Hey everyone! I’m back from my two week hiatus. Finals for me went pretty well, so now I’m just getting ready for my sweet summer job. I won’t tell you what it is…yet. But I will say that it’s right in tune with my career, so I’ll let you speculate on that for a while.
As most of you have probably figured out from the oh-so-subtle clue in the title, this week I want to talk about the Nintendo Wii. I love, the Wii, it’s a creative, cheap, easy to get into system that has allowed Nintendo to rise to complete dominance over all of its rivals. Not only has the motion sensitive control system caught a lot of attention, its attracted non-gamers to the system as well, tapping into a large market.
Unfortunately, the Wii isn’t all-powerful, rather it’s a very carefully ‘balanced’ console. You could say that it walks the razor edge in terms of what it’s capable of and how that works with both the audience and developers. While many of its features gain it great selling power, these features also serve to harm the Wii.
I spend a lot of time designing games, as I should, I need the practice and it’s what I’m going to do for a living if all goes well. But one thing that I’ve noticed about my designs is that most of the time, a design that will work on another console will not work the same way on the Wii. This block is due to the Wii’s design and capabilities. Let’s start with the most popular design choice behind the Wii, the Wii-mote.
The Wii-mote is the Controller for the Wii, and it looks a lot less like a standard controller and instead a lot more like a television remote. This is due to the motion sensitive nature of the Wii. Each Wii-mote houses an accelerometer to sense movement, thus the player is able to perform many functions of gameplay without ever pushing a button. Instead they simply wave their hand. With this simple addition, the Wii opens a lot of boundaries that are closed to other consoles. For example, the Wii’s motion sensitive abilities make it a natural choice for point and click adventure games, which have seen a surge on the Wii and PC as of late. However, those same adventure titles are hard to find, if at all, for ordinary consoles, the controls just don’t lend themselves to the play style. Points for the Wii…
Until we take them away. The Wii’s motion sensing controller has faults to balance out the equation. What are they? Mainly a lack of buttons. There are only two primary buttons, A and B, plus a D-pad on top, the + and -, Home and 1 and 2 at the bottom. While any of these buttons may be freely used, the ones that are most easily accessible are the A and B buttons, while the rest require a larger then average repositioning of the hand to access. In some cases, this does not pose a problem, but certain game types demand a much larger assortment of buttons. I would predict that this is why most fighting games are not launching on the Wii, indeed, quite a few genres like having plenty of buttons to push, and in some cases, remapping said buttons to movement does not translate well into the game.
But then there are games that the Wii’s motion controls are perfectly suited for, a first or third person shooter. Why are there not more first person shooters available on the Wii? We come to another drawback/strength of the Wii: Its graphics capabilities. Nintendo’s console is both small and cheap, something that honestly is a great advantage over Microsoft’s 360 and Sony’s PS3 (which personally, rivals a printer in sheer terms of size). Shoppers looking for a system are pulled in by the Wii’s lower pricing and by its smaller size.
But where the Wii is compensating is what brings some hurt. Not only does the Wii lack HD visuals, but its graphics are nowhere near as intense as the nearest competitor. This puts the Wii in a bit of a bind. Although graphics don’t have a great influence on the gameplay itself, a large majority of people will choose, and would prefer the game that looks better. This gives developers more of a reason to develop a game for a different console, they can make it look smoother and more visually appealing. Now graphics don’t make the game in 90% of all games (the 10% are the rare gems that experiment), but developers have a specific goal in mind for their game. If they want a game with real-time dust rendered across surfaces that can be disturbed by the player an non-player characters, that’s going to take a lot of processing power. Power that will have to come from somewhere, but with the Wii, you have a lot less ‘somewhere’ to draw on.
A final weakness of the Wii that I wish to draw on is the Wii’s inclination towards experimental games. Experimental is a dangerous word for game developers as it usually means “this might work, it might not.” In the games industry, larger companies have sometimes tended to shy away from experimental designs (Hi Electronic Arts!) because there is no guarantee that the game will make any money, while a tried and true design will likely be bought by someone.
With the Wii, it gets weirder. With over 50 Million Wii’s, someone will likely buy the game, but does that make the game good? Will you get half-way or more through the game development only to discover that the highly experimental idea doesn’t work? The Wii’s unique control scheme leads it to far more experimental design concepts then other games. I have no problem with this, personally new ideas and concepts are a good thing, but others may not be as accommodating as I am. Experimental designs can succeed just as well as they can fail miserably. Which will it be?
