january 21, 2003: the pinckards gain a nintendo game cube
oh yeah, and a 32 inch sony flat screen t.v.!!
ok, so technically, it's just jane's, but how convenient for me that she is in switzerland this week! which means that i get to break in the new ngc. platinum edition, no less.
it's a lot smaller than i expected. it makes you just want to pick it up and take it with you whereever you go. contrast this neat design to the clunky, unwieldy x box, and you have something akin to the new volkswagon beetle vs. a buick.
currently, we have three games: metroid prime, eternal darkness: sanity's requiem, and animal crossing.
the first game i played was metroid prime. it's a good game, very zelda-esque in many respects. however, playing this game revealed to me what i consider a major flaw in the interface design. you can't change your perspective while you are moving in a certain direction! i find this to be incredibly limiting and frustrating. i really don't understand why game developers would make this choice. expecially because it leaves one of the control buttons unused. but maybe i just haven't learned how to use the controls right yet. at any rate, metroid prime is a beautiful game, with incredibly fluid graphics (especially when she rolls into and out of the metroid ball).
i played metroid until night fall or so, and then decided to switch to eternal darkness. a big mistake. i had noticed that the room had darkened, so i sat on the floor, with no lights on save from the screen. the sound was up too high, and by the time the initial movie sequence was over, i was definitely spooked. (you have to know that i am deathly scared of ghosts and the supernatural). the creepy background music is extremely effective. it gives a sense of urgency and uncertainty. kind of like being in a horror movie.
the game itself is a little limited, however. i'm not particularly fond of the walk around and examine things and try to figure out what to do. granted, i haven't gotten very far (i keep dying), but that brings me to my next point. there seems to be only one way to attack people (big green "a" button), and the characters are excruciatingly slow to deliver repeated strikes. does this change as the game goes on? are there any combo strikes to deliver?
i have not played animal crossing. i'm not sure i will, though i know it's gotten a lot of hype. frankly, a game that doesn't let you punch, shoot, stab, kick etc is not really worth playing. unless murderous rampages are possible on animal crossing?
of course the true purpose of the nintendo game cube is to play zelda.
December 1, 2002
DDR revisited!
picture, if you will, the perfect thanksgiving feast. then picture the satisfied guests not lingering after dinner for intelligent conversation and witty exchanges, but rather engaged in a non stop marathon of DDR. truely, i think i have found my niche in life!
the thing that really strikes me about this game is that when new comers approach it, they are shy, intimidated, hesitant. after being cajoled and forced into the first round, they quickly forget their inhibitions, and pretty soon they are stomping along with the best of them. it's a great bonding experience. oh! and chris (the host) had the great idea of purchasing one of those clear plastic mats you get for under your wheely chair, and sticking it on top of the dance pad. this creates a nice, smooth, hard surface, and helps prevent shifting of the pad. as soon as my legs feel better, i will have to get back in practice.
August 16, 2002
Didn't your mama ever tell you not to play in traffic?
So though I may not be able to drive well in simulated traffic, apparently I can bowl like a champ. In a stimulating game of hyperbowl played in the dangerous streets of Tokyo, I scored the best out of my fellow comrades, with two strikes and three spares. The challenge in this game is manipulating the amusing interface; you have to roll a ball on a stand in order to get the ball on screen in motion. Once the ball gets going, it gains its momentum, and you must use the ball on the stand to change directions. It is a painful procedure, and not for those who have tender hands. The secret, I believe, is you get the ball going as fast as you can as quickly as you can, and stay in the middle of the street. If done correctly, the traffic is timed to miss your ball and you will have a clear shot to the finish line.
August 6, 2002
On Monday I played LOTR the Board Game. This game was rather unique for me in that it required the formation of a "fellowship" among the players involved. Essentially, you must act as a team to defeat the game (Sauron). It's a rather charming idea, and somewhat quaintly designed, but it did not prove very challenging. The game resorted too much to chance: what fate will the roll of the die bring? There was little opportunity, or even a need, really, to develop a strategy.
