EA to Nintendo: “Get your crap together.”

Nintendo hasn’t been having a good past couple of weeks, months, quarter or even year. Apparently the world has *finally* woken up and realized the Wii is a pretty crap system and got sales mostly through gimmicks and high profit margins by using circa-2001 hardware. Now, though, it seems, EA’s CEO John Riccitiello is speaking up about his disappointment in the system and the way Nintendo is treating their users and third-party publishers.

“To be honest with you, I think the Wii platform has been a little weaker than we had certainly anticipated. And there is no lack of frustration to be doing that at precisely the time where we have the strongest third-party share…”

EA is undoubtedly the Wii’s largest 3rd party supporter so I can see why they’d be upset a bit. However, that being said, when EA constantly pushes tripe like Charm Girls Pajama Party, MySims Racing, Nascar Kart Racing, Smarty Pants, etc., I can’t feel too bad for them (in total EA has released 50+ Wii titles since the system’s launch [>1/month]). I mean, if they wanted to point fingers for undelivering products, they need to take a look at EA. In other words, physician heal thyself.

“Frankly, I think they need more beats in the year than they get out of a first-party slate – to be able to have the Wii software platform perform as well as they would like.”

That is a good point because I think it brings up a key issue in WHY the Wii, its games and Nintendo (at this point in time) are doing so poorly and have reputations that are getting worse and worse with every passing month. I mean, what was Nintendo last BIG first-party game? Super Smash Bros. Brawl? That came out in March 2008. Over a year and a half ago. Sure, you could argue that Wii Sports Resort & WiiFit are “games”…but for hardcore gamers, those are a far cry from anything worth lumping together with Zelda, Mario or even Super Smash Bros. franchises.

To get even more insulting and stupid, I went to Nintendo’s site and went through all 838 games released for the Wii since it’s launch, looking for first party titles. I didn’t count Wii Ware releases — just Nintendo published titles. I even included casual titles like Wii Sports & Wii Fit. Here are the total #s of first party games released in each year, since 2006:

• 2006 – 2
• 2007 – 12
• 2008 – 6
• 2009 – 8 (4 are re-releases of Gamecube titles)

My point is this: Nintendo — as it has done with every console system since Nintendo 64 — is ridiculous when it comes to keeping platform interest high through 1st party releases. In fact, one could say the only reason why the N64 had as good of lineup as it did for the first few years was solely because of the help of 2nd-party Rare producing games like Banjo Kazooie, Diddy Kong Racing, GoldenEye, Donkey Kong, Conker’s Bad Fur Day and Perfect Dark.

Since 2006 not one new console IP has been created under the Nintendo label and Nintendo has all but ignored franchises like Star Fox, Pikmin and Kid Icarus for proper sequel treatment. Instead, gamers get Mario over and over and over and over again.

John continued saying, “…because very, very few multiplatform titles are succeeding on the Wii.”

Well, duh. A quick look at Nintendo’s official release listing page for the Wii shows a terrifyingly high number of crapware — games no one over the age of 5 would ever want. If it weren’t for the useless casual gamers, hipster middle-aged folk and clueless grandmas in the country, no third party trashware would be bought. The solution? Keep making Wii-exclusive third party software instead of just porting over superior console’s games and hoping for the best. And, if you’re gonna make a quick n’ dirty Wii release (eww, that sounds nasty when written),  just keep it as a Wii Ware title. Less risk for a publisher and less chance of consumer disappointment if they buy it in a store, hoping it to be a quality title.

I know 3rd party games in general have been failures on the Wii, but couldn’t publishers have made games like Madworld, Dead Space Extraction and Monster Hunter 3 back in late ‘06/early ‘07? They could have…but they didn’t. I’ll tell you why — because when the Wii was announced, every 3rd party publisher (including EA) thought it would suck and get crappy 1st party support as usual, just like the Gamecube. After they realized it was a hit (thanks to moron casual gamers and gimmick-duped hardcore gamers), they all rushed out to release as much crap as possible to grab some consumer money. They had no plans to come out with anything unique at any point and after seeing the types of buyers who were getting Wiis, they became even lazier because, let’s face it, casual gamers will buy just about anything.

To hear EA moaning now about lack of 3rd party success 3 years into Wii’s life is pretty funny, actually. If they had done more than port crap and release shovelware for the first 24-36 months, perhaps their Wii endeavors wouldn’t have been so painful.

