing talk show arena. No one should ever take anything the character of Stephen Colbert says seriously.)
A laser shot from a ship piloted by a level 1 captain shouldn't do any more damage than one shot from the same ship piloted by a level 20 captain--so clearly the traditional method of "leveling" would need significant tweaking.
In fact, I think this standard assumption of the RPG genre is faulty. I don't think a level 60 Superguy should always be able to trounce a level 1 N00bling. It should happen more times than not, sure, but in real life it's generally not skills so much that determine your ability to, say, win fights, as possessions. A person with a gun will just about always be able to take out a karate master, decades of movies and anime notwithstanding. Spaceship weaponry should work the same way.
No running water, no showers, no TOILETS. (I'm almost surprised fantasy games haven't made much of the supposed lack of toilets. Of course, Ultima 7 made it a point to install commodes in its inns....)
No phones, no lights, no motor cars. Not a single luxury! Like Robinson Crusoe, it's primitive as can be.
"I love the spirit of the experimentation," NBC Entertainment president Kevin Reilly says. "And I think if we can actually have something find an audience on the web, gravitate over to the network, continue with a web presence and have them feed each other, that could end up being a really cool thing."
He went on to add, "That spirit of experimentation is awesome especially because we had worked so hard to stamp it out before, with our over reliance on market research and focus groups. Now that there's a forum to showcase originality without an actual need for us to support it ourselves, we plan on taking full advantage of it. Who doesn't like a free lunch?"
That's really what the stories about Japanese Mario 2 are about, whether they realize it or not, perpetuating the stereotype of the Japanese as ultra-obsessed geeks who can buzzsaw through games. Hence the legend of Japanese Mario 2 being "too hard" for Americans.
1. Mario 2 is too hard, but for every damn body. Let's make that clear. I wouldn't doubt if it was that game that caused Miyamoto to start thinking hard about whether video games were getting too difficult for the average player.
2. Some levels and game objects feel hacky in a way that was entirely absent from the original game. "Bad" mushrooms, the springboards that sent Mario into the stratosphere, the wind effect, the final level, "World 9", and especially reverse warp zones, everything about it screams quickie sequel. Many of these effects overturn assumptions in bad ways, like the idea that trying something unexpected and finding a warp zone was a reward. How many gamers must have been shocked by jumping over the flagpole in 3-1 and getting PUNISHED for it? (The game also contained at least one death pipe, where you came out in a place where the only escape was a pit.) It could perhaps be argued that Nintendo learned their lesson regarding sequels with this game, as most of their later sequels make sure to introduce substantial new elements, and usually new game engines.
Meanwhile, Doki Doki Panic had a great design, a cartoony art style, similar secret-based gameplay with all its clumps of grass scattered about and number of secret passages, great monsters, and a license could never, ever, work in the U.S. (It was based off of a Japanese TV show.) They were going to have to rebrand it anyway, and it just so happened they had an unnecessarily punishing, hacky Mario 1 sequel to work around.
Really, their decision was not hard, and arguably the right one. And the game also allowed Nintendo to considerably expand the Mario universe: this was the game that gave us Shyguys, Pokeys and Ninjis, after all, not to mention everyone's favorite androgynous boss character, Birdo. It also elevated Peach to the status of full-player, which has happened surprisingly rarely in the years since, and also had a playable Toad, who's only had a starring role in Wario's Woods since.
Finally, note that, while the U.S. release of Mario All Stars (SNES) had "Super Mario Bros. The Lost Levels" in it, the Japanese version had "Super Mario Bros. 2 USA", and in the GBA remake of Mario 2 the Doki dudes are entirely absent. Dreamland has been neatly assimilated into the Mario universe, both in the US and in Japan, and really, both are better off that way.
I've actually seen much of it played.
The game runs a lot like a survival horror game, although it's told as a multi-part story in many different times with many different characters. The story is tied together with a main character who reads the events of the other chapters in a book, as pages are found throughout her dead grandfather's house, although you don't get to do much fighting with her until the end.
Interestingly for such a dark storyline, there are surprising moments of humor once in a while, mostly through the insanity effects but also in the story every once in a while.
