I love Final Fantasy games (in general, of course - XII was just terrible and is my most notable exception), and if pressed, Final Fantasy IX would be somewhere in my top three. It has bucket-loads of charm, a great story, compelling characters, a good sense of humour and is generally what I'm looking for in a JRPG.
The trailer for the remake looks brilliant, too. The art style and direction looks exactly right - faithful to the original while making the mass of pixels readable and playable in the 21st century. (A fun experiment for anyone with the original discs and a PS3 that can play PS1 games - try loading up Final Fantasy IX on a decently sized television. I'll wait. How badly do you need to blur your vision before you can't see the individual pixels? In my latest playthrough, I played it entirely without my glasses just to be able to read the text.)
So, on paper, I love the idea of remaking Final Fantasy IX. It'll bring a much-overlooked gem to a new audience and give people like me a chance and an excuse to revisit their nostalgia.
Except I won't be playing it. The remake will only be for Windows operating systems, iOS and Android, and I only have a Mac. Square Enix release exactly no Final Fantasy games on Mac (with the notable exception of the MMO, Final Fantasy XIV, which was briefly released on Mac before being withdrawn because it was, by all accounts, too buggy).
I could play Final Fantasy IX on my phone, provided that I wanted to: a) accept that my battery life would be non-existent, b) enjoy the game on the smallest screen I own and c) use all my available storage space for it. But, having played and enjoyed the iOS version of the World Ends With You, my main concern is that an iOS update will suddenly render the game unplayable, and I will have to wait upwards of six months for Square Enix to patch it. To me, it's simply not worth the risk and the multiple downsides.
I suppose the obvious answer is to simply buy a Windows computer (and if I lived in a world where I simply had that money, I would be tempted). But I shouldn't have to. I own and play many games on my Mac already, and more and more software developers are realising that Mac computers are viable gaming machines, too.
Independent game developers can somehow manage to find the resources and knowledge to code for both Mac and Windows; I find it somewhat absurd to think that this is inaccessible knowledge for a triple-A game developer. Right now, I could play Undertale, Don't Starve, Minecraft, Amnesia, Bastion, The Binding of Isaac, or Limbo, and that would only be scratching the surface of indie games. If I wanted to go for something a little more mainstream, I could choose virtually anything by Blizzard or Valve.
I know Square Enix aren't the only mainstream publisher doing this, either. Sega, Bethesda, Rockstar Games, Activision and many more also make their games near exclusively for Windows, cutting out a potential market for their games.
The bottom line is that there are a lot of Mac-users out there, and they are playing games on their machines. Just walk into any university campus and see. Or if that isn't enough quantitative data, analyse the steadily rising sales of Mac computers over the last ten years in comparison to Windows computers (which, of course, is flawed data anyway, as it includes the many office PCs running Windows used exclusively for work and not gaming).
In short, there is a sizeable and growing market that many developers are choosing to ignore, that I believe are costing them sales. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a princess to kidnap, yummies to eat and a world to save...in all its pixelated glory.
Showing posts with label games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label games. Show all posts
Saturday, 30 January 2016
Tuesday, 27 October 2015
Gaming Rec: Tales of Symphonia
Confession time: I love the Tales of series of games. I bought Tales of Symphonia back on the Gamecube knowing nothing about the series, but it had been reviewed really well by a magazine, and I had some Christmas money to spend...and I loved it. It took embarrassingly long for me to play anything else in the series, but when Tales of the Abyss got rereleased on the 3DS, I was all over it and it did not disappoint me.
Since then, I've played through Tales of Graces/f, which unfortunately wasn't the best offering, due to budget and time restraints; and Tales of Xillia/2, which I regard as a good couple of games, with some really good strengths, and just a couple of weaknesses that are unfortunate, but not a dealbreaker for me. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on Tales of Xestria soon, as it looks like they've ironed out a few things I found disappointing with Xillia.
I've been picking apart why I fell so completely in love with Symphonia lately, thanks to a replay I've been doing with my fiancée on Chronicles. I love the little new additions to the game - the trophy system helps to further reward my completionist streak and point out little sidequests I'd missed/forgotten about. The extra scene in Altamira will definitely secure a few more replays in my future. I question some of the wisdom of the casino, mind, but I know I will be aiming for the extra goodies in there despite the criminal exchange rate of money to chips. The bonus costumes are a nice touch, and I love how they have tied together characters with similar story elements via the costumes. I audibly gasped when I realised Kratos' similarity to Ludger, and then had to play it off as nothing, as my fiancée has yet to play Xillia/2. In short - Chronicles helps to shine a new light on some older elements without overshadowing what made Symphonia so good in the first place.
