f13.net

So, I've been a proponent of the viewpoint that like art video games can be appreciated from various points in the space-time continuum. (Mostly time, not so much space...) So I was thinking about doing a set of reviews that would cover games from a wide time span.

Each review would be informative and also talk a bit about game design in general. I would choose games that stand out for various reasons - games that are just plain good, games that have interesting elements, games that are a great example of some failed concept.

They would not be straight one-shot reviews but rather a series. It might get people to pick up something they may have missed, or it might just inform. I don't want to spend a lot of time on whether you should buy the game, but about the game itself. Like a snooty lit critic. Discussions on the finer points of games.

For example, Contra 3. Contra 3 is a game you should play if you haven't, but it is also a great case-study in awesome level design. As I would get into in a review. Maybe 'review' is the wrong term - examination maybe.

So I feel like writing stuff, anyone feel like reading stuff?

I'd possibly be interested in reading stuff like this as long as it's mostly about obscure games.  I don't need to read articles on why Super Metroid or Legend of Zelda were good though.

I think this is a great idea, one that I have had a few times myself.  I would read a review of Super Metroid or Zelda.  However, I might be more abnormal than schild.  I'm just quiet about it.  Actually, schild did some of this a while back, playing King Arthur's World at my suggestion.  I think he still holds it against me.

The things stopping me are laziness and a fuzzy memory.  Oh, and I didn't know other people would want to read it.  I know that Blaster Master was excellent, but I can't remember it in enough detail to do a decent writeup.  The music (http://www.freeringtoneheaven.com/get.php?num=33799) makes me all giddy.

Super Metroid and Zelda are good but I think everyone understands why so I think they aren't that interesting to talk about.

Here are some games I was thinking of and what I would focus on for each one:

Resident Evil 4 - About the departure this was from other RE games and possible reasons for that departure. A high-budget entry in an established series changing rather dramatically is pretty remarkable. For this I'd ideally track down some interviews with devs talking about the game. (Like this one: http://cube.gamespy.com/gamecube/resident-evil-4/551775p2.html)

Contra 3 - How this is a great example of level design and how successful games like RE4 and God of War pattern their design after it.

God of War - I'd mostly focus on the plot, which is a minor element of the game but interesting in that it has been praised undeservedly. (IMO of course)

Silent Hill - For this series I would explore the interesting contradiction that Silent Hill is a very engrossing game but most of the actual gameplay elements are average at best. Much bigger than the sum of it's parts.

F-Zero - Because I love me some F-Zero, and specifically F-Zero X for the N64.

Now none of those are obscure but again this is not just "graphics:5 control:4" type examination.

Some more obscure games I would talk about:

The Getaway - I found the driving around bits in this game far far better than GTA.

Super Famicom Tactics games - Including Front Mission 1, Tactics Ogre, Earthlight, Feda: Emblem of Justice and Fire Emblem.

Various Baseball games - Baseball Stars (yes, the orignal!), Super Baseball 2020, various realisitic baseball games and how the uncanny valley problem ruins them for me as a die-hard baseball fan.

---

Less reviews but more topical discussions based around example games. Again more akin to lit crit where it isn't just "me laugh at funny book! 8/10!" But not pure wanking like at 'academic' sites.

I would also be open to playing random games but only if they have some interesting properties to examine, not just to torture myself with horrid games.

RE4 and God of War don't really fit my view of retro.  Hell you could just necro one of the existing threads on those games if you want to discuss them.  PS1 stuff and older I think would be interesting.  I just prefer obscure stuff as there are probably dozens of websites out there that will break down into exacting detail what made Silent Hill such a great game.  Not so much for games like Gain Ground, Trojan, or the NES version of Rygar.

Margalis, PM.

Ha ha...that's pretty funny because Gain Ground is one of my favorite arcade games ever. I would definitely do Gain Ground! That is a really interesting game too, I can't really think of any other game like it...kind of a super-duper RPG-style Gauntlet.

I can beat Gain Ground without losing a man. Except on the last boss - never figured out how to do that properly other than run my guys in to die one by one.

Like I said, happy to do suggestions as long as they don't involve masochism.

I'd almost feel like I'd need to replay some of these titles just to comment on your reviews. I can already agree with some of your assessments though (like the Silent Hill one), but most games older than that? I can't really recall everything that made them so great. At this point, I may be giving them more credit than they deserve, and I'm just in nostalgia mode. Who knows? If I played them again today, I could end up hating them like the Angry Nintendo Nerd.

P.S. God of War deserves the praise. Not a lot of the gameplay was revolutionary or anything, but I think it was something that executed well on all fronts. Which no game of it's type did well before it. Kind of like a WoW for beat em ups. Strictly gameplay speaking, I think Devil May Cry 1/3 kicks it's ass up and down, and deserve more points when it come originality. But God of War had all of these other elements that made it a more rich experience. The score, the presentation, the larger level design, the visuals, etc..

Stray, IRC.