There's some interesting game design elements too. What you do in earlier chapters can affect the game in later ones, as all the characters are tied together with the linking device of the Necronomicon-like book, which is in all the chapters and carries spells discovered in past levels forward into the game. There are a few spell components that aren't sure-finds, encouraging a little exploration beyond the call of duty, and it's possible to find the components of (and even cast!) spells before their recipes are discovered in the game.
Another cool element is a type of enemy who doesn't actually damage you, but attacks by teleporting you into a special level. Sometimes it's actually a good idea to let youself be thus captured, as you can sometimes get your health, magic or sanity levels restored through a visit to those places.
It cannot be a good thing that this reminds me of devices from a particularly evil Paranoia adventure. The one with the gigantic, neurotic robot tank. In which the players are given a box of old-tech land mines and a remote control labeled "ON" and "OFF". When flipped to "ON", the mines sprout little crab-like legs and scuttle off looking for the best places to set themselves, showing up throughout the rest of the adventure at just the wrong time.
And: "These are thinking mines. They go off when they think they're supposed to."
Damn. I mean, wow. This whole SCO business is starting to seem like a lot worse than just ordinary evil....
Or pressed CTRL-0.
(641 sounds right to me.)
That's a stand-up man, right there. It's a sign he believes everyone should earn their own fortune, no free rides - even for his own children.
That just leaves his vast quantity of Microsoft stock to hand over. Boo hoo for the kiddies.
In any case, I think his kids would be understandably miffed to find out that they'll be expected to make their way as insurance adjusters, hardware store clerks, fast food chefs, etc, after an upbringing of affluence. It's not as cut-and-dried as you make it sound. There IS something to be said for handing down SOME wealth -- just not the entirety of those obscene piles of lucre such as Gates has amassed.
The argument of the guy you're responding to seems like bunk, but I still don't accept that we should all suddenly like Bill Gates for his philanthropy.
It's easy to give away a lot of money when you have it to spare. There are other people who have given away corresponding percentages of their assets to charities, but they don't have nearly enough to make the news, AND they are in much worse situations financially because of it, since half of $50,000 is a lot less than half of five Bs*. Meanwhile, a good argument could be made that philanthropy isn't a billionare's right, it's his responsibility.
Further, while the rise of Microsoft Windows might not be responsible for the great troubles of Africa, it IS responsible for draining billions of dollars out of the pockets of countless people throughout the world. I suspect that this great decentralized wealth would do much more, although unmeasurable, good at the command of its original owners, than it would drawn all into the clutches of our favorite monopolist to be distributed how he sees fit.
* This figure made up for comparison's sake, it is not accurate.
Basically this is one guy ranting about his childhood love of the Genesis and his opinion over the various mistakes Sega has made. It's just one page, no pictures, no research, and not really well-written. It's basically some guy's blog post.
Which isn't to dump on it for having those attributes, but don't expect anything like journalism.
This comment leads me to believe that you in fact don't play Madden games.
I don't play many football games, period. It is true I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of when each Madden introduced each feature (which I do with many other games). There is a kind of chicken-and-egg problem here: if you don't like the games you don't play much of them which makes it hard to argue why you don't play them. But that does not mean the reasons I don't play them are not valid, nor does it mean I'm ignorant of the series in general.
Anyway, I was surprised to hear that the series went back to the Apple II. In my mind, Madden still effectly started on the Genesis. Even since then, however, there's been roughly one release a year for over a decade.
Those are just a handful of features that HAVE been added over the years. The fact that they shove a game out every year doesn't mean the game hasn't changed.
The changes you offered sounded like they -could- be interesting. But they also seem kind of gimmicky. I'm not sure a bucketload of other features like those will make the game more interesting. It also sounds like they'd probably turn some players off, so they're probably optional, so they're not essential aspects of the design.
Perhaps Madden 2006 is a lot like 2005 which is a lot like 2004... 2002. But then when you compare 2006 to 2002, the game is very different, it's evolutionary change.
Then I would submit that the games between 2006 and 2002 are unnecessary.
The nature of the market that game competes in doesn't allow 3 years off, so they introduce changes slowly.
Then why I say they should do is sell one game every four years, and then sell roster update disks for a small amount while the teams work on the next big game.
