I am a borderline completionist. In some games more than others, and especially those that offer a bonus for getting 100%.
Now, I will often cheat my way to 100%. Or at the very least, unlock all content, which usually includes a 100% rank. But if I can't, I do make an attempt to get 100% by myself.
I think the only game I got 100% in without cheating was Jak & Daxter: The Precursor Legacy. That's because no cheat device codes had been made for the game at the time. What was nice about that game was it allowed you to miss one Precursor Orb, and still get 100%. Which was like a godsend, because there was one timed mission that I just could not beat. But I didn't have to, as I got 100% by getting all other orbs. It gave me an overwhelming sense of satisfaction.
Now, this is the reason for my hate of Grand Theft Auto. Don't get me wrong, I love the games, and I really wish I could afford GTA4 when it comes out this week. I'm dying to get my hands on it. But my major complaints of GTA has been the optional side-quests. They rarely have anything to do with the story, and they're just there to give small bonuses or give you something to do on your way to 100% completion. The reason I hate them is they are annoying tasks like racing, or those atrocious RC Plane missions in San Andreas. All of which I routinely fail in spectacular fashion. (Though, I must say the San Andreas racing missions were a lot better than the games before it.)
That's why I hate those damn things in GTA. I want 100%, but I'm simply no good at those buggers, and for the life of me, I can't complete them. And they're the same bull crap in each GTA game. Plus, there's just so much of this crap that I can't keep it all straight.
Another game that's really bothering me is Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In SSB Melee, when I wanted all the trophies, I just used Action Replay. I can't do that in Brawl. I do have almost all the challenges complete, however. All that's left are the impossible "Beat Boss Battle mode on Hard/Very Hard/Intense," "Play for 50/100 hours," "Collect all Stickers/Songs," and Multi-Man Brawl challenges.
But that's not the bad thing. If I want all the trophies, I have to capture every single enemy type AND boss character with a Trophy Stand in the Subspace Emissary mode. Not only do I consider that an impossible feat (at least for me), but Nintendo decided to give the bare minimum of story in the SSE, and the only way to get the whole picture is to grab the enemy and boss trophies. Oh sure, the Smash Bros. Dojo website gave some back story, but they didn't explain the background of the SSE boss characters. Like why Petey Piranha was involved, or what Duon or Galleom are.
The problem is that there is no cheat device for the Wii. There is a Powersave device, but I've been told that downloading the SSBB Powersave gives you a new Brawl Friend Code. Not that I use that anymore (no one is ever on), but still...
I guess what I'm saying is that it annoys me when companies make the player jump through hoops just to get 100%. Because they know there are obsessives out there who desire 100% completion in every single game. I know people who even go as far as to want to acquire every single item in an RPG, no matter how useless it is. Like in Suikoden II, there are people who want to get every Recipe, every Sound Set, every Window Set, complete Clive's side quest (which involves getting to certain locations within a specific time limit, and the final area of the game in under 20 hours), along with every other side quest, all 108 characters, and get the best ending. Not to sound insulting, but that's just insane. That doesn't even include the very hidden color intro in Suikoden II (the sepia-toned intro can be full color if you fight approximately 100 battles on the cliff of the Unicorn Brigade camp at the very beginning).
Ok, to get off that tangent and back to my original rant. It annoys me that if I want 100%, I have to go through an enormous amount of other work beyond the main quest/story. With some games, like the Elder Scrolls series, I don't bother, because I'm not interested in the other quests. I just don't do them. Those games are all about being one with your character, anyway.
In conclusion, I suppose I come off like I'm whining about not being "good enough" to get 100% in games like Grand Theft Auto. But, personally, I hate games that have you collect X number of objects hidden in obscure places, or perform Y number of actions in specified locations. Grand Theft Auto has been known for the crap hidden around the place, and San Andreas was the worst offender of the bunch. I just wish games didn't add so much "extra" content just for the sake of making the game longer for those wanting 100%. Yes, some think that it "extends" gameplay, but if a game is good, I'm going to replay it regardless. I don't need 30 hours of side-quests to keep myself playing the game. If it's good, I'll keep playing. I can't even count how many hours I spent in the three PS2 GTA games just goofing around the city, not even doing anything of any importance. That's just how fun it is. I fail to see how the lure of "more content" is more entertaining than running around a GTA sandbox like an idiot with a death wish.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Genre-defining games
In the history of games, there have been many genres. But with each genre, there is bound to be a game that creates it, and a game that perfects it. Those two aren't always the same.
Let's take the Platformer genre, for instance. To the best of my knowledge, Pitfall for the Atari 2600 is the first Platformer. But Super Mario Bros. was the first game to define the genre. In fact, the Mario series has been the leader in Platforming innovation. Super Mario Bros. introduced the concept of a scrolling screen to the genre. Only a handful of games used scrolling screens; Defender comes to mind right away. But no other Platformer had used a scrolling screen. Future games, such as Castlevania and Mega Man, borrowed elements from Super Mario Bros., but didn't do a lot to innovate the genre. Super Mario 64 didn't exactly create a 3D platformer (Jumping Flash! on the original PlayStation was a 3D platformer, but it used a first-person view), but it defined it in a way that very few games have yet to replicate. However, I tend to fault Mario 64 for having too few levels, and making players repeat those levels several times each.
The "Open World/Sandbox" genre, created and defined by Grand Theft Auto, is possibly the most popular genre for game developers. In fact, many have taken the "open world" concept from this genre, and attempted to apply it to all kinds of games, with mixed results. As Grand Theft Auto IV, coming later this month, attempts to redefine the genre yet again, one has to wonder if anyone else can perfect this genre like GTA has.
