Opinion

A look at multiplayer-only gaming

Posted on by astyahla

Competition is one of the most integral parts of gaming. As such, several games include at least one multiplayer mode, in addition to a single player campaign. Sometimes the multiplayer mode ends up becoming the focus of the game, even to the extent that there is no single player mode to begin with.

Multiplayer-only games are nothing new, but they have become more and more prominent in recent years. While several games are renowned for their multiplayer such as “Super Smash Bros.,” “Goldeneye 007,” or “Call of Duty,” those do not count as they all have fully realized single-player modes. Even genres synonymous with multiplayer, such as fighting or sports offer either dedicated single-player mods or just allow you to play against the AI.

A good example of a multiplayer-only game is “Titanfall.” There are no single player modes at all. Just online first-person shooting matches with you playing either on foot or in the cockpit of a giant robot. While this helps players get straight into the action, there are signs that the developers wanted to include a campaign of some sort, as there is a series of matches with a storyline tacked onto them.

Meanwhile, “Splatoon” is not a true example of multiplayer-only gaming. Yes, the online 8-player matches are the highlight, but it does include a single-player campaign. Ultimately, the single player mode feels like an afterthought as it can be completed in just a few hours and does not have a compelling story for the player to get into.

One of the most visible recent examples is “Star Wars: Battlefront.” This shooter looks to recreate the large scale battles that are synonymous with “Star Wars.” The title supports up to 40 players in a single match while also offering cooperative missions that can also be played through local multiplayer.

While the idea of multiplayer-only games sounds awesome, there are some flaws that come with the games. For example, these games rely on a continuous flow of content in order to avoid boring players. One common complaint about “Battlefront” is the lack of content available. I remember similar complaints were made about “Splatoon”upon its release, but once more content was added, many publications revised their reviews and “Splatoon” became one of the best games of 2015.

For that reason, I think that it is best to wait to review multiplayer-only games for a few months. Either that or go back and take another look once more content is available. It is entirely possible for a game with more content added to address the original complaints and become good. After all, “Battlefront” still has the potential to be a good game. We just have to wait and see.

What Nintendo needs to do with the NX

Posted on by astyahla

It is no secret that Nintendo is working on another system. They announced the system, codenamed NX, back in March 2015, but did not give any details. Since then, it has been said that more information will be given in 2016. While rumors have been flying around, Nintendo has stayed quiet regarding the system.

One popular assumption is that the NX will be be a new home console. However, this should be taken with a grain of salt. With the lack of information, it is also entirely possible that the NX will be a new handheld. What ever the case, there are several things that Nintendo should do in order to avoid falling behind like they did with the Wii U.

Match the graphics of the system’s contemporaries

Ever since the jump to 3D graphics, Nintendo consoles have had a reputation for having less powerful graphics than their competitors. This did not seem like a problem to me at first, but it became more noticeable as third-parties started by passing the Wii and Wii U  for multi platform games. When the ports of said games did arrive they were vastly inferior to the other versions. For example, “Watch Dogs” was released for the Wii U six months after the other versions and not only were the graphics inferior, but there were a lot of frame rate problems that ruined the game. Meanwhile, “Batman Arkham Origins” was released on the Wii U at the same time as the other systems, but lacked the online multiplayer (given it was panned, it may have been for the best) and the “Cold, Cold Heart” DLC.

If the Wii U were as powerful as the PS4 and Xbox One, we might have gotten Wii U versions of big games such as “Assassin’s Creed Syndicate” or”Fallout 4.” While I won’t hold my breath on it actually happening, Nintendo needs to have a more powerful system.

Embrace a more mature audience

Many people say Nintendo is for kids and with their adherence to staple franchises like “Mario”, “Pokemon,”and “Kirby”they are not doing much to contest that image. However, they have been willing to publish M-rated titles, with last year’s “Bayonetta 2” being a good example. If they were more willing to push the realm of mature content, they might attract more third party support and win back some of their former longtime supporters like Capcom or Square Enix.

Enough with the gimmicky controllers

Let’s face it. The Wii and the Wii U stand out in the gaming industry for their unique controllers. The Wii Remote and Nunchuck brought motion control to the masses. The Wii U Gamepad featured a second screen and could be used as the main screen when someone else is using the TV. But in the end, no one but Nintendo themselves seemed to know how to use these gimmicks to make good games. Even so, the Gamepad barely has any reason to be used. Personally, unless the game specifically requires the Gamepad, I tended to gravitate toward the Pro controller, a standard controller, instead. Therefore, Nintendo should stop trying to force these gimmicks on us and just give the NX a standard controller. If there is a unique feature that requires a specialized controller, then Nintendo should also include a standard controller with the console from the start.

