Njoystc’s ‘Hey! I Remember That!’: Disney’s Stunt Island

I thought a feature on old games and how we remember them could be fun, and so I bring you a new feature called ‘Hey! I remember that!’

And what a great title to kick things off with! In an age where more and more gamers and developers are enjoying ‘open world’ or ‘sandbox’ style games, I think it’s only fair we give credit to a game that did the same thing back in the old-timey year of 1992. Vanilla Ice was on the radio. I was probably still rock’n some ‘Ninja Turtle’ pajamas. And ‘Stunt Island’ floppies were strewn across my (err, my parent’s) computer desk.

That’s right, a game that still came on floppies. Wasn’t there also one of those cardboard code-wheels used as an anti-pirating measure? Or was it one of those “what’s the third word on page 38 of the manual” deals? I can’t remember.

Almost as much 3d detail as Dragon Age 2

The game was one of the few I played at the time to boast amazing three-dimensional graphics (see above.) It also gave you the ability to fly around the island anywhere you wished to go, while attempting death-defying (or, often death-resulting) feats of stunt’itude.

The game offered various preconceived stunts that you could complete for fame and fortune. From bombing runs to aerial acrobatics to skydive missions, all under the premise of being part of a film set. I can’t tell you how many times I tried to land my parachutist on those damn field goal posts! I don’t think I ever got it.

Where the game really shined was in the ‘free’ mode, which let you set up props, cameras, and stunts however you wanted to. You could even assign vehicle statistics to the props, enabling you to fly that big pirate ship around the island, or create flying cars. There really was an amazing amount of control.

Once you did whatever it was you wanted to do (if I recall, a lot of our free stunts involved flying around as the bird and pooping on things) you could view the replays from the various camera angles you had set up, and even save the resulting movie. You were then able to splice together movie segments and add sound, resulting in some wonderful masterpieces . . . or cinematic bird poop scenes. Whatever.

Surprisingly, this is the stunt coordinator and not a porno talent scout.

If this all sounds like sandbox fun at it’s best, you’re right. And again, this was back in 1992! I’m often amazed that there hasn’t been a remake, which could be remarkable given the current technology available. Titles like ‘Gary’s Mod’ or ‘Minecraft’ show you don’t necessarily need to give the player a strong list of win conditions for a game to be addicting. Sometimes, a few simple but well implemented features and a heaping helping of freedom can go a long way.

Hell, if this game could have ran on the machine we had back then, it could probably run as a smart phone app. Just say’n . . .

Well, that’s it for this ‘Hey! I remember that!’ Until next time, happy pooping, birds!

Would War Games Benefit From Likable Enemies?

I was reading a post over on Ben’s Laboratory, giving his impressions of the Killzone 3 Single Player Demo, and something he said really jumped out at me. Referring to the opposition the player will face, Ben wrote, “This is an enemy that just seems obviously, and completely bad and that makes them completely dull.”

The more I thought about it, the more I saw the genius of that statement, and how it applies to a genre as a whole. As gamers, we’re used to facing down the Nazi threat, or beating back waves of savage, blood-thirsty terrorists. Or toothy, brutal aliens. The “bad guys.”

It’s easy for us to go along happily killing the enemy and never thinking twice about it. Sure, Modern Warfare 2 had that scene that made us all feel a little sick. But still, it was the evil enemy that made us do it. The blood was on their hands, even if we paid the price in the end anyway.

What seems to get ignored — and not just in video games, but in life in general — is that not every war has a clear cut good side and evil side. Lets look at the American Revolution. It’s easy as Americans to say, “Hellz yeah! We stood up for our rights and kicked those Red Coats back to England! WooT! America RoX!” We’re the good guys, because we won.

What really happened is that a group of us decided that we didn’t want to be part of England anymore, and we were going to take this land for ourselves. We weren’t right and they weren’t wrong. We just disagreed, and fought, and the new ‘Americans’ won. Remember, the victor is the one that gets to pick who the good guys and bad guys were.

But those “bad guys” we were killing? They had families too. They weren’t homicidal monsters bent on killing. They were following orders in a fight that really gave them just as much right to believe that they were on the good side. Right and wrong and good and evil is often very subjective. Why isn’t it in video games?

