Creator Spotlight: StarQuail

            Welp, it's that time again.  After a fair bit of delays due to work, and the release of my review of their signature game, it's time that we give StarQuail Games a look see.  LET'S GET TINY!!!

The face of polish and comedy...after all, who could take a quail seriously?

            First, a little history.  My first encounter with StarQuail was during my initial Kickstarter binge.  I was hooked on the idea of a game that didn't exist being funded entirely by the fans and this was one of the first ones I gave a look to.  While still sketchy on the idea of Kickstarter, I had a little extra cash lying around and Tiny Barbarian DX, the title being advertised by StarQuail, was interesting.  The music was good and it had an aesthetic that matched Robert E. Howard's Conan the Barbarian stories, which I had always had an interest in, but never got around to.  What really sold me on funding Tiny Barbarian DX, however, was the original Tiny Barbarian.

This is the image I was greeted with when I found Tiny Barbarian DX on Kickstarter

            Michael Stearns, the patron of the Tiny Barbarian DX Kickstarter, was its artist, alongside lead programmer Daniel Roth and both basically formed StarQuail because they liked making games, many of which were free, as is common amongst indie developers like Amon26 or Endless Fluff.  Among these, was the original Tiny Barbarian, a take off on the classic story of "The Frost Giant's Daughter."  Stearns advertised this game in the Kickstarter for Tiny Barbarian DX, encouraging people to give it a look and see if the art and gameplay was something they enjoyed.  So, I did.  It was a bit clunky at times, but the music, the visuals, and the overall arcade feel of the game really sold me on Tiny Barbarian DX and after its release, the studio sort of emerged on the map, for me and many other gamers.

Nothing sells you on a game like throwing down with a few ice giants.

            However, like I said, Stearns and Roth had been making games for years before Tiny Barbarian DX released.  StarQuail itself was formed in 2006 and between then and the 2012 Kickstarter, they created many games.  The first was the vertical scrolling game Sky Puppy for the PC, a free ware game which had a flying puppy avoiding dangers to look for treats.  Following this was Crystal Skies, playable on both PC and Xbox 360 which is a mix of puzzle platformer and arcade score attack.  It features the soul of a dead fish bouncing around a maze of colored spheres, trying to get coins, much like the bonus stages in the original Sonic the hedgehog.  These games were somewhat amateuristic in design and show the evolution of StarQuail as they experimented with genres and design theory to try and improve their skillset.  And improve they did, as their next release, Astroman on the Xbox 360, featured an adventure focused on a space explorer platforming around alien worlds, with multiple worlds accessible from his space ship.  It was very much the template that StarQuail would embrace, featuring only minor innovations to set it aside from other platformers, but with a unique art style and sound track with the kind of polish necessary to avoid frustration and win over tentative gamers.

Starquail has a fondness for timed score attack games, apparently, like Sky Puppy here.

            Following Astroman was Tiny Barbarian and Tiny Barbarian DX.  These games are great and offer a kid friendly way into the world of swords and sorcery.  They offer tribute to Robert E. Howard's work, however are far less visceral and more fun and funny.  At present, StarQuail seems to be devoting most of its time towards Tiny Barbarian DX, as the game was released with only one of four episodes.  However, a second episode was released early in 2014 and it seems as if the developers are fully committed to finishing this project, as it is a work of passion.

While not groundbreaking, Astroman was fun, polished, and interesting.  That's worth a lot in the age of bugs, broken promises, and outright lies from developers.

            Now, what makes Tiny Barbarian DX stand out?  Honestly, it's the games immersive storytelling, unique art style, and polish.  Tiny Barbarian DX is a pixel art style of game that are rather common these days and the platforming is nothing new or spectacular, however I like to think that it stands out because it knows what it wants to be.  It wants to be an arcadey, pulp-esque story that can be finished in a single sitting, but which is great for speed running and score attack challenges. 

It pays to love your work, eh, Tiny?

            Some might ask how a pixel art arcade title could be immersive in its storytelling, but I say, you have to see it to believe it.  Tiny Barbarian DX eschews long bits of dialogue or exposition in favor of showing rather than telling.  The story never stops so that you need to read or catch up, it's all done through pantomime and body language.  And honestly, it works really well, from Tiny moving on the player's command to eat a vulture to regain his strength, to him flexing in front of ladies, to him riding out of a collapsing palace.  The context is always clear.  While the story isn't deep, it lets the game show you rather than weighing you down with dialogue or exposition.  On top of that, Tiny Barbarian DX features locales that are seldom seen in games, as they look like they were ripped straight out of Robert E. Howard's Hyborian age.  Wasteland palaces decorated with snake motifs and dank jungles fill the land with many secrets to discover, but they all feel distinctly unique.  Alongside the locales, the art style feels like a 1980s arcade title.  It has animations that are too smooth and colors too bright and vivid for the NES or the Atari, but too primitive for a 16-bit console, fitting it right into the unusual world of arcade graphics.  It's refreshing, considering the glut of RPGmaker or NES-style copy cat games that have been arriving on the market.  What may make Tiny Barbarian DX stand out the most, however, is the polish.  Unlike many early NES games, Tiny Barbarian DX feels very well play tested and the controls work exceedingly well, with a number of additions that allow the game to be enjoyable in spite of its difficulty.  While there are a few moments that may be unfair, the game is, by and large, very approachable, as some individual sections are hard, but there is no lives system so the only penalty for death is a lowered score and more time on the clock, showing how you need to improve.

A world of monsters and demons, but yet still approachable, colorful, and polished.  A rare breed.

            Jeff Ball, a friend of Stearns and Roth, composed the music for Tiny Barbarian and it is beyond glorious, further emphasizing the arcade feel of the title while keeping the audience pumped for what's coming.  It's pure chiptune glory and it works surprisingly well.

