Hob is a fun little Zelda clone whose substantial technical issues harm, but don't ruin, the experience

Hob made a terrible first impression on me. The game starts with a robot guy freeing your little character from a chamber. You walk out into a verdant 3-D world presented from a mostly isometric perspective and are supposed to follow the robot out into the starting area, which is not strictly linear. I tried running around a bit to see if there was anything else to do, and found a plant that I did not yet have the right equipment to interact with. So I followed the robot through some very basic puzzles and got to a point where your character gets attacked and there’s a late set of opening credits and…the game crashed to a blue error report on my PS4. I considered abandoning it at this point, but didn’t want to give up so easily on a well-reviewed game I had been looking forward to playing. So I started it again, followed the robot through the boring sequence, again, got a little bit further this time and…the game locked up, and I had to force quit it. Fortunately, I’d hit a save point this time so I didn’t have to do the intro sequence a third time, but I was seriously annoyed and very nearly deleted the application from my PS4.

I’m glad I didn’t, because Hob is a fun and engaging game, but it is also rough around the edges. In addition to a handful of additional game crashes I experienced some significant frame rate issues in a few areas, a bug where I couldn’t hit a switch necessary to advance the game (which was fortunately resolved by quitting and restarting the program), and a recurrent bug where the wrong 3-D model would load for an enemy with a specific weakness, making it impossible to read when that enemy was actually vulnerable to having its armor removed. It’s the buggiest console game I’ve played in a very long time, and it’s a testament to how good the core of the game is that I kept playing to the end despite those issues.

Hob looks like Zelda and plays like Zelda. It's Zelda, you guys. They made Zelda. That's not a bad thing though.
Hob looks like Zelda and plays like Zelda. It's Zelda, you guys. They made Zelda. That's not a bad thing though.

That core is…top down Zelda. It’s Zelda. Hob is a Zelda clone. From the pre-release news and the handful of reviews I read I thought it was more like an adventure game Journey/Abzu game but with a little combat and a few puzzles, but it’s not. It’s a (mostly) isometric perspective game where you fight enemies with a sword and shield, solve puzzles, and do some platforming and traversal (which is often made harder by the isometric perspective.) The balance is tilted heavily away from combat and towards puzzle solving and traversal, with the traversal providing the most challenge. Most of the puzzles amount to just flipping every switch you find until a new area opens up or an old area re-arranges itself and you can advance. There are a few clever puzzles requiring some thought or timing, but it’s probably no more than 10 across the game, and none are overly difficult.

Unlike Zelda Hob can be a pretty bloody game. Larger enemies, like the guy on the top left, spew blood as they die.
Unlike Zelda Hob can be a pretty bloody game. Larger enemies, like the guy on the top left, spew blood as they die.

The combat, for its part, is stripped down and simple, mostly rewarding hit and run tactics where you dash up to an enemy, smack them a few times, and run away before they retaliate. There are a few wrinkles involving stripping armor by using a charged punch attack with your robot arm or by grappling glowing weak points, but they don’t add very much and there are probably 15-20 enemy types across the whole game, including variations of a base type. There are also no bosses before the end of the game, though there are a few puzzle-focused dungeons (which also do have combat against basic enemies.) The major challenge in Hob, then, is figuring out how to use the traversal mechanics to reach the particular switch you need to flip to advance through the area, which makes for a fairly laid-back experience. This is aided by generous respawn points that are usually only 20-30 seconds away from where you died, and don’t reset the world state, so dead enemies (mostly) stay dead and flipped switches stay flipped, minimizing frustration.

Hob’s traversal mechanics are simple but functional. You can walk, run, jump, climb ladders and then later do a short warp dash and a grapple. The controls are decent, though they can be finnicky (especially when trying to get from a grapple point up on to a ledge.) You can also pull switches and rotate levers, but it’s very basic stuff. The biggest challenge can be the camera, which often makes for odd perspectives on jumps and sometimes loses track of the character behind foreground objects, leading to unnecessary fall deaths.

If you can get at the creature inside this egg-bubble thing and kill it, you can clear away the slime and evil tentacles.
If you can get at the creature inside this egg-bubble thing and kill it, you can clear away the slime and evil tentacles.

Hob also features treasure chests to discover, with either 10 units of glowing green upgrade currency, or an upgrade schematic. There are also sword upgrade pieces, heart and energy meter upgrade pieces, and secret lore rooms (that present their information through glowing images, rather than words.) These secrets are often well hidden, though many times paths I thought would lead to an upgrade chest were actually the only way to proceed. The game also enjoys teasing you by showing you upgrade items that you won’t be able to get until you clear all the pink slime from the area, or raise or lower platforms. The upgrade systems are stripped down from what you might find in something like Breath of the Wild, but your character ends up with quite a few additional abilities and heart points by the end.

If Hob’s gameplay is just above-average, then, the story is basically non-existent. The pre-release materials made a big deal out of the game lacking dialog, which is not strictly true; in fact the intro robot chatters at you quite a bit, it’s just not in a real language. Hob has a few cut scenes and NPCs, but no real storytelling. You’re on an adventure rebuilding and purifying the land, and that’s pretty much it.

Hob combines steampunk-like technical designs with organic areas, for a cool world that is idyllic at times, but also mechanical and alien.
Hob combines steampunk-like technical designs with organic areas, for a cool world that is idyllic at times, but also mechanical and alien.

And it’s that rebuilding and purification of the land that provides Hob’s true strength, which is, quite literally, worldbuilding. While in most Zelda type games you get access to new areas by gaining new abilities or opening doors or paths, Hob does both of those things but adds a good deal of terraforming into the mix. In Hob you don’t just open doorways you purify entire areas of this creeping pink ooze that blocks off your path and damages you. Even cooler, you raise, lower, and rotate the landscape itself to create new paths and connections, and recontextualize old areas into new ways. The world map in Hob doesn’t just get filled in, it gets fundamentally altered, and it’s really satisfying to see not just your character change but the entire play area change with it. There’s a point in the game where you raise an area with a big lake in it and come face to face with a giant predatory fish staring out at you from the cross section of the world as it shoots up and then crashes down into place. That fish will then proceed to hunt you as you swim through that lake, and you have to activate noise-producing platforms to drive it away so you can move through the area. That kind of spectacle and alien worldbuilding provides the greatest joy in Hob and kept me playing until the end of the game. The terraforming, along with gates you can open and ladders you can pop out, also creates lots of convenient shortcuts and new openings, making areas that might take you an hour to get through the first time much easier to traverse when you need to backtrack to do something else or hunt for additional items and secrets.

If the art design and aesthetic world building in Hob are great, the graphics are just so-so. The game has a pleasant cell-shaded style, but many of the textures are low definition and, at least on PS4, the game often has a low frame rate and jittery camera. Sound fares a little better, and the game uses music much like Breath of the Wild, with a few pleasantly haunting tunes alternating punctuating the in-game soundscape. Hob’s simple geometry and clean look isn’t a bad thing, but at many points it looks like an upscaled PS2 game rather than anything cutting edge.

Hob features lots of appealing vistas, often of areas that you'll be able to explore after you alter the landscape by hitting the right switches.
Hob features lots of appealing vistas, often of areas that you'll be able to explore after you alter the landscape by hitting the right switches.

