May 2013 – Page 3 – Colin McMahon

Nintendo and the Importance of Friends in Third-Party Places

Posted on May 20, 2013 by Colin McMahon

With the new Microsoft console announcement tomorrow and E3 only weeks away, video games are about to enjoy their annual place at the forefront of media. No matter which gaming site you go to, you’ll find excitement for the PS4 and the “Xbox Infinity” (rumored name). You’ll also find a lot of news from studio of software developers disparaging the Nintendo Wii U. It’s not looking good for the big N right now. The only time the Wii U makes headlines is when someone talks trash about it. Not the notoriety you want with a platform. But over the past few weeks as I’ve read more and more reports of how bad of a system the Wii U is, I cannot help but feel there is something else going on right now. This can’t be about the Wii U, if it is then these developers really need to shut their mouths because their arguments don’t work and, indeed, incriminate them more than Nintendo. No, what we’re seeing now is the result of poor treatment and poor communication. What we’re seeing now is the result of all those years where Nintendo was a jerk to third-party publishers.

Let me go back to that first point. It sounds very fanboy: companies should shut up about the Wii U. They should but I will elaborate on this. Let’s start with the most recent comments from EA software engineer, Bob Summerwill. Here is a wonderful recent tweet from Bob, enjoy: “The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an XBOX 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet. Nintendo are the walking dead at this point.” Wow, strong words. He went on the say more (before everything was mysteriously retracted) but this is the gist. They are sentiments that have been echoed (less harshly) from other software developers. But let’s break down this tweet and see what is really means.

Regardless of what Nintendo is doing, I think we can all agree that EA should be the last publisher to comment on “quality”.

I’m doing to disregard the first sentence for now and start with the second: “Less powerful than an XBOX 360”. Is this true: unknown. What is obvious is that the Wii U will not stack up against the new Xbox or the PS4. Nintendo hasn’t been coy about this, they’ve been very open that graphical horsepower is not an area where they feel they can directly compete (they are a much smaller company than Microsoft or Sony). So, just how powerful is the Wii U? Unknown (there’s too few games out to see for certain) but Nintendo has commented on its horsepower fairly recently, stating that they are aware that some companies do not believe the Wii U is powerful.

“It is a fact that some software development companies assume that Wii U is not powerful enough,” Iwata said. “On the contrary, some developers say in interviews that Wii U has a different architecture from other consoles and that, when utilized in the right way, it can perform well. At the moment, there is a great deal of contradictory information… Nintendo is required to make more efforts to dispel such a misconception,” he said. “In fact, some software companies are actively supporting Wii U and others are not. It is important to have supportive companies enjoy successful sales of a game and feel that their decision to develop something for Wii U was correct.” That comes from Satoru Iwata, one of the heads of Nintendo. Interesting to note that right now the Wii U is sounding like the PS3: another system that took heat for being poorly designed (even first-party developers had/still have a lot of trouble with it).

Okay so more talk (we still need to see games to be sure) but really, is this point even relevant? Since when did EA and other publishers care about graphical power? They were in full support of the Nintendo Wii back in the day. You can’t tell me that the Wii U will have as great a power differential as the Wii had with 360 and PS3. No but the Wii was a cultural juggernaut in the way that Wii U (so far) is not. But still, a Wii supporter criticizing graphical power? That doesn’t make sense.

You guys were really on board on this when it was being developed. What really happened to get you to abandon it so quickly? Don't say graphics. — You guys were really on board on this when it was being developed. What really happened to get you to abandon it so quickly? Don’t say graphics.

Now we come to the part that rings with the most truth (at least for EA). “Poor online/store.” Hmm, that is telling. While there is no evidence (at the moment) to support the following article, I would advise everyone to read it. Very interesting stuff that would explain why the “EA-Nintendo partnership” evaporated over night: http://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments/xnt5r/whatever_happened_to_the_groundbreaking/. Could that be a conspiracy theory: yes. Does it make sense without anything super crazy or illegal: yes.