            Speaking purely as a gamer, I can understand why some might pass on Tiny Barbarian DX, as it is a little expensive.  I'm biased too, because I helped fund it.  At $10 on steam, a score attack game that can be beaten in an hour, even with the promise of more content down the line, is a hard sell.  But I look at it like this.  Robert E. Howard's pulp stories about Conan were short, bite sized bits of fiction that gave us a quick diversion from the annoyances of life and allowed us to enter a flight of fantasy, full of dark sorcerers, monstrous beasts, and one, lone barbarian hero.  Pulp stories take their name from the low quality paper they were printed on because they were considered quick entertainment in an era before gaming or even mainstream television were so domineering.  And to me, Tiny Barbarian DX is like the pulp stories of the modern game industry.  It's short, but it's enjoyable, offers a nice diversion, and promises to build on what has already been established for fans and newcomers alike.  If anything, I have to admire Stearns and Roth for making the game at all, because it IS a hard sell.  But they made the title they wanted and I can't help but enjoy the amount of personality and goodwill they've put into Tiny Barbarian DX.  They even took the time to make a digital manual complete with expository comic, like those made in the NES or SNES days, and put it up for free online, alongside links to the free download of the Original Tiny Barbarian for people to try and see if they like it before laying down money.  To me, it speaks of the kind of developers who aren't in it to get rich or even to get noticed, though that is nice, but who are just doing what they love as a passion project.

This kind of dedication to a game they love is what I love about Indie developers, especially StarQuail.

            I think we should support StarQuail games.  They're incredibly talented for how small the studio is and if Tiny Barbarian DX is what can be produced on a meager $12,000 Kickstarter, I'd love to see what they come up with next, perhaps on a bigger budget.  They are a studio to look out for and I recommend them.  For those looking for StarQuail's home page, complete with links to all their games, including the free ones, click here.  For the Tiny Barbarian Soundtrack, created by Jeff Ball, check here.  For the now expired Kickstarter, check here.

Looking forward to Episode 3, guys :)

            I found this studio through Tiny Barbarian and I believe it is their best property, but I'm anxious to see what they can come up with next.  Mr. Stearns.  Mr. Roth.  Mr. Ball.  I hope you three become the next Robert E. Howard.  I'm anxious to return to Cimmera.

Video Review of Tiny Barbarian DX

 

I've been busy this week and, in preparation for my discussion on Starquail games, I've done a brief video review of the Tiny Barbarian Series.  Give it a look.

Diminutive Diatrubes: The Ongoing Question of Game Length

Ladies, gentlemen, I am exhausted.  This week I had a lot of training to do for my trip to China and I got 3 shots, and worked a huge amount of time at my job with very little sleep...this is not the time for a big brain hurty discussion.  But, since I have plans for the next week or two and am not sure if I will be able to get a post out, I feel I should at least do this much.  So, let's have a short talk about game length and the price/length ratio.

Diminutive Diatrubes: The Ongoing Question of Game Length

            Lately, something has weighed on my mind, while I've been debating another video review before a creator spotlight.  And that is the value of a game based on its length.  See, I had an interesting experience lately where I tried a game that boasted 60+ hours.  I was bored within about 10 and just stopped playing.  Then, I picked up Savant Ascent on Steam and spent almost the same amount of time playing it, loving every second.  The kicker though?  The game I stopped playing as a huge, spanning RPG that could easily last for hundreds of hours before being done.  Savant is a quick arcade title that I beat in 30 minutes.  However, I enjoyed the game so much I went back to it enough to equal the time I spent on the RPG.

Savant is 30 minutes of head bopping, Guy Faux DBZ powered, musical mayhem.  I've played it at least a dozen times.  Money well spent.

            So, how long is too long for a game?  Is a game worth the money if it's only got a few hours, or hell, even a few minutes worth of gameplay?  What about AAA games?  Should they be held to a different standard than Indies and, if so, should we forgive artificial padding?  How much is a game worth if measured in hours.

            Angry Joe has a meme that is something infamous now, where he played Kane and Lynch 2, noting that, for $60, it only lasted 4 hours.  Foooouuuurrrr...hoouurrrssssss!!!  Same thing for Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes, which can be beaten in 1 hour, 10 minutes or less if people ignore some of the extras.  And that game cost $40.  Savant Ascent, on the other hand, has about 30 minutes to an hour's worth of content, if you never replay it, for $3.  Is Savant worth the money?  Were Kane and Lynch and MGS 5: Ground Zeroes rip offs?  Or was the content delivered worth the money paid?

            Honestly, in the modern gaming landscape, this is a question that has no right answer.  It can only be examined on a case by case basis.  One series I absolutely love is Tiny Barbarian DX.  It had a free flash version and a Steam version for $10.  Both can be beaten in about an hour or less.  I was pretty satisfied with the amount of fun I got for my money, and even surprised that Tiny Barbarian was getting sequel-esque DLC episodes for free to anyone who'd bought the game, giving it an extra hour or two worth of play for each episode.  Yet, I can see how someone would say, "$10 for an hours worth of fun?!  That's such a rip off!  You can go to a two hour movie for less!" or something along those lines.  And...they're not wrong.  A valid point is made.  Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the Earth squeezed out 10 hours before I quit it in frustration.  But those hours were so padded and wasteful that I felt cheated for paying the same $10 price tag as Tiny Barbarian.  And...I'm not wrong either.  If I wasn't having fun, that WAS a rip off.

It's like Conan.  But cute.  And tiny.  And fun.

            Price is a strange thing, as is the amount of fun to price ratio.  Many of us would be happier to drop $15 on Shovel Knight, play it for five hours, then be done, satisfied with a good experience.  Others would prefer to get value and pay $3 for two 20-30 hour RPGs in the form of Breath of Death 7 and Cthulhu Saves the World.  How can you argue with either?  You really can't, because all people are different and the games they go into are not always going to be conducive to providing a lot of value in terms of hours.  They will be able to provide value in terms of spectacle, satisfaction, or fun, however.  Usually, at least.  Some games will just blow either way.

Shovel Knight is a little short, but oh, is it ever satisfying.

            The best way of looking at it is this.  Did you enjoy the game enough that you don't feel bad you bought it?  Then, the money you paid for it was well worth it.  You can go back to it again to get more value or you can just enjoy the memories you made while playing at it.  If you have buyers remorse, like I did with Call of Cthulhu: Dark Corners of the earth...then the game was not worth the money.

I'll take short but sweet to long and getting lost, wandering around, and replaying sections in frustration because you died, thank you very much.

            I bring this simple thing up, however, because it IS important to remember that satisfaction is a wonderful thing, but we should not always let it be the only overriding factor as to whether or not a game is worth the price.  Why?  Because a game like Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes released as a AAA game with the same length of an indie and the same price as a standard release.  This...is a problem.  Or rather, it could become one. 