The thing that really surprised me about our recent playthrough is that we both knew the game ridiculously well, having played it many times over many years, and yet we both had different events and knowledge to share with each other, and new scenes to show each other. It astounds me how complex the narrative of Symphonia is, and how well it rewards you for purposefully taking events out of order with extra snippets and side information. Even aside from that, the vast wealth of sidequests and extra titles, achievements and scenes that you can find definitely warrants multiple playthroughs (actually, it is impossible to see and do everything in one runthrough).
The big draw of this game for me, all those years ago, was the plot. It still is. Symphonia is a beautifully crafted story with a cast of genuinely loveable characters and a refreshingly complex plot. It feels wonderfully paced, starting with introducing the characters and world and the aims of the characters; then in true Tales style, it subverts the expectations of the player and begins revealing new and often surprising information about the world and even the characters themselves. To say anymore would spoil one of the best aspects of the game. However, I will say that a lot of additional details about character motivations and fleshing out the world are included as part of sidequests, so it's well worth exploring the world thoroughly for those little gems.
Symphonia isn't afraid to ask the big questions, either. The characters are constantly questioning elements of their world, such as racial discrimination, classism, the power structures inherent in religion (without throwing the pure intentions of religion away), the history and myths of their cultures. This a something that has been carried through the Tales series with varying levels of effectiveness, but it's a narrow fight between Abyss and Symphonia as to which tackles the complex issues best, but both do it with such empathy and skill that it barely makes a difference.
The fighting system is a refreshing change to most JRPGs, too; no turn-based battle, but an active, free-flowing system that's simple enough for beginners to hack and slash their way through, but complex enough that experts can refine a fighting style that works for them. There are truly challenging post-game elements, such as an optional dungeon and a lot of sidequests to sink your teeth into. Exploring the world fully always feels like it's encouraged and rewarded, rather than funnelling you through a strict progression of plot events.
I thoroughly recommend Tales of Symphonia for any gamers that like an engaging, complex story and want something a little different from a typical JRPG. While original Gamecube copies are rare, it is available on PS3 as part of Tales of Symphonia Chronicles (where the sequel is also included...just don't raise your hopes too high for it, okay?), a different anniversary bundle that also includes Tales of Graces/f (not the best game, either) and it will be available on Steam as a digital download for Windows in 2016.
Since then, I've played through Tales of Graces/f, which unfortunately wasn't the best offering, due to budget and time restraints; and Tales of Xillia/2, which I regard as a good couple of games, with some really good strengths, and just a couple of weaknesses that are unfortunate, but not a dealbreaker for me. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on Tales of Xestria soon, as it looks like they've ironed out a few things I found disappointing with Xillia.
I've been picking apart why I fell so completely in love with Symphonia lately, thanks to a replay I've been doing with my fiancée on Chronicles. I love the little new additions to the game - the trophy system helps to further reward my completionist streak and point out little sidequests I'd missed/forgotten about. The extra scene in Altamira will definitely secure a few more replays in my future. I question some of the wisdom of the casino, mind, but I know I will be aiming for the extra goodies in there despite the criminal exchange rate of money to chips. The bonus costumes are a nice touch, and I love how they have tied together characters with similar story elements via the costumes. I audibly gasped when I realised Kratos' similarity to Ludger, and then had to play it off as nothing, as my fiancée has yet to play Xillia/2. In short - Chronicles helps to shine a new light on some older elements without overshadowing what made Symphonia so good in the first place.
The thing that really surprised me about our recent playthrough is that we both knew the game ridiculously well, having played it many times over many years, and yet we both had different events and knowledge to share with each other, and new scenes to show each other. It astounds me how complex the narrative of Symphonia is, and how well it rewards you for purposefully taking events out of order with extra snippets and side information. Even aside from that, the vast wealth of sidequests and extra titles, achievements and scenes that you can find definitely warrants multiple playthroughs (actually, it is impossible to see and do everything in one runthrough).
The big draw of this game for me, all those years ago, was the plot. It still is. Symphonia is a beautifully crafted story with a cast of genuinely loveable characters and a refreshingly complex plot. It feels wonderfully paced, starting with introducing the characters and world and the aims of the characters; then in true Tales style, it subverts the expectations of the player and begins revealing new and often surprising information about the world and even the characters themselves. To say anymore would spoil one of the best aspects of the game. However, I will say that a lot of additional details about character motivations and fleshing out the world are included as part of sidequests, so it's well worth exploring the world thoroughly for those little gems.
Symphonia isn't afraid to ask the big questions, either. The characters are constantly questioning elements of their world, such as racial discrimination, classism, the power structures inherent in religion (without throwing the pure intentions of religion away), the history and myths of their cultures. This a something that has been carried through the Tales series with varying levels of effectiveness, but it's a narrow fight between Abyss and Symphonia as to which tackles the complex issues best, but both do it with such empathy and skill that it barely makes a difference.