Hob represents the final game made by Runic Games, the studio that developed Torchlight 1 and 2, before it was shuttered. Given that the studio was made famous by its Diablo clones, it’s not surprising that it decided to branch out and clone another famous action RPG series. While Hob is not as successful as Torchlight it’s definitely a respectable effort, and I’m a little surprised that it didn’t make a bigger splash despite coming from an established studio and getting (deservedly) good reviews. The game takes about 10-12 hours to complete and for $20 (or less on sale) it’s well worth it. It’s too bad that Runic shut down before they had an opportunity to make a sequel (or spiritual sequel more likely given how the game ends.) I think that with a little more polish and maybe a move to a free-control 3-D camera, a sequel to Hob could have been a truly special game and not just a good game with some truly special parts. Alas that isn’t going to happen, but the game they made is a game worth playing, so if you’re in the mood for some top-down Zelda style action, minus the bosses and with a streamlined item/upgrade system, Hob is worth a try. Just do your best not to get eaten by that giant fish.

1 Comments

Nintendo should embrace the series terrible names and call the next game New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe 2

I want to start by saying that I like the New Super Mario Bros. series. I've only played New Super Mario Bros. 2 and now New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe, but I enjoyed 2 and I've played a couple worlds of U and had fun with that as well. So I have nothing against this series, and when they make the next game I'll probably buy that too. But I want that game to be called New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe 2, because all the names in this series are dumb and I want them to lean in as much as possible.

New Super Mario Bros.: The series started off on the DS 13 years ago on the DS, with a name that kind of sort of made sense. After the Mario games had moved to 3D and gotten more complicated and away from pure platforming with games like Super Mario Bros. Sunshine, they wanted to get back to basics and start fresh. They wanted to make an old school experience that harkened back to the origins of the series. Or rather close to the origins because this is actually based on Super Mario Bros. 3, not the original, so already it's confusing. Naturally they called this older style game...New Super Mario Bros. I get it, it's a new start to the old series, I'll kind of give them a pass.

New Super Mario Bros. Wii: It's 2009 and this is already a bad name. The game is not actually a Wii version of the DS original, instead it's a...new...game in the New series, but on the Wii instead of the DS. It was 2009, however, and Nintendo was naming all kinds of games "Franchise X Wii" so this was more a Wii problem than a NSMB problem. Still a bad name.

New Super Mario Bros. 2: Okay, now they're just trolling. This is the third game in the NSMB series, but it's labeled NSMB2. Is it, then a new version of Super Mario Bros. 2, throwing back to the famed re-skin of Doki Doki Panic? No. It's not. It's the second in the NSMB series, presumably because the Wii version was a spin-off? We're already off the rails.

New Super Mario Bros. U: Another non-numbered sequel! It's another spin off like NSMBW? Who knows. Again Nintendo called a lot of stuff "U" during the Wii U era, and again it was stupid, and especially stupid here. Note that this "New" series is now 9 years old.

New Super Luigi U: There was never an old Super Luigi. This is based on NSMB U and replacing the Mario Bros. with Luigi so there is...A...logic to it, but we're already so far off the rails we're in total nonsense land. This should have just been Super Luigi U.

New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe: And now we arrive at the natural conclusion of a series of horrible naming decisions. This is a port of a 5 year old game in a 13 year old series with New in the title. It's got the "U" title but it's on the Switch. It's called Deluxe even though it's really just a port with a couple characters added and a couple small features removed. Nothing about this title is accurate except that the Super Mario Bros. are in the game.

So they can't stop now. They've got the worst titled series that's been ported to the West, now it's time to double down. There's no natural title for the next game in the series. They can't call it NSMB 3 both because it would be the 5th game and because it would be on Switch, where they've already put a non-numbered sequel. They can't call it New Super Mario Bros. Switch because that already exists. They could call it New New Super Mario Bros. but that would be a crime.

The ONLY way to title this game is as a sequel to New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe. New Super Mario Bros. U Deluxe 2. That's the name.

I look forward to playing it.

7 Comments

Toby: the Secret Mine is a competent game that mostly made me realize what a masterpiece Limbo is

Toby: the Secret Mine is a game created with a very clear idea of what it wants to be. What it wants to be is Limbo. It isn’t. But in its failure to reach that height it shows what made Limbo so very special.

I bought Limbo for 360 when it first came out but never played it. I got a free upgrade when it was ported to Xbox One in 2014, and then played it in July 2016 in preparation for Inside, which I finished the next week. I thought Limbo held up incredibly well in 2016, and Inside was one of my favorite games of that year, so I am definitely in the target audience for this kind of puzzle platformer. I didn’t hear any buzz about Toby when it was released in 2015 but I decided to try it out because it was cheap, short, and seemed like something I might enjoy.

I only paid $3 for it and at 2 hours it was definitely short. As for enjoyable…well…

Does this remind you of anything? Toby is not afraid to show its inspiration clearly.
Does this remind you of anything? Toby is not afraid to show its inspiration clearly.

Toby is not a terrible game. You play a short little imp-like creature who has the ability to walk pretty slowly, jump, activate switches, hold keys, and push/break certain objects in the environment. With that simple tool set you have to get from left to right across 21 levels of puzzle platforming. There a few different environments in the game, including a snow area and a desert area, but each has the same basic elements of otherworldly machinery, deadly pits, collapsing platforms, dangerous creatures, and traps that can kill in a single hit. Toby can also find 26 of his captured “friends” in cages, though those are the only collectibles. When you die you respawn quickly at a checkpoint, which are generous enough that the game is rarely frustrating.

Unlike Limbo, Toby can be a very colorful game, if only in the background.
Unlike Limbo, Toby can be a very colorful game, if only in the background.

Toby: the Secret Mine has a decent look to it (even if that look is ‘heavily inspired’ by Limbo) with a mostly black and white playfield set in front of some intricate and colorful backgrounds. The sound and music are fine, if mostly ambient in style and not particularly memorable. The control is stiff in the same way Limbo’s is, and the storytelling is sparse and environmental, but the game mostly functions (I got caught on ledges and such fairly frequently) and while the first half of the game is very easy the back half has some challenging sequences that require careful observation of the environment and skillful timing. The problem is that despite its overall competence, Toby doesn’t have the spark of creativity that made Limbo such a joy. Limbo was a twisted version of our world, with recognizable elements including buildings and language jumbled up to create this foreboding area to trek through. It coupled that with shocking violence towards a child, and some really clever and intuitive environmental puzzles and challenges, to create a nearly perfect game that accomplished everything it set out to do efficiently and with no filler. As good an experience as it is it’s even more impressive as an efficient act of game design, packing dozens of memorable moments into a very short running time.

On occasion the game will pause to give you a simple puzzle to solve.
On occasion the game will pause to give you a simple puzzle to solve.

Toby is a series of box and switch puzzles with some okay music and stark visuals that never seem to cohere into a world that feels substantial. It’s full of cheap deaths and memorization sequences and areas where what you have to do is both obvious and not very difficult, but requires some patience. Memorization and forced patience are two of my least favorite things in games, and if Toby was a little longer, or the checkpoints a little less forgiving, I likely would have given up well before the end.

