So the new Chronicles of Riddick game just got released and I've been playing it through for the last couple of days.
Fuck me, it's a masterpiece.
I started with Escape from Butcher Bay, which is as good as I remember it... the acting & plot are superb, the atmosphere is stunning and the action is wonderfully brutal. It's also a fantastic counterpoint to games like Crysis and Left 4 Dead - the action in Crysis and Left 4 Dead is ultra smooth, ultra kinetic. You're rarely in the same place for long. In Butcher Bay, everything feels much slower, much more ponderous - in a good way.
I've said this before, and I stick by it- the Riddick games are the only ones ever created where I feel like I have a real body in the game world. It's a remarkable feet that adds some serious realism to what is otherwise quite a silly Sci Fi game.
So- Dark Athena. Well, the plot and voice acting is as fantastic as ever. Admiral Cain from BSG voices the main antagonist, which is fantastic :D
If anything, from what I've played, the action is even more ponderous, even more brutal and even more stealthy than it was in Butcher Bay. One bit in particular had you hunting around 10 drones on an otherwise deserted cargo deck. The deck was pitch black, the only light coming from the drones' flashlights. I was sneaking round crates, executing them one by one... It was so good I actually got goose pimples from the excitement of pulling off flawless silent kills one after the other.
Stealth gameplay is very hard to get right but they've done it here, and don't they know it.
Dark Athena isn't quite as focused as Butcher Bay, though. There is a lot more game convenient faffing around this time. Nipping to get components for a Vent Tool, a PDA and so on. This would be an issue were they not giving you a constant feed of awe inspiring set pieces. I won't talk too much about them here as experiencing them yourself is half the fun. So yeah. Two good games, definitely worth getting in my opinion.
In other news, I saw a British film at the cinema today. No, I haven't gone mad. It was Frequently Asked Questions About Time Travel.
If you haven't seen the trailer, watch it now and get back to me.
Done? Good. If you liked the look of that trailer, the film is basically that but 83 minutes long instead of two. It's stunningly un ambitious. There are no scenes where any characters have to sacrifice their soul to save humanity, no car chases, no epic love stories across two centuries... Three people in a pub and a time agent are all you get.
I really, really liked it. It was very focused, which helps. It's also one of those odd films where nothing really happens but you're hooked anyway. It's like a shorter version of Gosford Park but with fewer posh people.
I know it's not really saying much, given how crap this year has been for films so far, but it was one of the best things I've seen so far. I think Push was at about the same level of quality but there were fewer things wrong with FAQ...
Put it this way: FAQ is one of those films which is flawless because it doesn't try to do too much. It doesn't over stretch its plot in the way most time travel films do, it doesn't have twelve endings... This can be seen as a bad thing but I say it's always better for a film to be too short rather than too long.
It's definitely worth seeing, if you're a cinema junkie or if you've got 83 minutes to spare and feel like a bit of silly British comedy.
And it's got Roy from the IT crowd in it, which is always a good thing.
Sunday, 26 April 2009
Friday, 24 April 2009
TV shows I would kill to be on
Some shows are great to watch because they're entertaining, thrilling, moving, whatever. Some shows are great to watch because you think: "wow, I'd love to be doing that right now..." For me, these shows are:
Mythbusters
Mythbusters is a fantastic show. They take a myth or a piece of received wisdom and, in the most direct and down to earth way possible, test it. They're not perfect but they are brilliant at creating scenarios that test hypotheses that are understandable by Joe Average.
Pros:
I would get to blow things up.
I would get to be all sciency.
I would get to hang around with Kari Byron, who is hot.
I would get to build things.
I would get to be very silly on camera.
Cons:
I have no robotics/engineering/electronics skills at all - partly because of my dyslexia but mostly because I'm extremely lazy. This may be a problem in a show where they build all their own test rigs. I don't think I could actually contribute anything.
Overall Awesomeness:
9/10
You get to build stuff and then break it whilst educating people. It's fun and has a point. Brilliant, I just don't have the skills to do it.
Top Gear
Top Gear was one of my absolute favourite shows for a long time - mainly because they road tested cars I could actually buy like the Ford Focus, the Smart Roadster & the Skoda Octavia. It's gone a bit down hill in recent years but it'd still be brilliant fun to be on.
Pros:
I would get to drive loads of cars.
I would get to powerslide & four wheel drift in a safe environment
That would be my entire job.
Cons:
I would have to talk to Jeremy Clarkson.
I'd have to put up with the producers pathetic attempts at humour.
I'd be terrified I'd break all the 200k supercars.
Battlestar Galactica:
Battlestar Galactica is the single best show I've ever seen. It's action packed, complex and hugely intelligent. I would love to be in it, not as one of the main characters - they're all sewn up perfectly by the actors they all ready have but as a Marine or a random Viper Pilot.
Pros:
I would be a part of the most important television show ever created
I'd get to play with props
I'd get to hang around with Grace Park, Katee Sackhoff & Tricia Helfer.
I'm actually fairly good at physical stuff - I'm a blue belt in Ju Jitsu, I'm in shape and climb at weekends. I could wrestle with centurions and get killed in a heroic manner or something.
Cons:
The series has ended so there's not really much anyone can do about getting on it.
You'd probably get cock blocked by Helo, who is awesome in every way and probably has all the girls fawning after him constantly.
Overall Awesomeness:
10/10
Come on, it's Battlestar. As fun as the other shows are, they've got nothing on Battlestar. And you'd get to shoot blanks out of a plastic gun. WIN!
Mythbusters
Mythbusters is a fantastic show. They take a myth or a piece of received wisdom and, in the most direct and down to earth way possible, test it. They're not perfect but they are brilliant at creating scenarios that test hypotheses that are understandable by Joe Average.
Pros:
I would get to blow things up.
I would get to be all sciency.
I would get to hang around with Kari Byron, who is hot.
I would get to build things.
I would get to be very silly on camera.
Cons:
I have no robotics/engineering/electronics skills at all - partly because of my dyslexia but mostly because I'm extremely lazy. This may be a problem in a show where they build all their own test rigs. I don't think I could actually contribute anything.
Overall Awesomeness:
9/10
You get to build stuff and then break it whilst educating people. It's fun and has a point. Brilliant, I just don't have the skills to do it.
Top Gear
Top Gear was one of my absolute favourite shows for a long time - mainly because they road tested cars I could actually buy like the Ford Focus, the Smart Roadster & the Skoda Octavia. It's gone a bit down hill in recent years but it'd still be brilliant fun to be on.
Pros:
I would get to drive loads of cars.
I would get to powerslide & four wheel drift in a safe environment
That would be my entire job.
Cons:
I would have to talk to Jeremy Clarkson.
