Rune Factory 4

Have you ever enjoyed simulator games like Harvest Moon and Animal Crossing, but wish you could play it like a dungeon crawler too? Look no further and pick up a copy of Rune Factory 4 when it comes to North America in August for the Nintendo 3DS. Rune Factory is a Harvest Moon spin-off with all of your favorite role-playing elements like battling monsters and collecting new weapons. I can't say I have ever played one, but it does look interesting enough to warrant a pick up. I mean, who doesn't want to play a game with the added bonus of 3-D? 

As I watched the trailer below, I couldn't help but think this game plays like a Legend of Zelda game when you dungeon crawl. I am not complaining though, I do enjoy that type of gameplay. Rune Factory 4 allows you to use different types of weapons such as a sword or spear. I think that's pretty cool. I have always been a man of pole-arms in games--and when I did martial arts--and I think they are always a welcomed addition to any game.

There is one reservation that I have with this game. I am never comfortable with the dating aspect of games, especially when the characters look too lolita for it. If you are unsure what that means, look at these characters. They don't look more than 14 years old. That's weird. Well, that's weird because I am a 24 year old man and not a coming of age teen. At least with Fire Emblem, you knew most them were adults and I could at least relate to that, sort of. I digress from the overall game though. It looks like it will be a fun game to play for a few hours here and there. I know, minus my reservation from what I mentioned, I will give this game a try.

New Age Video Games: My Rant

Lately, I find myself playing a lot of older video games and action role-playing games. This ranges from games like Shinning Force I  to Phantasy Star Online to Persona 3. These are games that I have beaten multiple times over the last two decades and yet, I am still playing and finishing them with much enthusiasm. I don't really find myself finishing many new games. I honestly think the last game I beat that's new was Fire Emblem: Awakening. That's a problem when most major games will cost you $59.99 for a new copy of what might sit and collect dust on your shelf. 

I know why newer games don't hold my interests and I bet this rings true to many gamers. Video games are becoming interactive movies. When I turn on a game and start playing, I don't ask to sit through 30-minutes of cutscenes and asked to press buttons the whole time. That's no fun to me. I want to move my character(s) around the map, battling foes, and winning the hearts of virtual princesses. I don't want to sit there while some stereotypical angry white guy is beating up some baddies for me while I press a button on screen. What am I, 3 years old and learning shapes? It's insulting as a video game enthusiasts to be treated as a child in a digital world.

A great example of this is the beginning of Uncharted 3. When you first start the game, you are lead into a bar scene that goes on for an eternity. Once the actual game play starts, I am moving around and coordinating button presses against the gang. The game even tells me what buttons to press and mash. That's not fun at all. Well, depending on the game, it can be a little fun, but if I wanted to play Dance Dance Revolution, I would of laid down a mat and started jumping up and down like an idiot.

There really is a difference between compelling story telling in a movie and in a video game. Take an example from one of my favorite games, Final Fantasy IX. Not only is there a great story with great scenes, there was an actual game to play. You had to spend time building up your characters equipment, magic, and levels. I didn't just press a bunch of buttons for 40 hours to feel like I sat through an expensive movie. I was part of that game and story. If I wanted to see a scene, it wasn't just given to me, I had to find it or progress through the story to see it. Now, I have to progress through movie scenes to find the actual game. That's the difference. When a game company made a compelling story, the game play was still valued more. What these newer game developers are doing is forgetting that one value. They are valuing the cinematic over the game play. That sucks.

I understand that these games aim for sales to make money. I know these games need to appeal to a large demographic to make sales meet. Why does it have to be at the expense of actual game play? There is a reason why Retro/Indie games are becoming popular now. These developers keep the game part of video games in their products. They are not looking for a blockbuster interactive movie, but know they will make their money delivering an awesome product for me to play.

What happened to the gaming industry? Has it become such a huge machine that it forgot why it exists in the first place? Hopefully, with this new generation of gaming, we can get back to playing actual games.

Monday's Gaming Post: BlazBlue and How DLC Sucks

Geez, I honestly don't have much to post today. My day consisted of applying to jobs I will never hear back from and playing BlazBlue on the Playstation Vita. That reminds me, you can download BlazBlue for free if you are a Playstation Plus member still. It's an amazing fighting game that I keep getting my ass kicked in. I am doing better, but it's going to be an uphill battle. The variety of characters and their unique styles of fighting really shows that Arc Systems put a great deal of time into making an excellent game. There are so many options to choose from. I find myself always selecting network and ranked match, only to be disappointed by my abilities in this game.