But Limbo required memorization and patience, and was also full of cheap deaths, and I loved it. So what, exactly, is missing here? I’d say two main things. The first is the careful visual polish of Limbo. Toby’s world is not as carefully constructed as Limbo’s. It has no particular internal logic, there’s nothing really going on in the game's environments other than your character passing through them, and it just feels like a game rather than a real and haunting place. Toby also lacks Limbo’s varied death animations. When Toby dies his eyes go out and he slumps over, but he is never decapitated or drowned or crushed or any of that. While it may seem sadistic to say those animations were part of what made Limbo great, they offered more than just the entertainment factor of seeing a small kid graphically dismembered. They also connected you with your character. In a game with no gameplay cost to dying, having to see the little guy suffer gave you incentive to survive beyond just advancing in the game. You felt good when you guided him safely past a few difficult hazards and bad when you mistimed a jump and he got cut in half. Because Toby just slumps over there’s not the same feeling of investment, making the game less emotionally affecting.

Toby has some interesting environments but the gameplay still boils down to platforms, switches, and boxes.
Toby has some interesting environments but the gameplay still boils down to platforms, switches, and boxes.

In addition, Toby’s level design is much less interesting than Limbo’s. While there’s some verticality to some of the levels most of them are just horizontal left to right affairs. Toby also has many fewer mechanics than Limbo did. There are some switches and platforms that you can cause to sway, as well as a couple vehicle type segments, but the vast majority of the game just involves avoiding basic hazards and there’s nothing as inventive as Limbo’s autorunner brain worm, or complex water puzzles. Toby is also fond of false walls that you can walk through, and breakable floors you have to stomp on, neither of which receive much visual signposting (though there’s a special sound effect when you walk across a breakable floor) and both of which are more annoying than interesting as mechanics. There was one segment with an arrow trap that triggers when you walk through a bream of light and I probably spent fifteen minutes trying to position myself to avoid being hit by any of the arrows (I think I succeeded a few times but the game kills you anyway.) The actual way to get past that part is to backtrack and stomp through a breakable floor to a secret underground passage (I did figure this out eventually). Then later there are similar arrow traps that you CAN survive through careful positioning. This kind of annoying inconsistency and visually unclear gameplay shows how Toby doesn’t rise to Limbo’s level as a game, not just an audiovisual experience.

Toby has to avoid a few enemies in the world, who usually have some red in their design. The enemies just patrol back and forth and do not react at all to Toby's presence.
Toby has to avoid a few enemies in the world, who usually have some red in their design. The enemies just patrol back and forth and do not react at all to Toby's presence.

It took me about 2 hours to get through Toby and despite my complaints I didn’t hate it by the end. The last level is an unfair pseudo boss fight where it’s easy to die to random chance, after which you’re offered a meaningless choice to see two endings. It’s telling that even after I’d beaten it once and knew exactly what to do it took me over 10 minutes to do it again to get the other ending, but it’s also telling that I actually did want to see that other ending (and get its attached achievement.) Toby is definitely an example of less is more. 4 hours of an uninspired Limbo clone would have been too much, but 2 hours was mildly entertaining. On the other hand, Toby only cost me $3 on sale, while it’s $15 right now on PSN and $10 on Steam, which is the same price as Limbo (on sale for $2 on PSN as of this writing, and definitely a steal at that price.)

If you can get Toby for $3 and have an affinity for puzzle platformers, it’s probably worth picking up. 2 hours is not a major investment, and the game is competently made. But its real value lies in showing how much polish matters in game production, and just how good Limbo really is.

Toby is not an ugly or even bad game, just an unoriginal one.
Toby is not an ugly or even bad game, just an unoriginal one.

1 Comments

Xevious 3D/G+ is the most unexpected game I keep coming back to

I don't mean it's the rarest or least highly regarded, but rather the most difficult to explain.

Xevious 3D/G+ is a PlayStation 1 remake of an arcade classic. I picked it up off PSN about 3 years ago and I have played it every few months since then. What makes it weird is that while I had a PlayStation in the 90s I never had, or even knew about, this game. I also have no specific nostalgia for Xevious, the classic arcade shooter that it's a remake of, and while I like Shmups OK it's not like I'm a fiend for that genre. I don't even think Xevious 3D/G+ is a particularly good Shmup. Gamespot gave it a 6/10 when it was released and that seems about right to me. I have access to all the current systems and plenty of games so why do I return to this not particularly special and largely forgotten game 20 years after its release?

Well the answer is nostalgia, but not nostalgia for the game per se. Rather it's nostalgia for the PlayStation era as a whole. I had a PlayStation in high school and one of the things I loved about it was how much weird and quirky software there was. I rented and bought lots of random and long-forgotten games like One and The Unholy War, and I played even more on the many, many demo discs I picked up along with magazines. Jersey Devil, N20: Nitrous Oxide, Trap Gunner, Pong the Next Level, the PlayStation was full of random little games made by relatively small developers that didn't have a lot of polish or name recognition but had heart and were usually interesting if nothing else. N64s expensive cartridge costs meant that games had to be relatively mass market to justify their print runs, and Saturn was not popular enough in the US to get all the quirky stuff, but PlayStation's huge install base and cheap CD format meant that lots of these games were released for the system stateside.

Xevious 3D/G+ reminds me of my time discovering those games, and how much fun it was to boot up a demo or bargain bin PS1 disc and just see what the game was like. It is a VERY PlayStation 1 game, with lots of flat-shaded polygons and super PS1 specific menus, and so even though I could spend my time playing a better shooter like Ikaruga or Radiant Silvergun, or one of the PlayStation games I actually enjoyed during the era (mostly huge mainstream hits like Final Fantasy VII, Metal Gear Solid, and Tekken 2) they don't capture the spirit of the era like Xevious 3D/G+ does for me. Every time I boot the game up I feel like I'm back in my bedroom at 16 years old, discovering some new weird gem on an Official PlayStation Demo Disc, and that feeling keeps me coming back.

Pandemonium, a game that I also got off PSN and also did not own (but was aware of) during the PlayStation's initial run has much the same effect. I don't even like the game; it has stiff controls and weirdly long levels for a platformer, but I play it for many of the same reasons.

This is one of the reasons I've been so disappointed with the discontinuation of the Virtual Console and the fact that Sony shows no interest in bringing PS1 (or even, it seems, more PS2) games to the PS4. These old games remind me of a different time in my life, a different version of myself, and I loved having them easily accessible for purchase. Of course I could just emulate them on a Raspberry Pi or something, but I don't like the idea of piracy and there's something satisfying about browsing even an online story and selecting something to play, then forking over a few bucks for a copy. It reminds me of going to my old game store as a teen with a month's allowance in my pocket to pick out a new game to try. It's part of the experience.

But it seems like it's an experience that most people don't care about, so I will content myself with the games I picked up during the Seventh Generation, when it really seemed like gaming had discovered an answer to the age old question of preservation and official emulation was taken seriously. And I picked up a PlayStation Classic, even though it's bad, so I can play Intelligent Qube (A game I only had the demo for as a kid but played a lot of nonetheless) and so that maybe Sony will make another one with slightly more daring choices. And I'll hold out out hope that some day someone will try again to wrangle all these old games and put them online, or that the PolyMega will pan out and I will be able to hook it up to my current TV and buy old games off Ebay or whatever to satisfy my urge.