In the realm of cooperative games, I think one that would require players to cooperate to further themselves, but ultimately compete against each other to win. Bohnanza is such a game, at least to some extent, because each player does stand to gain by cooperating with eachother. Ultimately, however, each bean grower is out for him or herself. What about a game in which cooperation is a strategy but is not required? I have not played many board games, yet, but I am eager to explore them and see what kind of challenges they present.
August 4, 2002
A brief recap on Halo, because it truely is one of the best games ever. Saturday night I played Halo multiplayer again, and this time I faired quite well, if I do say so myself. I think the rethinking of the strategy did help. Also, I felt more responsive. When someone was firing at me, I was actually able to turn and return fire in a respectable fashion.
Two factors may have been at work here: 1. practice: perhaps I really did improve? 2. Alcohol: either alcohol enhances my senses (hmmm...) or sufficiently dulled my opponents wits (more likely) enabling me to wipe the halls with their asses.
One thing I concluded is that playing multiplayer with less than four people feels somehow unbalanced. With two people, it essentially pointless because each person is just hunting the other down. Also, most of the environments are too big to be played with just two people, and you end up wandering all over the place looking for eachother. Three people is more interesting. The best strategy I find is to linger, unseen, until the other two players engage in combat. Then, it is easy to locate them by their fire, and you can just pick them off. Chances are, neither one will even notice that you are the one shooting them until it is too late... Another good strategy is to throw a grenade at them, and maybe kill two birds with one stone. However, this strategy is harder to do with four people, because the fourth person might well be hunting you down even as you are trying to kill the others.
August 2, 2002
A couple of nights ago, a few buddies and I played multiplayer halo. The ranking throughout each game was fairly consistent and predictable. I usually ranked third (out of four) or last. I only ranked first in two games (out of a total of maybe 15 games?). But overall, it was my ass plastered all over the walls in red splotches.
Which leads me to ask the question, "Why do I suck so bad at multiplayer games?"
Out of the small circle of game playing friends that I have, I am the one who has finished the most games recently. Among those included: Zelda, Munch's Oddysee, Halo. So I must be doing something right, right?
But I think the key to my success lies more in persistence that in actual skill. I just play the level over and over and over and over again, and when I still fail, I just load the level and start again. But this strategy, obviously, does not work on multiplayer games.
Perhaps the other major problem is strategizing as if the other players have set AIs. After all, when you play against the computer, each alien has a specific AI that becomes predictable, especially when playing a level repeatedly. You know that around the next bend, there will be two Elites and three Grunts. When you come 'round the corner, the Grunts will say "They're here!", through plasma grenades, and shoot you with needlers. The Elites will hang back, take cover, and shoot you mercilessly. You cannot make these assumptions about human players. Each time is different, though people have their specific strategies: watch your back, because j.j will sneak up behind you, Dr. Poo will take advantage of any situation to further her ends, and zditty is exploring different strategies as I am.
So what will work? I refuse to believe that somehow I am inherently less skilled or less intelligent than my opponents. Less practiced, perhaps. I know I have to practice my marksmanship. My main stategy is to go in there guns blazing. Which is a good way to get yourself killed repeatedly. The other problem is I get lost really easily. So I forget where people are, and how to get to them. I also tend to ignore shots fired at me, mostly because in against the computer, you can run and hide, and the enemy will usually not follow you. Obviously not true of human combat...
I suppose experience is the most important factor. Because, damn it, I want to be the best!
Previous entries:
Last night I played GO for the first time since I fingered the pieces as a small child. I think my father attempted to teach us GO, my sister especially. I remember the white pieces that we had were made of real ivory. I can't remember what the black pieces were made of. River stones, maybe? My father was a big fan of GO, and actually participated in some tournaments in Japan. There is a picture somewhere of the T.V. in our house in Japan with my father on the screen. He also had one of the largest and most unique collection of GO art. I know this because some 10 years after his death after his death I received a call from the de Young museum of asian art soliciting the pieces for a special exhibit on GO that they were preparing. I had to tell them, to their dismay, that all the pieces had been destroyed. "Surely some survive," the woman insisted, unwilling to consider the loss of it all. "Nope," I responded. She expressed her regrets. Alas, a loss to the art world. Alas, my father a loss to my world. And perhaps it is because of some need to reconnect with my father somehow that compels me to learn the game.