Of course there is the Console FPS genre, which is arguably defined by Halo. This is both a good thing, and a bad thing. The good is that Halo is a pretty good game. Certainly not the "perfect" and epic game that rabid Halo fans and mainstream game reviewers portray it, but a good game. The bad is that companies are trying too hard to be like Halo. Since the success of Halo, it seems like the imagination of FPS developers has deflated. Suddenly every FPS protagonist is a space-faring military soldier on an alien planet. Even Turok, who had some originality in being a time-traveling Native American, has been reborn as a generic soldier on an alien planet populated by Earth-like dinosaurs. So now the FPS genre is divided into three categories: Historic FPS, Alternate History FPS, and Generic Halo Rip-off FPS. That isn't to say that all "space marine" games are bad. Just unoriginal. I know Halo didn't start the "space marine" thing, but it sure did popularize it.
Finally we have the RPG genre. This is an interesting genre in that it seems virtually impossible to define. Every game and/or series has its own different take on gameplay to the point where little seems to be shared. To further confuse things, Japanese-made RPGs and American-made RPGs are based on two completely different concepts. Japanese RPGs seem to be defined by the first of its kind (as far as I know), that being the original Final Fantasy. Turn-based battles, magic, inventory, chatty villagers, and the like were all created by Final Fantasy. Those seem to be some of the few common characteristics.
Almost all American RPGs, on the other hand, are based on Dungeons & Dragons, a tabletop Role Playing Game. I can't say that D&D "originated" or "defined" the genre, as it isn't a video game. But it has provided the inspiration for almost the entire American RPG market. Even if ARPGs don't use the D&D races, skills, etc., they likely use one of the D&D rule sets. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, for example, used a d20 rule set from D&D Third Edition.
I hope you enjoyed this look into a few of the many game genres out there.
Let's take the Platformer genre, for instance. To the best of my knowledge, Pitfall for the Atari 2600 is the first Platformer. But Super Mario Bros. was the first game to define the genre. In fact, the Mario series has been the leader in Platforming innovation. Super Mario Bros. introduced the concept of a scrolling screen to the genre. Only a handful of games used scrolling screens; Defender comes to mind right away. But no other Platformer had used a scrolling screen. Future games, such as Castlevania and Mega Man, borrowed elements from Super Mario Bros., but didn't do a lot to innovate the genre. Super Mario 64 didn't exactly create a 3D platformer (Jumping Flash! on the original PlayStation was a 3D platformer, but it used a first-person view), but it defined it in a way that very few games have yet to replicate. However, I tend to fault Mario 64 for having too few levels, and making players repeat those levels several times each.
The "Open World/Sandbox" genre, created and defined by Grand Theft Auto, is possibly the most popular genre for game developers. In fact, many have taken the "open world" concept from this genre, and attempted to apply it to all kinds of games, with mixed results. As Grand Theft Auto IV, coming later this month, attempts to redefine the genre yet again, one has to wonder if anyone else can perfect this genre like GTA has.
Of course there is the Console FPS genre, which is arguably defined by Halo. This is both a good thing, and a bad thing. The good is that Halo is a pretty good game. Certainly not the "perfect" and epic game that rabid Halo fans and mainstream game reviewers portray it, but a good game. The bad is that companies are trying too hard to be like Halo. Since the success of Halo, it seems like the imagination of FPS developers has deflated. Suddenly every FPS protagonist is a space-faring military soldier on an alien planet. Even Turok, who had some originality in being a time-traveling Native American, has been reborn as a generic soldier on an alien planet populated by Earth-like dinosaurs. So now the FPS genre is divided into three categories: Historic FPS, Alternate History FPS, and Generic Halo Rip-off FPS. That isn't to say that all "space marine" games are bad. Just unoriginal. I know Halo didn't start the "space marine" thing, but it sure did popularize it.
Finally we have the RPG genre. This is an interesting genre in that it seems virtually impossible to define. Every game and/or series has its own different take on gameplay to the point where little seems to be shared. To further confuse things, Japanese-made RPGs and American-made RPGs are based on two completely different concepts. Japanese RPGs seem to be defined by the first of its kind (as far as I know), that being the original Final Fantasy. Turn-based battles, magic, inventory, chatty villagers, and the like were all created by Final Fantasy. Those seem to be some of the few common characteristics.
Almost all American RPGs, on the other hand, are based on Dungeons & Dragons, a tabletop Role Playing Game. I can't say that D&D "originated" or "defined" the genre, as it isn't a video game. But it has provided the inspiration for almost the entire American RPG market. Even if ARPGs don't use the D&D races, skills, etc., they likely use one of the D&D rule sets. Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic, for example, used a d20 rule set from D&D Third Edition.
I hope you enjoyed this look into a few of the many game genres out there.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
Super Smash Bros. Brawl is probably one of the best games I've played in a long time. I'm a big Smash Bros. fan, and Brawl more than met expectations.
The soundtrack is fantastic. There are some songs that I don't like. The first Ground Theme from Super Mario Bros. is an abomination. I love the original song, but that first arrangement is a travesty. Ground Theme 2, on the other hand, is absolute gold. Not only does it capture the original theme well, but it also mixes in a bit of the Underground Theme, the Game Over theme, and the Flagpole theme.
Also of note are the Kirby songs. Meta Knight's Revenge, Gourmet Race, and King Dedede's Theme are wonderful songs. King Dedede's Theme is one of my favorite songs ever, and to hear this arrangement makes me so happy. Not all the Kirby songs are that great, but they don't all have to be good.
The Famicom Melody, for one of the hidden stages, is great for fans of the NES. It's fun to listen to the song and try and guess each game by the short sound byte.
As for the actual gameplay, it's almost identical to Melee. Which is far from a bad thing. Melee was such pure fun, that there wasn't anything needing changed. The Subspace Emissary mode, on the other hand, is a bit spotty in its performance. Some enemies are pushovers, while others can kill you in two or three hits. Some areas are a breeze to go through, while others are death traps. And the mode made me play as some of my most hated characters, like Yoshi, Olimar, and Lucas, to name a few. It's not entirely bad, and it does its job, but I would rather a more consistent difficulty level throughout.
