The new Decade

Well, it seems that 2010 has decided to show its unpredictable face. What new trends shall begin and which ones shall end in the new decade? Remember the 1970's was the "Golden Age of the Arcade", the 1980's was the "Nintendo Empire" (Nintendo nearly monopolised the video game company until Supreme Court slapped them on the wrist for anti-trust laws), the 1990's was the "Birth of the Polygon" (Starfox on the SNES and up, and even games like A Link to the Past were seeing polygons; the N64 and PS were the starters of nothing but polygons), and the 2000's was the "Birth of HD", in which nowadays most games are in High Definition resolutions on computers and almost any game console with the exception of the Wii, DS, and PSP. Now, what is 2010 going to bring for us? At this rate, it seems as though it could be the "Reign of Motion Control" considering that the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 are getting interested in motion controls. However, I'm also thinking that video games are starting to be online exclusive, in which you have to download games in order to play them, which is what we can do with the Wii/DSi Shop, PlayStation Network, and Xbox Live Marketplace. However, as Internet speeds increase each decade and as we gain more space and better compression, we could see massive games like Grand Theft Auto expansions (which are over 1 GB) become full blown games that we could just pay $30-50 to download. This could be great for production since cartridges and discs wouldn't have to be produced, thus making it cheaper. Remember, the most a N64 game cost was $80 due to the cartridges (well, Nintendo of Europe was accused of price fixing), yet the PS production didn't take long thanks to the discs. So, all we can do now is simply wait until the next generation of consoles to come out. However, for some reason, it seems that Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft are more interested in improving their current systems. The Xbox 360 has already exceeded the lifespan of the average generation, and the Wii and PS3 are getting close to their lifespan. Then again, the N64 lasted only 8 years and was able to create innovative things like the Expansion Pak and Rumble Pak. We can only wait and see.

Nintendo Needs to Man Up

Well, we've heard it from Xbox Live users about how Nintendo Wifi lacks freedom such as speech, and how you can only do a lot of things if you have friend codes. I do think it is nice, but I do think Nintendo should loosen the leash a little bit more. I'm thinking that in perhaps later installments, Nintendo Wifi could enable voice speech to people of a certain age group. For instance, if it is a game like Call of Duty where speech is necessairy, if not almost required, to make tatics and such, they should have it so that way people 13+ or 18+ can do voice chats at their own consent. There could also perhaps be a "mute mode" in which people who aren't in the age group or people who opt to not chat would not be able to listen to the chat if they were in a room that would allow for chat. Yes, Nintendo should also try to lighten up, encourage 3rd party makers to not be all whimps and produce just cheap little mini-game collections that I have been seeing released every month ever since the Wii was created. If only the third party paid attention to the first party, then the third party would have some inspiration plot-wise and graphic-wise and produce better games for the Wii. Yet strangely, the DS has better games than most of what is on the Wii...

Portables' Versions of Console Games

Well, we've all done it before. We've all, at one point, played a portable version of a console game. If you haven't, or you think you haven't, then you may actually be surprised. There are quite a few games that are either ports or sequels onto portable consoles. Star Wars: Battlefront is an example. There were the two console versions, then they made a version for the PSP. While the PSP version was deemed bad due to the terrible controls, it did show that portable consoles could do something. Similar to the Game Boy Advance ports of SNES games, like The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past and Super Mario World. Another example that I know of would be the Trackmania Series. For those who don't know what it is, it is an arcade racer (Point "A" to point "B" in the shortest amount of time, but the cars can't affect others in this game's case), and its portable version was a great version, in which it had three of the seven environments and the famous level editor it is well known for. Then we have the Call of Duty franchise and its two additions onto the DS. They were quite good, in their own right, for a portable game. Now, the main question we all need to know is that if this activity should be encouraged. Well, what I specifically mean about having a Console game on a portable is that the console one came first, then they made the portable one based off of the console one, not like releasing them both at the same time (Such as movie games). Well, for starters, the visual capabilities of portable consoles are starting to increase significantly (speaking of the DS and PSP), and storage space for portable consoles are also starting to increase as well. Now, would it be fun to have the same exact same game on both console and portable? No. However, a lot of people are on the go, and don't always have time to be playing games. Perhaps that is one reason why The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass was put on the DS (or maybe the DS was long overdue for a Zelda game...or at least not have it on a console). Plus, production budgets are much cheaper having it on a portable than on a console, so that can also be considered another positive. Having sequels on the portable consoles is also a nice tactic that some companies use, but it may be a good thing or a bad thing in some occasions? So, is it really a good idea to have portable consoles like the DS and the PSP base or port games off of consoles? Well, like I said, it just depends on what it is and how it is executed (Phantom Hourglass used the touch screen controls, so that was a positive). So, there's no real base line in general, but there's a line for which games can be on a portable and go with us everywhere and which ones are not worth the AA batteries and are much better at home on your big screen TV (of which I don't own).