The fighting system is a refreshing change to most JRPGs, too; no turn-based battle, but an active, free-flowing system that's simple enough for beginners to hack and slash their way through, but complex enough that experts can refine a fighting style that works for them. There are truly challenging post-game elements, such as an optional dungeon and a lot of sidequests to sink your teeth into. Exploring the world fully always feels like it's encouraged and rewarded, rather than funnelling you through a strict progression of plot events.
I thoroughly recommend Tales of Symphonia for any gamers that like an engaging, complex story and want something a little different from a typical JRPG. While original Gamecube copies are rare, it is available on PS3 as part of Tales of Symphonia Chronicles (where the sequel is also included...just don't raise your hopes too high for it, okay?), a different anniversary bundle that also includes Tales of Graces/f (not the best game, either) and it will be available on Steam as a digital download for Windows in 2016.
Monday, 21 September 2015
Isn't it Time we Got the Pokémon Game we Deserve?
Disclaimer: I began writing this before Pokémon Go was announced. All of this post is still valid for the game I describe, but holy hell, I hope Pokémon Go is going to live up to the hype. Because in theory, it's everything I ever wanted as a child (and let's be honest, as an adult) and while it would be so easy to get it wrong, I have faith that GameFreak are looking at the mistakes competitors are currently making and avoiding them themselves.
That this is all opinion and daydreaming on my part. I'm not in any position of power to nudge GameFreak into doing any of this, and I'm well aware that I don't speak for everyone. But I've been thinking a lot lately about how amazing a current-gen console Pokémon game would be, and what I'd like to see in it.
First and foremost: a freeroaming exploration. None of this travelling between set locations via cutscene and catching Pokémon off other trainers that was such a letdown in Coliseum. You can still guide people in the right direction - the tree blocking a path or man refusing to let you past until he's had his morning coffee are staples in the series, and while I would prefer something more subtle, I can acknowledge the need to gently encourage people in the right direction, especially if there is a storytelling element. However, games don't need to channel you down the right path. Do you want the plot to progress? Then maybe go to the last place that got mentioned to you and see what's going on, there. Or maybe, the plot could be experienced in a slightly more organic way; hints and whispers of criminal activity going on wherever you happen to go first? Multiple plans over different places, that when foiled lead you into the wider plot through key items and dialogue?
What would be really impressive to me would be levels of wild Pokémon and trainers tracking your level for a true free-roaming experience. It would provide a larger incentive to explore over level grind and explore strategies and a varied party over simply over-levelling before Gyms and the Elite Four. Perhaps provide a few areas with static levels for people who want to EV train, but for everyone who wants to experience the game, this could be a very good system. Of course, your own Pokémon will always have a slight advantage over wild ones of a similar level due to Effort Values, so it wouldn't stop people from level grinding if they wanted that extra advantage. It would just allow people who wanted to progress quickly and explore the tools to get out into the world a little quicker.
Imagine this: you start out in your little village hometown, where the graphics are gorgeous and picturesque, but trees make the field of view seem small. Then you step out onto the first route, and a large rolling plain is spread before you, teaming with movement and new monsters to battle and catch. I want it to give that 'first time on Hyrule Field' goosebumps. I want that slow realisation that that far point in the distance can be walked to, and explored, and look beautiful while doing it.
The Wii U can give very pretty graphics when handled correctly. Look at stills of Mario Kart 8 - lots of detail packed into a charming style. Look at the demos of the new Legend of Zelda game - utterly gorgeous. I want that level of detail in a console Pokémon game. I would still keep it stylised - hyper realistic would not work for the Pokémon franchise, and would look dated incredibly quickly.
Battle, as a large part of any Pokémon game, would be incredibly important. There's a lot of depth and complexity in the main, turn-based series, which I love, but the idea of being able to control your Pokémon beyond four attack moves is also appealing. Of course, there is the arcade-fighter, Pokkén Tournament, which shows that they have played around with fully controllable Pokémon and Pokémon moves connecting properly with their target, but I see this as unlikely to happen in a main game unless as a minigame (similar to the Beauty Contests in the main series). Why? One, Pokkén Tournament is being made with Namco Bandai, who have experience with fighting games and systems, but a collaboration on a main game seems unlikely. Two, the console game will probably be (and should be) cross-compatible with the handheld series. Changing the fighting system too drastically would result in a nightmare of trying to code Pokémon so they still work on both games, and a good fighter on one game could be a poor choice on the other. With this in mind, I would still keep the turnbased battles intact, though I would love better detailed battles - moves that connect with the opponent fully, gorgeous backgrounds and settings that add to the world and makes you really feel like you are on a epic journey.