Finally, John said, “…we are reaching out to Nintendo to find ways to partner to push third-party software harder.”

So what, EA wants to bundle its games with Wii hardware? Yeah, that ain’t gonna happen EA. Please tell me what incentive Nintendo would have to pursue something like this. I mean, look at them — they would have kept the Wii at its $250 price for another holiday season if it weren’t for the big drops in PS3 and 360 pricing this Fall. And even with a drop in Wii system price, there is NO variation in the bundle from what was originally offered in 2006. Nintendo simply has no plans to give anything of value away to consumers this generation and they just don’t care. They know full well a game-hungry consumer (after they had their fill of Wii Sports) will aim for a Nintendo-brand game next before they even consider a 3rd party game. That’s why Nintendo published games released 2-3 years ago still have their $49.99 price tag…while 99% of 3rd party games go to the bargain bins within a few months of release.

UPDATE:
Finally, in what I call icing on the cake for this ridiculous situation is the newly announced plan for EA to FIRE 1,500 workers and spend about $400 million for casual game maker Playfish.com. So one hand you have EA’s CEO crying about Nintendo not doing a good enough job making a system attractive enough to consumers so they spend even more on 3rd party games and on the other hand you have EA making huge, dramatic changes internally so it can focus even more on the casual markets it apparently hates so much (you know, the ones who WON’T buy 3rd party games…because they’re idiots). Bravo EA, bravo.

Mirror’s Edge…2D?

I haven’t much to write about this week (or the time to play many games at all) but I thought I could pass along this pretty neat find (thanks Joystiq!): A 2D Flash version of EA’s Mirror’s Edge. It’s amazingly well done and I think captures the parkour/fast-paced action of the console version (but without all of the intensely frustrating deaths or crap shooting controls). It also sounds fantastic, thanks to the inclusion of the actual game’s soundtrack (or parts of it at least). This is truly one of the coolest Flash games I’ve seen simply because of how FAITHful it is (I know, *groan*) to its 3D big brother…er, I mean sister. :)

If you get a chance, check it out – I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.

Mirror’s Edge [PS3] Review

Nowadays, it’s not often that you have a game come along and actually try something different. In fact, it’s even rarer to have a “different” game NOT be a sequel of some sorts to an existing franchise. Because of these two distinct traits, Mirror’s Edge caught my eye earlier in the year when the first promotional video came out for it.

The teaser trailer painted a setting of a city…white & shiny, clean and orderly…but with something terribly wrong and corrupt just behind all the gloss. The game was to revolve around “runners” – individuals who, for whatever reason, choose to deliver secret packages for clients who need to operate out of the sight of the government’s ever-watchful eyes.

Before Mirror’s Edge came out though it was revealed by the developers that they were already planning the sequels to it. Not only was this a bit cocky since this was a totally new IP that might not sell well, it also gave many gamers (myself included) a horrible gut feeling that the story (whatever it might be) would be just a fraction of something bigger like so many others games do now (Half Life, Halo, Metal Gear Solid, etc.). That’s fine and dandy…but what if the game doesn’t do well financially? What about this epic story then? Will it be forever unfinished like the no-ending Shenmue series?

Before I talk about what Mirror’s Edge doesn’t do right, let me mention the things it does (or attempts to do) well. For starters, the sound is great. The new age/pop/techno soundtrack is very well done and, unlike many 3D adventure/exploration games now I seem to end up playing, music is always present in each level. It should also be mentioned that the vast majority of the game’s 3D visuals look great. Some full-screen anti-aliasing would’ve helped overall but the enviroments look really unique and the character models are well designed and animated too. Finally, I think EA should be given a pat on the back for trying something different with Mirror’s Edge gameplay. It was a risky move to base a game around an unproven visual and control format…but they did it anyways. More developers/publishers need to do this.

Now, let’s talk about why Mirror’s Edge simply didn’t live up to the hype…

The simplest answer is that Mirror’s Edge is a game based around visual style instead of a visual style based on a game. Let me explain. While the 3D perspective is a neat concept and certainly makes the game appear unique, the sad truth is that the game is a lot harder than it has to be because of this. The controls never feel quite right (even in the last stage I was never comfortable in thinking I knew where my fingers were and what actions would have to be performed in what order…that’s pretty pathetic. I blame it on the poor button mapping and over-use of the shoulder buttons). The hit detection feels dodgy (many times I’d clearly grab a ledge or run on a wall and the game simply wouldn’t register it). The combat is awful (while the first-person perspective should work the controls felt sloppy in aiming and response time…fighting was never fun). Also, there’s really no chance to explore the levels since everything is so linear..and the few times you do get to look around, there’s nothing to do with anything you might find (the extent of enviroment interaction is pressing buttons).

