Overstaying its Welcome: Amazing Spider-Man (the Video Game)

Posted on by Colin McMahon

Like many out there, I went to theaters this past summer to see a superhero movie. No, I’m not talking about the Avengers or the Dark Knight Rises (both of which were better than the film I’m about to name), I’m talking Spider-Man and not just any: that shit was supposed to be Amazing. The Amazing Spider-Man may have felt more like a safely-plotted retelling of the first Sam Raimi Spider-Man than a bold new imagining but it was still decent. Yes it was disappointing that human character Dr. Connors went full blown mustache-twirling super villain after his first transformation into the Lizard and true, Peter Parker really does come off as a total dick to Gwen Stacy at the end (break up with someone and refuse to be there for them during a traumatic death of a loved one, sure that relationship is healthy) but the Amazing Spider-Man was still a fun popcorn movie of the summer. Good news to all of you (maybe there are 5?) out there who can’t wait for the Amazing Spider-Man 2 in 2014: there is already a sequel.

The Amazing Spider-Man (video game), developed  by Quebec’s own Beenox, picks up several months after the first film ends. The plot is actually a fairly clever and believable tie-in to the movie. Oscorp, trying to capitalize on the Lizard formula, hires Alistair Smythe to oversee all future genetic experiments as well as helm the nanobot program. Anyone who has read the comics knows that shenanigans are coming and for those who haven’t, spoiler: shenanigans. Faced with a hybrid and nanobot menace, Peter and Dr. Connors join forces and fight for the fate of New York City. Great, that’s the plot but is it good?

Short answer: Eh, kinda? I’ve often heard Spider-Man 2 called the pinnacle of the Spider-Man video games. Personally I’m not sure why 2 is held at this level. In my mind it is a fun game but flawed. Really that is the same basic critique I would give to this new one. When I first started playing the Amazing Spider-Man, I was having a lot of fun with it. Then there came a point where I was ready for the game to end; problem was there was still several hours to go.

So what happened? How did it lose me? When did my smile turn into the face of frustration playing this game? The answer is obvious: when this game stopped giving me new challenges and instead recycled bosses into newer, more aggravating scenarios. That was the moment I cried foul.

Sometimes boss repetition can be fun. I remember always getting freaked out by the Nemesis in Resident Evil 3. So why doesn’t it work here? I believe some bad design choices determined that. Let me throw you an example: fairly early on in the game, Spider-Man does battle with an evil killer robot called a Hunter (creative name right?). The Hunter is a fast, flying attack drone and the resulting gameplay is pretty fun. Web-zipping from building to building while attacking an aerial attack robot is an experience unique to the Spider-Man games. The Amazing Spider-Man then ups the challenge by throwing a giant metal snake at you: again awesome. What’s next game? A transformer? A giant robot hawk of some kind? Oh, oh three Hunters that’s… actually just kind of annoying.

The controls in this game are not the tightest. While that allows for some cool animation and a fun battle with one Hunter, three of them simply exposes  flaws in Spider-Man’s handling. It is frustrating to try and dodge so much while still attacking. If a new enemy was throwing that kind of challenge at me it would be one thing but these guys are anything but. It comes off as tedious to beat them and it feels lazy on the part of the developers. With all the Spider-Man villains, I have to fight this twice? Oh I also have to fight the Rhino, the Scorpion, and the Vermin multiple times as well? You can fuck off, game.

It’s not like the Amazing Spider-Man would have a short game with single encounters for these bosses, it’s not even like short games are necessarily bad (Luigi’s Mansion anyone?). An enjoyable six hours is always better than a mediocre eight or an oh-god-end ten. The Amazing Spider-Man is ultimately a movie tie-in so that cripples the storytelling. There is no way it can end doing anything too crazy cause odds are the no one making the Amazing Spider-Man 2 actually played this game. So I have a fun story but not one I can care too much about: perfect for a short game. It is really unfortunate that Beenox stretched things, otherwise I would be much more positive about this game. Heck I might even call it the best Spider-Man game ever (maybe)!

Want my advice? Play until you feel it. When the tedium comes, you’ll know. It will wash over your features, making you numb to whatever charms the game initially possessed. It sucks to leave a game with a crappy last impression (thank you Citadel for saving Mass Effect 3). Beenox deserves a pat on the back before the scolding. They did a good job… if only for six hours. Incidentally, there is a Wii U version of this game being released soon. Maybe that will fix some of the problems in the Xbox 360 build. Personally I kind of doubt it but you never know. I’m still trying to figure out why make this game on Wii U in the first place.