The Target Smash mode is back, but I'm disappointed with it. Instead of being unique for each character, there are five generic maps, with varying difficulty, that all characters use. To me, it takes the fun out of the mode, as it used to be a showcase of the skills of that particular character, instead of a generic map that doesn't really make use of the characters skills.
The Virtual Console Trials are useless. Not only are they too short, but the game has to go through a long load time to get back to the main game after you're done playing one of the trials.
As for other modes, the Coin Launcher is a fun gimmick to win trophies. The online mode is functional, and it's fun playing against real people who aren't in your room. The new Assist Trophies are neat. The Final Smashes are pretty cool, though some are a bit confusing (like Wario's final smash).
Overall, the game is amazing. There are some faults, but it's just so good, regardless.
The soundtrack is fantastic. There are some songs that I don't like. The first Ground Theme from Super Mario Bros. is an abomination. I love the original song, but that first arrangement is a travesty. Ground Theme 2, on the other hand, is absolute gold. Not only does it capture the original theme well, but it also mixes in a bit of the Underground Theme, the Game Over theme, and the Flagpole theme.
Also of note are the Kirby songs. Meta Knight's Revenge, Gourmet Race, and King Dedede's Theme are wonderful songs. King Dedede's Theme is one of my favorite songs ever, and to hear this arrangement makes me so happy. Not all the Kirby songs are that great, but they don't all have to be good.
The Famicom Melody, for one of the hidden stages, is great for fans of the NES. It's fun to listen to the song and try and guess each game by the short sound byte.
As for the actual gameplay, it's almost identical to Melee. Which is far from a bad thing. Melee was such pure fun, that there wasn't anything needing changed. The Subspace Emissary mode, on the other hand, is a bit spotty in its performance. Some enemies are pushovers, while others can kill you in two or three hits. Some areas are a breeze to go through, while others are death traps. And the mode made me play as some of my most hated characters, like Yoshi, Olimar, and Lucas, to name a few. It's not entirely bad, and it does its job, but I would rather a more consistent difficulty level throughout.
The Target Smash mode is back, but I'm disappointed with it. Instead of being unique for each character, there are five generic maps, with varying difficulty, that all characters use. To me, it takes the fun out of the mode, as it used to be a showcase of the skills of that particular character, instead of a generic map that doesn't really make use of the characters skills.
The Virtual Console Trials are useless. Not only are they too short, but the game has to go through a long load time to get back to the main game after you're done playing one of the trials.
As for other modes, the Coin Launcher is a fun gimmick to win trophies. The online mode is functional, and it's fun playing against real people who aren't in your room. The new Assist Trophies are neat. The Final Smashes are pretty cool, though some are a bit confusing (like Wario's final smash).
Overall, the game is amazing. There are some faults, but it's just so good, regardless.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Super Mario Bros.: The Lost Levels
The year was 1986. The Famicom had been on the market in Japan for three years, but its overseas counterpart, the NES, had only been available for one year in North America. Nintendo is busy readying a sequel to Super Mario Bros., which will be released that year. However, that version would never see the light of day outside of Japan, at least not in its original form, until its release on the Wii Virtual Console in 2007.
Nintendo of Japan deemed the game "too difficult" for American audiences. So they decided to take a game called Doki Doki Panic, give it a fresh coat of paint, and release that as Super Mario Bros. 2 in North America and Europe. What happened to the original Super Mario Bros. 2? It was later referred to as "The Lost Levels." A remake of this game appeared in Super Mario All-Stars on the SNES, and was included as an added quest in the Game Boy Color game Super Mario Bros. Deluxe. But the original Famicom version was finally released in 2007, thanks to the Virtual Console.
The Lost Levels, as it is more commonly referred outside of Japan, looks a lot like the original Super Mario Bros. But it has some changes. First, there is no two-player mode. The player can choose to be Mario or Luigi, but this time they each have different abilities. Mario plays the same as he did in the original, while Luigi can jump higher, but has more difficulty in stopping.
Other changes included wind gusts that could help or hinder long jumps, reverse warp zones that would send you back to earlier levels, poison mushrooms, fake Bowsers, a secret World 9, and an even more secret set of worlds A through D, just to mention a few. To reach World 9, you have to complete all 8 worlds without using Warp Zones. To reach World A, you need to beat the game eight times (not necessarily in one sitting, the game saves how many times you beat it), and then complete World 8 or 9 (depending on whether or not you used warp zones).
Fake Bowsers would appear in World 8-4, 9-3, and D-4. The fake Bowser would appear roughly halfway through the stage. He would be colored differently, and not be positioned on a bridge. Also, during water levels, some land enemies (such as Goombas and Koopa Troopas) will show up. You cannot kill them by landing on them.
I recently purchased this game via the Virtual Console, and it is quite difficult. The game has a Continue system, with unlimited Continues, which kind of renders the Lives system useless, beyond the fact that a continue puts you back at the beginning of the current world (like if you continue on World 4-3, you'll go back to 4-1). I'm currently attempting to get past World 5.
The difficulty is definitely higher than the original, but that's the fun of it. Though, it does get frustrating. I highly recommend it to anyone who was a fan of the original Super Mario Bros., but craves a much more difficult version. This will keep you playing for a long time.
Nintendo of Japan deemed the game "too difficult" for American audiences. So they decided to take a game called Doki Doki Panic, give it a fresh coat of paint, and release that as Super Mario Bros. 2 in North America and Europe. What happened to the original Super Mario Bros. 2? It was later referred to as "The Lost Levels." A remake of this game appeared in Super Mario All-Stars on the SNES, and was included as an added quest in the Game Boy Color game Super Mario Bros. Deluxe. But the original Famicom version was finally released in 2007, thanks to the Virtual Console.
The Lost Levels, as it is more commonly referred outside of Japan, looks a lot like the original Super Mario Bros. But it has some changes. First, there is no two-player mode. The player can choose to be Mario or Luigi, but this time they each have different abilities. Mario plays the same as he did in the original, while Luigi can jump higher, but has more difficulty in stopping.