War should make you feel uncomfortable. It’s ugly. It’s violent. And it’s horrible. But in games, we rarely see the consequences of our action. There’s never really a connection to the droves of enemies we’re killing. And that makes it easy. That faceless, nameless son-of-a-bitch that’s shooting at me? Eat a rocket, jerk!

It’s as much their fault though; how often do you see a scared, overwhelmed enemy cowering in fear? How many games give us an opportunity to capture a surrendered foe? Or give us any option, other than shoot-to-kill? And when the enemy is only out to kill us, why should we care about them? When their end-goal is world domination, or to trigger the apocalypse, and then sit back and chew the heads off of every bunny and kitten on earth, why should we care about them?

Why is it that developers shy away from more ambiguous struggles? Is it because it’s too uncomfortable for everyone involved? Or is it because it’s just easier to make a clear “bad guy” and let the player have at it?

Choice-based character driven gaming is something that’s really starting to come into it’s own. The “war game” genre would be a perfect medium to really hammer this type of play home. Do you believe in what you’re fighting for? And at what cost are you willing to fight for that cause? Maybe you should align yourself with the other side. Any hope for a peaceful solution? Will you show that enemy soldier some mercy, now that he’s outnumbered? Hell, maybe you can even help him escape the battlefield and reunite with his wife and newborn.

That all sounds like a much richer and more rewarding experience to me, rather than walking through five or six hours of faceless, nameless soldiers who amount to little more than glorified target practice.

Connect the player to your game through emotion. The “airport scene” and fighting in the streets of DC (Modern Warfare 2) and defending our homeland from enemy occupation (Homefront) are steps in the right direction, but until you include the “bad guys” as part of the emotional equation, you’re really only working with half a story.

And with the deluge of war games currently set to hit market, and the countless ones currently in development or yet to be conceived, gamers everywhere would benefit from a deep, emotional experience that would set itself apart from the rest.

I urge you, game developers of the world, to make me feel something when I pull that trigger. Something other than, “Die you Nazi bastard!”

Do I Really Need Obsolete And Wasteful Game Manuals? Yes!

Most games have them, and most gamers don’t use them. They take about twice their weight in trees to produce, but often the information within them is usually available in-game through tutorials and/or help files. It makes economic and environmental sense to just do away with them, and some game companies already have.

So why can’t I let go of the paper manual for my games? If you are looking for a rational argument that favors keeping the manuals around, I’m afraid you’ll have to look elsewhere. There’s no reason I should feel the way I do — no good reason anyway. Maybe I’m just sentimental. Many a childhood memory had to do with eagerly opening my new game on the car-ride home. Unable to play, I could at least devour the images and words printed on those wonderful pages.

I still do that, by the way. Of course, not when I’m driving (not that I’d admit to, anyway.) I rarely wait until I’m home to unbox a new game. And, as a responsible and mature adult, I often only get a short while to play a new game on the first night I have it, and so I’ll take the manual with me to work the next morning in order to read through it. I rarely learn anything about the game that I didn’t already know, but that’s hardly the point.

And then there’s that new-manual smell! It’s like Christmas every time I crack that case open for the first time. My girlfriend might point out that after I’ve read through the manual and not learned anything from it, it usually ends up sitting around the house taking up space until I spill pop on it. That’s not the point either.

Look, I’m all for saving the earth so long as it doesn’t interfere with my pointless and wasteful ways. I mean, a clean and tree-filled world is great, but is it really worth living in a world that lacks video game manuals? What kind of life would that be?

In case you’re wondering why I chose to bring this tired and ill-conceived argument up today, it’s in response to EA Sports’ announcement that it will no longer ship manuals with their games. That’s doubly-sad, since I love both game manuals and EA Sports titles. Therefore, as of today, I’m boycotting EA Sports . . . at least until the next EAS title is released.

I’m fairly sure that in the end, those annoyingly reasonable people among us will win out. One day, paper game manuals will be extinct. Relics of our barbarian video game past, future generations will shake their heads as they wonder what kind of noobs needed a piece of paper to tell us that the right trigger button is for firing our gun, or that selecting ‘multiplayer’ from the main menu launches you into the multiplayer lobby. And they’ll be right, even if I still think they’re wrong.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I must go weep over the prospect of a manual’less Fifa 12.