Happy Thanksgiving & Black Friday

First, I'd like to wish you all a happy and safe Thanksgiving. I'd figure I'd make a post about 12 hours before the big Macy's parade.

However, its Black Friday that really gets gamers, even though not many stores do things for gaming. The only game thing I found was a DS Lite at Wal*Mart, yet nothing so far from Gamestop, EB Games, etc. Then again, it seems almost like Black Friday each day with the whole used games concept. I'm not advertising stores, but if the gaming industry wants a major comeback, they should try Black Friday for a chance. Maybe something on XBOX Marketplace or something would be awesome. Then again, console prices dropped big time. So, I guess we shouldn't whine too much, and be thankful they dropped the price of something...

Nintendo and Sony's Worst Nightmare

Well, we've all heard of the console wars. However, we can all start to formulate Nintendo and Sony's worst nightmare. It isn't Microsoft. In fact, it is Microsoft's worst nightmare in the computer world as well. No, it isn't homebrew or piracy (but they're quite a large foe as well), but rather Apple. When you honestly think about it, the Apple computers have almost no games on it (or the cheap little games that Apple calls games that appear on Windows and Linux as standard games). However, I'm not talking about Apple and its lack of games. I'm rather talking about Apple's iPhone and iPod Touch.

For starters, the iPhone/Touch are superior in multimedia such as video, photos, music, web, etc. Plus, they have an app store with over 100k apps. In addition, the iPhone has Internet access on AT&T's 3G network (of which I'm not a fan of). Even though the DSi and PSP can do these things, the iPhone/Touch does these things a lot better. However, the DSi and PSP have way better games, though. Most of the stuff on the iPhone/Touch is mainly basic games that look cheaper than what appears on the DSi Store.

Plus, the DS does way better at the touch screen than the iPhone/Touch, as demonstrated in Phantom Hourglass. The only touch screen win the iPhone/Touch has is that the touch screen is compatible with touching multiple spots at the same time. If you try this on the DS, it will think it is the edge of a massive stylus that is half the size of the screen. Of course, the DS and PSP also have D-pads as well, which enables the use of a more classic feeling that the iPhone/Touch cannot emulate. I'm actually not much a fan of using touch screens with fingers, especially with keyboards. I would rather prefer buttons or joysticks, something that a touch screen significantly lacks.

The DS's Greatest Misunderstanding

The DS is perhaps one of the most unique systems ever released with its touch screen, microphone, and dual screen system. However, for some reason, it is the racing genres that make use of the dual screen design, which is actually a good thing. The typical racer has a cluttered HUD with speed, position, damage, map, weapon, etc. The dual screen is actually underrated because it clears it up. There are some games that take away the HUD for space, but you must typically stand still to see it. However, the player must constantly alternate at looking both screens, and it can do a significant number on both the graphics card and the processor, especially where polygons are present on both screens, such as boss battles in Phantom Hourglass. Still, the DS is a great console that is unappreciated by gamers and the 3rd party, just like the N64.

Minigame Surplus?

Honestly, what is up with all of the mini-game games on the Wii? Plus, why are they all the exact same thing? I know, the third party hasn't liked Nintendo since the Nintendo 64, but, don't you think they would want to give them a second chance? It is these things that scare away the hardcore gamers to the Xbox360 and PS3. I mean, the 360 and the PS3 have better visual capabilities and a larger capacity, but that is really no excuse to diss the Wii. One of the only reasons Nintendo is still classified as a hardcore/family company is due to the first and second party. However, there are still games like Final Fantasy and Residient Evil that help out the cause. However, the 3rd party should not be scared or anything. I'm just saying that if the 3rd party acted like the 1st party by producing more hardcore games and such.

2.5D vs. 2D

Yes, these two game types are in fierce competition. The classic 2D side scroller with games such as Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda, etc. with all of its sprites and such on consoles such as the Nintendo Entertainment System, Game Boy, Nintendo DS, etc. However, in our new age of polygons and textures (well, not that new), sprites have been suffering a trend of becoming obsolete by new technologies, such as creating 3D models to go on flat 2-dimensional planes. A good comparison would have to be Super Mario Bros. and The New Super Mario Bros.