I want to be fair to EA and other third-party publishers. Nintendo does have a bad online system. Their lack of profiles or the ability to register your games into an account is really poor. But the largest group wronged by these decisions is the consumers. We’re the ones with a lack of security. If anything, Nintendo’s system makes it more likely I would have to repay companies for games. I can see them supporting a flawed system like that.

If this is the reason why EA won't make Nintendo games anymore, all I can say is good for Nintendo for not allowing the Wii U to be a puppet for Origin. — If this is the reason why EA won’t make Nintendo games anymore, all I can say is good for Nintendo for not allowing the Wii U to be a puppet for Origin.

Okay, let’s move on to the main point for most companies: “weird tablet”. Look at that thing (pictured above). It is not the average controller. Moreover it creates a new problem for console developers who are used to making games for one screen (now they have two). It means that companies need to put more people (whole teams) on developing for the Wii U. That’s a lot of man power for an investment that is anything but financially secure (at the moment). Nintendo has a long history of third-party games being nowhere near as financially profitable as first-party titles. Yet if tablets are such a big deal, why am I not hearing more about problems with this:

Sony: succeeding without original ideas since 2007.

The PlayStation 4 also has a tablet controller. I’m not a betting man but I wouldn’t be surprised if the “Xbox Infinity” also has one as well. Touch screens are very viable control options that allow for a tremendous increase in ability to control certain aspects. Also these companies were quick to jump on board with the Wiimote, Kinect and Playstation Move (see previous comment about lack of creativity). This proves that new methods of control are not a crippling blow to development. So “weird tablet”, sorry but if that’s valid criticism against Nintendo, it applies to Sony as well.

So what’s the deal? Why all this hatred? The Wii U is barely half a year old and yet it seems that many game developers aren’t willing to give it a chance. Remember the PlayStation 3? It did not sell nearly as many units as the Wii U did at launch and while I remember concerns being voiced, it was nowhere near this level. Also let’s remember that the Xbox 360 console launched with a failure rate of 23.7% (that’s in 2009 so they had already had a couple years to try and improve it). So when nearly 1 in every 4 Xbox 360s broke, I still have heard less people calling that a crappy system.

Because Sony and Microsoft make nice with the giant third-party developers. No secret that Nintendo has a track record of changing games and keeping companies in the dark when it comes to third-party. These companies had quiet anger during the Wii’s success. Now that time is over and the Wii U has become the new whipping boy because it is different and people aren’t taking to it like they took to the Wii.

This is sad because, in my opinion, the Wii U is the best chance (console-wise) to inject innovation back into the AAA market. Games play differently on it, it’s not just about graphics. Funny story, after playing Rage this past weekend, I think the debate “do graphics make a game” can finally be put to rest (seriously it was one of the prettiest and most BORING games I have ever played. You know what game looks worse but is infinitely better? Fallout 3).

Has Nintendo made mistakes: yes. Are they a stupid company: in their own way, of course. Do they care more about getting your money than making a good game: that one is actually debatable. It is because of that last answer that I want Nintendo to succeed. They are driven by the dollar, they need it to exist. However they are also the last video game company making a console (both Sony and Microsoft are media corporations). I want the Wii U to have its fair chance.

So call me a fanboy but I’m not ready to denounce a system as “crap” six months out of the gate. I will and have already condemned the handling of the launch but as for the system itself: the Nintendo Wii U is anything but second-rate. I only hope that Nintendo can convince enough people of that as time is running out.

Sad to see EA stop supporting Wii U as it had the perfect controller for Sports games.

On a side-note: you know what would have helped? A killer E3 press conference showing off games like the new Super Smash Bros., Mario Kart, Mario and Zelda titles. Apparently all those games will be there yet Nintendo didn’t feel like the major media spotlight of a press conference was the way to go. Better use those Nintendo-Directs that so many less people are aware of. Seriously, what are they smoking over there and how do I get some?