Despite wanting to maintain the status quo with regardless to battles, I do want to get rid of one staple of the franchise - Hidden Move machines, or HMs. In the handheld series, they're used to guide the player to the next area, but if the plot shifted to accommodate freeroaming, along with the levels of encounters adjusting to the party, suddenly limiting the use of them seems odd. I mean, logically, all flying type Pokémon can fly, they don't have to learn it from a machine. The same with water-type Pokémon swimming - though I have always wondered why player characters seem unable to swim, when they so often live near bodies of water and other people are seen swimming, frequently as young children. What I'm suggesting here is that any Pokémon which logically should be able to preform that move can, innately, without having to learn a move. This will encourage team diversity a little more naturally and will stop one (or more!) Pokémon in the party being kept around just for their HM abilities.
A console game should integrate well with the handheld games and vice versa. This would be a perfect opportunity for Nintendo to promote Pokémon Bank, their subscription-based storage facility. I mean, I'm not a fan of paying monthly to transfer Pokémon between games, but if more games in the series used it, it would feel less like a rip-off. Of course, there is a better way for Nintendo to cash in on extra stuff - Amiibos. Both the Wii U and the new 3DS can read and write data stored on Amiibos - why not use them as 'shuttles' between games? It wouldn't be backwards compatible with the current gen of handheld games, but could be a fun idea in the future. At the very least, kids can take their team with them in an Amiibo to challenge their friends when they go and visit and play Wii U together (so can adults, I mean, I would, but I'm also a massive dork who would charge into the room, Pokéball held in an outstretched arm yelling "Trainer Ame wants to battle!")
Along with more free-roaming elements, I'd like a way for you to feel accomplished in the world of Pokémon even if battles aren't your biggest passion. Sure, have a Gym/Elite Four network there, and be rewarded for challenging them and winning, but also be rewarded for other actions. Fully exploring hidden areas, catching particularly difficult Pokémon, breeding particularly great IV'd Pokémon. Even little challenges like completing the game without using legendary Pokémon or having a team of all the same elemental type that still kicks butt. I want to see challenges that shake up the way competitive play is done (for the uninitiated, international Pokémon tournaments are a pretty dull e-sport, as most top ranked players use similar teams and plays, because they've worked out that, mathematically, it's the least risky way to win. In the end, it comes down to which player exploited the mathematics behind the game the most, which kinda sucks all the fun out of it). Basically, encourage players to have fun with the mechanics and the idea and wonder that the world of Pokémon still holds today.
A complete bonus from me, but I would adore it if it would ever happen: remember Pokémon Snap? Can you imagine Pokémon Snap, a game where you take pictures of Pokémon while riding through predetermined routes, but in a current gen world, with no rails? Can you imagine having it as a fun sidequest that you could always dabble in for extra money, but don't actually need it for progression - it's literally just for your own enjoyment? I mean, the Wii U would be perfect for this - you could move the controller like a camera and use the screen as your view through the lens, you could share them on Miiverse if you're so hell bent on making social networks a thing...come on, Nintendo, you gave us Link selfies, you can realise my dream of becoming a wildlife photographer in the world of Pokémon!
That this is all opinion and daydreaming on my part. I'm not in any position of power to nudge GameFreak into doing any of this, and I'm well aware that I don't speak for everyone. But I've been thinking a lot lately about how amazing a current-gen console Pokémon game would be, and what I'd like to see in it.
First and foremost: a freeroaming exploration. None of this travelling between set locations via cutscene and catching Pokémon off other trainers that was such a letdown in Coliseum. You can still guide people in the right direction - the tree blocking a path or man refusing to let you past until he's had his morning coffee are staples in the series, and while I would prefer something more subtle, I can acknowledge the need to gently encourage people in the right direction, especially if there is a storytelling element. However, games don't need to channel you down the right path. Do you want the plot to progress? Then maybe go to the last place that got mentioned to you and see what's going on, there. Or maybe, the plot could be experienced in a slightly more organic way; hints and whispers of criminal activity going on wherever you happen to go first? Multiple plans over different places, that when foiled lead you into the wider plot through key items and dialogue?
What would be really impressive to me would be levels of wild Pokémon and trainers tracking your level for a true free-roaming experience. It would provide a larger incentive to explore over level grind and explore strategies and a varied party over simply over-levelling before Gyms and the Elite Four. Perhaps provide a few areas with static levels for people who want to EV train, but for everyone who wants to experience the game, this could be a very good system. Of course, your own Pokémon will always have a slight advantage over wild ones of a similar level due to Effort Values, so it wouldn't stop people from level grinding if they wanted that extra advantage. It would just allow people who wanted to progress quickly and explore the tools to get out into the world a little quicker.