Until then I'll keep coming back to Xevious 3D/G+. It may be the weirdest game I frequently play but it gives me a feeling I can't get elsewhere. And that's worth the $6 I paid and a whole lot more.

1 Comments

I have been disappointed by the Nintendo Switch in 2018, which is turning out to be more handheld than console

Nintendo Switch in 2017 was one of my favorite console years ever. Breath of the Wild is possibly my favorite game of all time, and Mario Odyssey was a tremendous achievement, the crowning jewel in gaming's most storied franchise. I had a great time with Fast RMX, played a host of great Neo Geo ports, and loved the hell out of both Kingdom Battle and Mario Kart 8. There were some misses in there (I didn't like Arms, and Splatoon 2 didn't capture me), but overall I loved my Switch in 2017 and hoped the system would only get better in 2018.

It didn't.

Nintendo's output in 2018 has fallen into basically two camps: Wii U ports and disappointments. There's nothing wrong with bringing the likes of Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker and Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze to the Switch, of course, since those were good games that were stuck on a system nobody bought. But it's hard to get excited about 4 year old games, even if they are Bayonetta 2 and Hyrule Warriors. Nintendo didn't sell me a Wii U in 2014 with that lineup (2014 was clearly the best year for the Wii U) and reheating it for 2018 doesn't make me any more excited.

Meanwhile Nintendo's fresh offerings have been anemic. Kirby: Star Allies was a mediocre game by any standards, not just Nintendo's. Mario Tennis: Aces is fine but hardly an exciting title, and it's worth noting that Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash was a bare bones title that showed that Nintendo was already moving on from Wii U in 2015. Super Mario Party is apparently just okay, though it has no appeal for me.

Of course Super Smash Bros. Ultimate looms over everything as possible redemption, but it's just one game and while I'll play it, it's not something I'm personally excited for, even though I know millions will be. One great game does not a great year make, though, and the Wii U had Smash too.

There are, of course, a lot of ports on the Switch, and people will say that's what makes it worth buying. It is able to run console quality games in a handheld format, which is a wonderful selling point. It has Dark Souls and Wolfenstein II, and Doom. And it has replaced the PS VIta as the best place to play indies, which run flawlessly and can be played on TV or handheld mode without missing a beat. But while those are admirable traits for a handheld they're not what you need in a console, which is what Nintendo sold this thing as. They said it was a console that you could play handheld but it's really a handheld that plugs into a TV.

Meanwhile I wonder what Nintendo's development teams are actually up to. Maybe they're about to unleash a torrent of great software in 2019 and 2020 that will take the Switch to heights that Nintendo hasn't enjoyed since the SNES. It doesn't feel like it though. The only major releases I'm aware of coming internally are Metroid Prime 4 and a new Pokemon, and those are not even internal Nintendo projects. Yoshi's Crafted World looks cool, but after Kirby I'm not dying for another 2-D platformer. Maybe they're all working on Smash, which looks like it's going to be a truly massive game. Either way, you'd think consolidating development onto one platform would mean a larger number of games for that platform and we're just not seeing it. Instead we're getting the Wii U trickle without the smaller 3DS style titles. It's the same old Nintendo song of a few big releases a year supported by some other stuff. The big new release for January 2019 is a full price port of New Super Mario Bros. Wii U. Not even a new game in that series. Not even Super Mario 3-D World.

Meanwhile with no Virtual console and a $20 online service that provides access to a few NES games, most of which are either games that have been released a thousand times before or aren't fun to play in 2018, Nintendo isn't even leveraging its past to prop up an anemic present. There are already rumors of a new, more powerful, Switch hitting in 2019, but I don't want to buy a new system, I want games for the system I already bought.

Despite a mediocre year I still like the Switch as a platform. It's cool to have a high-powered handheld, and the system has a lot of versatility in the ways it can be played. Not every year can be a high watermark like 2017, and every system has down years, but the Switch is about to enter its prime and I hope Nintendo has more up its sleeve than it currently appears to me. The Switch still has a lot of potential, let's see if it can regain its momentum.

51 Comments

I love Nintendo Switch Online NES games and I'm mad about it

Last week Nintendo finally rolled out the Nintendo Switch Online feature. I immediately bought a year subscription and downloaded the NES games. I've been waiting since Nintendo Swtch was released to be able to play some classic games on this handheld/console hybrid, which is the perfect platform for them. After I paid for my subscription I opened up the app and took a few old favorites for a spin. Super Mario Bros. is maybe the ur-classic for me; when I think of "video game" it is the first game that comes to mind and I spent many an hour in my early youth playing it along with Duck Hunt and Gyromite. Gradius is arguably my favorite game on the NES, with one of my all time favorite soundtracks. The same is, of course, true for the Legend of Zelda. Both have songs that transport me back in time over 30 years to weekend afternoons in an overstuffed chair with that uncomfortable little gray controller in my hands, transported to totally different worlds while my mom urged me to play outside (nice try, mom!) Of course I've had an NES classic for a while so I could play all three of these games whenever I wanted with a near perfect replica of that old controller on my big screen TV, but what I couldn't do was take them with me to work. Now I can and the low-res NES graphics look fantastic on the Switch's screen. I spent 15 minutes on my lunch break getting nowhere in Ghosts 'N Goblins and loving every frustrating second.

If we're honest the experience of having these games on Switch is even better than I thought it would be.

And it's not enough.

While the games I've mentioned so far are stone cold classics and the selection includes a few more (Super Mario Bros. 3 is amazing; Excitebike is still good fun; River City Ransom is a no-longer hidden gem because everyone knows how great it is) there's also some absolute trash in there. Find me a person who wants to play NES Baseball or Ice Hockey or the gimped version of Donkey Kong that's missing one of its four boards and I'll find you someone operating on pure nostalgia. The Yoshi game is bad. Pro Wrestling is bad. There are a lot of bad games out of a vast library full of really great games, and while some were selected to show off the online two player capability, that doesn't make them less bad as games.

In addition, 20 NES games is a tiny amount. The NES Classic came with 30, and they were better. Would you like to swap out Hockey and Baseball for Metroid and Castlevania? Who wouldn't?

We're getting 3 new games a month, and that's cool, but we're also a year and a half into the Switch's lifespan. This offering is what you give people at launch to mess around with, not after the system is already a mature platform and nobody's scrambling to get a new platform off the ground.

In addition, I want more than NES. I'm sure SNES will be added after a time, and maybe even N64 too (Gamecube seems doubtful) but it will be 2 years from now and a drip feed of games again. Nintendo got things so right with the Wii Virtual Console and has just backslid heavily since then, to the point where there's no way the selection of classic games will even catch up to the Wii U's sad offerings.

The Switch is the ideal platform for playing these classics. It's insane that this is the way they've chosen to present them. I'm not saying Virtual Console was the way to do it, but this isn't either. Especially 18 months after launch. And we're never going to get TurboGrafx 16 games or other platforms. It's like walking into a brand new luxury restaurant with impeccable fixtures and perfect service only to find out that all they serve is warmed over gruel.

