Maybe I Was Wrong About That GT Movie After All

Apparently that Gran Turismo movie is going to be about Spanish driver Lucas Ordonez who learned how to race playing Gran Turismo before becoming a world-class race driver after winning a Gran Turismo 3 sponsored event.

So maybe I was wrong. I am willing to admit that. That is actually an excellent concept for a movie in general and a good use of the license since it is a story in which the game itself is integral to the plot.

Pre-Release Reviews

It occurred to me this evening that there is a certain amount of complacency from video game consumers when it comes to reviews. I've made arguments like this in the past, but in this case I mean a specific thing.

We've become accustomed to this system where we usually have to wait for a game to be released before we get to see reviews. A lot of this is due to an unwieldy system of exclusive reviews that get to go up a little sooner, resulting in higher page counts while the rest suffer under embargoes, and we suffer as consumers.

The thing that made me start thinking about this issue is the upcoming releases of Saints Row IV, Splinter Cell Blacklist and The Bureau: XCOM Declassified, all of which come out tomorrow. 

It is like Deep Silver sent Saint Row IV to everyone they could to have it reviewed and have those reviews all published before it came out, and Ubisoft has done a pretty good job of getting Splinter Cell Blacklist for the 360 reviewed in a number of places before its release, with a few for the PS3 and none for PC.

And The Bureau... well, no one has reviewed it yet, and it makes me feel like 2K Games doesn't want anyone to read about their game before it is released, and in light of the other two games that are coming out tomorrow, it makes me wonder why. Is there something wrong with it... is there some problem they are hiding?

For all I know, a bunch of reviews could come out tomorrow and it could end up with high scores and a lot of praise, but at the moment, I am suspicious of the game, like there is a flaw in the game that they are trying to hide from the public. Because think about all those people who got burned really bad by games like Aliens: Colonial Marines, which didn't get reviewed until after the damage had already been done.

But think about it this way. If games were films and a studio made it clear that they didn't want critics to review a movie before it came out, the absence of reviews would likely lead you to believe that it was a piece of crap and likely not worth your time. And in most cases, the studio doesn't have expectations that a certain percentage of their potential audience is going to preorder tickets for their movie, whereas game studios really try to sell their customers on this very thing.

It just seems like game publishers have no faith in their games if they want to make sure people don't have an opportunity to read reviews before it is released. I am mainly tarring triple-A titles with this brush, since in a lot of cases, indie titles seem to get different treatment with their games getting reviewed later in many cases.

I think as consumers, we should make it clear to game publishers that we expect more from them in terms of transparency, and tell them that we want them to allow more reviews to come out before their games are released. It seems like a reasonable request.

Casual Friday On Big Franchises They've Missed Out On

I really enjoy the Casual Friday series on Revision 3, and I've been thinking about my backlog recently, and this video explores some of the things I've been pondering over the past week.



I've missed out on a lot of franchises over the years, and I am trying to catch up on things, but there are just too many great games to get through, and there are more coming out every week.

Review Copies and Timely Reviews

Earlier today, Rhianna Pratchett posted a message on Twitter asking if there were any game journalists looking for Steam codes for Beatbuddy: Tale of the Guardians, which looks like an amazing game.

I had thought about putting in a request, even though with the neglect and change of focus and the resulting loss quite a bit of my former audience, I likely wouldn't have gotten a code.

However, in thinking about the whole thing, I also realized a few things about myself.

One thing is, I don't like to rush through a game, and in general, I don't tend to play games in long sessions anymore, but because of the timely nature of a review, I would feel a lot of pressure to get through the game and get something written up. I like to take games slow, smell the roses and take things at my own pace, and rushing just doesn't appeal to me. I could conceivably play a game I was reviewing at my own speed, but I think I would feel stressed out thinking that I should be working on that game all the time.

And what if I couldn't finish it... because honestly there are a lot of games that I don't finish for one reason or another, and that is certainly a valid concern since it is a medium which gains a lot of its value from difficulty.

If I didn't like it, I would still feel obligated to play it until the end, and unlike movies and books which take a relatively short time to complete, a game could stretch on for hour after hour after hour, and if I was reviewing a new title, I'd have to keep going and see it through.

And truth be told, when I've spent my own money on a game, I think I may be inclined to review it more honestly and have a greater willingness to point out the flaws. I am going to tell you a story. Back in university, I was a reviewer for the paper there, and I was assigned someone's first novel, and it was terrible. Like no glimmer of hope that they were going to get better and it was a real slog reading it even though it was very short, and I was ready to give it a completely and brutally honest review. But I just happened to see my editor right before I was going to start writing it and she told me that the author was really looking forward to reading my review, and at that very moment, I was put in a position where I could not write the review the way I had planned. I went totally wishy-washy and didn't go for the jugular.