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Also, get informed on the discussion with help of these informative links:

http://www.gamespot.com/news/crytek-explains-why-crysis-3-wii-u-had-to-die-6404763

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1806615/dev_wii_u_has_potential_to_be_more_popular_than_wii.html

http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/team-ninja-head-fires-back-at-metro-developers-in-defense-of-wii-u/

http://kotaku.com/ea-has-no-games-in-development-for-nintendos-wii-u-507588994

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-22-thq-clarifies-wii-u-horrible-slow-cpu-claim-but-developer-concern-remains

Pixar, Feminism, and the New Brave Problem

Posted on May 17, 2013 by Colin McMahon

In my commentary on The Incredibles, I made mention of a “Golden Age” of Pixar. The period I am referring to there is 1995-2010. During this time, nearly every Pixar movie made (minus Cars) ranged from above-average to artistic work of animated perfection (Wall-E is on my top ten films ever made list). Sadly with the release of films like Cars 2 (seriously Lasseter, please let this series die) and Brave, the “Golden Age” of Pixar is over. Whether it is merely taking a short break or gone forever is yet to be determined. But let’s talk about Brave for a moment. Brave is the first non-Cars Pixar film that I have not fully enjoyed.

As a huge fan of Celtic folklore, I was originally estatic to hear that Pixar was creating a film called The Bear and the Bow (Brave's working title). — As a huge fan of Celtic folklore, I was originally ecstatic to hear that Pixar was creating a film called *The Bear and the Bow* (*Brave*‘s working title).

If I had to name my largest problem with Brave, it would be its sloppy application of its feminist message. I am not against a feminist film, really we need more of them. I believe the film medium is a great platform to intelligently convey ideas and perspective. Brave is not intelligent. Brave teaches us that teenage daughters know more than their mothers about life and that hundreds of years of culture can be disregarded without serious consequence.

This could have been an image of profound empowerment where mother and daughter realized they both knew how to live in an unfair world. Instead it's another moment of Merida showing up her mother. — This could have been an image of profound empowerment where mother and daughter realize they both knew how to live in an unfair world. Instead it’s another moment of Merida showing up her mother.

So basic plot rundown for anyone unfamiliar with Brave. The film follows the story of Merida, a young girl being forced into marriage by her parents. Merida doesn’t want to get married and refuses, she flees her home and encounters a witch. Desperate to escape her fate, Merida buys a spell from a witch and uses it on her mother (cause it’s all her mother’s fault and not just the societal reality of the situation). This spell unexpectedly turns her mother into a bear and, for the rest of the movie, Merida proves how stupid everyone is and then doesn’t get married. I’m simplifying that last part but that really is pretty much it.

There’s a reaction scene in particular that irks me. When Merida first turns her mother into a bear. Merida scolds her, saying something along the lines of “well this is what you get for trying to force me to get married”. I have no problem with Merida saying this. She’s a teenager: selfish, proud… stupid. My problem is that the movie supports it. Not once is there ever an interjection on Merida’s immature approach to the situation. Marriage back in those days, particularly among royalty, was not done out of love. Marriage was a political move to make sure people didn’t kill each other. This was the reality for royal men and women.

"Merida, please listen. It's the Dar Ages, we will go to war if you don't do this. Haven't you seen Game of Thrones? — “Merida, please listen. It’s the Dar Ages, we will go to war if you don’t do this. Haven’t you seen *Game of Thrones*?

True, Brave does make a side-mention that Merida’s suitors aren’t really interested in getting married either but again, you don’t change culture with a lectures from teenagers, especially not during the Medieval period! The problem really lies with centering the conflict on mother-daughter. Queen Elinor (Merida’s mother) has no real power in the situation. Blaming her for a system that already existed is believable on a character level but foolish on a plot level. Really if she wanted to actually change the culture, Merida’s main conflict should have been with her father, King Fergus since, you know, he is the only one at the time with power.