As someone who loves classic gaming, dislikes piracy, and has plenty of money to spend on classic games in a convenient format on a console I already own this is just the worst way they could be presented. Will I enjoy playing Double Dragon while I'm waiting for the train in the coming months? I will. But I'll also spend that time lamenting what could have been, if Nintendo cared a little more about doing right by their fans and their legacy.

8 Comments

Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle gives me what I want (and have not been getting) from the Switch.

Nintendo Switch has been a bit of an odd console for me in its first 6 months of release. Because of its hybrid nature it's less powerful than its larger, older, competition, meaning that it never had the new console graphics 'wow' factor that most new systems have during their honeymoon period. On the other hand it launched with Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, which is one of my favorite games of all time, so it also didn't suffer from "crappy launch library" syndrome, like most consoles do, at least not until I finished that beast of a game, along with a few other impressive Wii U holdover games like Fast RMX.

Once I finished those games, though, the system settled into the familiar Nintendo pattern of releasing one interesting Nintendo game every month or so, with a bunch of other "stuff" to fill in the calendar, most of which is on the lower quality side of the spectrum when compared to the indie offerings on something like the Playstation 4. There are definitely some decent independent games on the Switch platform, but they don't tend to be of the polish, scope, or depth of something like Abzu or Nex Machina, or Enter the Gungeon (unless they're ports of older games like Binding of Isaac, which I already had my fill of awhile ago.)

That leaves those aforementioned Nintendo games, and while everything released for the Switch has been of reasonably high quality, those games have been, in my opinion, odd fits with the 'gimmick' of the Switch. That's because most of them have been multi-player, and even online, focused.

The Switch's 'thing' is being a console-handheld hybrid. You can play it on a TV and it will look reasonably good, or you can take it with you as a handheld where it is reasonably portable. It's not ideal for either (a little underpowered in TV mode and a little bit too bulky for a handheld) but it's adequate. The thing is...multiplayer is not what I want from a handled, especially a handheld that doesn't fit into a pocket. I get that kids have been playing system link multiplayer since Gameboy was released, and Pokemon trading is twenty years old now, and I also get that handhelds have had internet multiplayer since the DS and that huge hits like Monster Hunter and Mario Kart have been staples of those consoles. But I'm not a kid with a bunch of friends to play games with on the playground, and even if I was I don't know that I would bring this $300 kind of fragile/bulky system with me (or that my parents would have let me.) It also has not been my experience that internet connections are great in handheld scenarios. I'm sure it's fine in a hotel room or whatever, but my handheld gaming (when it occurs) is done on public transportation or during my lunch break at work. There's no consistent Internet on the subway and Internet at work is supposed to be used for job-related functions, so what I want is a game I can play in short bursts in a distracting environment and still enjoy.

Zelda didn't do that for me because my enjoyment of that game was getting lost in that world. Squinting at the screen under harsh lighting in the subway was not a good way to experience that. Mario Kart 8 is decent on the go, but has very little single player content. I can race a little bit and maybe unlock a car part but there's no campaign or progression. Arms and Splatoon 2 are online focused games (or at least couch competitive for Arms) and I get nothing out of playing them alone.

That meant that when it came to the mobile gaming aspect of the Switch I was either playing a kind of simple indie game or I was just messing around in Mario Kart sort of aimlessly. Neither were ideal. While I started packing the Switch with me every day to work after I first got it, 6 months in it was living under my TV, with the mobile feature largely theoretical. It felt like yet another gimmick that Nintendo built into its console and didn't know how to take advantage of, like motion control (outside of a few specific games) or the Wii U gamepad, which was a dumb idea poorly executed.

Then along came Mario+Rabbids: Kingdom Battle. Not only is this a big single player experience that I'm really digging, but it's perfectly designed for mobile play. The game is broken up into relatively short battles, perfect to crank through while on the bus or in between eating a sandwich and getting back into work. The turn-based nature means that it is not super demanding in terms of timing or dexterity, which can be an issue when sitting in a lurching vehicle or just using the smaller, more cramped, controls of a handheld system.

Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle also may be a Ubisoft game, but it has Nintendo fingerprints all over it. It's not just the kid-friendly cartoon aesthetic, the Grant Kirkhope music (Literally sounds like it came right out of Banjo Kazooie only at a higher fidelity, which is far from a criticism) or the pared down design focused on exploration and combat, without the massive sprawling skill trees (there is one but it's small and contained) or busywork open worlds of most Ubisoft experiences. It's also the level of polish (though I've heard there are bugs I haven't experienced any, but independent of that the world and designs are meticulous) and the spirit of fun and adventure that pervades the game. Ubisoft, as a company, has a tendency towards the Grimdark and the hyperviolent, and while I don't have an issue with brutal violence in video games I feel like the scales have tipped too far in that direction. Kingdom Battle shows that the spirit of fun and whimsy lives on in the house that Rayman built, and that the Tom Clancy dark men doing dark deeds aesthetic is only one of the tools in their box. Also there are no towers to climb or audio logs to collect. Yay.

Mario+Rabbids: Kingdom Battle is exactly what I want out of my Switch. Bright, colorful, fun, accessible, and well designed for mobile play. Who knew that it would take an Italian studio working for a French gaming giant to make the Nintendo game I've been waiting for? I hope that the Switch continues to get games like this, including a sequel, and that more of this stuff is ported over from the Wii U and other places. Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker would be a perfect fit for on the go fun, as would Super Mario 3D World and Yoshi's Woolly World. Heck I'd love to see versions of the Mario Galaxy games and even something like Zack and Wiki given a fresh coat of paint and ported over.

The Switch is a great video game system waiting for a library that plays to its strengths. Kingdom Battle is a strong entry in that library, and hopefully a sign of things to come.

3 Comments

My memory lied to me. I hate Magician Lord! Magic Sword's pretty alright though.

The guy in Blue is the Magician Lord.
The guy in Blue is the Magician Lord.

Magician Lord and Magic Sword were, for a long time, linked in my mind as similar games I remember liking from my youth. They are both Japanese games from 1990, one on the Neo Geo the other on Capcom’s CPS-1. They are both medieval fantasy themed action platformers with a character who fired projectiles and a ton of creatively designed enemies who swarmed at you. They both feature power-up systems that alter your play-style (Magician Lord features transformations into alternative characters while Magic Sword features companions you can free from behind locked doors.) They both feature interstitial stories between the levels, with the bad guy in Magician Lord taunting you while in Magic Sword your character comments on the level he just finished or gives you a tip or talks about a level to come.

In my memory I liked them both about equally, though I preferred Magic Sword by a small margin. But my memory sometimes plays tricks on me. Sometimes my memory gets it wrong.

Last night I booted up Magician Lord on my Switch, threw a few virtual quarters into the emulator and got ready for some fun mindless jump and shoot action. I quickly discovered something unexpected. No, it wasn’t that I could save 50% or more on my car insurance, it was that I absolutely hate Magician Lord.

I hate Magician Lord!

This is what the Magician Lord looks like when he dies. I saw this screen a lot. A LOT.
This is what the Magician Lord looks like when he dies. I saw this screen a lot. A LOT.