I'd have to put up with the producers pathetic attempts at humour.
I'd be terrified I'd break all the 200k supercars.
Overall Awesomeness:
5/10
Whilst driving cars in a variety of silly ways all day would be awesome, I think Clarkson and the idiot producers would make it get very old very quickly.
Battlestar Galactica:
Battlestar Galactica is the single best show I've ever seen. It's action packed, complex and hugely intelligent. I would love to be in it, not as one of the main characters - they're all sewn up perfectly by the actors they all ready have but as a Marine or a random Viper Pilot.
Pros:
I would be a part of the most important television show ever created
I'd get to play with props
I'd get to hang around with Grace Park, Katee Sackhoff & Tricia Helfer.
I'm actually fairly good at physical stuff - I'm a blue belt in Ju Jitsu, I'm in shape and climb at weekends. I could wrestle with centurions and get killed in a heroic manner or something.
Cons:
The series has ended so there's not really much anyone can do about getting on it.
You'd probably get cock blocked by Helo, who is awesome in every way and probably has all the girls fawning after him constantly.
Overall Awesomeness:
10/10
Come on, it's Battlestar. As fun as the other shows are, they've got nothing on Battlestar. And you'd get to shoot blanks out of a plastic gun. WIN!
Thursday, 23 April 2009
Updates
A series of short things:
1) Continued musings on the Left 4 Dead Survival mode
It's very good - I love the lighthouse level although, oddly, I prefer the normal levels, mainly because they're more open and therefore easier.
However, the most fun I've had with it was with a really good team - the three other people I was playing with were in a clan and it really fucking showed. They gelled perfectly and it was all I could do to keep up. We were in the No Mercy Hospital - the lift section. It was pretty fecking spectacular :D
This mode, more than anything else, has made me pine for the SDK. For the first time since I was at school, I was to try and make some levels. I want to make my flat, my old office, my parents house, Shunt... it'd be awesome :D
2) Let The Right One In
What a very, very strange film. I wouldn't recomend it to anyone unless you're quite sentimental... It's a very strange love story between two twelve year olds, one of which happens to be a vampire. It's sweet, fantastical, horrific and creepy in equal measure. It's basically Twighlight but with plot, characterisation, acting & depth. And there's no emo. Or 17 year olds scowling at the camera thinking they're cool because someone put a 20% grey filter on the lens.
It was quite long - that's not really a criticism though as it's a film very much in the Gosford Park mould where nothing really happens but you're enthralled anyway.
3) Crank 2
Very, very silly action film. I've been looking forward to this for a while as the original Crank is one of my favourite silly action films... My overall favourite is, of course, Shoot Em Up. This one wasn't quite as good as the first one. It's a masterpiece of hyper kinetic cinematography but it felt a little too surreal for its own good. Stuff like interrogating a gangster by lubing up a shotgun and inserting it into said gangsters anus is all fantastic but things devolve slightly at the end where you've got mock godzilla sequences and reanimated heads in jars.
Still very good fun though.
4) TSLRP
The Sith Lords Restoration Project bug count is still at 84.
Sigh.
1) Continued musings on the Left 4 Dead Survival mode
It's very good - I love the lighthouse level although, oddly, I prefer the normal levels, mainly because they're more open and therefore easier.
However, the most fun I've had with it was with a really good team - the three other people I was playing with were in a clan and it really fucking showed. They gelled perfectly and it was all I could do to keep up. We were in the No Mercy Hospital - the lift section. It was pretty fecking spectacular :D
This mode, more than anything else, has made me pine for the SDK. For the first time since I was at school, I was to try and make some levels. I want to make my flat, my old office, my parents house, Shunt... it'd be awesome :D
2) Let The Right One In
What a very, very strange film. I wouldn't recomend it to anyone unless you're quite sentimental... It's a very strange love story between two twelve year olds, one of which happens to be a vampire. It's sweet, fantastical, horrific and creepy in equal measure. It's basically Twighlight but with plot, characterisation, acting & depth. And there's no emo. Or 17 year olds scowling at the camera thinking they're cool because someone put a 20% grey filter on the lens.
It was quite long - that's not really a criticism though as it's a film very much in the Gosford Park mould where nothing really happens but you're enthralled anyway.
3) Crank 2
Very, very silly action film. I've been looking forward to this for a while as the original Crank is one of my favourite silly action films... My overall favourite is, of course, Shoot Em Up. This one wasn't quite as good as the first one. It's a masterpiece of hyper kinetic cinematography but it felt a little too surreal for its own good. Stuff like interrogating a gangster by lubing up a shotgun and inserting it into said gangsters anus is all fantastic but things devolve slightly at the end where you've got mock godzilla sequences and reanimated heads in jars.
Still very good fun though.
4) TSLRP
The Sith Lords Restoration Project bug count is still at 84.
Sigh.
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
Left 4 Dead Survival Mode
The Left 4 Dead DLC dropped onto the tubes yesterday after an almighty internet shitstorm caused by the PC version being released after the 360 version. News stories can tell us PC gaming is dead all they want, you haven't seen it alive until you've seen something like that. The last time I saw such a great show of PC gaming solidarity was the massive 2k fuck up that was the Bioshock online activation.
One commenter on the CVG forums said:
"WHAT THE f**k! VALVE f**ked US!!!!! VALVE f**king f**ked US!!!!! ONE BETRAYAL BY VALVE IS A BETRAYAL TOO FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I like to portray console owners as immature preening dick heads but the PC has more than its fair share of them as evidenced by that comment and anyone who's played more than thirty seconds of counterstrike.
Anyway, I got an hours play with it last night and about half an hour this morning, before work. I have the following observations:
1) Fuck me, it's intense. In my second round, I killed 300 zombies in five minutes. In 45 minute campaigns, I normally only kill about 700...
2) Playing with people is awesome, as you'd expect, and when you get a good team it can feel like the old Aliens Vs Predator matches I used to play... I had one round in the finale of Dead Air where four of us were perched on top of a truck, each with the M4, mowing down zombies row by row by row. It was fantastic :D
3) You won't last long.
The hype about you only lasting a couple of minutes may well be true for the console tards. I've found the shit really starts hitting the fan at about 5 minutes in... that's when you start getting multiple smokers, boomers and hunters. At one point, we got attacked by two smokers, vomed on by a boomer and had a hunter pouncing around at the same time. Hee.
4) Two tanks is fucking insane
In all the game modes previously, as soon as a tank shows up, you ignore everything else and concentrate fire on it. When two turn up at once, you suddenly have no idea what to do... you can't run as the chances are you'll run into the path of the other one. You can't stay where you are because the tank can kill you far faster than you can kill it and you can't work together as a team because you're all panicking about there being two tanks in the room.