Improved online features

While the Wii U’s online landscape was an improvement over the Wii’s, there is still a ways to go before Nintendo has caught up with the competition. Miiverse is an interesting idea, but there needs to be a method of direct messaging between players rather than just another social network. Once direct communication is possible, Nintendo needs a way to arrange for friends to play together online right from the console. Furthermore, while the eShop is fine, Nintendo needs to tie digital purchases to user accounts rather than the systems they were made on. That way, if you need to replace your system, you can easily get back your downloaded content without having to repurchase it. We have Nintendo Network accounts that are shared between the Wii U and 3DS. Why isn’t this implemented yet? Here’s hoping this change is made before the NX is released.

The Debacle of DLC

Posted on by astyahla

It was about one hardware generation ago when developers started to heavily rely on downloadable content. Now a days, almost every game has extra content for a price, no matter how significant. It could be  something major like a new level or character. Other times, DLC can merely be cosmetic, such as character skins.

The practice itself has been the subject of debate for a long time. Some people think it is a worthwhile practice while others think such content is not worth it if it was not included in the original release of the game. However, it is not fair to judge all DLC a whole. Rather it should be examined on a case by case basis.

Most of the DLC I would be likely to buy would be characters and levels. For example, “Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U” has offered four downloadable characters with a fifth one (Cloud) on the way. In addition, there have been five stages added via DLC, with two more added via update. Each of these characters and staged feels distinct from the rest of the roster, so I went ahead and purchased them. In fact, the would seem essential to keep up with an ever evolving metagame.

On the other hand, I decided to ignore the Mii Fighter costumes. While there are some interesting costumes such as Lloyd Irving and the Black Knight, they ultimately do nothing to enhance the gameplay and can safely be ignored.

Meanwhile, “Street Fighter V” has an interesting approach to DLC. Instead of the usual practice of rereleasing the game every time Capcom wants to introduce new content or rebalance the game, they will instead patch the game for rebalancing, while new characters will be sold as DLC. The twist is that you have the option of using in-game currency to earn new characters instead of real money, which is still an option. However, it now feels akin to unlocking new content like the old days.

Granted, there are times in which I have been burned on DLC. For example, Alisha’s Story in “Tales of Zestiria” felt more like an exercise in frustration than an enjoyable experience. “Sonic Lost World’s” Nightmare Zone, felt like I was just playing the same bosses all over again. I could also never beat the Initiation DLC in “Batman: Arkham Origins.” Furthermore, “Mass Effect 3’s” From Ashes DLC get like something that should have been on the game disk from the beginning. This was especially glaring when the scenario was included in the Wii U version of the game despite lacking most of the other DLC. While some of the DLC guns were a major part of my arsenal in the Wii U version, I did not bother downloading them in the PS3 version.

Of course, some developers offer free DLC, which I do not have a problem with. After all, there is no risk of wasting money. Usually it is something insignificant like a few items that can be obtained in game, or character skins. But sometimes you find some real winners among them.

As for why DLC is created, it can be an extra reward for the players. It is also possible that they wish to restore cut content or implement new ice that originated after the initial release,  but do not have enough material for a new game. The fact of the matter is that not all DLC is bad. Plus it is completely optional, so if you do not want it, don’t waste your energy complaining about it, just show your disapproval by not buying it.

Opinion: It was right for Tales of Zestiria’s Alisha to leave the party

Posted on by astyahla

Warning! Spoilers Ahead!

“Tales of Zestiria” may have been released worldwide in late October, but Japan had the game ever since this past January. At the time of release, the game had been surrounded with controversy over how the developers handled the character Alisha Diphda. She was one of the first characters shown to the public, causing many to assume she would be the female lead, and thus accompany the protagonist, Sorey, to the end of the game.  Indeed, she is introduced early on and give Sorey the motivation to go out into the world. But then she leaves the party less than a quarter of the way through. This lead some people to accuse the publisher, Namco Bandai, of false advertising. It did not help that she is seemingly replaced by another character named Rose. Now that I have played the game for myself, I feel compelled to weigh in on the matter. I actually believe that making Alisha a temporary party member was the right thing to do.

First, we have to look at why she left in the first place. Sorey making Alisha his Squire seemed like a good idea at the time. This allowed her to interact with the Seraphim, who made up the rest of the party at the time, and fight off the Hellions. Later, we find out she is not powerful enough, so she ends up taking a toll on Sorey. This is foreshadowed by a brief first-person view showing his vision blurring. This comes to a head when Sorey goes blind in one eye, leaving him unable to stop a surprise attack that seriously wounds Alisha. After hearing this, Alisha decides to stay behind and focus on doing what she can as a princess and a knight.

About an hour of playtime later, Rose shows up and proves to be a much stronger Squire. This means she does not affect Sorey, and can even armatize, or fuse, with the Seraphim, which is thought to be something only a Shepherd, such as Sorey, can do. Rose then stays with Sorey for the rest of the game.