Now this came as quite a surprise to me. I know for many people games that are over 25 years old are almost impossible to go back to, but I’m not that way. While I love new games, I can go back to retro stuff and enjoy that too. I’ve been having a lot of fun playing Neo Geo stuff on my Switch. I loved Blazing Star, which I don’t think I ever played before the Switch. I had a heckin’ good time with Sengoku, which is kind of clunky to play but is sufficiently weird and zany to entertain, and has some basic beat ‘em up thrills. I played through the much-maligned Shock Troopers 2 and I thought it was pretty solid. I even enjoyed some of the primitive early Fatal Fury games, which are far from great but are at least interesting. I have played enough of this stuff recently that I am not looking back at the ‘90s with rose colored glasses and remembering the games as smoother or better-looking than they were.

This fish spits smaller fish at you, though, so that's pretty good. 10/10 on the big fishies spitting smaller fishies criterion.
This fish spits smaller fish at you, though, so that's pretty good. 10/10 on the big fishies spitting smaller fishies criterion.

Magician Lord is horrible. It’s clunky to control, the character is too big for the precision of the dodging you’re expected to do, the level layouts are convoluted and weird, the animation is almost non-existent, and the music is bland. The whole package is kind of boring and very frustrating. I died constantly (with a loading screen between each death) and quickly gave up on playing more. I remembered liking this game when it was new, but in my opinion it has aged into a frustrating unfun mess. The controls are too sluggish and the levels to punishing for me to have any fun or even want to get better.

I then decided that I should find out if my memories of Magic Sword were equally warped by the decades between when I last played it and now. I had a copy of Final Fight Double Impact on my Xbox One (Backwards compatibility allows me to emulate an emulation) and with a little trepidation I booted it up. Would this be another massive disappointment?

Magic Sword is a much better game. The characters are smaller, control better, and can take a lot more damage.
Magic Sword is a much better game. The characters are smaller, control better, and can take a lot more damage.

Within a few minutes I had my answer. I had intended to play just long enough to get a sense for the controls but I found myself unable to stop. The music was better than I remembered, the graphics cleaner, and the control was quick and responsive. Somewhere along the line I must have confused the Super Nintendo cart for the CPS-1 version (though I know a gas station near my house had the arcade machine and I played it fairly regularly) because I don’t remember the game looking or sounding this good. The action was quick and responsive, the companion characters were cool and provided variety, and the levels were short enough not to overstay their welcome, with both vicious enemies and platforming hazards to overcome. I killed a manticore and got into the castle. I killed a dragon and got a samurai sword. I unlocked a door expecting to find a ninja to help me only to have skeletons leap out and attack. I found the diamond ring and got a lizardman to join me. Magic Sword gives you a lot more life than Magician Lord, letting you take a bunch of hits between demanding a new quarter, and passing out numerous healing items to keep the fun going. That, plus the more responsive controls, make it feel much more fair and thus enjoyable. It also has RPG elements and your character gets stronger over time as he advances in his adventure. It's pretty advanced for a 1990 arcade machine.

This dragon can kill me but he can't make me play Magician Lord, so I don't consider him much of a threat.
This dragon can kill me but he can't make me play Magician Lord, so I don't consider him much of a threat.

Magic Sword is better than I remembered; a seriously fun arcade platformer that can definitely munch (virtual) quarters on the higher levels but remains engaging and playable. It’s not an all-time great or anything, but I did get sucked in and played longer than I intended, which is a pretty good sign that the game holds up for me.

Magician Lord, on the other hand, is a frustrating mess. I will probably force myself to play it again at some point just to confirm that I wasn't having an off night (I wasn't) but there's no enjoyment for me in that game. I love Neo Geo, but every system has clunkers, even well-regarded clunkers. Magician Lord is one.

It's funny to me how the two games sort of merged in my mind and my affection for Magic Sword was passed on to Magician Lord. Honestly I probably played a lot more Magic Sword back in the day (because I actually like it) so it probably came to dominate my memory out of exposure alone. Sometimes revisiting old games can change your perspective. Sometimes it can remind you why you loved an old favorite in the past, and sometimes it can remind you that hey, 1990 had a lot of great games but it had a lot of horrible stinkers too.

Stinkers like Magician Lord.

1 Comments

Uncharted without Nathan Drake is still Uncharted. Lost Legacy wins big with a shorter, more focused, campaign.

Uncharted 4 felt like an event. Here was Nathan Drake, star of arguably the biggest franchise from the last generation of consoles, making his leap to the PS4. After a mostly lackluster exclusive lineup (Bloodborne obviously excepted) Sony was bringing out the big gun. And it was going to be Drake’s biggest adventure yet. His brother was brought in to push and challenge him the way none of the other NPCs really had before, there was a new globetrotting adventure, some new mechanics to, finally, try and freshen up the traversal. Vehicles. Semi open-world segments. The end to Nathan Drake’s saga! It was the perfect summer blockbuster for 2016.

Chloe's the star now but the environments are just as detailed and impressive as ever.
Chloe's the star now but the environments are just as detailed and impressive as ever.

Uncharted: The Lost Legacy has none of that hype. It’s DLC quietly expanded to full game size (the eight hour campaign is short for an Uncharted game but not out of line with other modern shooters), with the same mechanics we saw in 4, the same shooting we’ve done 4 or 5 times before, and constrained to a single geographical location and culture. It didn’t even introduce a new main character, instead plucking Chloe from her role as the more interesting girl Nate ditched in favor of buzzkill Elena and setting her off as the main character with a recycled villain as a sidekick. Uncharted: The Lost Legacy doesn’t even try to build the kind of deep supporting cast and complex relationships that the mainline games after the first put together; there are probably a dozen characters with a significant number of lines in the game and that includes the little girl trying to sell you clothes at the very beginning of the game.

And yet it works. It works really well. Uncharted: The Lost Legacy is still Uncharted. It may not have the scope or the emotional resonance of Uncharted 4, but that’s because it’s setting out to do something different from that game. It’s showing us what it’s like to play an Uncharted game without Nathan Drake and setting up a new core of relationships and adventures to possibly continue even while Nathan cools his heels in retirement. Nathan Drake is so closely associated with Uncharted that he became the face of the Sony console family but it turns out that his series can survive and even thrive without him. In the Lost Legacy he is reduced to a few jokes about what an annoying dweeb he is, and the game soldiers on without him just fine.

Chloe shoots just like Nathan Drake
Chloe shoots just like Nathan Drake

Part of that is because of how well Chloe steps into Nate’s shoes in this game. Chloe was a fan favorite in 2 and 3, and played by the amazing Claudia Black she was a sexy, fun, exciting character, and a natural choice to head up the next chapter of the Uncharted franchise. As a substitute for Nate Chloe does a fine job. She’s quippy and charismatic like he was but more pragmatic and task oriented, without the dreamy ideas of noble discovery that so often clashed with Nate’s killing sprees. She plays exactly like Nate, down to effortless propelling her body, weighed down with long guns, by upper body strength alone, boosting up her companion and insisting on driving the jeep because “it’s a control thing.” In some ways Chloe is almost a little bit too much like Nate in this game; since you can imagine the script having been written for him and reworked a little for her (not that I think that’s the case) and she plays exactly like Nathan did. At times I wished Chloe was differentiated more from Nate than just by having a much, much nicer posterior and less concern for the ancient settlements she’s trashing than Nate did. But that’s a minor complaint. Chloe’s a great character and I didn’t miss Nate at all during the 8 hour adventure.