What would be cool about writing something up about Gain Ground is that people who missed out on it originally can play it now on the Sega Genesis collection for the PS2 and PSP and I think it's also available as a VC game on the Wii.  Sega was really at its peak back in those days.

It is a VC game. One of my goals is to expose people to things they might have missed out on.

I was thinking the general thrust would be "Games worth talking about" and a game like that is certainly worth talking about as it is fun and also fairly unique.

Ok I'm getting two different vibes from this, which might just be because of what I want to hear. Are you talking about indepth reviews of semi/literally old games that people may have missed, or are you talking about a kind of indepth review that also uses the game as a launching pad for discussing the issues and mechanics found within more broadly (example here (http://worldofstuart.excellentcontent.com/grid/wars.htm))?

The former is "sure that would be nice and I'd read it" territory, the second is "oh hell yes!" territory. It's actually how I got into LtM and the blogger/ranter/etc scene in the first place; reading articles on games that went on to talk about how the game/issue at hand related to the genre/industry itself.

I like this title.

The latter.

I have little interest in doing straight up reviews. I'd like to use these games as jumping off points.

The link you provided is pretty close to what I would be aiming for. I would also like to do some actual research and investigation where possible - screenshots, interviews, quotes from developers or other reviewers to add some context. For example I could probably get someone on the God of War team to respond to my comments about plot if I asked nicely enough because I have a sort of aquaintance of an aquaintance relationship with one of those guys.

I mentioned film and literary criticism before because literary criticism is not just about a NYT book review per book. Real lit-crit goes into some theory, the nature or literature and authors, etc. It is a field of study, not just a buy/don't buy consumer aid.

I also don't like dicussing theory in a total vacuum, which is why I would center it around specific games.

There really isn't much you can read about games past hype, previews and reviews. No broad view. Hopefully I could give people something to ponder and not just "hey, this guy really likes Zelda ok then!"

This all sounds very good. Please to write for happy fun time.

That link made me play Grid Wars. Which in turn made me want to play Geometry Wars... because it's better.

Put me down for a yes please then. And I definitely agree with theory being better with a subject(s) to focus as it can get very dry and overly high-brow without something to center it.

Me likey.

Heh, I've been getting raped sideways by classwork and have only had time to play Phoenix Wright 2 and FF6a, and I didn't think FF6a was worth a review since I didn't think anyone would care to see a 10+ year-old game reviewed (small additions aside).

I'd like to read about happy fun time stuff, too.

Super duper.

I totally want to see Margalis write a scholarly piece on why the Mortal Kombat series sucks.  Seriously.  Yes I'm strange.

As long as you do star control 2 and system shock (maybe these are too mainstream for this project) I'm all for it.

And if you liked High Heat Baseball 2001...do that one too.  I regard it as the one of the best sports game ever (and don't really know why), but I'm sort of a baseball noob.

I don't think I would call System Shock mainstream.  Maybe SS2, but not the first one.

This brings some interesting questions to my mind about gaming.  I am finding that the new flashy graphics-rich games hold my attention for significantly less time than the older, less graphics-oriented games of the past.  It's caused me to wonder: has playing computer games since the dawn of computer games jaded me to the point that nothing seems new/exciting to me anymore or b) have I just reached an age in life where games in and of themself fail to provide the entertainment that they used to?

Sorry if I derailed the topic, but self-reflection has me wondering if my lack of interest in console titles is a function of my evolution or a function of the direction of the gaming industry in general.  It's an interesting question (at least to me).   

I think you're burned out, honestly. I get it from time to time, but I don't think it's the games (sometimes I'll revisit something after awhile and have completely different impressions). There are far too many games released these days to say they're not all engaging or innovative.

It's all your fault, man!  :-P

You might have to be openminded on where you look to find that fun though. If you've been playing racing titles or rpgs for 20 years, for example, then yeah, you've probably hit a ceiling of sorts. Even if there were new ideas you came across in those genres, it'd still be hard to be impressed by them in that case.

Nebu, that is something I think about a lot.

Games have changed, but I think it's the gaming world that's changed.  There are just more options, which leads me to the same sort of bad place that having two hundred TV channels does: there MIGHT be something TOTALLY AWESOME on some other channel.  Growing up, I had just a few games and they were hard to come by.  I also was limited to four TV channels.  Days were spent taking in stuff like Ultima VII, random kung-fu movies, every episode of Gilligan's Island & Mr. Ed & The Honeymooners & I Love Lucy, Super Mario 2, Final Fantasy, Thundercats, and Voltron.  I am pretty sure I could not sit through any of that today... actually I have proven that on a couple occasions now that I find The A-Team and Knight Rider and Simon & Simon are on some new channel, Sleuth or something.  Man, Knight Rider is terrible, how did I ever watch that?  I can still watch me some I Dream of Jeannie, though.  ANYWAY.