Do Player-Driven Games Disprove Link Between Games and Violence?

I am one of the thousands of gamers currently hacking and slashing my way though Bioware’s latest RPG epic, Dragon Age 2. Sometime between the mindless slaughter of attacking street-thugs and the character-driven quests, I had a thought.

Bioware has played a huge role in the evolution of computer games with their masterful use of player-guided storytelling. A mechanic that has been evolving since Knights of the Old Republic (2003), Bioware has made sure that the player not only has plenty of freedom to decide how their in-game character acts towards others in the virtual universe, but that they also experience consequences of their decisions.

Though this system has been handled a little differently throughout their various games, players can chose good, neutral, or evil responses or actions for their character to carry out. Chose to show compassion towards an enemy you’ve overpowered, and they very well may come back to save you at some later point. They may also turn around and double-cross you, leading to a battle or ally death that you might otherwise have avoided. Regardless, each decision has a very real in-game consequence.

Dragon Age 2 marks at least the third time I’ve set out to play a character that’s an aggressive, ruthless, cold-hearted jerk. And it’s also at least the third time I’ve failed miserably. You see, even though it’s “just a game”, I often simply cannot bring myself to be mean to these virtual people. After a character’s son dies, I cannot bring myself to say “It’s your fault you didn’t save him, you worthless toad!” if “Your son gave his life to save you. It’s what he would have wanted” is an option.

nJoystic Replay; X-Com: Terror from the Deep

Okay, so someone brought up the X-Com franchise in a conversation, and apparently I can’t help but play a game once someone talks about it. Fortunately, Steam has the collection of X-Com games and at a very reasonable price. I opted to skip the $15 collection, however, because I really didn’t like Enforcer, Interceptor, and Apocalypse. Even if I buy the first two, at $5 each I’m coming out ahead.

But rather than start at the beginning with ‘UFO Defense’, I purchased my favorite from the series, ‘Terror from the Deep’. Now these are not re-masted or updated copies of these classic games. They’re set to run in ‘Dos Box’ to make them work with windows, but the rest of the game is untouched (though I’m not sure what state they are in as far as the patches.)

I forgot how intense these games were! And Terror from the Deep is hard. Damn hard. After starting a new game and having my entire squad wiped out on the second mission, I felt I had a better feel for the mechanics and started over from the beginning. I’m doing better this go-around, but I still have lost half my crew on the two UFO missions I’ve done. On top of that, in both tries I’ve had the aliens launch a terror assault on a port city within a day or two of game time.

I was pretty young the first time I played this game, though I must have been better at it, otherwise I would have quit and not kept such fond memories of it. Some of the issues I have with the game now I don’t remember having before — either because of the way it runs on a DOS emulated modern machine, or because the relative quality of the other titles of it’s time.

Multi-level maps can be a pain to view and navigate. So can cluttered or narrow indoor areas. It can be hard to tell what’s going on as far as the landscape and the buildings. You want to be careful with your clicks; a few times I’ve tried to select a new unit but mis-clicked, sending my currently selected unit walking out into the open before running out of “time units” (action points that each unit can carry out per turn.) And sometimes units will take an unexpected path to their destination, using up more TU’s than expected, or running out before they get where you wanted them to go.

The turn-based strategic combat is brutal. A mis-step or poorly calculated move anywhere near an enemy unit will more often than not result in death. It’s tempting to scavenge an alien corpse or two and take whatever they had on them and then leave the rest be. But the only way to research and manufacture the new tech you’ll need is to find it in missions. And you’ll really want the money too, as your monthly funding doesn’t go very far.

Which brings me to the non-mission part of the game. Adding to the brutally difficult combat missions, base and resource management will be very important. Build too much too fast, and you’ll go broke. Go too far into debt and you lose. But the alien threat is relentless, so you can’t afford to “dilly dally” either. As if that’s not enough, aliens have the ability to launch attacks on your bases. You won’t likely see that real early on, but you’ll want to keep it in mind.

Weapons, ammo, and other items used during missions is actually spent, meaning you’ll also have to purchase or manufacture new “stuff” to keep your crews equipped. And you’ll want to keep an eye on your crew’s ability, as each soldier, called an ‘Aquanaut’, has their own statistics — strengths and weaknesses.