Chloe swings and climbs just like Nathan Drake
Chloe swings and climbs just like Nathan Drake

As for the supporting cast…I thought the villain was good and…beyond that there’s pretty much (though not entirely) just Nadine. Nadine’s fine. I don’t dislike Nadine. But I also didn’t think she reached the heights of Sully or Sam or even Chloe herself in 2 and 3. The game goes through the expected notes in Chloe and Nadine’s relationships, including bonding, falling out, making up, and exchanging quips back and forth between them as they kill 250 enemies over the course of their adventure. This all works, but I found Nadine’s stoic toughness to be a little bit of a buzzkill compared to Sully’s garrulous warmth or Chloe’s gentle, sultry, mocking. Nadine has to carry a large part of this game’s dialog and while she’s up to the task I didn’t fully warm to her until close to the end of the game. Also, the optional conversations in the game are mostly just trivia, with Nadine saying at one point that she got the information from Wikipedia. It’s an odd choice, and character interactions is probably the place where this game falls the furthest short of what I expect from an Uncharted title. It’s good stuff but it’s not great stuff, and with Naughty Dog this stuff is usually great.

We also don’t hear anything about Charlie, which is too bad. I liked Charlie. Charlie is kind the enigma of the Uncharted story, showing up in 3 as a buddy to Nate and Sully and friend to Chloe, and then kind of disappearing for good. He had good chemistry with Chloe. I miss Charlie. They should bring back Charlie!

The beginning of the game has a dark cyberpunkish look at times, but it doesn't stick around
The beginning of the game has a dark cyberpunkish look at times, but it doesn't stick around

Charlie’s not in this game though, and Chloe and Nadine do a fine job together on their adventure, climbing, shooting from behind cover, hiding in tall grass, and doing all the rest of that Nathan Drake stuff without Nathan Drake. It’s a good time. It starts with a quiet walk through a gorgeous urban environment with lots of NPCs around (the game engine is still top notch) and extremely high production values. You feel exposed and vulnerable as Chloe, alone, with no combat controls in that beginning sequence, and there’s a real sense of unease as you watch soldiers abuse civilians and others run and hide in the warren of rain-slicked streets. It’s a look the Uncharted series hasn’t really tried before, verging on Cyberpunk with some of the neon lighting and ominous shadow. I wish they’d stuck with it longer. But soon enough you’re out in a verdant area, looking for ruins that look like they are straight out of Uncharted 4, driving around a jeep that feels like the Uncharted 4 Jeep, including winching “puzzles” and climbing towers that are like the Uncharted 4 towers but without quite as high production values.

One thing Chloe does that Nathan can't is make faces in photo mode. It's pretty awesome and I hope it's a feature included in more games.
One thing Chloe does that Nathan can't is make faces in photo mode. It's pretty awesome and I hope it's a feature included in more games.

It’s a fun, well-worn, formula and it fits like a favorite pair of jeans. The combat style, mixing stealth and melee with cover shooting gunplay, is functional and probably the best it has ever been. The traversal is still a little boring but the grappling hook is back and that at least adds some interactivity to the proceedings, which require you to chain hook jumps together and swing towards the appropriate hand hold. There are some timing based obstacle courses that actually require you to use this system decently well, which is nice. The stealth has also been made more viable by the addition of a silenced pistol, which means that impatient players like me can pick guys off and create approach routes, as opposed to constantly focusing on sneaking up on the target they want to take down and getting spotted by someone else. These are incremental improvements to an already good game, and while I will never put Uncharted at the top of my “best playing franchises” list, there’s a huge difference between this and something like The Order:1886.

There's swinging on poles like in the other game. It all looks dynamic and great, though as usual it's less interactive than something like Prince of Persia.
There's swinging on poles like in the other game. It all looks dynamic and great, though as usual it's less interactive than something like Prince of Persia.

If Uncharted 2 plays just okay it looks fantastic. The environments can be a bit samey (and are not well distinguished from those of Uncharted 4) but they still look great. The facial animation is fantastic. The frame rate is steady and everything is incredibly detailed and seamless. It's an objectively beautiful game with huge environments, great animations, and impeccable art design. The sound is a bit more mixed. Sound effects are great and voice acting is, of course, truly spectacular, but the music is curiously lacking. The Uncharted theme is NOT in the game, which is understandable given Nate's absence, but in its place is some pretty generic sounding music that makes very few appearances in the game except for the combat theme. It really could have used some music on the level of the Uncharted theme, or really any memorable music at all. Nobody comes to Uncharted for the music, of course, so some people might not notice the absence, but to me the Uncharted theme is a part of the experience and I was sad not to find it here.

Uncharted: The Lost Legacy does add a few additional small improvements over 4. While there’s a mini open world section again, this time it offers actual optional objectives instead of just treasures to find. It still feels empty and pointless though. While the Uncharted team has figured out how to make small open world maps they still don’t know what to do with them. They basically consist of pockets of hand-built content scattered through a kind of boring open driving area. You drive up to an encampment and kill some guys. You drive over to a puzzle and solve it. The driving is never that fun and the map feels cramped and confusing. The optional objectives offer some of the better puzzles in the game (this game’s puzzle design is a cut above the last few outings in general) but they should have just been in the game as critical path. The driving just doesn’t add anything and while in a languidly paced game like Uncharted 4 it fit okay and gave characters time to breathe. Here it’s just annoying. This is a tighter, more focused, game and doesn’t need the interruption. Not that there isn’t good dialog during the driving sequences, because there is, but the whole thing is momentum sapping. There is a nice call back later in the game, though, which helped me see a little better what the developers were going for. I just don’t think it was worth all the aimlessness.

If you were hoping for a simplistic lockpicking minigame your hopes have been met.
If you were hoping for a simplistic lockpicking minigame your hopes have been met.

While the open-world design part of Uncharted 4 is a bigger part of Lost Legacy than it was of 4, the set pieces are slightly toned down. I’ve read reviewers saying that this features the same production values as Uncharted 4 and I think that’s not quite right. Everything feels just a little bit..smaller…for lack of a better word compared to some of the flashier sequences of destruction or mayhem from Uncharted 4, or even 3. If Uncharted 4 is the $200 million blockbuster tentpole movie then Uncharted: The Lost Legacy feels like its $85 million cousin with a slightly pared-back scope. It still looks fantastic and impresses, but a little bit of the bombast and scale is missing. That’s not to say that such bombast is totally missing from the game, but it’s not quite on the same scale as 4, and a lot of the bigger set pieces are concentrated in the last third of the game, like a movie with a somewhat limited budget that knows it has to conserve resources so it can end with a huge bombastic finale (Which Lost Legacy definitely does.)

The open world area has some clever puzzles and traversal challenges and the puzzles are generally improved over the last few games.
The open world area has some clever puzzles and traversal challenges and the puzzles are generally improved over the last few games.