Other changes included wind gusts that could help or hinder long jumps, reverse warp zones that would send you back to earlier levels, poison mushrooms, fake Bowsers, a secret World 9, and an even more secret set of worlds A through D, just to mention a few. To reach World 9, you have to complete all 8 worlds without using Warp Zones. To reach World A, you need to beat the game eight times (not necessarily in one sitting, the game saves how many times you beat it), and then complete World 8 or 9 (depending on whether or not you used warp zones).
Fake Bowsers would appear in World 8-4, 9-3, and D-4. The fake Bowser would appear roughly halfway through the stage. He would be colored differently, and not be positioned on a bridge. Also, during water levels, some land enemies (such as Goombas and Koopa Troopas) will show up. You cannot kill them by landing on them.
I recently purchased this game via the Virtual Console, and it is quite difficult. The game has a Continue system, with unlimited Continues, which kind of renders the Lives system useless, beyond the fact that a continue puts you back at the beginning of the current world (like if you continue on World 4-3, you'll go back to 4-1). I'm currently attempting to get past World 5.
The difficulty is definitely higher than the original, but that's the fun of it. Though, it does get frustrating. I highly recommend it to anyone who was a fan of the original Super Mario Bros., but craves a much more difficult version. This will keep you playing for a long time.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
The story of Twisted Metal
This will contain spoilers for the Twisted Metal series, but nothing that fans of the series don't already know by now. Plus, it's nothing very significant for Twisted Metal: Head-On, as what I'll mention is in the biography of the characters involved.
Also, Twisted Metal 3 and 4 do not factor into this. It has already been stated that 3 and 4 have been completely erased from the official continuity.
With that said, let us begin. Twisted Metal may not seem like it has an overarching story. Especially not one that ties the "normal" series with Black. But I have a theory that is hinted at throughout the games, but never really tied together.
In Twisted Metal 2, when you win the contest as Roadkill, it is revealed that the competition took place within the coma-induced dreams of Roadkill's driver, Marcus Kane. The idea being that Marcus, along with all the other contestants, were involved in a major car accident. (It should probably be noted that Grasshopper's driver, Krista Sparks, who is also Calypso's daughter, was killed in a car accident. Which may or may not be related.)
In Twisted Metal: Black, when you play as Minion, the loading screens will have "encoded" messages. Basically a "number equals letter" encryption. Nothing too complicated. But these messages reveal that Black takes place within the mind of Sweet Tooth's driver, Needles Kane.
Twisted Metal: Head-On reveals that Needles Kane is actually Marcus Kane's split personality. In fact, Marcus is said to have nightmares about competing in Twisted Metal, but it's implied that the nightmare is when Needles takes over and actually competes. Marcus comes to terms with his dark side, and he and Needles sort of join forces, in a sense. I would say they fuse together, but they're always shown as separate entities, despite being split personalities within the same mind.
My theory is as such. The "normal" Twisted Metal competitions take place in Marcus's mind, while the twisted and demented competitions take place in Needles's mind, while Head-On sees a fusion of the two. It's not entirely noticeable in Head-On, until you take note of Calypso. In Marcus's mind, Calypso has long, red hair and handsome looks. In Needles's mind, Calypso is bald, has a deformed left eye, and looks like a psychopathic murderer. In their combined mind (Head-On), Calypso has long, gray hair in a circle around his head, while the top is completely bald. His face looks much like he does in Marcus's mind, but his left eye is deformed like the Calypso in Needles's mind. It's basically a fusion of the two Calypsos.
In Roadkill's ending in Head-On, Marcus claims that the contest is yet another one of his nightmares, and he wants it to end. Which is essentially the same request as in Twisted Metal 2. Calypso grants his wish, and Marcus wakes up in his bed. Which implies that Head-On was also in his head, although that's not for certain.
So that's really my theory how Twisted Metal 1, 2, and Head-On are related to Black. They all take place in the mind of Marcus Kane, only Needles took over and perverted the contest in Black.
Personally, I'm very interested to see how the story evolves in the first Twisted Metal for the PS3. The hidden message in Head-On: Extra Twisted Edition confirms that it's in development. Now that Marcus and Needles have become one, what will happen?
Also, Twisted Metal 3 and 4 do not factor into this. It has already been stated that 3 and 4 have been completely erased from the official continuity.
With that said, let us begin. Twisted Metal may not seem like it has an overarching story. Especially not one that ties the "normal" series with Black. But I have a theory that is hinted at throughout the games, but never really tied together.
In Twisted Metal 2, when you win the contest as Roadkill, it is revealed that the competition took place within the coma-induced dreams of Roadkill's driver, Marcus Kane. The idea being that Marcus, along with all the other contestants, were involved in a major car accident. (It should probably be noted that Grasshopper's driver, Krista Sparks, who is also Calypso's daughter, was killed in a car accident. Which may or may not be related.)
In Twisted Metal: Black, when you play as Minion, the loading screens will have "encoded" messages. Basically a "number equals letter" encryption. Nothing too complicated. But these messages reveal that Black takes place within the mind of Sweet Tooth's driver, Needles Kane.
Twisted Metal: Head-On reveals that Needles Kane is actually Marcus Kane's split personality. In fact, Marcus is said to have nightmares about competing in Twisted Metal, but it's implied that the nightmare is when Needles takes over and actually competes. Marcus comes to terms with his dark side, and he and Needles sort of join forces, in a sense. I would say they fuse together, but they're always shown as separate entities, despite being split personalities within the same mind.
My theory is as such. The "normal" Twisted Metal competitions take place in Marcus's mind, while the twisted and demented competitions take place in Needles's mind, while Head-On sees a fusion of the two. It's not entirely noticeable in Head-On, until you take note of Calypso. In Marcus's mind, Calypso has long, red hair and handsome looks. In Needles's mind, Calypso is bald, has a deformed left eye, and looks like a psychopathic murderer. In their combined mind (Head-On), Calypso has long, gray hair in a circle around his head, while the top is completely bald. His face looks much like he does in Marcus's mind, but his left eye is deformed like the Calypso in Needles's mind. It's basically a fusion of the two Calypsos.