Now, I can blow through a Metal Gear game like 2 or 3 in like 5 hours, but do we really want a game that's...an hour to beat and $40 retail?  Really?

            If developers, indie or otherwise, decide that they can get away with releasing a game piecemeal or without a lot of game time and selling it at the full price of $40 or $60, not only will we the consumer suffer, but so will the industry.  One of the reason games like Tiny Barbarian or Shovel Knight are successful is not just that they are good games, which they are, but because they are cheaper than the competition.  I could go and drop $60 on Titanfall or I could play the Forest on Steam for $15.  Will it sell as much?  No.  Is it the same genre?  No.  But can it be successful enough to fund a sequel or another game by the studio?  Yes.  Because it IS cheaper than the competition, or at least on the same level as games like Outlast or Amnesia.  However, if the Forest or Shovel Knight was released with a $40 price tag, like Metal Gear Solid 5: Ground Zeroes, they would crash and burn hard.  Not because they're bad, but because in this economy, we have so many games to choose from and yet very little money to spread around.  Cheaper games are more likely to succeed than expensive ones by selling more units at a decreased price, even if they don't have the ad or hype train behind them.  If games ever go the way of MGS 5, where players feel it's okay to pay $40 for a very brief experience, then...we could be headed for another video game crash.  Because fewer and fewer games will get sold, leading to indie devs starving and the few game studios with the money to survive less willing to take risks and provide unique titles like The Forest, Shovel Knight, or Bro Force.

Survival horror wouldn't have survived as a genre if people weren't willing to drop the price and keep it low.  $15 for Amnesia, the Forest, or Outlast?  Yeah, I can afford that.

            The point I wanted to make with this little article is the simple idea that the only value a game has is what you take from it.  That being said, we do need to have standards.  In an ideal world, all games would sell for cheap, all the good ones would succeed, and everyone could play as much or as little as they want.  We do not live in an ideal world, however.  We have to differentiate between indies who are giving the best experience they can and AAA games who we should expect more from for the price.

This is just food for thought.  Don't let anyone else tell you what's really important when it comes to buying YOUR games.

            Ultimately, this question will remain.  But I leave it to you, the customers, the gamers, the players, to find your own answer.  This isn't meant to give you that answer...just food for thought.

To Walk Among Giants: Empowering a Play To Make Them Feel Strong

             I'm back from NYC and since we discussed the magic of how to make a player feel weak and helpless last time, through disempowerment, let's talk about the opposite this time.  Empowerment is pretty easy to understand on a lot of levels.  People like to feel strong, to feel capable.  Often, they aren't strong or able to feel proud of themselves due to illness or circumstance in real life, but a game can give them that feeling.  It can make them feel good about themselves.

It would feel good to be Kenshiro, punching a tank to death...games can give you that awesome feeling.

            Sadly, while it is easy to understand why empowering someone is so enchanting, it is often botched by those who attempt it.  See, there are a number of ways to empower a player and give them that feeling of strength and pride in themselves.  However many game designers fall prey to cliche or the idea that by simply making a player hard to kill or a game easy that it will have the same effect.  This is far from true, because hollow empowerment, an experience which tries to empower but which is plainly false and not convincing, is even worse than disempowerment.  It doesn't just make you realize your own situation.  It makes you feel like a sham for trying to be strong.  Real empowerment doesn't make you feel ashamed for trying or hollow or empty because it doesn't live up to the experience promised.  It gives you a real feeling of weight behind your actions and the play you make.

A shell of empowerment will only make you feel a shell of yourself...it will make you feel weak, not strong.  That must be avoided at all costs in games meant to empower.

            There are a number of very good ways to empower a player.  In fact, many games ramp up the difficulty for the sole purpose of this, as struggle and a little bit of disempowerment make an eventual victory even sweeter.  Dark Souls 1 and 2 are games that have the potential to be very frustrating, but the difficulty actually makes the victories you have very satisfying.  You start out at a decent power level.  You're not naked, unless you choose to be, and can fend for yourself.  However, the bosses and many enemies you face will be better equipped or just massive.  You will feel small and weak in comparison, but the game is built in such a way that you can win, no matter how weak you are, if you are able to recognize patterns or train yourself up.  It feels AMAZING to down a demon that can one shot you and which is 2-4 times your size.  So, while it can be disempowering to come across such challenges, building a game that is challenging, but balanced enough so that you can overcome it, makes victory feel all the more sweet.

This thing is just huge...downing it for the first time, I felt like such a bad ass.

            Personally, my favorite method of empowering a player is through sensory feedback.  Obviously, games cannot cater to all five senses, but sight, sound, and even touch can be catered to in video games and if they are sufficiently satisfied, then the player will actually feel closer to the character onscreen or more engaged in the action.  This will make their power feel all the more real, all the closer to home.  Warhammer 40K: Space Marine is a great example of sensory feedback.  The actions on screen are all beautifully animated and make the player feel strong, showing the overwhelming strength of the space marine you control compared the hordes you are fighting.  However, I would argue that sound design is where this game really shines.  You see, the standard weapons are bolters.  They are guns which have explosive shells and whenever one is fired, the sound is very satisfying.  It doesn't sound like a tiny pistol or even the insubstantial racket of a machine gun, it feels very solid and strong.  It's a nice blunt burst, followed by a tiny explosions to remind you of the power of the gun.  In fact, at once point, you get a machine gun version of the bolter called a twin combi-bolter, which doesn't sound like a machine gun at all...it sounds like something more akin to a minigun coupled with a rocket launcher.  Ironically, it's pretty weak compared to the other weapons later on.  However, I stuck with it for a while because the sound was so satisfying and it just felt good, hearing it whenever I fired it off in rapid succession.  With a rumble controller, games like Space Marine or other titles can even give you a touch sensation feedback.  It can help the game give you a real feeling of the weight of your actions.  This kind of sensory feedback can help you to feel strong and empowered because it is both satisfying, making the actions on screen resonate with the players, and it is also able to give them a feeling of importance through the sheer force of the senses.

The look, the sounds...everything in this game assaults the senses...and it feels good.