Imagine this: you start out in your little village hometown, where the graphics are gorgeous and picturesque, but trees make the field of view seem small. Then you step out onto the first route, and a large rolling plain is spread before you, teaming with movement and new monsters to battle and catch. I want it to give that 'first time on Hyrule Field' goosebumps. I want that slow realisation that that far point in the distance can be walked to, and explored, and look beautiful while doing it.
The Wii U can give very pretty graphics when handled correctly. Look at stills of Mario Kart 8 - lots of detail packed into a charming style. Look at the demos of the new Legend of Zelda game - utterly gorgeous. I want that level of detail in a console Pokémon game. I would still keep it stylised - hyper realistic would not work for the Pokémon franchise, and would look dated incredibly quickly.
Battle, as a large part of any Pokémon game, would be incredibly important. There's a lot of depth and complexity in the main, turn-based series, which I love, but the idea of being able to control your Pokémon beyond four attack moves is also appealing. Of course, there is the arcade-fighter, Pokkén Tournament, which shows that they have played around with fully controllable Pokémon and Pokémon moves connecting properly with their target, but I see this as unlikely to happen in a main game unless as a minigame (similar to the Beauty Contests in the main series). Why? One, Pokkén Tournament is being made with Namco Bandai, who have experience with fighting games and systems, but a collaboration on a main game seems unlikely. Two, the console game will probably be (and should be) cross-compatible with the handheld series. Changing the fighting system too drastically would result in a nightmare of trying to code Pokémon so they still work on both games, and a good fighter on one game could be a poor choice on the other. With this in mind, I would still keep the turnbased battles intact, though I would love better detailed battles - moves that connect with the opponent fully, gorgeous backgrounds and settings that add to the world and makes you really feel like you are on a epic journey.
Despite wanting to maintain the status quo with regardless to battles, I do want to get rid of one staple of the franchise - Hidden Move machines, or HMs. In the handheld series, they're used to guide the player to the next area, but if the plot shifted to accommodate freeroaming, along with the levels of encounters adjusting to the party, suddenly limiting the use of them seems odd. I mean, logically, all flying type Pokémon can fly, they don't have to learn it from a machine. The same with water-type Pokémon swimming - though I have always wondered why player characters seem unable to swim, when they so often live near bodies of water and other people are seen swimming, frequently as young children. What I'm suggesting here is that any Pokémon which logically should be able to preform that move can, innately, without having to learn a move. This will encourage team diversity a little more naturally and will stop one (or more!) Pokémon in the party being kept around just for their HM abilities.
A console game should integrate well with the handheld games and vice versa. This would be a perfect opportunity for Nintendo to promote Pokémon Bank, their subscription-based storage facility. I mean, I'm not a fan of paying monthly to transfer Pokémon between games, but if more games in the series used it, it would feel less like a rip-off. Of course, there is a better way for Nintendo to cash in on extra stuff - Amiibos. Both the Wii U and the new 3DS can read and write data stored on Amiibos - why not use them as 'shuttles' between games? It wouldn't be backwards compatible with the current gen of handheld games, but could be a fun idea in the future. At the very least, kids can take their team with them in an Amiibo to challenge their friends when they go and visit and play Wii U together (so can adults, I mean, I would, but I'm also a massive dork who would charge into the room, Pokéball held in an outstretched arm yelling "Trainer Ame wants to battle!")
Along with more free-roaming elements, I'd like a way for you to feel accomplished in the world of Pokémon even if battles aren't your biggest passion. Sure, have a Gym/Elite Four network there, and be rewarded for challenging them and winning, but also be rewarded for other actions. Fully exploring hidden areas, catching particularly difficult Pokémon, breeding particularly great IV'd Pokémon. Even little challenges like completing the game without using legendary Pokémon or having a team of all the same elemental type that still kicks butt. I want to see challenges that shake up the way competitive play is done (for the uninitiated, international Pokémon tournaments are a pretty dull e-sport, as most top ranked players use similar teams and plays, because they've worked out that, mathematically, it's the least risky way to win. In the end, it comes down to which player exploited the mathematics behind the game the most, which kinda sucks all the fun out of it). Basically, encourage players to have fun with the mechanics and the idea and wonder that the world of Pokémon still holds today.
A complete bonus from me, but I would adore it if it would ever happen: remember Pokémon Snap? Can you imagine Pokémon Snap, a game where you take pictures of Pokémon while riding through predetermined routes, but in a current gen world, with no rails? Can you imagine having it as a fun sidequest that you could always dabble in for extra money, but don't actually need it for progression - it's literally just for your own enjoyment? I mean, the Wii U would be perfect for this - you could move the controller like a camera and use the screen as your view through the lens, you could share them on Miiverse if you're so hell bent on making social networks a thing...come on, Nintendo, you gave us Link selfies, you can realise my dream of becoming a wildlife photographer in the world of Pokémon!