What’s in the place of the variety and bombast of Uncharted 4 is a more focused, smaller scale story. Uncharted The Lost Legacy reminded me a lot of Uncharted 1. One main location. One villain (though Uncharted 1 sort of had two). Shoot shoot shoot, climb climb climb, quip quip, puzzle, there’s your game. There’s a little less of everything than last time, but that’s not a bad thing and there’s enough shooting and climbing and puzzle solving to make for a satisfying and memorable experience. It’s a good formula. It works. It’s a good game. I like it. I would play another of these next year if they put it out, but I hope they give the series a little bit of a break. Come back with something bigger in scope in a few years, with some upgrades to the gameplay to keep it from going stale. I'd play another game this size, but I'd love to play something that matches the size of Nathan Drake’s later adventures. I’d be happy to play it as Chloe, and I’d be happy to play as another character connected to the series. Perhaps the best thing to be said about Lost Legacy is that it left me wanting more, even five games into the series. I count that as a strong recommendation.

P.S. This game would make a decent introduction to the series for a newcomer. You'd miss some of the references to the old games, but you can pick up the stuff that matters, and it has all the modern gameplay advances that 1 lacks, without the length and reliance on the old games that 4 has.

Start the Conversation

Enter the Gungeon's Advanced Gungeon and Draguns update (and difficulty curves in Roguelikes in general.)

Enter the Gungeon is planning a new update next month.

This is the second major update to the game, and it seems explicitly intended to make the game more accessible. I think this is a very good thing and hope other games in the genre take note.

Quote:

Our primary focus was to make the Gungeon a more generous place, while retaining options, for players who really engage with the difficulty of the game.

If you tried Gungeon in the past and found it too hard, too stingy, or too slow- this update will be the version for you. If you liked it just the way it was, don’t worry, we’ve got you covered as well.

I count myself as someone who really enjoys the core gameplay loops of Enter the Gungeon but found it a little too difficult and stingy to truly hook me. I have played it off and on since I bought it for PS4 back in April 2016, and I've gotten enough use out of it that I don't regret the purchase, but I haven't come close to beating it and I haven't gotten that deep into its more complex systems, mostly because I find it both A) frustratingly difficult at times and B) too reliant on RNG. Frankly speaking, a run in Enter the Gungeon can be either amazing or frustrating depending on whether you get decent weapons in the first few chambers. You can beat bosses with the starting guns, but it requires a lot more precision and is a lot less fun than if you get one of the more powerful or at least entertaining weapons to play with.

I'm not alone. Enter the Gungeon's trophy information shows that something like 10% of players who start the game actually finish it even once, and as for the post-game challenges etc... they all have strikingly low completion rates. Under 1% of the gamers who buy this game get the platinum, which is very low for a game as good as Enter the Gungeon. (By comparison 4% of players have the Plat on Enter the Gungeon on Truetrophies.com, while 26% have it for Dark Souls. So yeah.) And Enter the Gungeon is very very good. It has responsive gameplay, visually pleasing graphics, lots of fun puns and comedy, and just generally feels polished to a sheen, unlike many Indie games that ship with rough edges.

It's just too damned difficult.

The combination of the reliance on RNG and the VERY high grind factor (each boss drops 1 or 2 pieces of currency and each unlock, of which there are hundreds, can cost as much as 8, and the unlocks just populate items into the dungeon, they don't actually guarantee you'll EVER see them) mean that people play the game, enjoy its polish, and then move on without seeing a lot of the content they paid for.

A lot of other roguelikes are similar. Rogue Legacy, which admittedly has been on Playstation Plus, skewing the numbers, shows only 13.6% of players have beaten the last boss, let alone done the optional content. A lot of other Roguelikes are the same way. They are too difficult for the playerbases they are attracting. I did finish Rogue Legacy but not Flinthook, which is another roguelike I really enjoyed playing but fell off of because I wasn't making enough progress.

There are some people who will read all this and say "Good! These games should be hard to finish!" My response is...grow up. Games, like any other form of media, should meet their audience where they are. While you're never going to have everyone who plays your game finish it, the goal should be that at least 60% do. Having games where almost nobody gets to the end means A) you're spending money creating content that most of your customers just won't see and B) you're creating something that dissatisfies your customers before they're done with it. Both are bad.

And in the case of roguelikes it's often the curve that's the problem. Could I get good enough at Enter the Gungeon to beat it? I absolutely think so. I can pretty reliably get to the third floor and I've been to the fourth and bosses get easier as you see them more and learn their patterns. But the grind and the feeling of lack of progress makes this experience not all that fun. It's made worse by the fact that the shortcut guy's costs are outrageous (for a shortcut to floor 3 he wants 3 pieces of armor at once, which is EXTREMELY RNG reliant and requires near perfect play to boot) and that you can have runs where you play for 20 minutes without getting 1 good gun. It's frustrating and annoying and it's, frankly, bad design. An easier more generous version of this game would be a BETTER version of this game. I'm glad they're making one.

Don't make me waste my time practicing over and over just to see the base content in the game. I don't find it fun, and the trophy information shows that MOST people don't find it fun. It's design that appeals to a few hardcore fans (who are disproportionately concentrated in the game development and media community) and alienates far too many.

But what's to be done about those hardcore fans? Shouldn't there be games for them too?

Yes, of course, but there are lots of ways to make games that appeal to both the hardcore and the more casual. Difficulty levels can help with this. Optional content either during or after the game can provide different challenge levels (and Enter the Gungeon has a bunch of this, even though its base critical pathway is too difficult for most of its players.) DLC focused on just the hardcore can work. And of course the occasional game that's focused on just the masochistic (or hyper skilled) audience is fine. But a whole genre being focused on them is a bad idea, and Enter the Gungeon seems to recognize that it pitched itself at a level where its audience can't meet it.

As gamers get older a bunch of things happen. A) Their reflexes slow. Not so much that they can't play games anymore, but enough that games on the higher difficulty curve become less accessible. B) They have less time to play. That means less time to learn a game and grind it out. C) They have more money. That means a lot of things, but among them is they have less patience for a game that doesn't feel rewarding.

Game designers (many of whom are single people in their 20s and early 30s) should recognize their audience and build games appropriately. And then they can add stuff to challenge and engage the most hardcore. But if 90% of the people who were interested enough in your game to buy it don't end up finishing it, you done messed up.

Roguelikes as a genre have done messed up. To the point where many people don't even want to deal with them anymore. Part of it is about the nature of the genre (which prizes replay value over the quality of the experience of each run) but I think part of it is the difficulty too. Who wants to buy a game when they know they'll likely fall off halfway through?

Kudos to Enter the Gungeon for trying to address this problem. I hope more games in the genre do so moving forward.

Note: Every time I post something like this a bunch of people from the "I like games hard and I don't care about other people's experience" school show up. Okay fella, good for you. I feel like I've addressed that point so if you want to make it please engage with the argument that games can be built for both the mainstream and harcore audiences through optional content/difficulty levels/targeted DLC. Also, every time I say games are too tough, and bring up objective data to support it, I am told to Git Gud. I love that and its very constructive, so please let me know I need to Git Gud in the responses.

8 Comments