Basically, the developers should have made the demo we all played and then asked themselves if the game really would work if that’s all that was in it. And for those of you who played the demo…what you played IS the game. Unfortunately there are no surprises waiting for you in any department.

Another gripe I have with Mirror’s Edge is its story. While I wasn’t expecting something deep, the story you are given probably could have been completely written on index card. It’s pretty sad. Also, as I feared, the game has no ending and ends rather abruptly. There’s also vanishing cops at the end. (Don’t ask…) Even with those story issues though the real problem were the cutscenes. Imagine someone decided to use the look of the 2D, cartoon Esurance commercials to tell the story of a game that has done so many other things rather realistically visually. Wouldn’t that just be a bizarre combination for you to experience? One wonders why the developers just didn’t make the story be told via 3D cutscenes using the game’s awesome looking character models because the 2D animation no doubt took just as long (and looks extremely sloppy).

Finally, let’s talk about the game’s difficulty. As most gamers have heard, Mirror’s Edge is extremely short: 6-7 hours at the most. So that already knocks the game down to rental status. Then, players discover the game is really only about 4 hours long because you’ll simply be dying repeatedly for the other 2-3 hours. That will make many gamers sad and angry. The problem lies in the game’s forced one-way-to-finish-a-level design. Even though Mirror’s Edge would like you to believe you will have lots of freedom in getting from point A to point B…the sad truth is that you don’t. Also, even though I mentioned it already, I have to say again how bad the combat is. Melee fighting is a joke (especially when you’re getting shot at from all sides) and aiming or shooting any gun is a terrible experience.

I won’t say I hated Mirror’s Edge because it’s not the worst game I have ever played. However, it isn’t really a fun game and [this is bad to say] isn’t truly even worth the 6-7 hours the game does deliver. Any gamer who picks this up will end the game feeling bored, relieved, disappointed, mildly upset and slightly cheated. I can’t imagine who’d be extremely happy, proud or eagerly waiting for the sequel after finishing it. So my final verdict is to just pass on Mirror’s Edge completely…you aren’t missing anything worth seeing or experiencing even if EA would like you to think otherwise.

Graphics: 7 | Sound: 8 | Play Control: 4 | Fun Factor: 3 | Final Score: 47%

Dead Space [PS3] Quickview

Sometimes I just can’t make it through a game. Maybe my schedule just won’t permit me to finish, perhaps some unfortunate incident affects my gaming hobby or potentially a game just doesn’t “do it” for me and I have no desire to keep playing. That’s why I’ve introduced this new type of game analysis-of-sorts called a “Quickview.”

Dead Space is a game I just couldn’t get into. It has all the makings of a top-notch AAA title: Great graphics, high production values in sound/voice acting and even a super creepy setting (space!) that makes the title stand out in a sea of survival horror titles.

Unfortunately I’ve played too many games in my life to look at Dead Space with anything but a “you totally ripped that off” glare. For example, Dead Space is probably more like 1999’s System Shock 2 than any other game…and for people who say it mimics Bioshock, they tend to forget that Bioshock outright stole System Shock 2’s game design as well. It’s so weird to hear reviewers and players going ga-ga over Dead Space. I mean, on one hand if you’re young you probably have never heard of System Shock 2 (let alone played it) but for critics it’s pretty inexcusable.

The setting of Dead Space is pretty interesting despite its unoriginality and thanks to the great lighting effects every area of the ship looks dark and creepy. In fact, it looks a bit too creepy for its own good. While I understand blanketing the game world in shadows allows for the player to encounter an enemy at any time, the ship itself comes across as a completely uninhabitable place to begin with. It’s not very convincing in that respect and for a game that puts so much emphasis on style over substance, this is one of those “huh?” things that’s hard to ignore.

It also doesn’t help that the gameplay is extremely repetitive, formulaic and linear. Virtually no exploring is done on the ship and as I read on one forum concerning this game, each level goes like this: “Exit the tram. Get a mission. Something goes wrong and this makes you find another thing to complete you mission. Find other thing. Backtrack to start and complete initial mission. Backtrack to tram. Repeat.”