But Colin, it’s just a family film, you should cut it a break.

This is a Pixar film. These are the people who brought us Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Wall-E, Ratatouille, and Toy Story 3. They are capable of doing incredibly intelligent pieces of film making. I’m not against Brave‘s message, I just really wish it was done in a smarter and more believable story. Feminism is a rational belief, please make a rational movie out of it. But anyway, Brave came out last year so why am I talking about it? Because of this:

Walt Disney's unveiled plans to "redesign" Merida. — Walt Disney’s unveiled plans to “redesign” Merida.

This is why movies like Brave have a point. Walt Disney has long been known for their line of princesses (most of whom do not take an active role in feminist culture) and Merida is now going to be included. That should be a good thing. Regardless of my feelings on the movie, including the princess who didn’t get married is good. It gives girls a new role model and teaches them that there is more to pursue in life than a ring. So yay Brave for that reason.

However, this “redesign” is not good… at all. It takes hotheaded, imperfect Merida and transforms her into a skinnier, doe-eyed fairy princess. So much for an intelligent conversation on feminism. Neither side here is right. We have the movie with its immature approach and now the Walt Disney corporation has reacted with their own immaturity (they are refusing to change the new image, despite objections from both the filmmakers and some consumers). Why make Merida look like that? Why take the fire out of this princess? She has been subjugated in this new design and no amount of impassioned lectures (yes I see the irony of this post) is going to change that.

It is sad that, in the 21st century, in a so-called age of progress, we’re still having stupid arguments. Having a stupid argument about a stupid subject is one thing but feminism deserves better than this. It is intelligent so can we please be mature about it? No more movies that strip it down to bare, idiotic ideals. No more redesigns that show us how important those ideals are in the first place. We need a better princess for feminism, good thing one exists – Mulan.

Note: if anyone out there feels that because Mulan has a romantic interest she cannot be a good role model for feminism, please tell me so. We’ll have a fun conversation about it.

Merida could learn a thing or two about being strong.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Star Trek Into Darkness: Boldly Going in a Direction that may Piss off the Fanbase

Posted on May 16, 2013 by Colin McMahon

I’m going to begin this review with a disclaimer and this does have a huge bearing on my perception: I am not a Star Trek fan. I don’t really care about any of the older movies. Some of them are fun, some of them are awful, some of them I haven’t seen. I grew up a Star Wars guy. I make no apologies – Star Wars is just a much better series for me, I relate to it a lot more than I do Star Trek. That being said, I was a huge fan of J.J. Abrams’ reboot of the series in 2009. To me, 2009’s Star Trek struck a great balance. It reinvigorated a series with new blood and broader appeal while still treading with respect to the original Star Trek canon. Right, with that in mind, let’s launch into Stark Trek Into Darkness. Don’t worry, this review is spoiler-free.

Star Trek Into Darkness is a great summer action movie. There are fights, glorious effects scenes and excellent use of the 3D (I saw this film in IMAX 3D and it was gorgeous). It is fast-paced from the get go and is designed to give few pauses for breath. It is a relentless, simple movie that anyone (regardless of his/her Star Trek knowledge) can walk in and enjoy. This is its great strength… and also its ultimate weakness. This is a Star Trek movie, but it is designed in such a way that may anger fans (or really anyone familiar) with the old show and movies.

The entirety of the cast returns from the 2009 film and continues their great performances in Star Trek Into Darkness. — The entirety of the cast returns from the 2009 film and continues their great performances in *Star Trek Into Darkness.*

There is a blurred line between reboot and remake. I’m actually not sure what the difference is. Dictionary.com declares a remake “to make again or anew” whereas to reboot means “to restart”. Boy, don’t those sound similar. Now, in the case of Abrams Star Trek, I believe what made that film a reboot was the fact that it did not disregard the old canon. Leonard Nimoy is in the film serving as a bridge between the two while the movie “restarts” the franchise from an earlier point in time. The first two-thirds of Star Trek Into Darkness feel like a continuation of this reboot, old and new at the same time. The final third, however, (which is the portion of the movie I have the most problems with) decidedly feels much more in the vein of a remake. I won’t say which Star Trek film is being remade but it will become painfully obvious to anyone with even a basic familiarity of the old films.