            A sense of realism is not necessarily needed when trying to empower a player.  Yes, I've talked about making the player feel more in tune with their game avatar through the senses, however that doesn't need to be grounded in reality...and indeed, most games feature physics or players wielding weapons that would be impossible to use normally.  However, there needs to be a feeling of weight behind the weapon.  Not heavy weight necessarily, but some weight.  For example, one of the satisfying things to do in Devil May Cry is to juggle an enemy with your guns.  To hold him up in the air and keep him there with gunfire.  If you took this out, the guns would have almost no weight, because they don't stagger enemies who are standing and if they couldn't hold an enemy in the air, they would have no power behind them.  They'd still do damage, but they would feel weak and would not empower the player.  Likewise, any game where you hit something?  There needs to be a feeling of weight behind each attack.  Light attacks can be somewhat weightless, since they are meant to be quick, glancing blows, but if a player throws a heavy attack it doesn't feel like it does anything, then you've done something wrong in designing the game.  One reason Dark Souls is so deep is because each weapon has weight behind it.  A different weight.  So, some attacks will be slow, laborious affairs that will shake the ground or stagger an enemy when they hit.  This gives them a feeling of weight that makes each action meaningful and allows the player to feel as if they are stronger than they are.  Sadly, Splatterhouse doesn't always do this.  I love the game, but the fists feel a bit pointless...weapons and the super form are a bit slower in their swings and do more damage/stagger the enemy and they feel satisfying because of it, however the regular fists are a bit unsatisfying.

Imagine how much less bad ass you'd feel if your guns couldn't do this...the weight of those attacks matters.

            I would even go so far to say that this does not just extend to games where you fight.  A game like Harvest Moon or Rune Factory can give meaning to your farming by making the swing of your hoe feel heavy or the flow of your fishing line light because it's only a bit of wood with twine attached to it.  These different feelings of weight add, not necessarily a sense of reality, but a sense of value to the actions.  A player who feels their actions have value is a player who feels empowered.  It makes them feel strong because what they are doing has meaning in the world of the game.

If each swing of the hoe has meaning and value, then the game will make you feel good.

            Another important thing to think about is challenge.  Now, I've already talked about how disempowering a player only to have them rise from the ashes stronger than before can be a great way of empowering them, however challenge as a whole is a very important aspect of game design to consider.  Many game developers think it's fine to just let players follow a linear, easy path to the end, leading them by the nose so that they can see the sights and be done with it.  However, without challenge, without a feeling of resistance by the game, then the victory feels meaningless.  It is hollow.  I don't think a game should be so brutal that players cannot win, like say Ghouls and Goblins or Silver Surfer on the NES, because those games are so unfair in their design that it feels almost pointless to try, because without hours of work, you can't even advance past the third or fourth level.  However, don't make it so easy that the players feel like they're being given a win.  They have to earn it on some level, otherwise it won't be empowering.  Tiny Barbarian DX is, in my opinion, a decent balance in this regard.  The game gives you infinite lives, so you don't get kicked back to the beginning arbitrarily, however when you die it puts you back to the start of that particular section.  You still have to win each boss battle with no more than six pieces of health and each section is still a platforming and combat based challenge.  It requires skill and work to get through, but it's not necessarily hard, because you can try as often as you want.  I think this balance is important in making a game both empowering but also accessible to players who may not be the best in terms of skill.

Tiny Barbarian DX may not be hard, but it ain't easy.  This game strikes a nice balance.

            Choice is another aspect of game design that allows for a player to be empowered.  I am NOT talking about arbitrary choice.  Not talking about a button at the end of the game which gives you either ending A or ending B.  I'm talking about meaningful choice.  Doing something that feels like it matters.  Sometimes these choices can be organic.  Demon's Crest lets players go to levels in whatever order they choose.  Some of these levels will be impossibly hard than others, because you won't have the skills you need, however the choice, where you can go and the ability to not just stick with it, but change it, is powerful.  It lets a player feel in control.  This is why sandbox games are so popular these days.  Because while you will have a story based mission, the plethora of side missions and open world interaction, organic interaction like driving a cab or an ambulance in Grand Theft Auto, allow you to play your way and gives the player the feeling that they are in control of their own destiny.  That feeling of choice and power over how they play in a game like Skyrim can be very empowering, because they are not restricted, like they might be in real life.  In real life, we need to work, sleep, go to school, do assignments, whatever.  In a game, being able to choose not to sleep, or choose to go against the beaten path or the established formula...it feels refreshing, because it gives us a feeling of freedom we don't get in normal life.  And that's why choice is so empowering.  It gives us the power to do what we cannot in normal life.

Choose your own path, be it the path of the crook or the path of the savior.

            Now, I have given several examples of ways to empower players.  The feeling of weight behind actions, choice, sensory impact, disempowerment peppered with hope for the future, challenge, etc.  But don't try and shoehorn everything into one game.  These are ways of empowering a player, not a checklist.  Every game needs to try and do it in its own way and sometimes that way may be derivative or even completely unique from these examples I'm given.  They don't all need to be included, but I'd say that at least one or two couldn't hurt.  Because, for the player to feel empowered when that is the game's intent?  That's important...not just for the designer, but for the player as well.  It can help them face the demons they're dealing with in their life by giving them an outlet where they can build confidence and be strong.  The most important thing a developer can do, is play a game and ask if they feel strong while playing it.  Not, is the story good, or is the music beautiful, or are the graphics AAA.  Ask if you feel powerful while playing it.

If you feel powerful, you'll be less afraid of the demons, real and make believe, that assail you.

            I recently bought a game called Risk of Rain for the PC and for a while, I just felt weak playing it.  However, it had many different characters with different play styles to choose from and eventually I found one I liked.  A poison beast called Acrid who had to fight up close so enemies could easily wail on him, but he could destroy great swathes of them if he poisoned them, since the poison was strong.  Now, this mixed both a feeling of challenge, choice, and something I can't quite put my finger on to make me feel tough.  I was well aware the enemies could kill me easily, and I did die, but I walked through them like a giant, laying waste to all in my path for a while, even the large bosses.  It just felt good.  And if a developer can play a game and say, I feel good...I feel strong...then they know they've got a winner on their hands.