Anyway, the problem I have with Madden isn't so much its existance (if people like to play it then great), but that its success has helped to poison the market away from designs I like to play. Just like how the rash of one-on-one fighting games in the early 90s contributed to the demise of the "good" Atari Games. The people who ultimately control the direction of gaming aren't designers but management, the people with dollar signs in their eyes.
To those people, and everyone who views the success of a game solely in terms of the profit it brings in, the Madden development process will seem like The Way to make games. If it wasn't for that influence, I wouldn't have a problem with Madden.
Good call on those. I assume the authors of the article considered those ultimately competitive, although certainly neither player will do well at those games if played that way.
Actually, that one's correct: the imagine is from the arcade version, which by most accounts is a less interesting game than the NES/Famicom one.
I love searching these articles for errors. There are fewer than I expected -- attributing the origin of a health total to a game by *SNK* seemed obviously false at first, but the game offered, Ozma Wars, came out shortly after Space Invaders. (That's real early.) And I respect the writers for remembering Gaplus.
Doesn't mean the article's entirely accurate though:
Power-ups: I'm reasonably sure Pac-Man wasn't the first.
Chain Reactions: Missile Command's "matchbook" explosions far predate those of Bomberman.
Time Manipulation: Ladybug has a freeze-the-enemies item, as does Q*Bert.
Spread Shot: Oh please, Contra was NOT the first game to do this.
Canine Sidekick: What? Stupid.
Co-op play: Eliminator predated Gauntlet.
The essential rules of all those games remains:
a) navigate a maze to collect all the items
b) dodge enemies
c) collect powerup to let you destroy enemies
Objection #1: I suggest that this also describes many first-person shooters. I submit that a description that allows a FPS to be confused with Pac-Man is too simplistic.
Objection #2: Both Super Pac-Man and Pac-N-Pal add fundamental elements that challenge each of these three points. In Pac N Pal, another character roams the maze and collects the objects you're chasing, and while you don't get points for the ones she gets, they are counted towards completing the level. Super Pac-Man contains a second kind of energizer that provides invulnerability instead of invincibility, and with careful management and use of the sprint button it can change the entire thrust of the game from one of enemy avoidance to careful energizer rationing. Pac-N-Pal doesn't have energizers at all, but instead two special items in each board that merely paralyze the monsters for a time. And both games have deformable mazes that contain gates that must be defeated.
In a more complicated game, additions like these seem insignificant, but Pac-Man is not a very complex design to begin with. Football, on the other hand, is a very complex game. No matter what you add to a football game, it will always be constrained by the requirement that it remain football.
Just as Madden remains football, but introduction of features like:
analog passing - requires the player not just to identify passing target but also judge timing and distance
sprint button, spin, highstep - prevent being tackled with correct timing
blocking control - directly control a second player on the field
change how the game is played.
I admit, these are interesting features. I think adding these things could indeed renew the game for one, perhaps even two whole sequels. Madden, according to the quick websearch I just performed, has been around since the Apple II. I only even remember it back to the Genesis!
You would have to list a much larger number of additional features to successfully defend Madden. The big feature they end up selling is updated player rosters.
On your big list of game genres, you lump together games from different eras. An early parser-based Sierra On-Line adventure plays differently (arguably better) than their more recent point-and-click games.
Further, adventure games are a bit of a special case, as one plays them for the story more than the raw mechanics. Infocom called their games "interactive fiction" for a reason. Zork might be the same general thing as Planetfall, but it's very different in the story it has to tell. And even then, Infocom made some really unique text adventures: Nord and Bert Couldn't Make Head or Tail of It is really a different kind of game altogether.
RPG: Ultima, Wizardry, "Gold Box" & other SSI games
There's actually a good amount of variation between these. ("Other" SSI games? You mean strategy war games?)
Platformers: Donkey Kong, Mario (DK spinoff)
The Mario games were very different from each other up until Super Mario Bros. At that point, the games were closer in design to each other, but made up for it with the level design and other changes. Yoshi's Island is very different from Super Mario World though.
Sidescrolling shooters: R-Type, 19xx, etc
Yeah, and I would have complained about it then as much as you expect. The decay of computer game design is not a sudden thing by any means, but it has definitely gotten worse over the years. If I had to pick a time when it was starting to cause real harm, I would have chosen the fighting game glut of the 90s.