Because of that, I am worried that when presented with a situation where someone offers me a review copy, I may feel that same internal pressure to not go full-bore into something I really don't like because I know the developer is waiting for my review. And my last two reviews were for things that had come out relatively recently, so I think it hasn't been too bad.

At the moment, if I review a game here, I've finished it and likely enjoyed it, and looking back, that seems to be the general pattern of how I've written reviews for things in other media, like movies and such under the term "remembering". I don't think that is really a bad way to go.

Am I categorically saying I would never take a review copy? No. But I won't aggressively pursue one either. 

Dragon's Crown, Polygon and Selective Anger: How One Review Riled Up Everyone

I think I should preface this whole thing by stating two things: a) I love beat 'em up and hack and slash games and b) I own and have played previous Vanillaware games.

Now with that being said, let's get down to business.

There is quite the furor in particular segments of the gaming community over a July 31st review of Dragon's Crown on the Polygon site by Danielle Riendeau, which she gave a score of 6.5. In said review, amongst other criticisms, she talked about the art style and how it depicted women in a negative, unrealistic and sexist light.

The outcry was seemingly almost immediate. Despite the fact that just about every other score is very high for this game, and there is loads of praise elsewhere for it, somehow the vocal part of the fan community became fixated with this review, and just this review. 

At every other site I've been to that has comments on reviews, someone brings up the Polygon review almost immediately, and that becomes a big part of the conversation.

And the thing I don't understand is, if you don't like the review, why are you telling everyone about it? Why are you bringing attention to it? I mean, I probably would have never read the review myself since I play games on a PC, and it probably isn't coming out on that platform. And people who say that the review was written with a feminist agenda and who truly believe that and are angry about it are the ones who are most guilty of spreading this review, which seems counterproductive.

The argument that the review was written with an agenda in mind seems sort of ridiculous too. After watching the video review, I can see exactly where Danielle Riendeau, is coming from when it comes to the art style, and I can understand the issue. Whether I agree or disagree with that perspective doesn't change the fact that it is a valid criticism.

And really, if you don't like the argument that she is making in her review, it should still have no effect on you as a player. None.

I love a game called God Hand. IGN gave it a 3 out of 10. That did not make me stop loving the game. If I read a review that called out the game for Mr Gold and Mr Silver, two stereotypically gay characters, I wouldn't be angry about it because again, that is a valid criticism. It wouldn't change the experience I had with the game.

I also have the option to stop reading a review as soon as it becomes apparent to me that the person who wrote it has a vastly different outlook on the world or a particular genre than I do, but on the other hand, my world isn't totally rocked when someone disagrees with me or takes a position that is different than mine. 

Her review doesn't take the game away from you. It will never take the game away from you. If you like or don't like it, then why does it matter what Danielle Riendeau or anyone else writes or says about it. If you've already made the decision about how you feel about something, why are you so threatened by the opinion of someone else?

I've also noticed it is like people involved in this argument are, I don't know, skipping over the fact that Riendeau also talked about how the game has a lot of grinding and repetition after you've beaten it the first time, and to me, that aspect alone is the thing I take away from the review long term, and that was valuable information for me. If it came to the PC, I would remember that criticism.

There is also the argument floating around out there that it is just fantasy art and fantasy art is like that... which when you think about it, is sort of a stupid statement. If someone made a game that took place in a cartoon world of the 1940's and characters of color were drawn in that style, there would be controversy and those artistic choices would certainly be commented upon in reviews and negatively so in most of them. 

If hypothetically, there was another beat 'em up/hack and slash game made in super retro graphics and the other criticisms applied outside the ones of sexism, so it was the same kind of game, the same kind of setup, but the reviewer in question bashed that chunky retro art style instead of the one in Dragon's Crown, and it received the same score, there wouldn't have been the amount of outrage there is now, and that is what tells me this controversy is being churned up and kept going by a small minority of the community that wants to set up a situation that their own put upon value system is being attacked... by one particular review out of many.

These people are driving this controversy like Riendeau's review was a shot in a culture war that is seeking to destroy everything they hold dear in gaming, when clearly that isn't the case. Unless cartoon boobs and comically sized asses that could be the subject of a Sir-Mix-A-Lot song are the only thing you are looking for in a game..

When I read confessions of people in comments saying they bought the game out of spite, just to show the mean lady who had the audacity to talk about the over-the-top art style of the game in a negative way, that tells me that is the wrong side of the argument to be on.

I don't swear too often here, but I think in this case, it is appropriate. For those people who are turning one review into a fundamental attack on gaming and men and everything else, I have four words for you:

Grow the fuck up.

Review: Rogue Legacy

From the first time I had heard about Rogue Legacy, I knew that I wanted it.