I may be small, but my poison is fierce >:)

            Empowering a player may seem like a no brainer, but making it feel genuine is actually pretty tough.  It's something I encourage not just developers, but players to think about.  Because we all need that boost to feel powerful sometimes and nothing is more pitiable than trying to unwind and feel strong with a game, only to feel cheated, frustrated, and weak by the end.

            I enjoy games that can genuinely make me feel powerful, because many games will actually go that extra mile to not only make you feel strong while playing, but to make you feel strong even after you stop.  By making a hard choice or doing something challenging, you can feel the empowerment of your game and avatar even after you've stopped playing and it can help you through your trials.

We all need to feel powerful sometime.  Confidence will help us survive the trials ahead...so empower through gaming.

            Disempowerment has its uses, for story, to teach us about fear so we are ready when life throws challenges our way, or just because we want to feel low for a bit...but empowerment, I believe is just as if not more important, because it helps us with living our lives.

            I hope you've enjoyed this discussion on power fantasy, both disempowerment and empowerment.  Next week, I believe we'll go back to a creator spotlight, like I promised so long ago, however I have to say that alongside writing for my other blog, I'm also preparing to go to China soon.  So...my updates may be a tad sporadic.  Sorry if that's inconvenient, but it is what it is.  I have my priorities after all.  I don't intend to stop, but if I need to take time to get done what needs doing, I will.

            Thanks to everyone who continues reading this silly little blog of mine, even now.

Video Game Growing Pains Awards 2013

Greetings and salutations!  Seeing as it's a brand new  year, I felt it important to, as with last year, totally copy all the other reviewers out there and make a best/worst list.  Yes, I know, I'm a hack.  Moving on, this list will consist of three categories of games that I played in 2013.  Some of these came out in 2013, some just need mentioning...just because.  Also, this list is purely subjective, so if you disagree with me, fine, disagree.  Better yet, comment and explain to me your perspective.  I'm genuinely curious.  Anyway, let's take a look at the best, worst, and most WTF?! games for me of 2013.

Worst

            Which games made me sad, angry, or just plain frustrated?  This list is all about games I wish I hadn't bought, wish I hadn't played, wish...hadn't been, really.

Worst Identity Crisis: Bioshock Infinite(PS3/Xbox360/PC)

            Starting off controversial, huh?  Don't I always?  Let's get this out of the way.  Bioshock Infinite is a critical darling.  And I can't stand it.  Most of this stems from my distaste for the plot, which focuses on the concept of hyper time.  Hyper time basically posits that all decisions made by anyone creates a split parallel universe where the opposite decision was made.  I think this is handled very poorly, especially through the ending, and just frustrated me.  However, even without that thorn in my side, this game still would have made my worst list.  Why?  Because it doesn't know what kind of game it wants to be, really.  

Be Halo or be Biocshock...at least commit to SOMETHING.

            There are a lot of elements of the first two Bioshocks in this game, like scavenging in trash for food and coin, comboing plasmids and weapons for greater effects, moral ambiguity, audio logs, etc.  However, the game plays very much like a Halo clone.  You have a regenerating shield, you have a stock array of military weapons, from pistol, to shot gun, to RPG, to machine gun, and you are only allowed a two gun load out.  Putting aside personal preference, whether you like the two gun load out of Infinite or the carry as many guns as you want of the previous two, the fact that they couldn't decide on how it plays...whether the pace should be interrupted to scavenge or whether you were pressed for time...whether you should become skilled with one weapon or, in case the enemies don't drop ammo for it, just be an all rounder...it says to me the developers didn't want to commit for fear of alienating...well...ANY potential buyer.  And the game is weaker for it.  The tone of the story clashes with the actions taken by the player.  The style of play in down situations clashes with the style of play in fire fights.  Even the gameplay seems torn, as the improvements made to Bioshock's plasmid/weapon system in Bioshock 2 were either forgotten or excised for Infinite.

This was what we were promised...what we got was a game that didn't know what it wanted.

            I just wish Infinite was more consistent...if it were more consistently Bioshock, I'd have liked it more.  If it were more consistently Halo or some other modern military shooter, I'd have stayed away and been happier for it.

 

Most Boring/Pointless Grind: Skyrim Legendary Edition(PS3/Xbox360)

            I started playing Skyrim wanting to love it...and ended up feeling kinda empty and bored by the end.  I played Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion to death.  5 full playthroughs.  It was a colorful game that made me feel like I was on a grand adventure, that each item I got was unique and that some should be kept or stored rather than sold, that each situation was different, special, and fun.  And Skyrim felt like a grind to me.  First, yes, Skyrim is an amazing game.  It greatly improves the combat of Oblivion, adds in some more options, improves graphics with a new engine, and gives the players more freedom and choice.  However, in doing some of this, other changes were made that kind of turned the game into a slow, boring grind.

We're all just slaves to the grind

            The inclusion of a skill points system, with perks, was a positive change from Oblivion, but because armor, potions, and enchanting were tied to it, often times players had to grind out skill points to get the best stuff, unless they wanted to face vastly over powered enemies...and this was boring. 

"Okay, I bought a thousand iron ingots and leather strips and made a few hundred swords!"

"Congratulations!  You gained 10 skill points.  Do another thousand and you can make NEW armor.  Now, let me take those swords and give you money."

"What should I do with the money?"

"Why, buy more materials...to make more SWORDS!"

Yeah, to me it just felt kinda like a pointless slog.  Added onto that, the game has serious loading issues on a console, is very glitchy, and...really, there was no great reward at the end.  At the end of Oblivion, the gates to Oblivion were sealed...you could tell a tangible difference in the game, because you no longer got ganged up on by otherworldly beasts and there were no more red skies.  In this game...you kill a dragon, other dragons still exist for you to grind out materials on...nothing has changed.  The game is also very modern...by that I mean, washed out colors, lots of grey, white, brown, black...Oblivion was colorful and vibrant, a place I wanted to explore and enjoy.  Every mine and every dungeon of Skyrim just made me more and more bored and question why I put so much time into it.  This even extends to the maps and menus.  Oblivion had an old world, parchment like menu theme, for maps, skills, etc.  Skyrim goes for a semi-clear, bland, boring look to the map and menu screens.

This would have made the grind all worth while...cept this was just an awesome mod for PC versions.  Console gamers got left out.