Monday, 24 August 2015
Thoughts on Princess Peach
This is a little bit of an alternative character interpretation, and not something I usually do, but I've had this thought lately, and I feel like the only way to get it out is to write it down.
Basically, the thought is: what if Princess Peach (of Mario franchise fame) isn't all that interested in Mario?
In the main series, Peach and Mario have very little interaction with each other directly. Peach gets kidnapped, usually by Bowser, Mario comes to the rescue, and she's saved, sometimes offering a cake back at the castle, a kiss on the nose and then the credits roll. That does not necessarily scream romantic interest to me. Gratitude, yes, romance...not quite. There is an argument there for the game's intended audience and how anything else could be inappropriate for a family-friendly game, however.
In the RPGs and other 'side games' we get to see a little more of Peach as a person. In Paper Mario (N64), she works within the confines of being captured to get Mario more information on how to beat Bowser (thus rescuing her and restoring the kingdom to it's normal state). In Super Paper Mario (Wii), she's a playable character in her own right, standing beside Mario, Luigi and Bowser to help save the day.
Small romantic gestures can be written off as obligation in this way - stuck between a captor who repeatedly abducts her and proclaims romantic intent, and her consistent rescuer, there's a certain sense of obligation to repay him in some way for his efforts. Especially as, inevitably, she will be kidnapped again - it's in her own best interests not to snub the one man who reliably rescues her, when her own staff and seemingly no one else in the kingdom is even willing to try.
There's also her position to think about. As Princess of the Mushroom kingdom, there are all kinds of people apart from her invested in this relationship. Talking to many of the NPC Toads in the Paper Mario, and the Mario and Luigi games reveals that her relationship to Mario is the subject of a lot of gossip around the Mushroom Kingdom. Simply declaring that she has no interest for Mario won't work, not when so many others are invested in the outcome.
The only other notable time when Peach is approached in a romantic/sexual way by anyone apart from Bowser or Mario that I'm aware of is in Super Paper Mario, where Francis (gross butterfly collecting dudebro) talks to Peach as though she is a character in a romantic visual novel. This goes about as well as can be expected, and Peach, gratifyingly, doesn't pander to his expectations, but it does come some way to explaining how the few people who don't see Peach as an untouchable figure treat her as a mute object to possess. With that in mind, how many other options does Peach really have?
In Super Mario 64, the game opens with Peach's letter, asking Mario to come to the castle because she's baked a cake for him. This could be read as a romantic gesture, but it's not as though Mario is alone in having had Peach cook for him. Gourmet Guy in Paper Mario also receives a cake from Peach, albeit in order for her to get more information about Bowser's schemes. Even Bowser receives a cake for his part in saving the Mushroom Kingdom in Bowser's Inside Story (DS). Maybe she just likes baking?
Mario is invited to numerous events, such as the Star Festival in the Super Mario Galaxy games (Wii), tea parties in New Super Mario Bros. U (Wii), but usually with others present (like Luigi or Toads), so it's rarely them together alone. To me, this reads more as inviting friends to events, over inviting a significant other to a date.
This is, by no means to say that this is true or it's the best interpretation of her character. Merely an alternative to the obvious and easy plot of damsel in distress falls in love with her rescuer. There are other possibilities, too. Perhaps she doesn't have romantic affection for him, but a sisterly affection? There is nothing to say that she doesn't hold platonic feelings towards him, just as there's nothing to say that her feeling aren't romantic, despite everything I've just said. Characters are open to interpretation of subtext and events and especially in a franchise like Mario's, small details are often the only clues we get about a much more complex character than we initially thought.
Basically, the thought is: what if Princess Peach (of Mario franchise fame) isn't all that interested in Mario?
In the main series, Peach and Mario have very little interaction with each other directly. Peach gets kidnapped, usually by Bowser, Mario comes to the rescue, and she's saved, sometimes offering a cake back at the castle, a kiss on the nose and then the credits roll. That does not necessarily scream romantic interest to me. Gratitude, yes, romance...not quite. There is an argument there for the game's intended audience and how anything else could be inappropriate for a family-friendly game, however.
In the RPGs and other 'side games' we get to see a little more of Peach as a person. In Paper Mario (N64), she works within the confines of being captured to get Mario more information on how to beat Bowser (thus rescuing her and restoring the kingdom to it's normal state). In Super Paper Mario (Wii), she's a playable character in her own right, standing beside Mario, Luigi and Bowser to help save the day.