I've only had two tanks once, so far. I was the only survivor of that particular event and I didn't last long after that. Great fun though.
5) The new map is really good
It's well thought out, there are loads of places you can camp or run to, many varied weapons stashes etc. etc.
6) They only give you tier 2 weapons
Now. I love the tier 2 weapons but the survival mode is about desperation and fighting the horde off with whatever weapons you have available. It would be nice if there were occasional stashes of the Tier 1 weapons for you to grab and be angry at.
7) It's really good fun :D
It provides what Left 4 Dead was missing - 5/10 minute bursts of gameplay. A very welcome addition. Now give us the SDK.
One commenter on the CVG forums said:
"WHAT THE f**k! VALVE f**ked US!!!!! VALVE f**king f**ked US!!!!! ONE BETRAYAL BY VALVE IS A BETRAYAL TOO FAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I like to portray console owners as immature preening dick heads but the PC has more than its fair share of them as evidenced by that comment and anyone who's played more than thirty seconds of counterstrike.
Anyway, I got an hours play with it last night and about half an hour this morning, before work. I have the following observations:
1) Fuck me, it's intense. In my second round, I killed 300 zombies in five minutes. In 45 minute campaigns, I normally only kill about 700...
2) Playing with people is awesome, as you'd expect, and when you get a good team it can feel like the old Aliens Vs Predator matches I used to play... I had one round in the finale of Dead Air where four of us were perched on top of a truck, each with the M4, mowing down zombies row by row by row. It was fantastic :D
3) You won't last long.
The hype about you only lasting a couple of minutes may well be true for the console tards. I've found the shit really starts hitting the fan at about 5 minutes in... that's when you start getting multiple smokers, boomers and hunters. At one point, we got attacked by two smokers, vomed on by a boomer and had a hunter pouncing around at the same time. Hee.
4) Two tanks is fucking insane
In all the game modes previously, as soon as a tank shows up, you ignore everything else and concentrate fire on it. When two turn up at once, you suddenly have no idea what to do... you can't run as the chances are you'll run into the path of the other one. You can't stay where you are because the tank can kill you far faster than you can kill it and you can't work together as a team because you're all panicking about there being two tanks in the room.
I've only had two tanks once, so far. I was the only survivor of that particular event and I didn't last long after that. Great fun though.
5) The new map is really good
It's well thought out, there are loads of places you can camp or run to, many varied weapons stashes etc. etc.
6) They only give you tier 2 weapons
Now. I love the tier 2 weapons but the survival mode is about desperation and fighting the horde off with whatever weapons you have available. It would be nice if there were occasional stashes of the Tier 1 weapons for you to grab and be angry at.
7) It's really good fun :D
It provides what Left 4 Dead was missing - 5/10 minute bursts of gameplay. A very welcome addition. Now give us the SDK.
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
Game achievements
Because I'm basically a masochist, I often read threads at the end of gaming news articles. On Kotaku, there are often some nice insights by the more intelligent posters. On the CVG site, however, there are trolls trolls trolls galore.
Anyhoo, one thing that always (ALWAYS) gets brought up is this:
Achievements.
For example, the new Left 4 Dead DLC came out today.. I haven't had a chance to play it yet, am at work, but of the criticisms so far levelled at it by 360 owners (PC owners don't have it yet) are:
1) The rounds are too short
Which is kind of missing the point but never mind
and
2) There aren't any new achievements.
I'm sorry, what?
I should just say that I do quite like achievements - they're quite nice little additions to games and it can make you play things through in new ways - like the achievement packs in TF2 or the Akimbo Assassin one in Left 4 dead.
I really don't like what Microsoft have done with them, though. On the 360 (and on the ultimate satan of PC gaming that is Games For Windows, LIVE!!!) your achievements contribute to something called a Gamerscore.
There's no benefit to this score as far as I can tell - all it seems to do is rank players according to how "good" they are. This does play into the needle twitch 14 year old Halo playing: "I AM THE UBERMASTER LULZ FAG" mentality that the stereotypical Halo audience falls into... It's just a little bit sad that people out there care about this number... as if an arbitrary number can even attempt to represent how good a gamer you are.
Anyway, so this is why, overall, I don't like achievements. If people chased them for the sake of chasing them, fine, good for them, I do that myself. What I find utterly pathetic is when people do it to increase their gamerscore, which is the only reason I can think of to moan when games don't introduce new achievements with DLC.
It's also a criticism aimed at the Wii, occasionally, which is a bit odd. It's a bit like complaining that a Mac doesn't come with MS paint.
I did originally have a point to make. I've lost it.
Anyhoo, one thing that always (ALWAYS) gets brought up is this:
Achievements.
For example, the new Left 4 Dead DLC came out today.. I haven't had a chance to play it yet, am at work, but of the criticisms so far levelled at it by 360 owners (PC owners don't have it yet) are:
1) The rounds are too short
Which is kind of missing the point but never mind
and
2) There aren't any new achievements.
I'm sorry, what?
I should just say that I do quite like achievements - they're quite nice little additions to games and it can make you play things through in new ways - like the achievement packs in TF2 or the Akimbo Assassin one in Left 4 dead.
I really don't like what Microsoft have done with them, though. On the 360 (and on the ultimate satan of PC gaming that is Games For Windows, LIVE!!!) your achievements contribute to something called a Gamerscore.
There's no benefit to this score as far as I can tell - all it seems to do is rank players according to how "good" they are. This does play into the needle twitch 14 year old Halo playing: "I AM THE UBERMASTER LULZ FAG" mentality that the stereotypical Halo audience falls into... It's just a little bit sad that people out there care about this number... as if an arbitrary number can even attempt to represent how good a gamer you are.
Anyway, so this is why, overall, I don't like achievements. If people chased them for the sake of chasing them, fine, good for them, I do that myself. What I find utterly pathetic is when people do it to increase their gamerscore, which is the only reason I can think of to moan when games don't introduce new achievements with DLC.
It's also a criticism aimed at the Wii, occasionally, which is a bit odd. It's a bit like complaining that a Mac doesn't come with MS paint.
I did originally have a point to make. I've lost it.
Thursday, 16 April 2009
The Wii, Hardcore Gamers & Yahtzee
I've been meaning to write a piece about the Wii for a while but have always avoided it so far because it's such a fucking mire of a topic. This all changed yesterday, though, when this review was released onto the tubes. Okay, I thought, I'm actually going to have to respond to that. Even if it is on my personal blog, which I pray to someone no-one actually reads.
Before I respond to specific criticisms people have for the Wii, it's important to say what I like about it:
1) The motion controls enhance most games - enabling you to interact with them in a whole new way. This makes some games infinitely more immersive than they would have been otherwise. Anyone who's played Need For Speed Carbon on the Wii knows what I'm talking about.