Obviously the Wii is a great success, and I’m not trying to make the Wii look bad by pointing out a few flaws. Rather, I’m trying to show that the Wii’s design is carefully balanced on a series of drawbacks that gave the Wii advantages in other areas, and that these areas are what will determine whether or not developers will push their games to the Wii or return to more stable roots.
4.25.2009
4.11.2009
Sorry guys, Finals Week
Sorry guys, I didn't put to much thought into what I was going to do for this weeks blog post as the semester is ending, so finals are starting up, and I've been busy with that, so I totally spaced any topics for this week. I'm afraid to say that this week and next week I'll be taking a break. I'm sorry, but I've got a ton of papers for my finals, and the grades are taking priority.
However, I may try to find a moment here and there and get a good jump start on the next few, give myself a buffer for in case this happens again.
However, I may try to find a moment here and there and get a good jump start on the next few, give myself a buffer for in case this happens again.
4.04.2009
Re-inventing the Wheel
April Fools! Just thought I'd make mention that the April Fools day post was completely NOT legit, just the usual Internet stream of April Fools day foolery...although the $100 PS2 was unfortunately not an April Fools day prank, much to the grimacing of the market. In any case, trading in a GameCube for a $150 off a Wii, while awesome, is just one of those things that is way to good to be true.
In the future, if this blog last that long, be forewarned, my April Fools day post will contain both truth and humor, so I plan on keeping you guessing.
So, anyhow, lets roll out towards today's topic, one that might be a little touchy for some people out there, but none-the-less, I think it needs to be said.
Before I even get into my argument, I will point out that I do NOT own the game in question, but the Demo's skirmish mode was quite extensive and told me all that I needed to know.
The case we are speaking about today is Halo Wars. Now, unless you've been off living in a warp pipe somewhere, you've likely heard of Halo. Halo Wars is the series first official spin-off game, one that bills itself as a Real-Time-Strategy game developed by Ensemble Studios.
I say "bills" itself as for a very specific reason, that it has been declared by its creators to be a "revolutionary" advancement in RTS design and play. But if this is revolutionary, then I'm not enthused about the 'future' of RTS games. The truth is, Halo Wars has billed itself in this way while in fact, stepping backwards down the evolutionary ladder of games in general. But before you start raving, take a look at how this is.
One of the first RTS games to exist, and in truth the forerunner of all Modern RTS's is a game known as Dune II, developed by Westwood studios and released in 1992. Dune II was the first Strategy game of its time that utilized the mouse, tech trees, base construction, differing sides, superweapons, and other such unique ideas. Dune II gave rise to a spiritual successor, Command and Conquer, that is to this day extremely well know, as well as inspiring another company to create Warcraft. In other words, without Dune II we likely never would have had any of the Command and Conquer games, World of Warcraft, or even Starcraft. Westwood's genius had hit on a brilliant concept.
But now, 17 years later, Halo wars plays like a graphically enhanced version of Dune II. With no real other improvement or enhancement. How so? Lets compare the two.
First of all, base building. In Dune II, the action took place on the desert planet of Arrakis, which is covered in sand. Since sand is bad foundation material, the players had to establish their bases on rocky outcroppings, effectively limiting the player in where they could establish their base. Halo Wars acts in the same manner. Rather then allow players to build a base where they choose, players are given a starting location and a fixed number of points to place a building which is even more limiting then Dune II's system. Players are simply given a main structure, told to improve it up the tech tree, and head across the map to the opponents comparable structure with the largest number of tanks you can manage to assemble.
Dune II also has the early balance where most units from differing sides simply were slightly different from each other. Halo Wars is also guilty of this. Playing as both sides, a large majority of units for both sides are essentially identical. Not as bad as older games, but you will find the same identical units on each side with little to make them too different from the opponents save their looks. Function is identical.
Alright, there are a lot more similarities that I don't have time to go into (if your interested find copies of both and compare them, you might be surprised) but there is one more point I would like to point out, and that is that Halo Wars just barely makes "Real-Time Strategy", instead coming dangerously close to Real Time tactical combat. Why? Army size. Supreme Commander is an RTS, with its armies of thousands duking it out, or even other lesser sized RTS's, in Halo Wars the unit cap is set at 40.
Oh wait, my mistake, that isn't a unit cap, that's a supply cap. A tank, if I recall, takes 5 supplies from that cap. Yay...you can have an army consisting of nothing but eight tanks, and that's as big as you are going to get. Personally, that is not much in the way of grand strategy.