Small romantic gestures can be written off as obligation in this way - stuck between a captor who repeatedly abducts her and proclaims romantic intent, and her consistent rescuer, there's a certain sense of obligation to repay him in some way for his efforts. Especially as, inevitably, she will be kidnapped again - it's in her own best interests not to snub the one man who reliably rescues her, when her own staff and seemingly no one else in the kingdom is even willing to try.
There's also her position to think about. As Princess of the Mushroom kingdom, there are all kinds of people apart from her invested in this relationship. Talking to many of the NPC Toads in the Paper Mario, and the Mario and Luigi games reveals that her relationship to Mario is the subject of a lot of gossip around the Mushroom Kingdom. Simply declaring that she has no interest for Mario won't work, not when so many others are invested in the outcome.
The only other notable time when Peach is approached in a romantic/sexual way by anyone apart from Bowser or Mario that I'm aware of is in Super Paper Mario, where Francis (gross butterfly collecting dudebro) talks to Peach as though she is a character in a romantic visual novel. This goes about as well as can be expected, and Peach, gratifyingly, doesn't pander to his expectations, but it does come some way to explaining how the few people who don't see Peach as an untouchable figure treat her as a mute object to possess. With that in mind, how many other options does Peach really have?
In Super Mario 64, the game opens with Peach's letter, asking Mario to come to the castle because she's baked a cake for him. This could be read as a romantic gesture, but it's not as though Mario is alone in having had Peach cook for him. Gourmet Guy in Paper Mario also receives a cake from Peach, albeit in order for her to get more information about Bowser's schemes. Even Bowser receives a cake for his part in saving the Mushroom Kingdom in Bowser's Inside Story (DS). Maybe she just likes baking?
Mario is invited to numerous events, such as the Star Festival in the Super Mario Galaxy games (Wii), tea parties in New Super Mario Bros. U (Wii), but usually with others present (like Luigi or Toads), so it's rarely them together alone. To me, this reads more as inviting friends to events, over inviting a significant other to a date.
This is, by no means to say that this is true or it's the best interpretation of her character. Merely an alternative to the obvious and easy plot of damsel in distress falls in love with her rescuer. There are other possibilities, too. Perhaps she doesn't have romantic affection for him, but a sisterly affection? There is nothing to say that she doesn't hold platonic feelings towards him, just as there's nothing to say that her feeling aren't romantic, despite everything I've just said. Characters are open to interpretation of subtext and events and especially in a franchise like Mario's, small details are often the only clues we get about a much more complex character than we initially thought.
Monday, 17 August 2015
Gaming and the Future: Are Physical Stores Dead?
As the E3 hype train leaves tantalising new games to preorder in it's wake, tempting gamers to think ahead about what new purchases they want to commit to, I cannot help but wonder what the future of the game industry will look like.
There are fewer and fewer places to buy physical games at, here in the UK. Game is still our major video game retailer, despite closing many stores over Easter 2012. Other places to buy physical copies of games here are relegated to second hand shops, HMV (who primarily sell music and films) and supermarkets. Other than those options, gamers can turn to online outlets to get their games. So, what's the problem?
I spent a lot of my childhood in physical game shops. I couldn't buy anything online without going through a parent's account. As a young gamer, my main source of news from the gaming industry was checking out physical games in a shop, reading the blurb and asking around for recommendations. Between this and print magazines, I found some of my favourite games of all time.
I worry that in a 'digital and online only' market, only large triple A game releases are going to get noticed by general gaming audiences. The studios that can afford to pay for advertising will be the only ones with games being bought.
But the issue isn't as simple as 'support physical stores'. Most video game retailers make their money on preowned games. The math is pretty simple - if a store buys a game back from a customer, they can pay what they like, and generally aim to get twice that back for the resale of the product. By offering more in-store credit than cash ensures that many customers will choose instore credit, so the store is making a profit on two fronts - the game they just bought back and the customer who will continue to buy from them with the credit they've just been given. Preowned games are vital for physical stores to stay in business.
But that brings forward an ethical concern - game developers make no revenue from preowned games. Especially for smaller studios, this is a big concern, as they might have a large number of people who have played the games, but see a disproportionate amount of revenue from it.
Some developers have started providing incentives for buying new over preowned, such as one time DLC codes to unlock content (and occasionally, and controversially, to unlock the entire game). Other incentives can include limited editions and merchandise to people who preorder the game.
I feel like pushing for preorders has a more sinister agenda to it, however. Preorders often get taken before a release date is even set, and people are pressured into preording based only off a trailer, with no real guarantee of the quality of the game. It guarantees a certain amount of revenue for a game without the pressure to actually make it good. It encourages people to buy games before any critique can be made public, so if a game were to pan badly, they have still made some money off the idea of the game, rather than the result.