2) It has a surprisingly high number of games that I've bought and then completed: Super Mario Galaxy, Trauma Center, NFS Carbon, Red Steel, Resi 4, Wario Ware, Zack and Wiki & several others. Compare that to my xbox 360 where I have completed precisely two games: Braid & Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.
I've bought several others, including Rez, Gears of War, Condemned, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Kane & Lynch etc. etc. Most of these games, though, just aren't enough fun to want to continue. Condemned was fun for a while - I got to the last level before I gave up in frustration (specifically with the level design) but the other games on this list seem to have spent so much time worrying about the demographic they're aiming for than making the game fun to play.
3) It's the only console this generation where most of the games available feel original.
Now, I know the 360 had Braid as an exclusive, before the PC got it as well and I know the PS3 has Little Big Planet and that M.C. Escher game (which I want on the PC really, really badly) but the Wii is the most original of the consoles by far. Looking at games like Wario Ware, Super Mario Galaxy, Trauma Center etc... None of those games are FPS's which helps, I suppose, but one is a goddamn surgery simulator - look me in the eye and tell me you expected a game like that this console generation.
Anyway, that's enough. I don't want to labour the point: I think the Wii is original and fun to interact with. So, why am I writing this article?
Well, as a dog returns to it's vomit, so do I return to reviews of Ben "Yahtzee" Crowshaw. Honestly, though, you can't call them reviews. They're editorials - the difference being that reviews present facts and then the reviewers opinion, editorials present the reviewers opinion and then certain cherry picked facts to back this opinion up.
I should really have stopped watching Yahtzee's reviews some time ago but every once in a while, there's one which is quite good - the recent Halo Wars one, for example. These good ones keep me going, through the really bad ones (of which there are many).
Of all his faults, though, his hatred of the Wii is the one that angers me the most. In his recent review of Mad World, he said that he hates the wii mote controls and doesn't like any Wii control methods because the Wiimote is completely broken. He's wrong.
Completely.
This is not an opinion thing, this can't be put down to personal preference, he's just wrong. The Wii controls work fine in games there implemented properly in. There are plenty of games where they're not, fine, but in many games, including most of the ones he's criticised, they're fine.
I know Yahtzee usually prizes impact over accuracy (see his reviews of Assassins Creed & Clive Barker's Jericho for great examples of where he's exaggerated his point so much it's completely at odds with the content of the game) but his attitude to the Wii is symptomatic of a larger problem.
This problem is an attitude held by what seems like the majority of 360 & PS3 owners. That attitude can be summed up by the following sentence:
"The Wii is shit because it's only for casual gamers."
The extended version of this is:
"The Wii is shit because it's only for casual gamers, so why bother releasing PROPER games for it? Mm?"
Now, it's easy to just discount this as snobbery on the part of people who consider themselves the gaming elite. People who've spent £300 on a PS3 so they think they're the ultimate in hard core gamers. As someone who recently spent that much on a new monitor for my gaming PC, I tend to view this as one would view a toddler who thinks he's incredibly talented because he can play Baa Baa Black Sheep on the recorder.
There is something much more unpleasant at work, though. I don't think it's any grand conspiracy by Microsoft or Sony, I don't think they're clever enough to engineer this sort of thing. What I think is happening is a systematic troll war that polarises opinion between those who think it's a kids toy and those that think it's a legitimate games machine.
I'm quite clearly in the latter camp but I'm surprised to see many other people are as well. Yahtzee's Madworld review which sparked this piece of verbal diarrhoea had several responses saying what I'm saying here but in about a tenth of the number of words. One quite eloquent one said:
"Okay, I know the Wii isn't perfect, and I know there is a ton of shovelware crap on it nowadays...I am a Wii owner and I hate going into a store and going bad...bad...bad...bad...bad...Could be good...Bad...Good...Bad...You get the picture
Before I respond to specific criticisms people have for the Wii, it's important to say what I like about it:
1) The motion controls enhance most games - enabling you to interact with them in a whole new way. This makes some games infinitely more immersive than they would have been otherwise. Anyone who's played Need For Speed Carbon on the Wii knows what I'm talking about.
2) It has a surprisingly high number of games that I've bought and then completed: Super Mario Galaxy, Trauma Center, NFS Carbon, Red Steel, Resi 4, Wario Ware, Zack and Wiki & several others. Compare that to my xbox 360 where I have completed precisely two games: Braid & Star Wars: The Force Unleashed.
I've bought several others, including Rez, Gears of War, Condemned, Rainbow 6 Vegas, Kane & Lynch etc. etc. Most of these games, though, just aren't enough fun to want to continue. Condemned was fun for a while - I got to the last level before I gave up in frustration (specifically with the level design) but the other games on this list seem to have spent so much time worrying about the demographic they're aiming for than making the game fun to play.
3) It's the only console this generation where most of the games available feel original.
Now, I know the 360 had Braid as an exclusive, before the PC got it as well and I know the PS3 has Little Big Planet and that M.C. Escher game (which I want on the PC really, really badly) but the Wii is the most original of the consoles by far. Looking at games like Wario Ware, Super Mario Galaxy, Trauma Center etc... None of those games are FPS's which helps, I suppose, but one is a goddamn surgery simulator - look me in the eye and tell me you expected a game like that this console generation.
Anyway, that's enough. I don't want to labour the point: I think the Wii is original and fun to interact with. So, why am I writing this article?
Well, as a dog returns to it's vomit, so do I return to reviews of Ben "Yahtzee" Crowshaw. Honestly, though, you can't call them reviews. They're editorials - the difference being that reviews present facts and then the reviewers opinion, editorials present the reviewers opinion and then certain cherry picked facts to back this opinion up.
I should really have stopped watching Yahtzee's reviews some time ago but every once in a while, there's one which is quite good - the recent Halo Wars one, for example. These good ones keep me going, through the really bad ones (of which there are many).
Of all his faults, though, his hatred of the Wii is the one that angers me the most. In his recent review of Mad World, he said that he hates the wii mote controls and doesn't like any Wii control methods because the Wiimote is completely broken. He's wrong.
Completely.
This is not an opinion thing, this can't be put down to personal preference, he's just wrong. The Wii controls work fine in games there implemented properly in. There are plenty of games where they're not, fine, but in many games, including most of the ones he's criticised, they're fine.
I know Yahtzee usually prizes impact over accuracy (see his reviews of Assassins Creed & Clive Barker's Jericho for great examples of where he's exaggerated his point so much it's completely at odds with the content of the game) but his attitude to the Wii is symptomatic of a larger problem.