            Let me just say, this ONLY applies to console versions of Skyrim.  PC versions are much better.  The inclusion of mods allows players to experience a fuller, more enjoyable game, such as with the High King of Skyrim mod, which feels like what I should have gotten for beating the game regularly.  You would still have quests to do, but you have the authority of a king to fall back on, to belittle, build up, or just mess with your subjects to your own enjoyment.

            For me, it was a grind...and grinds can be fun, but Skyrim was not.  It gave me no real feeling of changing the world or its people...everything was pretty much the same at the end of the game as the start.  A dragon and a few extra people were dead, but...no real change to the world at large.

Game That Loves to Give Players the Middle Finger:  FTL(PC)

            I hate FTL.  Some friends of mine encouraged me to try this starship simulator and, to their credit, it was pretty fun for a while.  However, FTL is a roguelike game done poorly.  Roguelikes frequently have you die and have to start over from scratch, however one of the cornerstones, in my opinion, of a good roguelike game is incremental progress.  You get better as a player, you get small rewards to make your next playthrough different or more enjoyable, etc.  Spelunky does this with unlockable shortcuts, players, and by slowly teaching you skills needed to survive through trial and error.  Rogue Legacy does this by allowing you to purchase new weapons, classes, or stat upgrades after each death that you keep.  FTL...doesn't really do this at all.  If you are SUPER lucky, you can have an event which may unlock a new starship.  These events are few and far between, though, and most players will be damned lucky to ever see one.  I've dropped at least 30 hours into FTL and only unlocked three of it's twelve ships...yeah...

Get used to seeing this.  FTL screws you.  A lot.

            FTL just wastes my time, largely because it is so random and luck based.  Now, lots of roguelikes are random and luck based, but FTL, regardless of your skill, can and will kill you with random events for no reason.  No matter how skilled you are, it will just end you...and to me, this is bad game design, because it wastes the player's time and isn't fun.  Others may enjoy it, but I don't.  You may as well roll a set of dice and end the game immediately unless you roll anything but snake eyes.  The game gleefully kills you and wastes your time, with no real lessons being learned and no progress being made.

Egregious Backpedaling: Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time(PS3)

            I am a HUGE Sly Cooper fan.  Alongside the Jak and Ratchet and Clank games, it was one of the finest platformers of the PS2 era and I was super sad that it wasn't making the jump to the PS3.  However, when it did, I was psyched.  I grabbed this beauty up and played it right away, and...it wasn't BAD, but...it felt like a huge step back for the series.

Bentley's expression says it all.  WTF, Sly Cooper.

            First, the plot...it is hugely contrived and turns fun characters we loved into enemies for the sake of getting our main cast back together.  This pissed me off, as we saw a series favorite turn evil for...really no reason.  It.  Made.  Me.  Angry.  Putting that aside, though, there was just a general lack of variety in missions, in my opinion.  Granted, there were a few interesting ones based on new outfits Sly Cooper could wear, such as deflecting projectiles with samurai armor or making huge leaps with a sabertooth tiger rug, but...the general play felt lackluster.  We also had the return of clue bottles, which were included in the first Sly game, however with no map, radar, or other way to find them, digging them up in each hub world became a chore...the first 28 are easy.  The last 2 are impossible.  It was just a ton of amateur mistakes and step backs.

            Sly 4 rubbed me the wrong way...it's not a bad game, but it was a huge step back for the franchise...and that makes me sad.

Honorable Mention: Resistance 3(PS3)

            Once again, Resistance 3 isn't REALLY a bad game.  It's got some fun weapons, interesting enemies and gunplay, and while the story is boring, it was a pretty enjoyable ride.  HOWEVER!  Not only did this game have to dump several gigabytes into my PS3 before I could play it, when I tried to erase it to make room for other stuff, the data corrupted and now it's stuck.  This game was glitchy and had issues with pacing, but that was the nail in its coffin for me.  It doesn't deserve a title under my worst list, but I have to bring it up.  First Sly is handed off to a new team, now Insomniac botches it's PS3 shooter...what's happening to game developers these days?

You done me wrong, Resistance 3...you done me wrong.

Best

            Okay, the depressing worst is out of the way, so let's move onto a few games that I absolutely ADORE!  These games made my year bright, fun, and were true reminders of why I play video games at all.

Delicious blend of genres and themes: Sang-Froid(PC)

            Fun fact.  I spent January 2013 in Montreal.  November 2013, after Steam's fall sale, I got this game and gave it a try.  Oh.  My.  God.  Sang-Froid is a wonderful blend of separate elements that come together in a gloriously silly, wholly unique experience.  Sang-Froid is a story about two lumberjack brothers in Canada who have to protect their sister and neighbors from Werewolves, skin changing Inuit, Wendigos, and the Devil himself.  TotalBiscuit calls this the most Canadian game ever and that's not a bad thing at all.  The new twist on a familiar story, the interesting cultural references and differences, and the strange characters and names that could only come from our friends to the north, accents and all, make this a very memorable play.  However, what sold me was the gameplay.

Yes.  You kill ice demons with a magic axe, a musket, and a ballista.  This game is made of Canadian win.

            The gameplay is divided between a strategy section and an action section.  In the strategy section, you can set traps, some automatic, some you need to activate, you can chop lumber for money, you can buy items or check the movement paths of the waves of wolves, etc.  In the action section, you take those traps and information you gained during the strategy section and try to defend your home.  Not only can players rely on their traps, but they can also fight with axe and musket, making this an interesting blend of action/hacknslash/strategy/rpg/canadian game.  It's great fun.  The voice acting and story can be a bit off or cheesy or stilted, but it kind of lends to the game's charm.  It's dark and serious, but also a bit silly, like an old B movie.  And I love it, for blending a fun story, Canadian culture, and rock solid, super fun gameplay together.

Valentine's Came Early: Pandora's Tower(Wii)

            The last game of Operation Rainfall came out in 2013 and...it was a bit of a Zelda clone.  But my god, what a fun clone it was.  This game features our hero, Aeron traversing several dungeons, killing enemies, and getting new items for the sake of a cursed girl named Elena...yeah, sounds familiar.  However, it really is a fun play.  The chain you are given at the beginning is both weapon and tool and it's just as fun to swing around or grab distant items with as it is to tear chunks of your enemy off with it.