In Roadkill's ending in Head-On, Marcus claims that the contest is yet another one of his nightmares, and he wants it to end. Which is essentially the same request as in Twisted Metal 2. Calypso grants his wish, and Marcus wakes up in his bed. Which implies that Head-On was also in his head, although that's not for certain.
So that's really my theory how Twisted Metal 1, 2, and Head-On are related to Black. They all take place in the mind of Marcus Kane, only Needles took over and perverted the contest in Black.
Personally, I'm very interested to see how the story evolves in the first Twisted Metal for the PS3. The hidden message in Head-On: Extra Twisted Edition confirms that it's in development. Now that Marcus and Needles have become one, what will happen?
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Artificial Intelligence
I'm going to stretch beyond the realm of gaming, and talk about Artificial Intelligence. Not gaming intelligence, but general intelligence.
Computer scientists claim that one day, possibly in 20 years, AI will be as smart or smarter than humans. I say that's pure science fiction, and will always remain as such.
Now, AI is nothing but computer code. That's it. The limits of a programming language limit how intelligent the AI can be. Yes, there are procedural algorithms that can help a program "learn" more natural behavior, but I don't think that's really going to help AI become as intelligent as humans.
Another road block, which is probably the most significant, is voice recognition. Spoken words, to computers, are nothing more than noise. A series of bits generated by an audio wave. The computer can look at that data as much as it wants, and it can't interpret it. The way voice recognition works is it compares this data pattern from your voice, and compares it to a large database of words. It then decides that the closest matching pattern is what you said. One problem comes in if the person has a speech impediment, or a thick accent. Their deviations from common speech patterns in the program's database can yield vastly different results.
Yet more problems in voice recognition come from the fact that, since the computer has no earthly idea what exactly you said (beyond matching voice patterns), it also has no grasp on the rules of language. Since it doesn't know what you said, this doesn't really matter. But, this becomes an issue due to the large amount of homophones in the English language. The computer can't tell the difference between your and you're, or to, two, and too.
Without the ability of language, it can't be as intelligent as humans.
One last hurdle is that we still don't know how the human brain works. I mean, how it truly works. We can't simulate what we don't know. People have these theories of Artificial Intelligence taking over the world. AI is only as smart as we make it. AI is only computer code. It is limited by both the hardware, the programming language, and the person programming it. Right now, AI is very advanced, but also very focused on a specific purpose. To make a true human analogue, it has to be advanced in every way. And I just don't see this happening anytime soon. As for AI that will take over the world, that would require AI with a sense of self, a need for self preservation, and a conscious desire to dominate over humans. I don't think that will ever be possible.
Computer scientists claim that one day, possibly in 20 years, AI will be as smart or smarter than humans. I say that's pure science fiction, and will always remain as such.
Now, AI is nothing but computer code. That's it. The limits of a programming language limit how intelligent the AI can be. Yes, there are procedural algorithms that can help a program "learn" more natural behavior, but I don't think that's really going to help AI become as intelligent as humans.
Another road block, which is probably the most significant, is voice recognition. Spoken words, to computers, are nothing more than noise. A series of bits generated by an audio wave. The computer can look at that data as much as it wants, and it can't interpret it. The way voice recognition works is it compares this data pattern from your voice, and compares it to a large database of words. It then decides that the closest matching pattern is what you said. One problem comes in if the person has a speech impediment, or a thick accent. Their deviations from common speech patterns in the program's database can yield vastly different results.
Yet more problems in voice recognition come from the fact that, since the computer has no earthly idea what exactly you said (beyond matching voice patterns), it also has no grasp on the rules of language. Since it doesn't know what you said, this doesn't really matter. But, this becomes an issue due to the large amount of homophones in the English language. The computer can't tell the difference between your and you're, or to, two, and too.
Without the ability of language, it can't be as intelligent as humans.
One last hurdle is that we still don't know how the human brain works. I mean, how it truly works. We can't simulate what we don't know. People have these theories of Artificial Intelligence taking over the world. AI is only as smart as we make it. AI is only computer code. It is limited by both the hardware, the programming language, and the person programming it. Right now, AI is very advanced, but also very focused on a specific purpose. To make a true human analogue, it has to be advanced in every way. And I just don't see this happening anytime soon. As for AI that will take over the world, that would require AI with a sense of self, a need for self preservation, and a conscious desire to dominate over humans. I don't think that will ever be possible.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Pokemon
I want to start this blog post off by stating that I'm open for suggestions. Visit my Game Collection on IGN Clubs, and pick something for me to blog about. Post it in the comments, or email me.
Now, the first thing I was requested to blog about was Pokemon. As you can see, I own a few Pokemon games. So I thought I'd go over them.
Now, Pokemon started in 1996. I think that's when the development started, actually. The first two games in Japan were Pocket Monsters Red and Green (Pocket Monsters being the Japanese name of Pokemon). Blue was added later, followed by Yellow a year or two after.
In North America, however, things were different. They were unsure whether or not Pokemon would sell. So, they took the anime, which was made in Japan after the games had become smash hits, and released it in the US before the games were released. The reason being that they wanted to judge interest in this new brand before releasing the games. This has lead to some people believing the games are based off the anime, which is simply untrue.
Green never came out in the US. The first two out in this region were Red and Green, with Yellow following a year later. At its core, Pokemon is a basic RPG game. The catch being that instead of using your own character to battle, you use creatures that you caught. The tag line of the game was "Gotta Catch 'Em All!" Which Nintendo used, along with the fact that not all Pokemon could be caught in a single cartridge. You had to have a friend who had the other version, and trade with them. The final Pokemon, Mew (#151), couldn't be caught in any of the games. In fact, you had to be at an official Nintendo event in order to add Mew to your collection. Meaning you could never truly catch them all, unless you had a cheat device.