This problem is an attitude held by what seems like the majority of 360 & PS3 owners. That attitude can be summed up by the following sentence:
"The Wii is shit because it's only for casual gamers."
The extended version of this is:
"The Wii is shit because it's only for casual gamers, so why bother releasing PROPER games for it? Mm?"
Now, it's easy to just discount this as snobbery on the part of people who consider themselves the gaming elite. People who've spent £300 on a PS3 so they think they're the ultimate in hard core gamers. As someone who recently spent that much on a new monitor for my gaming PC, I tend to view this as one would view a toddler who thinks he's incredibly talented because he can play Baa Baa Black Sheep on the recorder.
There is something much more unpleasant at work, though. I don't think it's any grand conspiracy by Microsoft or Sony, I don't think they're clever enough to engineer this sort of thing. What I think is happening is a systematic troll war that polarises opinion between those who think it's a kids toy and those that think it's a legitimate games machine.
I'm quite clearly in the latter camp but I'm surprised to see many other people are as well. Yahtzee's Madworld review which sparked this piece of verbal diarrhoea had several responses saying what I'm saying here but in about a tenth of the number of words. One quite eloquent one said:
"Okay, I know the Wii isn't perfect, and I know there is a ton of shovelware crap on it nowadays...I am a Wii owner and I hate going into a store and going bad...bad...bad...bad...bad...Could be good...Bad...Good...Bad...You get the picture
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Leverage
I actually promised myself I'd stop watching American TV recently... this isn't due to some latent racism on my part, it's just that Battlestar is now over, Supernatural is perilously close to jumping the shark and the 44 minute format of American TV shows is antithetical to one of my other passions: Anime.
The problem with anime is: When you're used to 44 minute programmes like Battlestar, it feels really, really odd to go back to 22 minute episodes. My plan was to purge my system of 44 minute shows, reset and sink myself into the delicious pool of anime for a bit.
This plan has to be put on hold for a bit, though, as I've discovered another show that is really worth watching.
Leverage is basically Oceans 11: The TV Show but in stead of stealing entirely for the money, they're moral thieves. In one episode, for example, they steal money for a veterans hospital whilst at the same time exposing the independent contractor that caused a bunch of veterans to be injured in the first place.
It's all handled very well- there's a good amount of humour but there is some gravity to the situations as well.
What impresses me, though, is how they've kept things feeling new. In one episode, a horse trainer has gone into business with an investor. The horses don't do as well as they should have done so the investor has the stable burned down, with the horses in it, to recoup the insurance and start again. The team are brought in by the trainer who wants to make sure the investor never, ever works with horses again.
It also has a pretty good cast. One of the cast members (I'm told) was in Angel, there's also a guy who was in 2 eps of Supernatural. Badger is in it (HOORAY FOR BADGER!) and Jane from Coupling is one of the main characters. The cast gels really well and the acting is always pretty damn solid.
Overall, it's pretty damn good. It's kind of like House - it's very solid, very well done but it's not going to change the world.
The problem with anime is: When you're used to 44 minute programmes like Battlestar, it feels really, really odd to go back to 22 minute episodes. My plan was to purge my system of 44 minute shows, reset and sink myself into the delicious pool of anime for a bit.
This plan has to be put on hold for a bit, though, as I've discovered another show that is really worth watching.
Leverage is basically Oceans 11: The TV Show but in stead of stealing entirely for the money, they're moral thieves. In one episode, for example, they steal money for a veterans hospital whilst at the same time exposing the independent contractor that caused a bunch of veterans to be injured in the first place.
It's all handled very well- there's a good amount of humour but there is some gravity to the situations as well.
What impresses me, though, is how they've kept things feeling new. In one episode, a horse trainer has gone into business with an investor. The horses don't do as well as they should have done so the investor has the stable burned down, with the horses in it, to recoup the insurance and start again. The team are brought in by the trainer who wants to make sure the investor never, ever works with horses again.
It also has a pretty good cast. One of the cast members (I'm told) was in Angel, there's also a guy who was in 2 eps of Supernatural. Badger is in it (HOORAY FOR BADGER!) and Jane from Coupling is one of the main characters. The cast gels really well and the acting is always pretty damn solid.
Overall, it's pretty damn good. It's kind of like House - it's very solid, very well done but it's not going to change the world.
Monday, 13 April 2009
Red Dwarf: Back To Earth
It's about two thirty in the morning and I should really be in bed but fuck it, I've just finished watching the new Red Dwarf three prater and I want to have a little online ponder about it.
Firstly, where do I stand on the rest of the Red Dwarf Legacy?
Well, I think it's Sci Fi first and comedy second. Yes, there are brilliant comedy episodes (Legion, for one) but for me, the strength of the show has always been in the incredibly imaginative situations they dream up for the characters.
I even quite like Series 8 - easily the weakest in the run, ignoring series 1 & 2 which I don't like at all. It wasn't funny in the least but it had some quite interesting ideas, such as the Cassandra episode.
Anyway, the rest of this is going to contain some pretty severe spoilers for Back To Earth so don't read if you care about that sort of thing.
Episode 1:
Things start fairly oddly - there's no laugh track for one. I find this a bit of a welcome relief - I don't like laugh tracks in comedy as it tends to unsubtly highlight jokes the creators thought we may miss.
Also, Kochanski is dead & Lister is in mourning. That's quite a good way to start, and sets the tone for the rest of the show...
If I had to use one word to describe these three episodes it would be Mature... The cast look considerably older than they did previously (it's set nine years after series 8) and the whole thing feels much more grounded in reality than it did previously.
There are still jokes - and some good ones at that. I laughed out loud several times in each episode, which is cool.
So anyway. Episode 1 is the funny episode. It's all set up, set up, set up. At the end, they create a dimensional portal and end up back on earth.
Episode 2:
Episode 2 reveals that they have been transported to an earth where they are characters in a TV show.
Now.
No matter what you think of this particular device (I happen to rather like it, as it's much better than several of the available alternatives) it is something that Stranger Than Fiction and Supernatural have all ready covered.
Far, far too much of this episode is spent making quite lazy self referential jokes about red dwarf fanboys. I was getting ready to write the whole thing off (despite a particularly good scene on a bus and the best joke in the series - the final destination joke) but then I saw episode 3.
Episode 3:
Episode 3 is where things start getting weird. They meet the real life Craig Charles, which is all in the vein of episode 2 but then they meet, and kill, their creator. They are free of the show, they can do what they want.
Then, they realise (I forget how) that it must be a fantasy- the squid they hunted in episode 1 must have been a despair squid. But how? I thought it would have been really cool if this squid caused bliss instead of despair and it turned out I was right.
They return to Red Dwarf and Lister has quite a touching moment with an imaginary Kochanski.
So. Where does that leave us?