Isn’t that sucky? I mean, the world of Dead Space is pretty detailed with huge environments to travel around in and characters that seem interesting (okay, so I’ll admit the characters themselves are pretty bland…but the voice acting is very well done) but the gameplay itself is so typical. On the topic of sound, it should also be mentioned that you can almost always tell when a fight is coming – the music will increase in volume or tension…so by the time the enemies appear you really aren’t scared or shocked at all. This wasn’t a good idea. Even the combat is flawed. Guns seem to eat up ammo too fast, melee attacks are useless and “dismembering” enemies is harder and not as rewarding as it should be.

Another bad idea was the faux-3rd person view. Instead of an on-screen display you have a character that sucks up 25-33% of the viewable screen and is at such a weird angle first-person shooter fans and third-person gaming nuts will really struggle adjusting to the movement and action/firing controls. Without going in to too much detail, the game literally uses almost every button imaginable and I can’t possibly understand why it had to be made so difficult. It seems like the weird angle/3rd person view was done just to make the game look slightly different than your typical shooter/action game.

In the end I only played this game for about 4 hours through the first few levels. The game just wasn’t appealing enough in any way to warrant more time and effort on my end and that’s too bad. Since System Shock 3 is probably never going to be made, I had high hopes for this sci-fi game. But what bothers me most is that twice in as many years have we had a big game outright steal a nearly-decade old classic game design……and not only does it do nothing to further the concepts established years ago…critics and gamers alike seem to think that these newer games are soooo unique and original. That just goes to show you that for every AAA game you come across now, the best games are probably titles you’ve never heard of or get far less coverage/praise.

But don’t worry though because in a decade or so some big publisher will copy these unknown gems from now and turn them into high-profile titles – with no credit to the original games of course.

Final Verdict: No Purchase - Rental Only

Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers [Gamecube] Review

The Lord of the Rings movies are amazing spectacles to watch in the theater. Watching an epic fantasy series like LOTR on the big screen really makes you appreciate how technology can make movies more believable and exciting. After seeing the Two Towers (a good movie but not nearly as great as Fellowship) you want there to be a game out there for your favorite system that lets you relive all of the action on screen. Unfortunately, EA’s Two Towers makes you want to throw yourself into the fires of Mt. Doom.

This is one of the worst movie-based games I have played in a long time. I don’t know why so many reviewers and magazines said this was a fun game when they blasted Enter the Matrix, a game also based on a movie. I think it probably has something to do with reviewers wanting to make a good game seem worse then it is because they felt let down by the film (and want to punish the filmakers in someway…in LOTR:TTT case, this is the opposite). Well boo hoo everyone! LOTR: The Two Towers is a horrible game and there’s no getting past that. This game is not revolutionary, it doesn’t have deep gameplay, it has crap for graphics, the play control is horrible and you simply fight all of the same stuff you see in the films (a few new locales and encounters not seen in the movie can be found, but rarely…). At least Enter the Matrix tried to make a completely new experience for players rather than throwing gamers into the predictable role of Neo or Trinity. Man.

So anyways, what is up with the so-called “great” graphics in this game? The character models are laughably bad (only good from FAAARRRR away!), the “transitions” from real film to in-game cinematics is horrible (ohhh…I see, it must be good since they both used the same camera angle-BAH!), the framerate flip-flops from 60fps to choppy and studdering during intense fights and many times there is simply TOO much going on and you lose track of your character. The levels do look nice and the effects are neat but “ewww…” describes the rest. The sound is okay but the rehash of dialogue and music heard in the movies gets old real fast. The play control is just downright bad – sometimes my fingers hurt from hitting the buttons so many times. And what’s up with the combos? Not only are they useless most of the time but they are awkward to execute. Plus, once again the Gamecube controller shows off it’s bad design flaws and pain and cramping of the hands is the result. Thanks EA.

Now I played through most of this game but I gave up during the stage where I had to defend a frickin’ door from wave after wave of enemies. I kept dying before I could destroy all the enemies and after having to mash buttons (which is all one must really do in LOTR:TTT) for 10 minutes straight every time I restarted, I said the heck with it. I saw the movie and I know how the flick ends. I also saw where this game was going as well: It was going be ignored until I returned it to the video store.

Graphics: 5 | Sound: 5 | Play Control: 3 | Fun Factor: 3 | Final Score: 37%