Beat 'em Ups: Can't think of any franchises with alot of sequels, but there were a lot of clones: Double Dragon, Bad Dudes, TMNT, heck even The Simpsons
Double Dragon had multiple sequels, and TMNT had an arcade sequel. Golden A
Which is my point. Pac-Man went through the same evolutionary transition that Madden games have. Taking advantage of better graphics and technology to add little bits to gameplay.
But no, I don't buy your point here. Super Pac-Man and Pac N Pal do not add little bits, there are major rule changes in these games. And it's also worth noting that Ms. Pac-Man, the first sequel, was the last truly popular Pac-Man game.
Getting back to your orignal statements that "knockoffs are the industry" it has been so since the birth of the industry. There was a bunch of Pong, Pac-Man, Space Invader, and Asteroid clones.
THe difference there is that, then, most games sold weren't clones, and the most popular games then tended to be ones that were relatively unique. Now, generally it's the same franchises that get the lion's share of the attention. The word "franchise" wasn't even applied to video games until relatively recently.
Adding complexity does not equal innovation.
This is not necessarily the case. The Sims is different in these days (not a comprehensive list):
- It discards the "always on" real-time component of Tamagotchi.
- Having discarded that, it also doesn't have to be portable, so it can be played on computer.
- There is a house design component, and figuring out good paths for your Sims to use is a major part of the game.
- The upgrading of house components and careers.
- Resource management, in the areas of time and money, which is entirely absent from Tamagotchi.
- Continuity. A Tamagotchi doesn't remember its state beyond each moment other than concerning a handful of internal variables.
- Special events can happen to Sims, which provide situations that must be overcome or taken advantage of.
- There is a huge "metagame" connected with The Sims, in the construction of new objects, that can easily be more engaging than the main game to an interested player.
As for Second Life there was some innovation in being able to exchange real world money, but the core game is very much like MUSHs, just with graphics.
(This is a less complete list.)
- Second Life exists in a different kind of space than MUSHes. The transition from a room-oriented world, as in Infocom adventures, to a 3D space is more than just graphical flavoring, it involves many new programming challenges and makes many things possible that weren't before (and some things much harder, too). The greatly increased visibility of the world allowed to players, by itself, would be enough to
- Graphics *can* improve a game too, by allowing the player to perceive and interact with a world in a more natural manner.
- Do not underestimate the effect the real-world-money connection has upon the game! In a way, it makes Second Life part of the largest game humankind has ever produced: economics. It is very possible for the intrusion of real-world money to ruin a game, but Second Life seems to have done it right.
Essentially this is an AI tweak to make the game more challenging, same thing they do for every Madden Game.
There are two ways I can attack this statement:
1. Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man have much less "space" between the player and the design. When it comes down to it Pac-Man and Ms Pac-Man are their AI, so changing it makes a much bigger difference in a game than one based upon what is ultimately a complex real-world analogue. It's not a difference that should sustain more than one sequel, but it is substantial.
2. One would be a lot more willing to forgive the initial sequel to a game than the tenth. Madden has had more than ten sequels!
Note, also, that Pac-Man has inspired more varied sequels: Super Pac-Man and Pac 'n Pal are both maze collection games, but they are much more different from Pac-Man than Ms Pac-Man. The maze collection game example you gave, Lode Runner, is a very different game from Pac-Man: it contains puzzles, guards whose AI must not only be thwarted but taken advantage of, multiple types of one-way passage, multiple secret board elements, "dots" the enemies can move, a unique system of game physics that must be learned (timing of hole-digging, using enemies as platforms, the special aspects of ladders and handbars) and of course all these aspects are mixed through 150 levels.
That doesn't change the core gameplay, it changes how the player plays the game.
Not so, once you know a Pac-Man pattern, the game becomes memorization and recall on demand, not pathfinding in response to a dynamically-changing set of obstacles.
Just as AI tweaks in Madden don't change the core gameplay (football), but can significantly affect how the game is played.
I will happily admit that it is possible for a sequel or two to fundamentally improve upon a predecessor. But I cannot accept that Madden has successfully reinvented itself over and over since the Genesis days.