The premise is simple. It is a war strategy game. Think of feudal lords fighting over rice paddies. The idea is as long as the soldier has access to a rice paddy, he is alive. The instant the enemy has taken over all rice paddies, the soldier dies. But if there is an adjacent soldier who has access to a rice paddy, that soldier can supply the other one.
Sound simple? It is, kind of. Keep in mind I don't know all of the rules yet, so this is an incredibly simplistic and likely inaccurate account of the game. With that disclaimer, I will go on to describe my initial reaction to the game, and why I am so intrigued by it from an intellectual angle.
One of the main differences between this game and some of the more common games (checker, chess, even the majority of board games like sorry, monopoly, etc.) is that what is important here is not the actual space of the square but actually the intersections of the lines that define the squares. My inability to stop seeing the board as a territory of squares was my first failing. My second main failing was that I did not strategize based on the fact that any open intersection will save you. I was so intent on preventing the enemy from surrounding me. But actually, it is not the act of surrounding but the act of taking over all the rice paddies (intersections). Tricky tricky. Even though I lost rather quickly in my very first game, I did receive a small ego booster when my opponent said, "not bad for a first game." I think a rematch is in order. But first I must practice, practice.
Here are a couple of links for your go-ing pleasure. I'm sure there are more. If anyone has any other sites, please let Previous entries:
Fuckin' awesome... A friend of mine got me a new game!! It's wreckless: the yakuza missions. How cool is that?
O.K., there's something you have to understand about me. I absolutely (no modesty involved here, it's all true, completely, embarassingly, beyond any hope, suck at driving games. Hell, I can't even beat Mario in Mario carts. But I absolutely love them. I love crashing, I love mowin' down peds, hitting cop cars, the whole gambit. Consider me the ultimate road rage bitch (in the games only, of course!). Thanks Zack. That was way cool.
I have one hard and fast rule for chosing games: if you can't kick some ass, forget it. I have other criteria which are a little more flexible. For example, the game must be carefully constructed and designed with more than one layer of complexity. This rule, I have been known to break on several occasions. Witness my past obsession with Summoner, and even currently with DDR which really has no complexity at all. (Some of you may point out that one doesn't really kick ass in this game, either, but the truth is every time I play, my ass is kicked.)
Given these boundaries, there are only a handful of games that I have played.
DDR:This game has its appeal because it presents a whole new interface, and opens up a world of full body participation. More on this later.
Legend of Zelda, the Ocarina of Time: Majora's Mask: also a good game, but somehow I didn't really enjoy it at much. Put it this way. When I finished Ocarina of Time, I cried for about two hours afterwards. When I finished Majora's Mask, I was a little dissapointed.
Halo: Munch's Odyssey: Summoner:
http://gobase.org
... This is perhaps the best game ever made. There is nothing more to say.
There is ample gore to make this game satisfactory while you kick some serious alien ass. There is also something of a plot that makes it vaguely interesting, but not enough to steer you from your main objective. This game is highly obsessive, however. I have been late to work and missed several classes on account of this game. I played it once through normal, and I am trying to get through it now in legendary. Needless to say, the ass that's getting kicked is not alien. This game also has great cooperative and multiplayer functions, but has a major flaw in the way that it saves games.
This game is enjoyable mostly because it is so damn charming, thanks to its most lovable character, Munch. What I enjoyed most about this game is that each level presents a challege to solve. But unlike some games, such as Ico, there are multile approaches and strategies that are possible. Watching others play is almost as fun as playing it yourself because you can see how differently others approach the game.
Don't do it.