This was not a smart move for two reasons: 1) it risks angering the fan base by spitting at them a key scene from before that frankly does not carry the same emotional weight and 2) it was a really boring direction to take the film. For the first two-thirds of the movie, I was completely on board with everything that was going on and eager to see what happened next. At the end I knew exactly what was going to happen and how so that all the drama vanished and I was left simply enjoying action eye-candy (not that it was bad, it’s called candy for a reason). The result greatly diminished my excitement leaving the theater. After all, one of the reasons I enjoyed Abrams’ Star Trek so much is that I felt it was new. Star Trek Into Darkness leaves me wishing for more “newness”. I don’t want to see the earlier films remade: I want to see new adventures with the proven characters.

Okay, that’s enough of the negativity. Is Star Trek Into Darkness flawed: yes. Don’t expect it to be on the level of Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight in terms of a sequel. That aside, there are some really great things in this movie. Let’s talk about the most obvious improvement over the original: the villain.

All right, I admit it, the real identity of Commander John Harrison is, in fact, revealed to be Space Sherlock.

While everyone in the film delivers a good performance, Benedict Cumberbatch soars past them onto a higher level. He is commanding, mysterious, cunning and brutal in his performance. In the sequence pictured above, he runs acting circles around Chris Pine (Kirk) and Zachary Quinto (Spock). This sequence is the strongest in the film and gives real depth to John Harrison’s character, taking him a notch above Eric Bana’s Nero of the first film. Tragically the depth shown here is never present in the third act but hey, I said I would highlight the positives here.

The other addition to the cast who will be more overlooked than she deserves is Alice Eve. She joins the film as Science Officer Carol Wallace and gives a much-needed additional female presence to the film. No offense intended to Zoe Saldana, I am not calling her performance lacking. It is simply nice to have another woman do something of importance aboard the enterprise. Eve portrays a funny, clever science officer and injects the “newness” that I want to see a lot more of in future Star Trek films.

Of course she is still a sex symbol and yeah... underwear. I think there will be an article in the future addressing what is becoming a serious problem with the portrayal of women in "mainstream" action films. — Of course she is still a sex symbol and yeah… underwear. I think there will be an article in the future addressing what is becoming a serious problem with the portrayal of women in “mainstream” action films.

The last and greatest triumph of Star Trek Into Darkness are the character journeys of Captain Kirk and Commander Spock. I was a little worried when the film started as both Kirk and Spock appeared to have regressed slightly from their maturity at the end of the first movie. That problem is quickly rectified, however, as the main focus of the film is to show the final leg in these two characters becoming the icons from the first movies. Kirk in particular really grows from reckless and hotheaded into a more responsible and selfless Captain. The handling of these two characters was the largest strength in the first movie and it remains the best thing about the second.

So yeah, if your Star Trek knowledge is as limited as mine and you want to see a fun, well made, summer movie – check out Star Trek Into Darkness, you’ll love it. But to fans of the original series and films, I must emphasize that I’m really unsure how you’ll take to this entry. If you thought 2009’s Star Trek was a little heavy on the action and light on the characters: prepare to roll your eyes at Abrams’ new film. This is not a science fiction film, this is an action film. The good news is that Star Trek Into Darkness is aware of its action tone, with several of the crew members remarking, at various points, that the main job of the U.S.S. Enterprise is exploration, not combat. I hold out hope that the third entry in the Star Trek reboot will at least produce the cohesion of old and new that the series has been striving for. But in the mean time Star Trek Into Darkness is a pretty fun ride.

Month: May 2013