Further, Madden updates the player interface, which gives additional choices and strategy. Imagine adding a "sprint button" to Pac-Man.
Imagine adding a "sprint button" to Pac-Man.
Super Pac-Man has such a button.
but to put the transition from Pac-Man to Ms. Pac-Man on a pedestal is laughable.
I didn't choose it just to defeat your argument, but in order to purposely pick a borderline case. I don't just argue to win, I do so to clarify my opinions in my own mind. This way, I like to think I'm more likely to be convinced if someone responds with an accurate rebuttal. If I can successfully argue this, then I'm more confident in my opinion afterward, instead of just parroting what I've always thought true. If I can't, then maybe I should think things through a bit more.
Which is why multiplayer play is so interesting, it is the modern equivalent of dynamic content, and provides a far more interesting challenge than just speeding the game up.
Agreed, although I don't think it's always better than a solo game. Further, there are some multiplayer games that are almost impossible for a new player to get into because the established pool of players is exceedingly skilled. New players trying to get into, say, a FPS, and getting consistantly schooled by everyone they play against, are not going to stick with it for very long.
Well, I'm just tired of everyone screaming for innovation, yet nobody ever specifies what that innovation is supposed to be, or what it could be.
Hm, understood.
In my view, innovation means the creation of new kinds of gameplay. I don't necessarily mean that all games must be completely different from each other, but most games now are ultimately older games with different data sets.
The best way to understand what innovation could be is by example, and some of the best examples I can think of come from Electronic Arts, back in their pre-behemoth days. In the 8-bit and even during some of the 16-bit era, they were well known for the ingenuity of their releases. One of the most-acknowledged classics of game design, MULE, was actually published by them back then. Around the time when EA began changing into Mr Hyde Inc, word is that creator Dan Bunten and Electronic Arts reached loggerheads over producing a sequel on the Genesis when Bunten refused to compromise his principles by including weapons into the game. Never mind that weapons wouldn't make sense in MULE's careful balance of competition and cooperation, the project was shut down because EA mandated Bunten change his game to chase a trend.
What I ultimately mean by innovation, in a word, is more games like MULE. Not exactly like MULE (for that wouldn't be innovation so much, although it'd be a welcome change from what I see now), but at least willing to try something new.
But how well would it handle it? It would have to work so well that it doesn't feel like it's just generated by the game. It would also rule out voice acting. I prefer handcrafted content as opposed to automatically generated content, and I don't see any massive demand for Crawford's system. I could be wrong, of course.
How well? Well, the way we percieve a game is determined by its presentation. In a game which is represented close-up, the player will expect more detailed behavior than one which is viewed at a distance. In the Sims, you don't view your characters closely enough to understand exactly what they're saying, so they don't actually have to say anything, they just get word balloons with symbols. In SimCity, individual people aren't simulated at all, they're viewed in the aggregate. I think if a project using Storytron technology reaches market, it won't be as noticable since the interface and presentation will be in a way that make it less noticable in this way, abstracted out, with some text generators surrounding it to ease the presentation.
As to "prefering" hand-crafted content and voice acting, allow me to make a bold statement:
People don't know what they prefer.
They make snap judgements, they approach things in a biased manner, they refuse to give things a chance. This is just human nature of course, but it is not admirable. Everyone wants to judge instantaneously instead of giving things a chance. Maybe this is unavoidable in the long run, but it doesn't mean we should accept it.
What can he possibly accomplish by staying on the sidelines?
He can start his own company and work on Storytron. Further, Crawford himself has rejected this (and as far as I know still does) but there's the casual games market, there is great potential for originality there... if it can get far enough away from the shareware sea of Tetris clones and Breakout variants.
However, there are many games that appeal to the so-called general public, and that should be enough. I wasn't trying to cherry pick anything.
I just thought it was interesting that two of your examples were games that I myself would have chosen specifically for bucking the trend. And two more of them were genres that certainly contain plenty of failures for each success.
Tamagotchis are not the same thing as Sims. MUDs are not the same thing as Second Life. MUSHes are closer, but still different.
Both of the later games draw from earlier things (as all created things must), but both these things add substantial new elements that makes them greatly different from their predecessors.