The basics are simple. Each Pokemon can only know four moves at a time. The use of moves is limited by a PP number, with the least powerful moves having 20 PP and the most powerful having only 5 PP. You can only carry six Pokemon at a time. HP and PP, along with status ailments, can be cured by items or by visits to a Pokemon Center. Your goal is to battle the Gym Leaders, who are always accompanied by underlings who you have to battle first. The ultimate goal, once you have all the gym badges, is to fight the Elite Four, followed by the Pokemon League Champion.
The Pokemon games have more of a story than just gym battles, though. You are rarely able to fight a gym leader without first completing some task that involves the overall story at some level. In the first two Pokemon series (Red/Blue/Yellow and Gold/Silver/Crystal), the enemy is Team Rocket. In Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald, they shook things up a bit. In Ruby, Team Magma is attempting to awaken a legendary Pokemon, while Team Aqua is trying to stop them. In Sapphire, the roles are reversed, as Aqua are the villains and Magma are the allies. But in Emerald, both teams are villains. It's an interesting story twist that keeps those two games from being too stale.
Overall, though, very little has changed. Granted, I've not played the DS games, but I'm sure they're basically the same. But, Pokemon still sells an extreme amount, so I can't fault Nintendo.
Also on my list is the Pokemon: Trading Card Game for the Game Boy Color. Yes, they made a video game based on the actual TCG. The game only contains cards from the original set (Basic) as well as Jungle and Fossil. There was a Japan-only sequel to this, that included more sets. The game recreates most of the TCG rules, though I seem to recall some things didn't work properly. There is a story, which flows a lot like the regular Pokemon games, but it's a nice change in that it's based on the TCG. It's more strategic than a typical Pokemon, thanks to the TCG rules and such.
I stopped following the actual TCG sometime after the first Team Rocket expansion. It was fun, but I had no one to play with. Despite the fact that I collected over 400 cards. I don't have much to say about that, though.
Finally, there is the anime. I was a fan for the first season or two, but then it got a bit too predictable. Ash would challenge a gym leader, lose, and then through some cheesy bit, discover his flaw and overcome the odds. It's a formula they used way too often. I've started watching again with the Diamond & Pearl series. I'm glad that the focus isn't entirely on Ash anymore. And Dawn going through contests makes for a refreshing change. It's certainly better than the original version of the anime. There are a lot more stories they can do, and it's not always the same old routine. Still, it's as cheesy as ever, sometimes in an "After School Special" sort of way. But it's better than it used to be.
Now, I want to make a comment about the Pokemon themselves. The first generation (1-151) all seemed to be influenced by something in nature, either an animal or plant. And they all had names that looked easy to pronounce. The most difficult name, for me, was Zapdos, which isn't too difficult. Since then, however, things have become a bit wacky. The designs have become more fantastic, and the names have become much worse. When I first saw "Typhlosion," my brain exploded. Though, looking at it now, I can pronounce it. But at the time, I just saw a mess of letters. What happened to simple and easy to pronounce names? But, I guess I'm just nitpicking now.
Now, the first thing I was requested to blog about was Pokemon. As you can see, I own a few Pokemon games. So I thought I'd go over them.
Now, Pokemon started in 1996. I think that's when the development started, actually. The first two games in Japan were Pocket Monsters Red and Green (Pocket Monsters being the Japanese name of Pokemon). Blue was added later, followed by Yellow a year or two after.
In North America, however, things were different. They were unsure whether or not Pokemon would sell. So, they took the anime, which was made in Japan after the games had become smash hits, and released it in the US before the games were released. The reason being that they wanted to judge interest in this new brand before releasing the games. This has lead to some people believing the games are based off the anime, which is simply untrue.
Green never came out in the US. The first two out in this region were Red and Green, with Yellow following a year later. At its core, Pokemon is a basic RPG game. The catch being that instead of using your own character to battle, you use creatures that you caught. The tag line of the game was "Gotta Catch 'Em All!" Which Nintendo used, along with the fact that not all Pokemon could be caught in a single cartridge. You had to have a friend who had the other version, and trade with them. The final Pokemon, Mew (#151), couldn't be caught in any of the games. In fact, you had to be at an official Nintendo event in order to add Mew to your collection. Meaning you could never truly catch them all, unless you had a cheat device.
The basics are simple. Each Pokemon can only know four moves at a time. The use of moves is limited by a PP number, with the least powerful moves having 20 PP and the most powerful having only 5 PP. You can only carry six Pokemon at a time. HP and PP, along with status ailments, can be cured by items or by visits to a Pokemon Center. Your goal is to battle the Gym Leaders, who are always accompanied by underlings who you have to battle first. The ultimate goal, once you have all the gym badges, is to fight the Elite Four, followed by the Pokemon League Champion.
The Pokemon games have more of a story than just gym battles, though. You are rarely able to fight a gym leader without first completing some task that involves the overall story at some level. In the first two Pokemon series (Red/Blue/Yellow and Gold/Silver/Crystal), the enemy is Team Rocket. In Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald, they shook things up a bit. In Ruby, Team Magma is attempting to awaken a legendary Pokemon, while Team Aqua is trying to stop them. In Sapphire, the roles are reversed, as Aqua are the villains and Magma are the allies. But in Emerald, both teams are villains. It's an interesting story twist that keeps those two games from being too stale.
Overall, though, very little has changed. Granted, I've not played the DS games, but I'm sure they're basically the same. But, Pokemon still sells an extreme amount, so I can't fault Nintendo.
Also on my list is the Pokemon: Trading Card Game for the Game Boy Color. Yes, they made a video game based on the actual TCG. The game only contains cards from the original set (Basic) as well as Jungle and Fossil. There was a Japan-only sequel to this, that included more sets. The game recreates most of the TCG rules, though I seem to recall some things didn't work properly. There is a story, which flows a lot like the regular Pokemon games, but it's a nice change in that it's based on the TCG. It's more strategic than a typical Pokemon, thanks to the TCG rules and such.