If this all sounds like a lot, that’s because it is. Really not the game for the faint of heart. And I’m not trying to boast about *my* skills, because I really suck at it. That’s why I’m struggling even so early on. I know I’ll never beat a game like this, but it’s sure fun to play.

For fans of the series, it’s great that Steam gives us a way to legally play these classics. For someone who’s never played it but might be interested, I’d advise that this is a very dated title and a lot of the game really doesn’t hold up well to today’s standards. That said, if you don’t mind a bit of retro gaming, it’s one of the best titles of it’s kind that I’ve ever played.

And for those interested in a more modern take, Cenga’s UFO series is a more-modern game that I’d consider a ‘spiritual successor’ to X-Com. I had purchased (and still have, somewhere) UFO: Aftermath, but to be honest I don’t really remember much other than “Hey, this is X-Com without being X-Com.” I seem to recall having technical issues with it rather than issues with the game itself. That said, I never got into the game itself, so I don’t know if I would have had issues with that too. But it’s worth at least checking out online.

Anyway, this isn’t really meant to be a review. It’s just a ramble for a slow Sunday evening, and now I’ve said what I wanted to say about the game, so I guess I’ll head back to the depths. . .

nJoystic Budget Busters: Dragons and Murders and Duke, Oh My!

I had some time to kill tonight and so I stopped by the local game shop and decided to place a few pre-orders. The first one shouldn’t count, as I put a pre-order on Dragon Age 2 a whopping five days before it hits shelves. I figured I was going to buy it on Tuesday anyway; might as well get the bonus.

I also put my pre-order in for LA Noire. Just no way I can pass this up, and after the ‘Naked City’ trailer today, I decided to put in for that as well.

My last pre-order went for Duke Nukem Forever. If I’m remembering correctly, that one drops three days after my birthday, so happy birthday to me!

So there we have it; this year is going to be a year for tough decisions about which blockbusters to buy and which will have to wait until they can be snatched up at budget prices. These three were the first to make my ‘buy it now’ list. And what can I say? I’m excited.

So That ‘Portal’? Turns Out It’s Pretty Good

There’s this little game called ‘Portal’. Maybe you’ve heard of it? Oh, you say you have? Well why didn’t you tell me about it? Jerks.

Okay, so you did. Everyone did. But I still never played it. I apparently bought it at some point. It was in my ‘Steam’ game library. But I never made it so far as the menu screen. With all the talk about the upcoming sequel, and being between PC games anyway, I thought I’d finally check it out.

Now I haven’t exactly lived in a bubble for the last . . . oh, how long has this been around? I knew the premise. I knew the story behind GLaDOS’ personality and true motives. I’d heard the song that plays at the end. So none of that was new to me.

But it still was very charming, funny, engaging, and rewarding. It wasn’t an extremely long game; but it didn’t have to be. I know there’s bonus challenges and such, which I haven’t done. So there’s more playability there. The story itself didn’t really need to be longer — in fact, I think that would have hurt it.

Most of the puzzles I didn’t find to be too challenging. The solution to most of them seemed to be to find a way to build momentum so that a high-placed portal could shoot you across some gap (i.e., find ways to fall and shoot a portal at your feet, and in some cases, string that action together.) But I always felt a sense of accomplishment when I’d move on to the next chamber.

I’m not going to write up a full review; that’s a little unnecessary by now. I will say I enjoyed it, and I am glad I can finally cross this off my list. Keep it up and I might finally claw my way back into the loop!

This Post Is Not In 3D

I was going to do the whole Shakespeare thing and call this piece “3D or not 3D . . .” I just wanted to point out that, contrary to popular belief, I do censor myself sometimes. Really.

After getting a headache from checking out screen shots of an upcoming 3D game, I decided I finally had to write this. The game was ‘Rock of the Dead’, if you must know. And no, I don’t know what the point was of posting anaglyphic screen shots was (do you keep those little red-blue glasses by your PC? I don’t.)

