Quick! Click!

• After yesterday’s discussion of A Link to the Past, I found that it can be purchased used for the GBA for under $20. Might have to get in on some of that action.
• Speaking of the Past, check out Benheck’s sweet nPod update. It’s a little portable device that plays NES carts semi-GameBoy style. Nifty! Too bad you have to buy the prototype to get one. Also too bad you need the original cartidges to play… I’d much prefer a smaller ROM-based emulator. But one with the level of industrial design that Benheck seems comfortable putting forth.
• Games.net has some amusing/interesting top ten lists on their site, and I was intrigued by their Top Ten Game Series That Jumped the Shark. Except as I’m reading it they start talking about Twisted Metal and bringing up TM3 and TM4. Okay, so let’s clear the air here: Twisted Metal III and IV were developed by a different team than the first and second entries based off of purchased intellectual properties from the original developers. They are, essentially, sequels only in name. To classify them as ruining a franchise ignores this fact. That is all.

So I sorta stumbled across a site I’ve seen previously which catalogs various top ten video game lists from different publications. I got to reading the site and then noted that the author summarized the results based on how many lists a game appeared on. This is obviously not a perfect summarization because it doesn’t take into account positioning. The author does link to a couple of other people who applied point systems or various other formulas but even there I wasn’t happy with the results because they were based around simple number crunching and not the application of logic.

What got me the most was that a couple of the publications (IGN.com and Electronic Gaming Monthly specifically) were included in the tallies more than once simply because they had released more than one top ten list in the last few years. This seemed wrong to me because while they weren’t necessarily that similar from year to year, they did represent one source basically stuffing the ballot box. Also there weren’t any ratings-based lists on there (most top ten lists are subjectively compiled by an editorial staff—there’s nothing wrong with that it just doesn’t represent the other means of collecting best-of data).

So what I did was take the list, cut off any duplicate source entries using only the most recent one available, added a couple of new sources in, including Metacritic’s top meta-rated games, gave each game a point rank from 10 to 1 based on position (a game ranked as #1 would get 10 points, games ranked #2 got 9 points, etc) and then removed any games from the list that came up with less than ten points total. Here is the result:

1. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (101 points) – I still haven’t played this game. I guess I should.
2. Super Mario 64 (80 points) – I played this some when I lived in Texas and bought myself a Nintendo 64 to aleviate some of the occasional boredom from not knowing hardly anyone in the place. You know, it was interesting at the time, but not hardly what I’d consider to be #2 game all time.
3. Tetris (64 points) – I suppose I can understand why this game is here, although I’m not sure I’d equate ubiquity with quality.
4. Goldeneye 007 (42 points) – The first really viable FPS on a console? Yeah, I’d say that works as #4.
5. Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (42 points) – I remember this game being fun but not stellar in the way that the first Legend of Zelda was. It certainly beat the pants off the weirdly incongruent Zelda II, but it didn’t strike me as being among the best games ever. Very good, sure, but tied for #4 overall seems excessive. Maybe I’ll pick up the GBA version and see if I’m just misremembering how good it was.
6. Final Fantasy VII (42 points) – I grudgingly admit this game is very, very good. Fanboys seem to forget that it certainly had it’s share of issues and there hasn’t been a Final Fantasy worth playing through since, but it certainly deserves to be somewhere on this list.
7. Super Mario Bros. 3 (35 points) – As the only game I’ve ever been so excited about to bother playing an import version from Japan, I’d say I have to agree with this one.
8. Super Mario Bros. (34 points) – As with Tetris I don’t know that ubiquity should be confused with quality, but I grant that as far as platformers go it was pretty good in its time.
9. Doom (34 points) – I never actually played through this game on the PC. I played a weird Doom/Doom II hybrid on the original Playstation. It was just OK.
10. Half-Life (31 points) – This would be much higher on my list.
11. Legend of Zelda (29 points) – I would have swapped this with A Link to the Past since my memory says that this game was basically the same as the original only with better, 16-bit graphics. Nice, but not 13 points superior.
12. Street Fighter II (28 points) – I spent a lot of money on this game and played quite a bit of it. I’m really not sure why, though. I never really cared all that much for fighting games and I sucked really horribly at SFII. I guess I can see where it deserves a spot on the list, but it wouldn’t be anywhere close to my own list.
13. Metal Gear Solid (27 points) – There were so many memorable experiences to be had playing this game. A gem that deserves a better ranking in my opinion.
14. StarCraft (21 points) – Let’s see, a game that came out almost ten years ago and is still the most popular game in some countries and has a continuing, active community worldwide? Yep, that sounds like top 30 fodder to me. I enjoyed it for the story as much as the gameplay.
15. Resident Evil 4 (19 points) – One of the best games ever. I’d have this higher.
16. Final Fantasy VI (19 points) – Another one of my top games. Words cannot express how much I’m anticipating the GBA port of this game. Move it higher!
17. Super Mario World (17 points) – It was an okay game, but I could never quite get the hang of the cape and I spent the whole game wishing they’d just bring the Raccoon Suit back. Wouldn’t crack my top 50.
18. Chrono Trigger (17 points) – I played this game so long ago that all I can remember about it are that I really, really liked it and that I couldn’t play it enough because it seemed like our whole neighborhood had saved games on our cartidge.
19. Tony Hawk 2 (17 points) – I absolutely loved this game for the Dreamcast. Later versions had more and better features, but this one had some kind of X factor that the others lacked that made it utterly addictive. I think I even called in sick one day to play this game. But time hasn’t been so kind to it and while I might recognize what it was to me then, I think it being fairly low on this list is appropriate. Tony Hawk games seem to be the kind that make a stellar first impression but whose quality doesn’t linger.
20. Super Metroid (16 points) – Even though I’m loving the Prime series, this is (and may forever be) the definitive Metroid game.
21. Quake (15 points) – I barely played more than 30 minutes of the original Quake. It seemed about as boring as Doom was. I got some mileage out of Quake III, but only because of the multiplayer.
22. Civilization (14 points) – I played some FreeCiv on Linux, but never actually messed with the original PC game. It’s hard sometimes to play these classics that you missed the first time around because you spend the whole time thinking that it could be done so much better using modern technology.
23. Super Mario Kart (13 points) – As much Mario Kart as I’ve played, I don’t think I ever played the original SNES version other than at in-store demo kiosks.
24. Civilization II (13 points) – See the Civilization comment above.
25. The Sims (12 points) – I can honestly say that despite some ringing endorsements from people I actually trust, I have never played nor really had any interest in playing the Sims.
26. Grand Theft Auto 3 (12 points) – For all the controversy, the sandbox style gameplay in GTA3 is still pretty impressive. I wish someone (or even Rockstar themselves) would come up with a similar game with similar quality and attention to detail where you had something more noble to do. I’m thinking along the lines of a truly open-ended role-playing game or a Zelda-type adventure game with a massive world and more or less total freedom. Virtual sociopathy is quasi-amusing for a while, but it’s hard to relate to a thug, you know?
27. Quake II (11 points) – I played a little bit of Quake II around the time I was messing with Half-Life and Unreal (the original story based game, not Tournament), but I wasn’t all that impressed.
28. Pac Man (10 points) – Some of my earliest memories involve this game, Chuck E. Cheese and being too blasted short to reach the controls and see the screen without the aid of a chair.
29. The Sims 2 (10 points) – If you thought I had no interest in the original Sims, apply that double for the sequel.
30. Elite (10 points) – I had never even heard of Elite until this little exercise. I had to look it up.

Sources: Nintendo Power 2006, Metacritic 2006, EGM 2005, GamePro 2005, GameFAQs 2005, IGN 2005, The Age 2005, Edge 2004, Retrogamer 2004, Entertainment Weekly 2003, Dorkclub 2003, GameSpy 2001, Game Informer 2001, GameSpot 2001, Computer and Video Games 2001, GamesRadar 2000, Nintendorks 2000, Next Generation 1999, CNET (?).