I stopped following the actual TCG sometime after the first Team Rocket expansion. It was fun, but I had no one to play with. Despite the fact that I collected over 400 cards. I don't have much to say about that, though.
Finally, there is the anime. I was a fan for the first season or two, but then it got a bit too predictable. Ash would challenge a gym leader, lose, and then through some cheesy bit, discover his flaw and overcome the odds. It's a formula they used way too often. I've started watching again with the Diamond & Pearl series. I'm glad that the focus isn't entirely on Ash anymore. And Dawn going through contests makes for a refreshing change. It's certainly better than the original version of the anime. There are a lot more stories they can do, and it's not always the same old routine. Still, it's as cheesy as ever, sometimes in an "After School Special" sort of way. But it's better than it used to be.
Now, I want to make a comment about the Pokemon themselves. The first generation (1-151) all seemed to be influenced by something in nature, either an animal or plant. And they all had names that looked easy to pronounce. The most difficult name, for me, was Zapdos, which isn't too difficult. Since then, however, things have become a bit wacky. The designs have become more fantastic, and the names have become much worse. When I first saw "Typhlosion," my brain exploded. Though, looking at it now, I can pronounce it. But at the time, I just saw a mess of letters. What happened to simple and easy to pronounce names? But, I guess I'm just nitpicking now.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
DMC4 and Conflict: Denied Ops demos
It was a very quiet January. Only a single post in the blog. I apologize for the lack of content.
Anyway, demos of Devil May Cry 4 and Conflict: Denied Ops hit the PlayStation Store recently. I thought I'd give them a shot and see how they do.
Devil May Cry 4 - This demo has two modes, Exterminator and Executioner. I chose Exterminator, which gives you a ten minute time limit. The graphics are great, and it's really nice to look at in most areas. Now, before I go into the gameplay, I should note that I've never played a DMC game before. Yes, I played a demo of the original DMC (or was it DMC2?), but I've never played a full version of it before. But I think the game plays well. The main character, I guess it's Nero, feels a little slow when you're locked on to an enemy. But, as things progress, that tends to be a minor issue. I didn't notice anything glaringly bad, and I'd have to say that fans of the series will be quite satisfied with it.
Conflict: Denied Ops - Having read virtually nothing on this game before playing the demo, I didn't know what to expect. The demo is typical tutorial fare. The graphics, while fairly good, aren't spectacular. Maybe it was just the level being shown, but it didn't impress. The gameplay is good, though. Except that the nature of the demo had the game wanting you to stay as the close-range guy for most of the mission, and there weren't any real opportunities to utilize the sniper. Now, I'm sure some people may prefer that, but I love sniping. I'll take sniping over close combat any day. But, there wasn't anything really bad about the gameplay. It's more or less a standard FPS, but without any ability to jump. Maybe it's just me, but I expect my super powered soldier to be able to jump. It's okay. Nothing too special.
Anyway, demos of Devil May Cry 4 and Conflict: Denied Ops hit the PlayStation Store recently. I thought I'd give them a shot and see how they do.
Devil May Cry 4 - This demo has two modes, Exterminator and Executioner. I chose Exterminator, which gives you a ten minute time limit. The graphics are great, and it's really nice to look at in most areas. Now, before I go into the gameplay, I should note that I've never played a DMC game before. Yes, I played a demo of the original DMC (or was it DMC2?), but I've never played a full version of it before. But I think the game plays well. The main character, I guess it's Nero, feels a little slow when you're locked on to an enemy. But, as things progress, that tends to be a minor issue. I didn't notice anything glaringly bad, and I'd have to say that fans of the series will be quite satisfied with it.
Conflict: Denied Ops - Having read virtually nothing on this game before playing the demo, I didn't know what to expect. The demo is typical tutorial fare. The graphics, while fairly good, aren't spectacular. Maybe it was just the level being shown, but it didn't impress. The gameplay is good, though. Except that the nature of the demo had the game wanting you to stay as the close-range guy for most of the mission, and there weren't any real opportunities to utilize the sniper. Now, I'm sure some people may prefer that, but I love sniping. I'll take sniping over close combat any day. But, there wasn't anything really bad about the gameplay. It's more or less a standard FPS, but without any ability to jump. Maybe it's just me, but I expect my super powered soldier to be able to jump. It's okay. Nothing too special.
Monday, January 7, 2008
Game elements that need to be retired
In the past few weeks, I've been thoroughly enjoying Zero Punctuation (note: not-safe-for-work). Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw's take on games is quite humorous. But in his review of Super Mario Galaxy, he touched upon a subject that I happen to agree with, and I liked the analogy he used. But, I figured, why stop at one game element that needs to die?
So, I figured I'd go through a series of game elements that I feel need to go away.
Lives - As mentioned in Zero Punctuation, the Lives system needs to go. Lives were created solely for coin-operated game machines as a way to prevent gamers from playing forever on one quarter. The developers needed a way to not only end the game session, but make the player insert more coins in order to keep playing.
As console gaming caught on, the lives system was combined with a Continue system as a way to increase challenge in games. Making the player complete the game with a limited number of tries made what would otherwise be a somewhat easy game suddenly have more difficulty.
As games have become more epic, and thus taking longer to beat, game developers have started to shy away from Lives. Yet some companies don't seem to grasp that the Lives system is no longer necessary. We have checkpoints and save points after each level to help the player complete the game, and artificial intelligence that create challenge. A Lives system just isn't needed to create challenge.
Health Bars - Nothing ruins the experience of a "realistic" shooter more than seeing brightly colored health packs laying on the ground. Maybe it's just me, but when I'm storming the beaches of Normandy, I don't want to see big health boxes scattered around. Thus I have been quite relieved and happy to see the newest trend going around: regenerating health. If you get hit, you just wait a few seconds and you will be back to full strength. But get hit too much in a short period of time, and you're dead.