In other news, apparently data is showing that Halo 4's DLC is not keeping players engaged in playing. If you look at these charts, you can see a drastic dip of hours logged into this game. I am not really surprised by this. What keeps players engaged is a great game. Look at Halo 3 for instance. It may have had DLC, but what kept players coming back was an incredible and basic multiplayer. There were no superpower ups that you attach before battle like Bro of Duty, you just went out there and kicked some newbs ass while Teabagging them and telling them how much sex you had with their mother. DLC is only good if it adds to the game tremendously like Blood Dragon did for Far Cry 3 or Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen expansion did. Making DLC for stupid stuff will not keep gamers engaged in your product. I mean, the spartan missions were the same thing every time, so the lack variety did kill it a little bit. The point is, if you are going to make DLC engaging, it has to be ridiculously awesome to the 10th power.

That's it for today, happy gaming.

What's So Great About Handheld Consoles?

A long, long time ago, my mother bought me copy of Pokemon Blue and a Gameboy Color. I spent countless hours catching monsters and battling gym leaders. I was even able to battle with friends through a cable link cord. Eventually, I began to build my library of games up with instant classics like the Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening DX and Super Mario Land 2. When the time came to upgrade, I bought myself a Gameboy Advance. Great games like Golden Sun and Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced were developed for this system and thrown into my giant library of videogames. Fast forward to today and now I own both a Nintendo 3DS XL and a Playstation Vita. I love playing on the both of them as well.

What made handheld consoles great and what makes them still great? For one, they are accessible no matter where you are located. When it comes to accessibility, that one is an easy answer. I can bring these bad boys with me and play. I don't care with what my friends playing on his Xbox? Fine, I can just reach for my 3DS and play Fire Emblem: Awakening or turn on my Vita and play some MLB: The Show '13. I am going from New York City to Washington, D.C. and staring out the window bores me. Not a problem with handheld games because I can play them right on that train for four hours. Yup, they are pretty awesome like that.

Believe it or not, handheld consoles have a pretty awesome game library. I mean, you get the Legend of Zelda, Sonic the Hedgehog, Monster Hunter,...and you get the point. These games are some of the best you will play too! Take for example Pokemon. Yeah, that sums up the greatness of portable systems. Even Persona 4: Golden on Playstation Vita was one of the best games put out last year. I could continue to name games all night, but I think everyone gets the point.

Lastly, they are affordable. That's right, they are affordable (see my last blog post). One thing I have always found convenient is the fact that I don't need to pay $300.00 for a videogame system to get the same quality. I can pay much less. I also don't need to spend money for extra controllers, adapters, wotcha-ma-callits, and miscellaneous things. Also, game are far cheaper and they can be just as entertaining. So I hope that answers my own question.

Tuesday's Classic: Rome: Total War

Rome: Total War

Set in ancient Rome, your objectives were to keep a stable political and economic conditions, expand your territory, and fight off invaders. It was important to recruit commanders and soldiers to meet your requirements while making sure that you keep enough funds to build up your cities. In all fairness, this game plays out like most strategy games. As I mentioned, you build up an empire and then your win. So that begs the question, what makes this old game a classic but still relevant today? The actual tactical battles that take place.

In Rome: Total War, your armies met on the battlefield to determine the victor. What made this experience unique was that you controlled all units. You choose where to send them and what actions they had to take. You were the commander of the battlefield and one slight misstep could cost you the battle. Everything had to be tactical. It was tough to win a battle by attacking an enemy straight on. Actually, it usually ended suicidal and your army being crushed. In harder difficulties during campaign, it was tough to recover after a crushing defeat.

Battles would take place in three different scenarios. It was either an open battlefield, a bridge, or a siege map. The siege maps were intense as well as annoying. If you were trying to climb a castle of a wall, you were generally meet with a barrage of arrows and hot oil. It never ended well. The bridge battles were tough because spearmen could chock you right on the bridge--damn those Greeks and their phalanx formations. The open maps were the best. These types of maps really pushed you into choosing sacrificing some units for the better of the whole army.

The best part of this game was the large modding community. If you are fortunate enough to have a physical copy or computer savvy with steam, you could add expansions created by enthusiasts. These mods would have new units and new maps. They were pretty intense. All-in-all, if you want a true military game experience, this would be the game to pick up.