Another issue with physical stores is that some console manufactures pay to have a certain amount of space in store represented by products for their consoles. It becomes a bidding war for space to be occupied by particular brands, regardless of the quality of the console or games. This can push out the few developers who either can't afford to or don't see the need to promote themselves like this. I hesitate to name names, but if you walk into a game store, work out the preportion of the shelves being taken up by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo respectively, and the placement of those shelves (ones easily accessible to the store entrance over the ones towards the back, for example). It should give a clear indication of what I'm talking about.
It is a complex issue, with no simple solution and many smaller problems within it. I haven't even touched on digital gaming as a whole, from Steam or any of the main console's online stores, and how we can now physically buy online codes and credit from highstreet retailers. Or how smaller developers are getting involved with crowdfunding and how that is both a positive and problematic move for gaming as a whole.
Online media can be a good way of spreading the word about obscure releases and information, and it's far easier to access now than when I was young. Blogs, YouTube channels, social media websites can all help people spread the word about the games they're passionate about. Do we even need physical stores to buy games in? I know I'd miss them. I miss being able to have conversations with likeminded people who are knowledgeable about gaming. I miss browsing through titles. I miss making a decision and getting to go home with the case in my hands, full of excitement over my new purchase. But I can't help but feel like high street stores for books, films and video games are soon going to be a thing of the past. And if that is the case, I really hope the future will have some better tools to help gamers make better choices to support the aspects of the industry they love.
There are fewer and fewer places to buy physical games at, here in the UK. Game is still our major video game retailer, despite closing many stores over Easter 2012. Other places to buy physical copies of games here are relegated to second hand shops, HMV (who primarily sell music and films) and supermarkets. Other than those options, gamers can turn to online outlets to get their games. So, what's the problem?
I spent a lot of my childhood in physical game shops. I couldn't buy anything online without going through a parent's account. As a young gamer, my main source of news from the gaming industry was checking out physical games in a shop, reading the blurb and asking around for recommendations. Between this and print magazines, I found some of my favourite games of all time.
I worry that in a 'digital and online only' market, only large triple A game releases are going to get noticed by general gaming audiences. The studios that can afford to pay for advertising will be the only ones with games being bought.
But the issue isn't as simple as 'support physical stores'. Most video game retailers make their money on preowned games. The math is pretty simple - if a store buys a game back from a customer, they can pay what they like, and generally aim to get twice that back for the resale of the product. By offering more in-store credit than cash ensures that many customers will choose instore credit, so the store is making a profit on two fronts - the game they just bought back and the customer who will continue to buy from them with the credit they've just been given. Preowned games are vital for physical stores to stay in business.
But that brings forward an ethical concern - game developers make no revenue from preowned games. Especially for smaller studios, this is a big concern, as they might have a large number of people who have played the games, but see a disproportionate amount of revenue from it.
Some developers have started providing incentives for buying new over preowned, such as one time DLC codes to unlock content (and occasionally, and controversially, to unlock the entire game). Other incentives can include limited editions and merchandise to people who preorder the game.
I feel like pushing for preorders has a more sinister agenda to it, however. Preorders often get taken before a release date is even set, and people are pressured into preording based only off a trailer, with no real guarantee of the quality of the game. It guarantees a certain amount of revenue for a game without the pressure to actually make it good. It encourages people to buy games before any critique can be made public, so if a game were to pan badly, they have still made some money off the idea of the game, rather than the result.
Another issue with physical stores is that some console manufactures pay to have a certain amount of space in store represented by products for their consoles. It becomes a bidding war for space to be occupied by particular brands, regardless of the quality of the console or games. This can push out the few developers who either can't afford to or don't see the need to promote themselves like this. I hesitate to name names, but if you walk into a game store, work out the preportion of the shelves being taken up by Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo respectively, and the placement of those shelves (ones easily accessible to the store entrance over the ones towards the back, for example). It should give a clear indication of what I'm talking about.
It is a complex issue, with no simple solution and many smaller problems within it. I haven't even touched on digital gaming as a whole, from Steam or any of the main console's online stores, and how we can now physically buy online codes and credit from highstreet retailers. Or how smaller developers are getting involved with crowdfunding and how that is both a positive and problematic move for gaming as a whole.
Online media can be a good way of spreading the word about obscure releases and information, and it's far easier to access now than when I was young. Blogs, YouTube channels, social media websites can all help people spread the word about the games they're passionate about. Do we even need physical stores to buy games in? I know I'd miss them. I miss being able to have conversations with likeminded people who are knowledgeable about gaming. I miss browsing through titles. I miss making a decision and getting to go home with the case in my hands, full of excitement over my new purchase. But I can't help but feel like high street stores for books, films and video games are soon going to be a thing of the past. And if that is the case, I really hope the future will have some better tools to help gamers make better choices to support the aspects of the industry they love.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)