From a story perspective, I think Alisha’s situation can be compared to someone underperforming at their job. If you fail to meet expectations and cause problems in the workplace, you are going to get fired. However, Alisha willingly left the party, so it is not like she was cast aside. Even though she is no longer playable, she still plays a big role in the story as a diplomat trying to avert war.

From a gameplay perspective, Rose is superior to Alisha by virtue of being able to armatize, while Alisha cannot. A lot of the tougher battles are extremely difficult to win without the use of armatization. When Alisha is with the party, she will have to do without the powerful attacks and healing spells that this state offers.

That’s not to say this was handled perfectly. I still think there could have been a good story arc involving Alisha at least becoming powerful enough to not burden Sorey. Also, the game does a poor job of explaining how Rose, the leader of an assassins’ guild, is able to be as powerful as a Shepherd, who is supposed to be pure of heart.

While there is a DLC scenario starring Alisha, it really shows just how weak she is compared to Rose. Furthermore, not all of the main game’s party members are available, meaning you do not have as many elements to work with. It does not help that there are a lot of enemies that resist the elements your party members specialize in. Storywise, it is an epilogue, and does not give any essential plot points. Therefore, unless you really love Alisha, it is not worth your time and money.

At the end of the day, Alisha’s departure from the party was for the best. Do you agree? Feel free to discuss this in the comments.

Opinion: Pokemon Generation One’s return is not as great as it seems.

Posted on by astyahla

It does not take much to see that “Pokemon” is one of Nintendo’s most successful properties. The main series games sell millions within days of release and the many spin-offs are not far behind. Yesterday, Nintendo announced via Nintendo Direct that “Pokemon Red Version,” “Pokemon Blue Version,” and “Pokemon Yellow Version” will be digitally re-released this February. Based upon comments left via Facebook and Twitter during the live steam, and Youtube following the broadcast, a lot of people are excited to go back to the games that started it all. However, where many see an opportunity to revisit a classic, I see a relic of the past that is better left behind.

Before we go any further, I certainly do have fond memories of playing Blue Version. I remember choosing Bulbasaur as my starter Pokemon, catching many others, fighting Team Rocket, and facing off with Legendaries. I was even the idiot who tried play it with just my starter. At the time, I thought it was the perfect experience. Now that I am older and have moved on, I now realize that there were some serious problems with the original Pokemon games, or Generation One as fans refer to them.

While the battles were certainly fun, the games were horribly unbalanced. Back then, there were only 15 types of Pokemon, but one of them managed to unanimously reign supreme over all others. Psychic-type Pokemon were monsters on the battlefield, especially since the Special Attack and Special Defense stats were one and the same. Psychic-types tended to have a high Special stat, so they hit hard and were hard to take down.  They also had no real type weaknesses. According to one enemy trainer, the Psychic-type was supposed to be weak against Bug and Ghost types, but in practice, neither of them were effective counters. There were only a handful of Bug-type moves, and none of them did enough damage to make a real difference. Meanwhile, a bug in the games’ code rendered Psychic-types immune to Ghost-type moves. Even if the match up worked like it was supposed to, Ghosts were also hindered by inadequate moves. It did not help that the only three Ghost-type Pokemon in the games were also Poison-types, which were weak to Psychic-types.

In addition, the games lacked several of the strategic features that are now staples of the series. Items could not be held by your Pokemon. You could not breed to create extra powerful creatures. Pokemon did not have passive abilities. All of these are now key parts of most players’ strategies, so going back to Generation One would cripple most people.

The games were also loaded with glitches. While several of them were able to be exploited for the player’s benefit, such as finding the original event Pokemon, Mew, normally, or getting an infinite supply of items, they were just as likely to ruin the experience. In a best case scenario, these would result in odd graphics. At worst, they could render the entire game unplayable. All of these were the result of programing shortcuts taken by the development team to fit the entire game on one game pack.

Thankfuly, later games had much more memory available to work with, resulting in larger worlds with fewer glitches. In addition, later games brought Psychic-types down a peg by separating the Special stats, fixing the bug so that Ghost-types had an advantage over them as intended, adding more powerful Ghost and Bug-type Pokemon, gave them better moves, and introduced Steel and Dark-types, which were resistant and immune to Psychic-types respectively. All of this gave players more options to fight on even footing. Even though Dragon-types replaced Psychic-types as the one type to rule them all, Pokemon X and Y introduced Fairy-types to counter them.

While a little nostalgia is well and good, it is time to face facts regarding the original games. There is no doubt they were important. I may even try Yellow Version if I feel like it. But the fact of the matter is that “Pokemon Red, Blue and Yellow” did not age well at all.