How can I love a monster?  Pretty easy, when she's as wonderful as Elena.

            While the combat is fun, what really sold me on this was the relationship dynamic.  You have Aeron killing monsters and giving meat to Elena, who is a vegetarian, but has to eat or she will turn into a monster.  It's an interesting, subtle bit of character study, between these two friends who slowly grow closer, but also more distant due to Elena's curse.  The game reflects this with a stock relationship meter, but Elena really is an endearing character who works with Aeron rather than being his reward or his burden.  The game does have a few glitches and is at times a but frustrating, but for the characters and for how fun it is living in their world, I have to put it on my best list.

Fantastic, in Spite of Abysmal Publicity: Dragon's Crown(PS3)

            Dragon's Crown has had an unfortunate series of public shamings.  The flame war between producer George Kamitani and Jason Schrier of Kotaku, the examination of character art by Jim Sterling and TotalBiscuit, the decrying by both reviewers and gamers for how the art style or depictions of women interferes with the game...it's been a bad time to be Dragon's Crown.  In spite of all that, it has managed to do very well.  Selling a good amount is one thing, but Dragon's Crown is also a fantastic game.

Not your proudest moment, Mr. Kamitani -_-u

            Make no mistake, some of the complaints made by the above personalities are valid.  Hell, I've made similar complaints here.  The Sorceresses design is sexist and frustrating, the Amazon has some unfortunate animation choices, and oversexualized women of the fantasy genre are front and center.  However, it's still a great game.  Six characters, each with a different style of play, in a world that is full of strange beasts, myriad treasures, and awe inspiring sights.  It's a joy to play and I've sunk at least 80 hours into it, completing all 6 character campaigns and beating the final secret boss.  It's been a fun ride and in spite of all the negative publicity that Dragon's Crown has...well...rightfully received, it is still a great game.

In spite of the controversy, the game is still beautiful and plays like a dream.

            Some people may not be able to get over the art style, and that's fine, but it is still something I heartily enjoyed.  I wasn't bothered by the art because I was too busy trying to stay alive fighting cyclopian monstrosities, wicked demons, and the fearsome fire dragon.

Best Bang For the Buck: Rage of the Gladiator(Wii)

            Welp, this was a surprise.  I'd heard about Rage of the Gladiator on the Wii for a while, but only recently got a chance to play it.  It's...pretty awesome, if I do say so myself.  The game plays a lot like Punch Out on the Wii, with various enemies appearing and attacking with specific patterns that you need to block, dodge, attack against, or what have you.  The kicker here is that the enemies are all monsters, like goblins, beholders, magicians, minotaurs, etc. and it's super fun getting to fight them all.

You take on dragons and demons Punch Out style...need I say more?

            There are two modes of play, basic and challenge, and they both scale up the difficulty very well.  There is a skill tree that requires some sacrifices to get what you want.  There is also one of the best things to ever exist in a Wii game.  The option not to use the Wiimote.  It's a game that very much uses Wii motion controls, however you can select a classic controller or just the Wiimote held side ways if you want.    These options allow the game to be played by both the hardcore and the casual alike and really feels like it should have been a full on retail release rather than a 15 dollar downloadable title.

            Rage of the Gladiators is what all Wii downloadable games should be.  It's fun, it's got a lot of content, it's got a lot of options, and it may just be the best Wii game that no one has ever played.

Honorable Mention: Dark Souls(PS3/Xbox360/PC) & Ni No Kuni(PS3)

            Yep, two honorable mentions for Best.  While I am getting more and more jaded with the games industry, this has been a pretty great year.  I played Dark Souls the most last year, but because it frustrated me, I kept it off my best/worst list...and that was unfair, because I've easily sunk over 200 hours into it.  Dark Souls is a fantastic game, mixing moody old school challenge with brilliant graphics that make even the dark or dreary beautiful and well honed design placing control almost completely in the player's hands.  I love this game...almost as much as I hate it.  But...I felt others deserved the mention...especially since I'm now waiting for Dark Souls 2 to come out.

Intimidating, frustrating, but oh so satisfying to conquer...Dark Souls in a nutshell.

            And Ni No Kuni...this would have been my game of the year if not for the crappy control scheme in combat.  It should have been a regular turn based RPG.  That's basically what it is, only you can only control one character, the others have crummy AI, and it goes in real time, so the game doesn't give you a lot of room to rest/mess up/think.  Which is frustrating, since Ni No Kuni is amazing in all other respects.  The villain is amazing...well, except for the White Witch.  Shadaar is amazing.  Let's say that.  Ahem.  Anyway, the graphics are fantastic, with cut scenes by Studio Ghibli.  The dialogue is actually worthy of mention, since it's tame enough for kids, but not painful for adults.  The creature raising mechanic is fun, if in need of a bit more polish/speeding up, and the quest and crafting systems, as well as the wizard hand book you get near the start of the game are great for immersion, world building, and overall fun.  The combat rubbed me the wrong way and that's why it's not on my best list, but Ni No Kuni is a damn fine game.  I just wish it were better, so I could heap more praise on it.

So close to perfect!  If only the combat had been fixed TT_TT

WTF?

            Some games are just...weird.  Or deserving of more than just an arbitrary good or bad rating.  They deserve a new perspective.  So, let's look at these WTF titles and see what craziness was heaped onto use this year.  Also, confession time, these are all great games...I just wanted to talk about them and couldn't fit them into my other lists.  They are certainly strange though.  Trust me.

Game You Love to Hate to Love: Hearthstone

            I hate Hearthstone.  I love Hearthstone.  I...have an odd relationship with Hearthstone.  It's basically a free to play version of the World of Warcraft card game.  It's not perfect by any means, as it's still in beta and still being balanced, but it is a ton of fun.  However, it's probably the only game besides Dark Souls that I scream at, at the top of my lungs, and yet still want to go back to.  It's frustrating, but there are moments of supreme bliss, like when you pull that one card you need in a match.

Yu-gi-oh: Warcraft edition.  Insanely frustrating.  Insanely fun.