In my opinion, that is the best way to go these days. At least in action games. RPGs will never get rid of their health system, nor should they. And I can see why games like Mario and Ratchet & Clank need health systems. But in action games, they're just obsolete. It was probably the first Halo game that really started the trend. But now I can't imagine playing a shooter without regenerating health. Heck, even Uncharted and Assassin's Creed use this new health system.
Random Battles - This only applies to RPGs, of course. But I hate random battles. Final Fantasy is by far the worst offender as far as random battles go. That isn't to say that other games don't abuse the system.
With Final Fantasy XII removing random battles in favor of MMORPG-style battles, I hope this is the start of games moving away from random battles. Nothing irritates me more than to be walking around, trying to complete a quest, only to be forced into a battle. I don't like random battles, and I want to choose when I fight. Wild ARMs 2 and beyond use a unique system that lets you cancel certain battles at the expense of an ECNG gauge. But because this gauge went down, you were eventually forced to fight. Which became an annoyance.
Fixed-level enemies - This also only applies to RPGs. But when I'm playing an RPG, I play for the story, first and foremost. I don't care about leveling up, battling, or the overall experience. I want the story. I think the story is the most important aspect of all games, but RPGs need the story more than anything. I don't play an RPG to "play" it, I play an RPG to experience the story.
Which is why I hate games that almost force you to level-up in order to beat certain enemies. This is almost all Japanese RPGs, and at least some American RPGs. The example of the way to do things has to be the Elder Scrolls series. In my first play through of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, I finished the main quest at around Level 6. The best part about it is the game doesn't force you to level up. All the enemies scale to your current level. If you level-up, the enemies do as well. Meaning the enemies are never too tough, and never too easy. Certain enemies only show up when you reach certain levels, which adds to the challenge. For example, I got to Level 10 in my second play through so I could get the Skeleton Key (a Daedric artifact), and I started seeing enemies I never saw before.
When I say "fixed-level enemies," I mean the kind who are always at a certain level, all the time. They always have fixed stats that rarely, if ever fluctuate. Meaning you must level up to progress, but when you have to backtrack to earlier areas, the enemies are complete push-overs to the point that you can kill an entire battalion of baddies with one move. RPGs would be much more fun if the enemies level and stats scaled along with yours. That way, later enemies aren't too overwhelming, while earlier enemies aren't so weak near the end.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
So, I figured I'd go through a series of game elements that I feel need to go away.
Lives - As mentioned in Zero Punctuation, the Lives system needs to go. Lives were created solely for coin-operated game machines as a way to prevent gamers from playing forever on one quarter. The developers needed a way to not only end the game session, but make the player insert more coins in order to keep playing.
As console gaming caught on, the lives system was combined with a Continue system as a way to increase challenge in games. Making the player complete the game with a limited number of tries made what would otherwise be a somewhat easy game suddenly have more difficulty.
As games have become more epic, and thus taking longer to beat, game developers have started to shy away from Lives. Yet some companies don't seem to grasp that the Lives system is no longer necessary. We have checkpoints and save points after each level to help the player complete the game, and artificial intelligence that create challenge. A Lives system just isn't needed to create challenge.
Health Bars - Nothing ruins the experience of a "realistic" shooter more than seeing brightly colored health packs laying on the ground. Maybe it's just me, but when I'm storming the beaches of Normandy, I don't want to see big health boxes scattered around. Thus I have been quite relieved and happy to see the newest trend going around: regenerating health. If you get hit, you just wait a few seconds and you will be back to full strength. But get hit too much in a short period of time, and you're dead.
In my opinion, that is the best way to go these days. At least in action games. RPGs will never get rid of their health system, nor should they. And I can see why games like Mario and Ratchet & Clank need health systems. But in action games, they're just obsolete. It was probably the first Halo game that really started the trend. But now I can't imagine playing a shooter without regenerating health. Heck, even Uncharted and Assassin's Creed use this new health system.
Random Battles - This only applies to RPGs, of course. But I hate random battles. Final Fantasy is by far the worst offender as far as random battles go. That isn't to say that other games don't abuse the system.
With Final Fantasy XII removing random battles in favor of MMORPG-style battles, I hope this is the start of games moving away from random battles. Nothing irritates me more than to be walking around, trying to complete a quest, only to be forced into a battle. I don't like random battles, and I want to choose when I fight. Wild ARMs 2 and beyond use a unique system that lets you cancel certain battles at the expense of an ECNG gauge. But because this gauge went down, you were eventually forced to fight. Which became an annoyance.
Fixed-level enemies - This also only applies to RPGs. But when I'm playing an RPG, I play for the story, first and foremost. I don't care about leveling up, battling, or the overall experience. I want the story. I think the story is the most important aspect of all games, but RPGs need the story more than anything. I don't play an RPG to "play" it, I play an RPG to experience the story.
Which is why I hate games that almost force you to level-up in order to beat certain enemies. This is almost all Japanese RPGs, and at least some American RPGs. The example of the way to do things has to be the Elder Scrolls series. In my first play through of Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, I finished the main quest at around Level 6. The best part about it is the game doesn't force you to level up. All the enemies scale to your current level. If you level-up, the enemies do as well. Meaning the enemies are never too tough, and never too easy. Certain enemies only show up when you reach certain levels, which adds to the challenge. For example, I got to Level 10 in my second play through so I could get the Skeleton Key (a Daedric artifact), and I started seeing enemies I never saw before.
When I say "fixed-level enemies," I mean the kind who are always at a certain level, all the time. They always have fixed stats that rarely, if ever fluctuate. Meaning you must level up to progress, but when you have to backtrack to earlier areas, the enemies are complete push-overs to the point that you can kill an entire battalion of baddies with one move. RPGs would be much more fun if the enemies level and stats scaled along with yours. That way, later enemies aren't too overwhelming, while earlier enemies aren't so weak near the end.
That's all for now. Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)