Of the three episodes, the first one was funny, the second one was half worth watching (specifically the last half) and the third episode is pretty good.
Let me just clarify, though, when I say "good" I mean Chuck good, not Battlestar Galactica good. It's perfectly watchable tv. If you go in expecting the best thing since whatever, you'll be very, very fucking disappointed. I was fully expecting it to be shite and was pleasantly surprised.
I think the main reason why I ended up liking it is- it's very different to the old Dwarf series. It feels more mature, as I said earlier. It feels like they're doing worthwhile things with the characters.
Most importantly, I hope they make more. I think with the show in its current format, they could do some really fun and interesting stuff with it. It looked also pretty damn cheap to make so hopefully they can do it.
All in all, thank you Dave. The Channel Dave. You've provided us with a worthy resurrection of a classic TV show and proven that small companies can provide decent entertainment for the masses. Good on you.
Firstly, where do I stand on the rest of the Red Dwarf Legacy?
Well, I think it's Sci Fi first and comedy second. Yes, there are brilliant comedy episodes (Legion, for one) but for me, the strength of the show has always been in the incredibly imaginative situations they dream up for the characters.
I even quite like Series 8 - easily the weakest in the run, ignoring series 1 & 2 which I don't like at all. It wasn't funny in the least but it had some quite interesting ideas, such as the Cassandra episode.
Anyway, the rest of this is going to contain some pretty severe spoilers for Back To Earth so don't read if you care about that sort of thing.
Episode 1:
Things start fairly oddly - there's no laugh track for one. I find this a bit of a welcome relief - I don't like laugh tracks in comedy as it tends to unsubtly highlight jokes the creators thought we may miss.
Also, Kochanski is dead & Lister is in mourning. That's quite a good way to start, and sets the tone for the rest of the show...
If I had to use one word to describe these three episodes it would be Mature... The cast look considerably older than they did previously (it's set nine years after series 8) and the whole thing feels much more grounded in reality than it did previously.
There are still jokes - and some good ones at that. I laughed out loud several times in each episode, which is cool.
So anyway. Episode 1 is the funny episode. It's all set up, set up, set up. At the end, they create a dimensional portal and end up back on earth.
Episode 2:
Episode 2 reveals that they have been transported to an earth where they are characters in a TV show.
Now.
No matter what you think of this particular device (I happen to rather like it, as it's much better than several of the available alternatives) it is something that Stranger Than Fiction and Supernatural have all ready covered.
Far, far too much of this episode is spent making quite lazy self referential jokes about red dwarf fanboys. I was getting ready to write the whole thing off (despite a particularly good scene on a bus and the best joke in the series - the final destination joke) but then I saw episode 3.
Episode 3:
Episode 3 is where things start getting weird. They meet the real life Craig Charles, which is all in the vein of episode 2 but then they meet, and kill, their creator. They are free of the show, they can do what they want.
Then, they realise (I forget how) that it must be a fantasy- the squid they hunted in episode 1 must have been a despair squid. But how? I thought it would have been really cool if this squid caused bliss instead of despair and it turned out I was right.
They return to Red Dwarf and Lister has quite a touching moment with an imaginary Kochanski.
So. Where does that leave us?
Of the three episodes, the first one was funny, the second one was half worth watching (specifically the last half) and the third episode is pretty good.
Let me just clarify, though, when I say "good" I mean Chuck good, not Battlestar Galactica good. It's perfectly watchable tv. If you go in expecting the best thing since whatever, you'll be very, very fucking disappointed. I was fully expecting it to be shite and was pleasantly surprised.
I think the main reason why I ended up liking it is- it's very different to the old Dwarf series. It feels more mature, as I said earlier. It feels like they're doing worthwhile things with the characters.
Most importantly, I hope they make more. I think with the show in its current format, they could do some really fun and interesting stuff with it. It looked also pretty damn cheap to make so hopefully they can do it.
All in all, thank you Dave. The Channel Dave. You've provided us with a worthy resurrection of a classic TV show and proven that small companies can provide decent entertainment for the masses. Good on you.
Sunday, 12 April 2009
Doctor Who: The Planet of the Dead
I approached this Doctor Who special with appropriate caution. Russel T Davies has never, ever done a good Doctor Who special. He's done good single episodes, of course, but he usually lets the sense of occasion go to his head and ends up with giant transformers stomping Victorian London.
This time round, though, the special is not just written by Davies, it's also written by Gareth Roberts who wrote The Unicorn & The Wasp and The Shakespeare Code. These weren't good episodes but they were witty and quite well thought out.
Roberts' writing clearly compliments Russels because this special is... quite good.
It opens with a very exciting sequence which blows away the stodge of usual doctor who openings. We're not forced to sit through five minutes of a companion squabbling with their family, we're straight in with the action. The doctor appears and he offers Michelle Ryan (who is very good, as usual) an easter egg - the one nod to the festival this special marks.
Then the plot kicks in, a london bus gets dumped on another planet and things carry on as they normally do in Doctor Who.
What's quite nice about this special is - a lot of time has clearly been devoted to Michell Ryan's character. She's not a tiresome everyman (thankfully) and she brings up a lot of questions that an attentive watcher will be asking - as well as several that they wouldn't have thought of. This is fantastic - it keeps the writing ahead of the audience and means that when the plot holes start opening (as they usually do with Davies' scripts) we don't really mind because they have successfully missed so many on the way.
It is an episode with a fair few problems though. The main one is the traditional Russel T. Davies camp factor. The ending is packed full of cheese - applauding soldiers, a badly written classical score marking the triumphant return, and more than a few corny lines of dialogue.
The creature design is half brilliant, half terrible. Thankfully, the terrible bits don't intrude much.
The main problem, though, is the length. This episode is 60 minutes, rather than the more traditional 45 and boy does the ending drag because of it. Up until the finale, everything moves at a real pace. So much gets done - there's action, jokes, fun bits of characterisation... but then everything slows down to a crawl for no real reason.
So yes. As far as Doctor Who episodes go, it's definitely ahead of stuff like The Impossible Planet - mainly because there are precisely no Deus Ex Machina's... It's not as good as the stellar episodes like Blink, Gridlock etc. etc. but it's as good as episodes like 42, Father's Day etc.
This time round, though, the special is not just written by Davies, it's also written by Gareth Roberts who wrote The Unicorn & The Wasp and The Shakespeare Code. These weren't good episodes but they were witty and quite well thought out.
Roberts' writing clearly compliments Russels because this special is... quite good.
It opens with a very exciting sequence which blows away the stodge of usual doctor who openings. We're not forced to sit through five minutes of a companion squabbling with their family, we're straight in with the action. The doctor appears and he offers Michelle Ryan (who is very good, as usual) an easter egg - the one nod to the festival this special marks.