Reading a discussion about Indigo Prophecy on Slashdot today, someone brought up an interesting perspective:

Man, when will these game developers get the idea that *story is not the point*.

Now I backpedal. I realize that some people enjoyed this game, and some *would* like a larger helping of narrative in their games. But every time I see another article talking about narrative as if a lack of it is the one thing holding games back, a little bit of “twitch” gamer in me feels like it’s been kicked in the crotch. There are many of us who don’t want a game whose purpose is to funnel us through a story.

Despite all the talk of cinematic games and making writers on video games a more integral part of the process instead of some hack they hired to slap some cockneyed drivel in an instruction booklet, perhaps it might be worthwhile to step back for a moment and consider if this is something we really want to happen. Using Indigo Prophecy as an example, this was a game that was supposed to be all about the story and the end result, strictly on those merits, is a shoddy shell of a plot and some weirdly unsatisfying gameplay. Maybe we’ve been barking up the wrong tree?

It doesn’t help when people start making Matrix parallels and pointing out that not even strictly narrative mediums like film are always so great about bringing the story in full force. In movies the only thing that can really get in the way of the story is whiz-bang special effects that are expensive and oftentimes repetitive save for those exceedingly rare leaps forward in effects technology. Yet even something as ultimately pointless as that can serve to distract from a lack of serious writing effort. How can it be reasonably expected that game designers will ever look at all the effort that has to go into making a game actually fun to play and say, “No, let’s spend more time on the script instead”?

Then consider the “good ol’ days” of 8-bit NES and even earlier Atari games: Most of those had barely passing nods to storylines and yet are revered in many cases as being spectacular games whose legacy cannot be denied. Can anyone say that Super Mario Brothers 3, as fun as it may have been, was delivering anything remotely resembling a coherent plot? If anything it had an identical plot to the original Super Mario Brothers… and one that can be summarized in half a sentence. Would it have been a better game with a rich and compelling story? Is there such a thing as a gameplay-only video game masterpiece?

Perhaps SMB3 would have been even better with some immersive story elements. It hardly matters: Pure game experiences are not exempt from excellence the same way that a special effects extravaganza is not exempt from being an enjoyable moviegoing experience just because it doesn’t deliver Shakespeare-quality writing. Visceral entertainment has its place and some great games are either purposely or inconsequentially devoid of backstory and linear narrative progression.

What really matters then is when a game tries to bring a story aspect to the table and in doing so fumbles the execution, usually through incompleteness. This is the same valid criticism levelled at the Matrix sequels: Where the first was full of intriguing and well conceptualized plot hooks and ideas, the latter showed a decided lack of follow-through on the part of the writers to have anything beyond a few well conceptualized plot hooks and ideas.

So to a certain extent the Slashdot poster is correct: The story is indeed not the point. A game need not have a bestseller-ready plot to be great, so long as the gameplay compensates for the lack of immersiveness and depth with its own strength. But games that use a narrative device to propel the action forward need to make sure that they don’t fall into the trap of thinking that narrative as just a mechanism whose internal consistency and completeness is secondary to its function in terms of the game. The two aspects must be correctly woven together to create a stronger whole and while perhaps not as strong separately, at least capable of standing alone apart from the other. Consider two opposite examples: Star Wars Knights of the Old Republic has some good gameplay and a solid storyline that remains well executed throughout. One could novelize the plot and come away with perhaps an average book and one could use the game engine without context as a sort of bland role-playing adventure. They exist semi-effectively alone but together create one of the best games of the last five years. Now consider Indigo Prophecy: Without the game, the story would be just as inane as it stands today leaving only the game itself as motivation to compel the progression of the plot. Yet the game mechanics themselves are drab and uninteresting when removed from the context of the game so they don’t provide enough incentive in and of themselves to encourage continuing. Separately weak, combined they are just as weak if not weaker. In fact the only real reason the game is finishable is probably due to its remarkably brief time investment.