Alright, so enough with Halo Wars faults, I'm beginning to sound like I'm reviewing the game (reviewing is something I don't plan on introducing to this blog). The point is, Halo Wars offers absolutely nothing new. In fact, instead of moving forward with "revolutionary" design, Halo Wars instead goes backwards, making a giant circle in RTS development that, if Halo Wars is the 'future' of RTS as claimed, yanks us back 17 years in time to Re-invent the wheel. In short, there is nothing revolutionary about it, and compared to modern RTS titles that have improved and expounded on the genre, Halo Wars comes off as a simple, throwback of game design. That doesn't mean you can't have fun with it, but it does not make it anything spectacular.
The most worrisome part of the whole release is that Halo Wars had the chance to be something grand, yet instead the public was pitched a 17 year old game model with flashy words all over it. After all, we know by this point that anything with Halo printed on the side will sell due to its good reputation. Halo Wars could mark a turning point, where cheap, insubstantial titles are made to milk the Halo franchises good name. Additionally, Halo Wars has sold well, thousands of Rabid fan-boys (many of them likely new to the RTS genre in general) will probably be convinced, as is standard with fanboyism, that Halo Wars is the pinnacle of RTS design compared to other 'inferior' RTS's that are 'knock-offs' of Halo Wars. Unfortunately, what they're really doing is shelling out $60 for something that was revolutionary in 1992. The implications that this has for the RTS market in general scares me.
When fans see something created in 1992 as new, developers are sure to capitilize on it.
Hey Electronic Arts, why not re-release Dune II on the Nintendo DS and on X-box Live arcade with a $5 coupon for those with Halo wars? You've already got a subscriber base there that loves that old simplicity!
Enough with my negative knocking. There is one good thing that I can see coming of Halo Wars release: The introduction of newer players to the genre. After all, the bare basics are a good place to start with a genre, even if it is, as some have put it, 'baby's first RTS". However, before that will have any effect, they will need to understand that Halo Wars is not the revolution, but rather the bottom of the mountain that is RTS gameplay. So, when your friend mentions that he'd enjoyed Halo Wars and is interested in those types of games, do him a great favor and pick him up a copy of Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Warcraft III, or universe at war for his birthday.
'Till next week!
Games that I'm currently playing: Gears of War 2 (360), Sins of a Solar Empire (PC), Castle Crashers (XBLA), Dance Dance Revolution 2 (360), Trackmania Nations Forever (PC)
In the future, if this blog last that long, be forewarned, my April Fools day post will contain both truth and humor, so I plan on keeping you guessing.
So, anyhow, lets roll out towards today's topic, one that might be a little touchy for some people out there, but none-the-less, I think it needs to be said.
Before I even get into my argument, I will point out that I do NOT own the game in question, but the Demo's skirmish mode was quite extensive and told me all that I needed to know.
The case we are speaking about today is Halo Wars. Now, unless you've been off living in a warp pipe somewhere, you've likely heard of Halo. Halo Wars is the series first official spin-off game, one that bills itself as a Real-Time-Strategy game developed by Ensemble Studios.
I say "bills" itself as for a very specific reason, that it has been declared by its creators to be a "revolutionary" advancement in RTS design and play. But if this is revolutionary, then I'm not enthused about the 'future' of RTS games. The truth is, Halo Wars has billed itself in this way while in fact, stepping backwards down the evolutionary ladder of games in general. But before you start raving, take a look at how this is.
One of the first RTS games to exist, and in truth the forerunner of all Modern RTS's is a game known as Dune II, developed by Westwood studios and released in 1992. Dune II was the first Strategy game of its time that utilized the mouse, tech trees, base construction, differing sides, superweapons, and other such unique ideas. Dune II gave rise to a spiritual successor, Command and Conquer, that is to this day extremely well know, as well as inspiring another company to create Warcraft. In other words, without Dune II we likely never would have had any of the Command and Conquer games, World of Warcraft, or even Starcraft. Westwood's genius had hit on a brilliant concept.
But now, 17 years later, Halo wars plays like a graphically enhanced version of Dune II. With no real other improvement or enhancement. How so? Lets compare the two.
First of all, base building. In Dune II, the action took place on the desert planet of Arrakis, which is covered in sand. Since sand is bad foundation material, the players had to establish their bases on rocky outcroppings, effectively limiting the player in where they could establish their base. Halo Wars acts in the same manner. Rather then allow players to build a base where they choose, players are given a starting location and a fixed number of points to place a building which is even more limiting then Dune II's system. Players are simply given a main structure, told to improve it up the tech tree, and head across the map to the opponents comparable structure with the largest number of tanks you can manage to assemble.