I am not a fan of 3D — at least, not as used to describe the ‘new’ stereoscopic psuedo-3D trend. I think it’s a gimmicky way to portray depth, and totally unnecessary given the state of our current technology. Besides, after sitting behind a computer monitor for eight hours a day at work, then going home and playing games, I really don’t need another way to contribute to eye strain. Thank you.

I’ll admit that I’m confused by the popularity of ‘3D’ today. It’s not exactly a new technology, even if it has been improved over past iterations. Sure, the lenses aren’t always red-blue anymore. But with the exception of the 3DS (using a different type of gimmick), you still need to wear special glasses. And the upgrade from cardboard cereal-box specs is an expensive one.

And ‘3D’ is just not a feature I’ve ever once wished my games had. Maybe I’m just weird. I never thought I needed motion control either (though I’ll admit that I don’t hate it, at least not yet.)

Talking to those I know, opinions seem to range from ‘Meh’ or ‘I guess it’s kind of neat’ to ‘I sort of like it. Sometimes.’ Which makes me wonder, with such underwhelming demand, who exactly is driving this new technology? Is there a freak major metropolis somewhere that’s fallen under the hypnotic influence of the super-villain Spectroscoptron? (Where the hell is Batman when you need him?)

Are all the focus groups being run on kids under the age of 8? Or am I the one who is living in some anomalous bubble, and the whole world really does love this new, old technology?

I know many of you are probably thinking, “So what? If you don’t like it don’t watch it, and quit complaining!” I was that foolish too, once. I tried to keep quiet. I tried to let it just go away on it’s own. But it didn’t. And now it’s taking over the world. I fear we’ve waited too long, and now it’s here to stay.

Oh, and just an aside. I think it’s funny that games are being labeled as being ‘3D’ now, since I already lived through one era where games were all suddenly in ‘3D’. Really, it was more like two eras, when first you had games like Wolfenstein 3D advertising their sprite-engine’s ability to mimic three-dimensional environments. SNES advertised a lot of games this way too. Then you had the leap to true ‘3D’ engines, like Quake. Playstation oft pointed out that their games were in 3D. And now we “finally” have games in 3D! Doesn’t that make them 3D 3D games? Would that be 6D? or 9D? Really, I’m not good with faux-dimensional mathematics.

Saving Money, But Killing an Industry? The Cost of Buying Used

I’ll come right out and admit it – I like buying used games. It’s something that dates way back to the days of SNES and Genesis — oh, I played games well before that, but about the time I started to actually have money, and thus the ability to spend money, was during those years. I remember an old dilapidated mall that housed both a cheap-seats movie theater showing long-run movies, and a used game and comic book store right next to each other. Oh the joy!

You see, I said I had money, but my parents weren’t ones to just fork over $30 every time I wanted a new game. So I had to make the little cash I did have count. And what better way to do that than to buy used? Better still, I could even take all those old games I didn’t play anymore, and get credit towards used games!

. . . Sure, it was a racket. What you got for trade-in was, of course, well below what it cost to buy such an item back. But who cared? I could get a new game! Or CD! And then go next door and watch a movie for $2, and spend the change at the arcade (TMNT – Turtles in Time, I’ll beat you one day! I swear!)

So I grew up as a trader in second-hand video-game goodness. That particular store is no longer there, but the industry of used-game sales certainly is. And it’s more prevalent than ever. And I’m still buying things used. I probably wouldn’t have my 360 now if I had to buy a brand new unit. Out of the dozen or so games that are sitting next to said XBox, probably nine of them were purchased used. And at one point or another, I’ll probably trade  about the same number of them back in.

But through all these years of buy used, play, trade-in gaming I somehow missed a war that was brewing behind the scenes.

Online Negativity from Gamers Hurting Developer Creativity?

 

In a recent interview with NOW Gamer (here), Treyarch community manager Josh Olin spoke out about what he said are “angry entitled fans who look to be contrarian, sometimes simply for the sake of being contrarian” who he claims target developers trying to create new and creative titles.

As a PC-MMO gamer who frequently makes the mistake of wandering into game forums, I can certainly attest to the often rabid and frequently moronic rants that users hurl at game developers, publishers, and anyone else who they see as an “authority.” Moreover, gamers have a tendency to use a few well-established franchises as examples of what every game should be. I can certainly see where Josh is coming from here.