Then the plot kicks in, a london bus gets dumped on another planet and things carry on as they normally do in Doctor Who.
What's quite nice about this special is - a lot of time has clearly been devoted to Michell Ryan's character. She's not a tiresome everyman (thankfully) and she brings up a lot of questions that an attentive watcher will be asking - as well as several that they wouldn't have thought of. This is fantastic - it keeps the writing ahead of the audience and means that when the plot holes start opening (as they usually do with Davies' scripts) we don't really mind because they have successfully missed so many on the way.
It is an episode with a fair few problems though. The main one is the traditional Russel T. Davies camp factor. The ending is packed full of cheese - applauding soldiers, a badly written classical score marking the triumphant return, and more than a few corny lines of dialogue.
The creature design is half brilliant, half terrible. Thankfully, the terrible bits don't intrude much.
The main problem, though, is the length. This episode is 60 minutes, rather than the more traditional 45 and boy does the ending drag because of it. Up until the finale, everything moves at a real pace. So much gets done - there's action, jokes, fun bits of characterisation... but then everything slows down to a crawl for no real reason.
So yes. As far as Doctor Who episodes go, it's definitely ahead of stuff like The Impossible Planet - mainly because there are precisely no Deus Ex Machina's... It's not as good as the stellar episodes like Blink, Gridlock etc. etc. but it's as good as episodes like 42, Father's Day etc.
Wednesday, 8 April 2009
Resi 5 woes continued
In my previous post I moaned about how Capcom shouldn't be charging for an extra multiplayer mode less than a month after they've released their latest game.
Well, it turns out that the mode that's supposedly DLC, is all ready there on the disc. When you buy the DLC, you download a 2 megabyte unlock file.
I'd suggest a boycott of Capcom if I thought the needletwitch fools who buy resident evil games would stick to it.
Well, it turns out that the mode that's supposedly DLC, is all ready there on the disc. When you buy the DLC, you download a 2 megabyte unlock file.
I'd suggest a boycott of Capcom if I thought the needletwitch fools who buy resident evil games would stick to it.
Monday, 6 April 2009
Resi 5 DLC
I saw a news story today that said Resident Evil 5 will be selling a versus mode as downloadable content for 400 microsoft fun bucks. And it's going to be released tomorrow.
Whilst this isn't quite horse armor it still seems like a major rip off. Not least the fact that Resi 5 was released under a month ago. Is there all ready DLC available for it? Seriously? The whole fucking point of DLC is that it's stuff you added later, not stuff you clearly could have added into the original release.
This more amuses me than anything else, if I'm honest, because I think Resident Evil 5 is a terrible game and anyone who actually buys this shit deserves to be separated from their money but once I stop guffawing into my pasta/tuna/olives lunch, it began to sting a bit.
Firstly, I'm worried that this trend will spread.
Capcom's defenders on the intertubes want to know what the nay sayers are complaining about. Someone calling themselves Tonixz said: "I don't see how Capcom isn't short changing anyone here. I'm pretty certain most RE games to date were single player and they were retail priced."
The problem is, by that logic, developers should just put out a game that is identical in every way to the last game and release everything new as DLC.
As part of the PC gaming master race, I'm used to my DLC being free, with the exception of shit I don't mind paying for such as the Far Cry 2 stuff. What does worry me slightly is that developers may put an incomplete game out (as they have clearly done here) and then charge extra for the bits they should have included in the first place.
This may well drive console game prices up from the £40 they're currently at to closer to £50.
Considering £40 is all ready far too much to pay for most of these games, that's something to be legitimately worried by.
In other news the Sith Lords Restoration Bug Count is still at 84.
At least it hasn't gone up.
Whilst this isn't quite horse armor it still seems like a major rip off. Not least the fact that Resi 5 was released under a month ago. Is there all ready DLC available for it? Seriously? The whole fucking point of DLC is that it's stuff you added later, not stuff you clearly could have added into the original release.
This more amuses me than anything else, if I'm honest, because I think Resident Evil 5 is a terrible game and anyone who actually buys this shit deserves to be separated from their money but once I stop guffawing into my pasta/tuna/olives lunch, it began to sting a bit.
Firstly, I'm worried that this trend will spread.
Capcom's defenders on the intertubes want to know what the nay sayers are complaining about. Someone calling themselves Tonixz said: "I don't see how Capcom isn't short changing anyone here. I'm pretty certain most RE games to date were single player and they were retail priced."
The problem is, by that logic, developers should just put out a game that is identical in every way to the last game and release everything new as DLC.
As part of the PC gaming master race, I'm used to my DLC being free, with the exception of shit I don't mind paying for such as the Far Cry 2 stuff. What does worry me slightly is that developers may put an incomplete game out (as they have clearly done here) and then charge extra for the bits they should have included in the first place.
This may well drive console game prices up from the £40 they're currently at to closer to £50.
Considering £40 is all ready far too much to pay for most of these games, that's something to be legitimately worried by.
In other news the Sith Lords Restoration Bug Count is still at 84.
At least it hasn't gone up.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
Films what I did watch this week
1) Casshern
So this used to be one of my favourite films when I was at university. It was beautiful, the soundtrack was lovely and the plot was heart breaking, if extremely silly. Silly does sum up the film quite well actually, to actually like it you have to have quite a high silly tolerance. You have to be able to roll with the fact that a group of escaping prisoners can find in the mountains a giant factory for making killer robots. Just like that.
Anyway, rewatching it here, now in 2009, its appeal has gone. This isn't because I can't put up with the plot, it's because it takes so fucking long to get to the point. I watched 40 minutes of the damn thing and the plot was only just getting started. There were another two hours to go. I said fuck that shit and watched something else.
In a way, this is a massive shame. Casshern is one of those films that really doesn't need to be that slow. Sure, long lingering shots are nice occasionally - the opening to the Moonlight Sonata is still fantastic but the rest of the film is just fucking glacial.
All in all, I must have been a much more patient person at university.
2) Das Experiment
Das Experiment was also one of my favouite films at university and, after the massive disappointment that was Casshern, I re watched it, hoping against hope that it would stand up to the rewatch.
It does. Thankfully.
It's not quite as good as I remember it - the plot all makes sense, I'm just not hugely convinced it would all move that quickly. However, the characters are all fantastic, the film moves at a very nice pace and it has quite a nice ending.
Part of the reason I love Das Experiment is how it's managed to capture human temperaments so realistically. Some of the characters may seem awfully convenient (having a repressed obsessive who believes only in pleasing authority figures for example) but that's what The Experiment was all about...