To put it in perspective, this is the game that was making me cranky during the Steam sale, since it was the one I most wanted to play and I couldn't bring myself to buy it if it was going to have a better sale price at some point during said sale.

And I regret waiting until the last day to buy it. But even if it wasn't on sale, I would have still paid full price for it.

Rogue Legacy, created by Cellar Door Games for the PC, is by the studio's definition, a rogue-"lite" which tells you that this is a procedurally-generated game with permadeath. It is also very much a Metroidvania-type game with platforming, hidden areas, weapon upgrades and the like.

The way the game comes together is basically you play as members of a single family trying to conquer an ever-changing castle, one generation at a time. You are given a choice of three warriors from each generation, one of which is going to enter the castle and try to fight their way through it. If and when they die, you choose one of their three offspring to try to do the same.

Now there are two major complications. One is the fact that the money you gained your previous attempt at the castle which isn't spent on upgrades and equipment is forfeited when your offspring enters the castle, meaning you can't save money between runs. The second and more interesting twist is that each heir has a class, a spell and up to two additional traits, which can lead to some weird combinations, and some really tough runs if things don't fall your way.

There were a lot of dead heroes before this one.

For instance, there are some beneficial traits, like Hypergonadism which makes enemies fly back further when hit, and Peripheral Artery Disease (PAD) which means you don't have a foot pulse and therefore you don't set off spike traps... but there are also some nasty ones too like Vertigo, which means you have to play that life upside down with the controls still mapped for right side up (so everything is reversed), or being Far/Near Sighted which makes part of the screen blurry, making it difficult to see enemies, projectiles and hazards. But that is half the fun too, seeing what weird things will pop up in your descendants, though it is purely random and not the results of in-game DNA.

Oh Colorblindness...

And to make it through the castle, you have to buy upgrades at your manor and from people you have in your employ. For things like armor, weapons and runes, you have to find the designs in the castle first before you can buy them and use them. Your manor also has a rudimentary tech tree, as a lot of the different hero classes and upgrades have to be unlocked by getting levels in other skills first to make them available.

At death, you see all the enemies you killed on that run.

While playing with a keyboard is an option, this is definitely a game that is designed with a controller in mind. It has responsive controls and a nice set of jump physics allowing a lot of control while you are in the air, making the platforming and attacking mechanics excellent. It feels very natural, and it is something that most people with any experience with a platforming game will pick up quickly. It is very solid in this regard, although I have occasionally had a slight problem doing a downward thrust while jumping.

It is at times a frustrating game, but for the most part, I felt like the problem was me and not the game, and it kept drawing me in to play more.Yes, there are a few times that the castle presents you with rooms that are really brutal in an almost punishing way, but like I said earlier, most of the time, if your character gets hurt or killed, it was entirely your fault, and you know I respect that in a game.Failure is an option, but it isn't a crippling one, and in fact it is part of the whole mechanic of the game (since you can't spend money or change gear until your current hero dies). 

What happens when you upgrade a class.

There is a wonderful sense of progression between the lives of your various heroes as well. As I got better as a player from learning how enemies fought, along with the constant upgrades that my manor provided, I felt like I was getting closer to the end. At no point did I feel like I would never be able to conquer the castle... I just couldn't do it on that life, but I got farther or I killed more enemies or made more money or I found blueprints for a piece of armor, and it was like the game spurred me on to beat it, and I did so joyfully. I didn't feel like I was grinding, but that any particular run could be the one that would end up leading me to the end.

I liked the design decision to make killing a boss a persistent element of the castle... that unlike other enemies, killing the boss of one of the areas is permanent on that playthrough, again adding to the feeling of progression. 

I was also a fan of the fact that the game doesn't show you all the content it has on your first playthrough. There are weapon and armor pieces that you cannot get on your first run through of game, and because the enemies scale with your hero, there are higher level enemies that you are very unlikely to see until you start going through the game in successive New Game+ runs with a hero that you've leveled up. And you after each time you beat it, you can get a New Game+ with even harder enemies so it is always going to challenge you. I've been reading about people who are playing in New Game+12, so there is a high degree of replayability in this title. 

The automap

I was also a big fan of the presentation. The graphics, music and sound design come together nicely and complement each other well, and nothing seems out of place. I have a soft spot for sprite-based games too, and the art style appeals to me on a deep level as an older gamer.

All in all, it is a great game that I can't recommend highly enough. I have more than gotten my money's worth from it, and even as I type this, I am tempted to play a few more lives in my second playthrough in my New Game +. It is just so good, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was nominated for some awards at the end of the year (it was already chosen as a PAX 10 selection). It is a quality title and it is well worth buying.

The game is currently only for PC, but Cellar Door Games is working on having ports out for Mac and Linux in the future. The game was very stable for me in its current build as well.

So check it out.