There's that.  Lots of stuff today.  Also, I'm jaded, which is related.  I can watch a sitcom made in this millenium and spot gags and setups that I saw on The Honeymooners.  What many people would term "formula", the stuff that was standardized by Ricky, Lucy, Fred, and Ethel.  This happens in games, of course, and that sort of subtracts points.  Not always, but sometimes.  I like some Three Stooges, for example, even though it's the same dumb shit every time.

I, too, like the shiny.  I also like the easy.  Time is limited and I get frustrated more easily because I don't have the luxury of spending all afternoon trying to beat some insane boss monster.  When I can only play for an hour or two, I need to be entertained in that hour, even if I'm exhausted and braindead.  Sometimes I am even too tired even to play Culdcept, due to all the thinking.

I do overcome it.  It's mostly because I whore around with my games.  I cannot stick with one consistently.  Right now, for example, I'm playing FFXII while the wife is awake, then switching to Dead Rising or VF5 or Okami or Sam + Max.  It's heavily mood-related, plus the fact that I get tired of playing one thing for too long.

bring it

It will take me a while because I'm actually doing stuff like tracking down quotes and interviews. This will be the mythical gaming journalism that doesn't exist right now.

Just don't taunt any of it.

Put me down on the list of those that think this would make for an interesting read and discussion.

I was just thinking on the whole idea of what makes quality games, and I realized something. I've been playing video games for roughly 25 years now, and to me the biggest tell tale sign of a great game was how long or how many times I played it. Games like MULE, Archon, Utopia, Civ 2, Dungeon Hack,  - these are games I litterally played for years. The only games i can think of that came out in the last decade or so that I can say that about would be Diablo I/II, Starcraft, and Age of Empires. Not that any of those are remotely recent games either. In fact, none of the games that where borne from games like Starcraft and AoE ever held my attention.

So there's your task Margalis - explain why my games don't have any replayablity anymore.

Replayability isn't necessarily a factor to me as immersiveness. Whether something kept me glued to the screen or not. Whether I actually considering not going to this or that party or seeing this or that person because the thought of progressing in the game seemed much more appealing to me. The kind of game that left me desperate for more once it was all over.

Replayability can play a factor in immersiveness, of course, but I seperate the two. A lot of short, but sweet games kept me immersed too. And to be honest, not very many replayable games make the top of my list. I'm looking to be completely transported, not just tickled constantly.

I've got some things to say about replayability since I got back into arcade games.

You know....I like to say that replayability is important, but...

Honestly, most games I buy, I tear through once, and quite possibly never play it again. Sure, some games I've gone through multiple times. Also, some genres lend themselves more towards being played again and again more than other genres (Something like HoMM vs Indigo Prophecy for instance).

Some games are fun because they surprise you with something you haven't seen before, like an absorbing plot, new graphics technology, a new type of strategy to overcome, or some cute little gameplay twist.  These tend to lose their replayability once the novelty wears off (the plot becomes familiar, you start taking the cool graphics for granted, you figure out the optimal build order, etc).  I'd put Vampire:Bloodlines into this category.  I played through that thing seven times and enjoyed it each time, but it was a bit like rewatching a favorite movie over and over; eventually you memorize the whole thing and feel less compelled to reexperience it.

Others are fun because the basic gameplay itself is engaging, satisfying, even meditative.  These are the games that tend to have high replayability over the long term.  I'd put Super Mario 3 into this category... I find that I can come back to it years later and it's still as fun as it was when I was 10, even (maybe especially) the levels that I still know by heart.  Things like Sudoku and Solitaire (for those who like such things) also go here.  Also rhythm games.


I like having both types of game in my life.  If I had to pick one game (or one type of game) to have with me on a desert island, I'd take one of the "replayable" ones in a heartbeat, but I'm very glad I don't have to make that choice.  Replayability by itself isn't the be-all-end-all.

I find my attention span has shrunk lately. If a game doesn't keep me constantly entertained I put it aside and move on to the next one. It's really weird. It's like I grew up and got ADHD or something. I haven't played Rogue Galaxy in like 2 weeks because of this. And I stopped halfway through Xenosaga 2 a while back for the same reason.

I was wondering if I was just getting jaded. I think the last game I actually finished was Twilight Princess and before that...ummmm...Gears of War and before that Oblivion. (in multiple ways).

Oh holy shit they have the music from the castle in Shadowgate. Mama need a new ringtone!

I think this is a great concept.  I have this library of games going back to 1985 or so and always enjoy adding to it with other classics I missed (of which there were many).

Not to mention, no one else is doing it so why the hell not?  In depth reviews of games are always interesting to me, even if I end up not caring about the game at all.

As far as I am concerned, I Love Lucy, The Dick Van Dyke Show, and The Honeymooners gave us 98% of the sit-com themes we have today.  I can't be bothered to watch most of them anymore just because I feel like I have seen most of it before.

I find the same thing. I think in my own case it's also partly because now as a game-playing adult with more money than disposable time I am too spoiled for choice. The fact that I also have multiple non-gaming interests/hobbies also impacts this as well.

As for the article/review series. Hell yes.