What I find especially interesting this time around is something I didn't notice on my previous viewings - The first guard to emerge as slightly over authoritarian is the executive - he sows the seeds of authoritarianism in the others and they run with it whilst he tries to hold them back and maintain order.
Very good film.
3) Monsters Vs Aliens
I'll keep this one short - Monsters Vs Aliens is a really good film. Mostly because it's short. It has three main plot elements and moves between them very quickly. This means that the audience never has time to get bored but more importantly - the characters never debate their actions or have moments of angsty self doubt like they usually do in these damn films.
It's very funny, is extremely cynical and its' gender politics are excellent. It represents both male and female characters without being overly patronising to either one. That's a rare feat in any film, let alone a kids one.
So yes, it's 90 minutes of frothy fun. It's not as good as Wall-E but that's a bit like saying Nightwish aren't as good as Mozart - it's unfair to compare something that's very good to a bona fide masterpiece.
So this used to be one of my favourite films when I was at university. It was beautiful, the soundtrack was lovely and the plot was heart breaking, if extremely silly. Silly does sum up the film quite well actually, to actually like it you have to have quite a high silly tolerance. You have to be able to roll with the fact that a group of escaping prisoners can find in the mountains a giant factory for making killer robots. Just like that.
Anyway, rewatching it here, now in 2009, its appeal has gone. This isn't because I can't put up with the plot, it's because it takes so fucking long to get to the point. I watched 40 minutes of the damn thing and the plot was only just getting started. There were another two hours to go. I said fuck that shit and watched something else.
In a way, this is a massive shame. Casshern is one of those films that really doesn't need to be that slow. Sure, long lingering shots are nice occasionally - the opening to the Moonlight Sonata is still fantastic but the rest of the film is just fucking glacial.
All in all, I must have been a much more patient person at university.
2) Das Experiment
Das Experiment was also one of my favouite films at university and, after the massive disappointment that was Casshern, I re watched it, hoping against hope that it would stand up to the rewatch.
It does. Thankfully.
It's not quite as good as I remember it - the plot all makes sense, I'm just not hugely convinced it would all move that quickly. However, the characters are all fantastic, the film moves at a very nice pace and it has quite a nice ending.
Part of the reason I love Das Experiment is how it's managed to capture human temperaments so realistically. Some of the characters may seem awfully convenient (having a repressed obsessive who believes only in pleasing authority figures for example) but that's what The Experiment was all about...
What I find especially interesting this time around is something I didn't notice on my previous viewings - The first guard to emerge as slightly over authoritarian is the executive - he sows the seeds of authoritarianism in the others and they run with it whilst he tries to hold them back and maintain order.
Very good film.
3) Monsters Vs Aliens
I'll keep this one short - Monsters Vs Aliens is a really good film. Mostly because it's short. It has three main plot elements and moves between them very quickly. This means that the audience never has time to get bored but more importantly - the characters never debate their actions or have moments of angsty self doubt like they usually do in these damn films.
It's very funny, is extremely cynical and its' gender politics are excellent. It represents both male and female characters without being overly patronising to either one. That's a rare feat in any film, let alone a kids one.
So yes, it's 90 minutes of frothy fun. It's not as good as Wall-E but that's a bit like saying Nightwish aren't as good as Mozart - it's unfair to compare something that's very good to a bona fide masterpiece.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
But I have a few questions...
1. Why is a game getting ripped on because of other games on the system? Each game is its own. It doesn't matter if the other games are bad. What matters is this game.
2. Do people want hardcore games on the Wii or not? When shovelware comes out, I see on the boards statements like this. "Har Har, the Wii has no good games. It abandoned the hardcore audience. It sucks! Har Har." Then a good game comes out and I see this. "Why are they releasing this on the Wii! This is clearly for a hardcore audience."
I know this is getting long, but Basically my point is to look at a game based on the game. And then finally decide if you will actually let the Wii have hardcore titles, or you just want to assume that all it gets is shovelware."
But what about the accusation of it only containing casual games? Well, if you ignore the list I spouted earlier, that seems a much more valid argument. The Wii has a load of minigame collections on there, as well as various games like Mario Kart that are more socially geared than most.
But does that make them casual games?
Well, I have no idea. I also have no idea what the hell a casual game is.
Wikipedia's article on the subject is so vague it's practically non existent. Urban Dictionary's definition is the same except it's rather badly syntaxed.
There appear to be two things everyone agrees on that forms a casual game:
1) It requires very little "skill" to play
2) It's very simple
So where does that leave us with Wii games? Well, it's not particularly helpful. Most of the games I've played on the wii have neither of those features. A lot of them have been family friendly, a lot of them have been social in nature rather than solo but with the exception of Rayman Raving Rabbids (which I love) no games I have played on the wii have both of those characteristics.
I'm being overly clinical about this, though. The other feature of a casual game is: It's not a game I, the person who is saying this sentence, would ever play.
I red a fantastic diatribe on a Kotaku forum once. I've lost it now but the verbatim was: Barring stuff like Peggle and Flash games, there's no such thing as casual gaming. What people mean when they say: Oh, that's just a casual game is: That's not Halo. Or Gears of War. Or any of the other really MANLY games that I play. How dare you enjoy Super Mario Galaxy with it's flawless, intuitive and highly original gameplay. It's got giant penguins in it! What are you, a fag?
I said earlier that this attitude 360 & PS3 owners have isn't just snobbery... It's taken me a while to work out what it is but I think I have a handle on it. It's bullying. These people are attacking Wii owners again and again and again with no justification or provocation. I'd care more but Wii owners are very good at telling these twats to fuck off in very loud voices, hence the flame wars that inevitably arise whenever anyone goes down this road on a mainstream forum.
To return to Yahtzee, he is definitely the most mainstream voice of this attitude that I know of. Him saying he wants to run around the streets grabbing people and shouting: THE WII IS MADE OF POO, WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE what does that say about him and the people who hold that attitude?
Two things:
1) They're an idiot who hasn't worked out that it doesn't matter what a console itself is like, it's what the games on it that should be judged.
2) They're intolerant, snobbish & convinced that their style of gaming is the superior one. Anything in that camp is just for children and the mentally ill.
I don't really have an end to this article. I've set out my points and am fairly sure I've proved how moronic the phrase "casual gaming" is but how to end? Well, calling for people who use the phrase to be kicked in the balls is a good start. Calling them on their bullshit is another way of doing it.
However you approach it, though, the point of this is tolerance. Accept that there are styles of gaming that appeal to other people and not you.
I do need to practice what I preach, by the way. Halo, Gears of War et all are worth dog shit in my book but they have sold massively massively well, clearly a lot of people like them, which makes them perfectly valid games.
Mind you, I don't go round screaming about how the 360 is a pile of shit because I don't like some of the games on it.