Dune II also has the early balance where most units from differing sides simply were slightly different from each other. Halo Wars is also guilty of this. Playing as both sides, a large majority of units for both sides are essentially identical. Not as bad as older games, but you will find the same identical units on each side with little to make them too different from the opponents save their looks. Function is identical.
Alright, there are a lot more similarities that I don't have time to go into (if your interested find copies of both and compare them, you might be surprised) but there is one more point I would like to point out, and that is that Halo Wars just barely makes "Real-Time Strategy", instead coming dangerously close to Real Time tactical combat. Why? Army size. Supreme Commander is an RTS, with its armies of thousands duking it out, or even other lesser sized RTS's, in Halo Wars the unit cap is set at 40.
Oh wait, my mistake, that isn't a unit cap, that's a supply cap. A tank, if I recall, takes 5 supplies from that cap. Yay...you can have an army consisting of nothing but eight tanks, and that's as big as you are going to get. Personally, that is not much in the way of grand strategy.
Alright, so enough with Halo Wars faults, I'm beginning to sound like I'm reviewing the game (reviewing is something I don't plan on introducing to this blog). The point is, Halo Wars offers absolutely nothing new. In fact, instead of moving forward with "revolutionary" design, Halo Wars instead goes backwards, making a giant circle in RTS development that, if Halo Wars is the 'future' of RTS as claimed, yanks us back 17 years in time to Re-invent the wheel. In short, there is nothing revolutionary about it, and compared to modern RTS titles that have improved and expounded on the genre, Halo Wars comes off as a simple, throwback of game design. That doesn't mean you can't have fun with it, but it does not make it anything spectacular.
The most worrisome part of the whole release is that Halo Wars had the chance to be something grand, yet instead the public was pitched a 17 year old game model with flashy words all over it. After all, we know by this point that anything with Halo printed on the side will sell due to its good reputation. Halo Wars could mark a turning point, where cheap, insubstantial titles are made to milk the Halo franchises good name. Additionally, Halo Wars has sold well, thousands of Rabid fan-boys (many of them likely new to the RTS genre in general) will probably be convinced, as is standard with fanboyism, that Halo Wars is the pinnacle of RTS design compared to other 'inferior' RTS's that are 'knock-offs' of Halo Wars. Unfortunately, what they're really doing is shelling out $60 for something that was revolutionary in 1992. The implications that this has for the RTS market in general scares me.
When fans see something created in 1992 as new, developers are sure to capitilize on it.
Hey Electronic Arts, why not re-release Dune II on the Nintendo DS and on X-box Live arcade with a $5 coupon for those with Halo wars? You've already got a subscriber base there that loves that old simplicity!
Enough with my negative knocking. There is one good thing that I can see coming of Halo Wars release: The introduction of newer players to the genre. After all, the bare basics are a good place to start with a genre, even if it is, as some have put it, 'baby's first RTS". However, before that will have any effect, they will need to understand that Halo Wars is not the revolution, but rather the bottom of the mountain that is RTS gameplay. So, when your friend mentions that he'd enjoyed Halo Wars and is interested in those types of games, do him a great favor and pick him up a copy of Starcraft, Command and Conquer, Warcraft III, or universe at war for his birthday.
'Till next week!
Games that I'm currently playing: Gears of War 2 (360), Sins of a Solar Empire (PC), Castle Crashers (XBLA), Dance Dance Revolution 2 (360), Trackmania Nations Forever (PC)
4.01.2009
April Sales! Trade in your GameCube!
Hey guys! I've got some great breaking news on a spring sale! Nintendo's offering a special trade in deal all this week! Since the Wii is actually on store shelves now, Nintendo is offering $150 off for anyone who brings in their old Gamecube to trade in at any retailer. I wish I still had my old Gamecube, that's a $100 dollar Wii...what more can I say outside of that being a sick deal?
Apparently, if you exercise this deal and trade in your gamecube, each Gamecube game you trade in will also get you $2o bucks off of a Wii title.
Once again we've got an example of why Nintendo is on top right now. Maybe Sony should take a page out of their book, they might actually sell a PS3. Oh wait, they dropped the PS2 price to $100 bucks...hmmm....what competition...
Have a great April Fools Day!
Apparently, if you exercise this deal and trade in your gamecube, each Gamecube game you trade in will also get you $2o bucks off of a Wii title.
Once again we've got an example of why Nintendo is on top right now. Maybe Sony should take a page out of their book, they might actually sell a PS3. Oh wait, they dropped the PS2 price to $100 bucks...hmmm....what competition...
Have a great April Fools Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)