The original game for the NES had nice flowing sprites, but each sprite took up quite some space. In New Super Mario Bros., they had live-rendered polygon-filled models, of which didn't take as much space, because it was simply one model and the game specifying how it should bend and morph. However, in more modern games with high-polygon models and high-resolution textures, simple high-resolution sprites actually sounds better. However, it depends mainly on the resolution and quality of the game. If it is something like The Legend of Zelda: Four Sword Adventures, then you would want to have 2D mainly to have a larger over world and also be able to work with the Game Boy Advance. However, it could have also been in 2D to maintain the style that was achieved in the original game and The Legend of Zelda: The Minish Cap. Of course, a 3D version of the game would have worked if models from The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker were used. So, it mainly depends on what the producers are aiming for when it comes to making the game. It also helps to achieve a certain art style or animation technique. Some want a fluid and cartoonish look, while some want a more nostalgic look in the modern era.

Petman's Mind Store

OK, yes, I really did open up a store. No, it isn't one of those kiosks you find in the mall (But it's like it), for I don't have the money for that (Why did you think I opened it up in the first place?). Instead, I've opened up a CafePress store for your viewing pleasure. I don't mind if you don't purchase anything, but its just something I made out of the blue. Yes, this is a promise that more things are coming back. So, without further ado, I present to you my store.

http://www.cafepress.com/PetmansMind

Level Design

There are a lot of games with various themes. Some being futuristic, some being fantasy, and some being realistic and modern. However, this type of theming greatly adjusts the level design of the game. Some games manage to have great level design that fits the theme, and yet some have good levels with a bad or mismatched theme. Flight simulators typically have a realistic landscape when they're something like Microsoft Flight Simulator; however, a lot of the time, the landscape is usually flat and boring. The Super Mario games have good level design for the fantasy theme, which was proved superior in Super Mario Galaxy with the game's art style and the physics. The planets allowed for great opportunities to create miniature fields in one large level to create a great feeling of freedom. Then, we have the type of game that allows getting a biker from one end of the level to the other without flipping over, which uses level design as difficulty. Sometimes, this can be good, yet in an artist point of view, it can turn negative. The Metroid series has some interesting level designs in some scenes, but a lot of it is based more upon architecture, same can be said for The Legend of Zelda; however, The Legend of Zelda usually has a lot of landscaping involved in it. Metroid mainly consists of hallways; which is a familiar theme that is repeated in games like Quake, Doom, and other breeds of First Person Shooters. However, games like Call of Duty matter more on landscaping than buildings, which I find interesting, mainly because buildings are look to be as if they have been blown up in bombing strikes, with the ground covered in rubble. I do enjoy the look of landscaping and architecture by themselves, but, the programmers need to somehow combine them. In the Mario series, usually, it is one or the other, but is often made up for by the games' art style and design. The Legend of Zelda series usually takes this into play very well with Hyrule Field, Hyrule Castle/Hyrule Castle Town, the villages, temples, etc. Metroid is based mainly on the architecture of inside buildings, which I think should be more elaborated upon. The Pokemon games have some interesting level design, however, a lot of the levels are mainly based around giving the player the option of easily battling players or taking tedious detours (Unless Fly has been obtained and taught). Now, level design can alter a game's level of difficulty, which I think is interesting. Like I have said above, those biking games can greatly alter the course of the game depending on what the level consists of. Tower Defence games can also make the game easier or harder by restricting towers to be placed in certain places, which I enjoy from time to time. Doom and Quake can increase the difficulty by having hidden corridors that must be traveled in order to continue on through the game, which I find both entertaining and tedious, for it gives the player a challenge as to find the end of the level, usually running into enemies. Like I have said before, I enjoy the level design of the Mario and Zelda games, for they usually can quickly change the difficulty of the game with a simple cliff or obstacle and can both advance and restrict your forward movement, depending on what items are in the player's inventory. Now, I mainly agree with that design, however, it doesn't work in a few games; mainly ones that don't contain major overworlds. However, a key system would work out great, like in Legend of Zelda. Destroying all enemies like in Mario and Zelda would work out as well in certain games (Imagine a zombie game in which you're locked in a secure chamber until all zombies are destroyed). Pokemon did good with the design in which you could obtain HMs and TMs so that way you could get to certain areas that were unaccessible previously in order to get valuable items, yet not ones that are directly required to beat the game. I have yet to see that tatic in any other type of game, but I may be corrected with the Metroid series. I guess this means I finally have made my comeback!

Blog Wiped

Well, as sad as it is for me to say this, my blog has been wiped as you may have noticed. I have created no personal backup of the blog. However, I'm going to see if Blogger will be nice enough to resurrect my old posts. If not, then it appears I'll have to start completely from scratch. This is the result of someone hacking my Google account, which resulted in this and my YouTube being taken down. Well, I'm hoping that both can come back. I will, honestly, be more depressed if my YouTube doesn't come back. So, until then, this may be the only post here.