            The real reason Hearthstone makes it on my list though is because it's...the way a free to play game should be.  It basically gives you a Yu-gi-oh starter deck and tells you to go unlock the others by playing with the one you have.  Then it tells you to play more and unlock the structure deck cards.  Then it tells you to earn gold and buy booster packs for all the rest of the cards.  If you don't want to earn gold through daily quests, you can buy with real money...but you don't have to.  You can play the game, make good strategies, meet friends or tough opponents, all without spending a penny.  In fact, the shop is just a tiny icon near the bigger play ones and the game only tells you it's there once.  It never badgers you for money and if you are actually about to spend real money, Hearthstone says "Wait a minute...are you SURE?!  You know you'll be spending real money, right?"  It's very honest for a free to play game.  And yet, supremely well polished.  It has a few glitches here and there but it's a balanced game that works well.  With the promise of more to come, I have to say it's probably my game of the year for 2013.  It made me fall in love with collectible card games again, but isn't being a huge drain on my wallet like Yu-gi-oh or Magic the Gathering were.  It's a fantastic title and once it goes open beta, I heartily recommend it to any card gamers in the world.  You won't be sorry.

Come and play a game or two beside the hearth, friend.

THE WIIMOTE ACTUALLY WORKS: Trauma Team

            I've been an apologist for motion controls in the past.  however, the truth is, they don't really work as well as a regular controller or mouse and keyboard in terms of input and probably never will.  However, Trauma Team...Trauma Team makes me question that truth.  It's a fantastic little Wii title that uses only motion controls and uses them well.  Part of the well established Trauma Center series, it focuses on surgeons who have to save patients from everything from regular transplants or lacerations to a brand new super virus.  However, this one focuses on a team of doctors at a specific hospital.  One is early response and can only use certain tools due to having to be on the go, while another performs bone cutting, setting, and makes braces.  Another uses an endoscope to look through a person's body from the viewpoint of a snake while another does triage to determine the malady a patient has.  Each of these doctors uses tools that the Wii mote substitutes as or in the case of triage or mortician, acts like a mouse pointer in a point-and-click game.  And it works.  It works amazingly well.  The wiimote is very accurate, but more than that, it also feels natural doing all the things that the doctor's do.

Even diagnosing an illness feels natural...on the WII!  That is amazing.

            The game isn't perfect, mind.  It can get quite hard in places and the triage and mortician sections are much longer than the surgeries, since they follow the same rules of point-and-click titles, namely, "What the hell do I do now?!"  There are also some odd story bits, like the bone surgeon having a side job as a super hero or the endoscope user having a butler who she regularly shoots arrows at and who can wield a samurai sword.  Hell, the head surgeon is a prisoner sentenced to serve 120 years in a biological freezer.  Yeah, it's a weird title, but the story is surprisingly heartfelt and compelling and the gameplay is just plain fun.  I highly recommend.  If more games like Trauma Team came out, we'd probably be heaping praise on motion controls rather than wishing for their death.

From right to left.  Biker chick, best friend is a robot, talks to ghosts, 120 year sentence prisoner, samurai endoscope doctor, costumed superhero.  So...yeah...the cast is a bit strange.

Great, Great, Great, Great, Great, Grandson: Rogue Legacy

            What does one even say about Rogue Legacy?  Fantastic roguelike?  Check.  Enjoyable little Metroidvania-esque game?  Check.  Most likely to make you go WTF IS UP WITH THIS CHARACTER?!  Ehehe...check.  This is a fun, interesting little roguelike game where you build up stats and unlock new classes by gaining money inside a castle and then try and kill the four main bosses to unlock the final one.  The story is okay, but really, what people came to this game for were the wacky, insane descendents system.  See, each time you die in this game, your son/daughter takes your place.  You get the choice of three, each with a random job, power, and...handicap?  Players have different unique traits about them, like the ability to only see the world in sepia tone because they are "nostalgic" or they fart every few seconds because they have irritable bowl syndrome.  Some are actually quite useful, like the inability to set off spike traps because they are "Light on their feet" or more amusingly, excitable, meaning that each hit they take claims to be thousands of points more damage than it really is.  This game truly does offer an interesting and unique look at roguelikes and Castlevania-esque games with this mechanic.  It's weird, but oh so fun and silly.  What other game can you have an amnesiac, gay, daughter?  Or a short sighted, dyslexic, old man for a son?

Even the greatest of Knights can have irritable bowel syndrome

2013's Shortest Game: Tiny Barbarian DX

            First game I ever kickstarted.  Tiny Barbarian DX is a super fun throwback to the NES era of games.  It's got arcade gameplay and while challenging, doesn't use a lives system that arbitrarily throws you back or ends your game after a certain number of deaths.  It's wonderful at showing with actions and expressions rather than dumping exposition and it's all around a very fun title.  It's also less than an hour long.  For a $10 game on steam.  Usually, I wouldn't even pay half that much for such a game.  But Tiny Barbarian DX won me over.  Its music, its aesthetic, its gameplay...it's a strange little title, for being so short, but it's surprisingly enjoyable.  I have to recommend this to any old school fans of chip tunes, Conan the Barbarian, and NES gameplay.  While short, it's worth it...though I have to wonder how this game gets a digital for profit release and Maldita Castilla is free.  Then again, different strokes for different folks.

Conan would be proud, even if the game is short...or rather...tiny...

Honorable Mention: Dragon Quest 9: Sentinels of the Starry Night Sky

            I played this game to death all the way back in 2011.  And then I bought it again this year to play it again.  Yes, really.  So, now I own 2 copies of DQ9.  Why?  Cause there's only one save slot and with the DQ9 wi-fi store being shut down I didn't want to wipe my old game or my old items.  I'd rather keep those and all the quests I beat and just buy a new DQ9 to play through for fun.  And I did.  And it was fun.  But...yeah, looking back...wtf was I thinking?  Either way, still just as fun now as when I first played it.

Yes.  Yes I am DQ9.  So nice, I bought you twice.

             Welp, that rounds out 2013.  Thanks again to any and all fans for sticking with me and I can only hope I will be able to enrage you further in 2014.  I have about 2-4 articles I'm sitting on for one reason or another and really do want to get out, but my time is seldom my own, so that's why I've not had much output.  This list was just plain fun for me, though, so that's why it's out before anything else.

            Anyway, give the good games a try and the bad games the middle finger.  And remember to enjoy 2014.  Life is short...so game on.