It isn’t that stories aren’t important to games, it’s merely that stories aren’t treated as important. Gamers like the Slashdot poster who balk at being pushed through a story because they would prefer a more pure gaming experience are not wrong for wanting such, but there will likely always be the types of games which don’t lend themselves to narrative. And when they do pick up story-driven games you can’t blame them for being dissatisfied at the result, especially when it doesn’t seem compelling enough to have interrupted their game-only experience anyway. The solution is not less story in games, but rather better integration and above all, more respect for what positive effects quality writing can have on the finished product.

New Resurrected rumors about the XBox 360’s price dip started in again today. Now they’re saying that the 360 will drop $100 by Christmas. That would put the good bundle at roughly $300 (actually closer to $325 with tax). I’m not going to suggest that’s cheap in any way, but it is about half the price of the high end PS3’s MSRP.

So will Microsoft actually do this? I mean, as it is your options are to get the feature-complete 360 set for $400 or drop an extra $200 and get the comparable PS3. Maybe Microsoft decides to say, “We’re comfortable with that.” Why not? They’re still ahead of the Sony in terms of game library and price point. Why push it?

I think if MS does go this route it will be because of the psychological marketing concept of “Half Price.” But MS needs to be a little careful here so that “Half Price” doesn’t translate into “Half as Good” when they do their holiday commercial blitz. Which is actually why I think they’ll wait until sometime in early 2007 to drop the price. Their options would be to drop the price and say nothing, letting the comparison shoppers make the realization themselves or to trumpet the price differential. On the one hand you may have a situation where people aren’t aware that the XBox is that much cheaper than the PlayStation and won’t comparison shop at all to figure it out (perhaps choosing instead to go off of a child’s wishlist) but on the other hand you could have people saying, “Why would it be that much cheaper? Is it that much weaker?” Consumers—especially around the holidays when they are buying stuff for other people that they may not be very knowledgable about—can’t always be relied upon to make the smart decision based on the limited information available to those who don’t already know and don’t really care to find out.

And MS would really be better served by waiting a few months to drop the price anyway: It’s almost guaranteed that the PS3 will sell out badly in its first few months of release leading up to Christmas. MS can rest assured that they’ll sit back and sell plenty of units with their stockpile ready to go, filling in where Sony can’t match demand. After Christmas when Sony catches back up and stock comes in, then Microsoft can drop the price reduction axe on Sony. I know if I had $600 to spend on video games I’d rather buy a $300 XBox and $300 worth of games than just a PS3 and some crummy launch title. Not everyone is going to be as flexible as me (and unlike some people, I actually like the original XBox and would probably consider a 360 based on that merit alone) but I bet there are enough people that feel the same way that it has to be a real concern for Sony. Or at least, it ought to be.

Elsewhere, someone has written a pretty amusing list of stuff that has happened while people were waiting for Duke Nukem Forever. I suppose you could do this with any decade-long-or-longer wait (the fourth Indiana Jones movie, anyone?) but it’s pretty funny anyway.

Meanwhile, The Escapist’s 50th issue deals intelligently with women in gaming and suggests that perhaps the gender barrier is more of a feedback loop of media perspective than an actual barrier plus argues that non-sexualized female protagonists (such as young Alice-style girls) might be the correct way to get females to identify with game characters.

It’s a fascinating issue and generally speaking I think the gender barrier is mostly hype because it makes a good common wisdom type hook for fluffy magazine articles (the kind that The Escapist mostly tries to avoid). Women play games quite a bit, I think that they simply tend to be more picky about what they play. Whimsy is spending the last bit of her pregnancy playing Monster Rancher; Dr. Mac reports that the Mrs. is enjoying some of the minigames on the DS and Nik has been known to play plenty of Tetris and Kirby’s Avalance (Puyo Puyo). Video games tend to be defined by the fanboy hype machines like Halo, Madden and Half-Life but excluding the twitch games there are a lot that appeal to women, I think they’re just less willing to want to spend the effort to find something they’ll like.