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

A Rose by any Other Name… Can be Confusing: the Wii U

Posted on by Colin McMahon

Last November, Nintendo launched the first console of the eighth generation, the Nintendo Wii U. In its first couple months of sale (November-December), Nintendo sold over three million copies of its new console. Since then, the number has been less than 100,000. Ouch. So what gives? Why isn’t Nintendo’s newest generating any hype? Why do most videogame websites still list the next generation as “coming this fall”? Graphical horsepower aside (the Wii U is still fairly untested), there appear to be significant problems arising for Nintendo. Everybody wants to blame the lack of games but I do not believe that is it entirely. Yes, Nintendo really could have used a version of Bioshock Infinite this month as well as Pikmin 3 (seriously, where did that game go?) but still, I believe there is a core problem with marketing the Wii U that originated with its name.

I can remember when the Wii U was unveiled. Heck, anyone out there with an interest in video games would be at least slightly curious to whatever new idea the geniuses/crackpots at Nintendo would come up with after the Wii. Would it be a step forward in motion gaming or a return to the “hardcore” routes of its predecessors? The answer, according to Nintendo at the time, was mostly the latter. When the Wii U came out, we didn’t even see a console, just the new controller and some games. While the new controller was bizarre, the games were anything but. Ninja Gaiden 3, Call of Duty: Black Ops II, Mass Effect 3: these were not the family-friendly games of the Wii. It seemed that Nintendo was poised to make a bold new shift in direction back toward the gamers they had alienated in the last generation (for the record, I consider myself a “hardcore” gamer who loved the innovation of the Wii and did not feel it was too casual in the slightest, it just suffered a lot of crappy ports… anyway) and release a system that the gaming community could get behind.

Then came the name. There are so many things wrong with the name, Wii U. Whatever marketing brain at Nintendo came up with it, don’t fire him. Fire the idiots who approved it. Let’s backtrack briefly to the Wii, first codenamed Revolution. I can remember when the name Wii appeared, a lot of the “hardcore” were upset. Who wanted to play with a system that sounded both childish and at the same time a sexual innuendo for masturbation? But the name “Wii” made sense for the system. The Wii is probably the most easily accessible console ever released. Families got into it, even the elderly: the Wii was as all-encompassing as its goofy name suggested. Back to the Wii U.

The Nintendo Wii U is not an accessible system for everyone. I have a Wii U, I received it for Christmas. For the record: I love it. I love the new controller so much more than I ever liked the Wiimote and I think it opens up tons of new gameplay mechanics that would be really fun to explore. The crappy part is (at least for Nintendo’s marketing) it is really hard to convey that without playing the system. Everyone is weary after the Wii. While Wii’s motion controls were innovative when done right, there were a lot of shabby ports that just threw the waggle on as a gimmick. I can easily see how the public would react this time around to yet another new controller from Nintendo. Just another gimmick (I’m sure there will be those games for the Wii U, if they aren’t already out then soon).

So here’s what the “hardcore” associate with the name “Wii”: gimmick, casual, childish, innuendo, stupid. And Nintendo’s brilliant idea, for a new console that seemed angled at attracting back those same customers: put the word “Wii” back in the title. Nintendo should have been the marketing brand, not the Wii. It would be like releasing a version of Avatar that enhanced the script, taking it several layers below the initial A-level story. Call that Avatar D. Would probably sell better than the Wii U since James Cameron knows his marketing. The word “Wii” should not have been included in Nintendo’s new console name. Yet this isn’t where the problems end. Things got worse with the U.

Say what you want about the PS4 announcement, I will say this: I know there is a new PlayStation coming out this year and I know it is the next one. How do I know that? We had 3, now we have 4: basic counting that everyone can do. It sounds stupid but that’s marketing. You want the public to understand your product with as little hassle possible. Take Wii, add a U to it and it’s a… what? What is it? Is it like the Wii Motion Plus (that sounds more advanced than Wii U) or the Wii Balance Board or the WiiSpeak? The Nintendo Wii had a ton of peripherals and, at first glance, the Wii U sounds like just one more.

So families, most of whom only bought the Wii for Wii Sports, aren’t going to want to shell out money for a new add-on, especially since Nintendo hasn’t been the greatest at supporting them (The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword was the only first-party game to support Motion Plus so far as I know). The “hardcore” gamers don’t want another Wii so they won’t buy it. And anyone looking at first glance won’t know that the U means next gen, especially given the fact that once again graphics are not the focus for Nintendo. If anything, all Nintendo did with the name “Wii U” was to turn a word that sounded like innuendo into a phrase that mimics the sound of an ambulance: not good.

So people aren’t buying and that’s a problem. The Wii U is an intriguing system with a lot of promise that has been unfairly handicapped by Nintendo’s incredible ineptitude at marketing. Would a better name for this system have been Dreamcast? I don’t want to see Nintendo fail but it is hard to make an easy case for why someone should own a Wii U right now. Nintendo Land is wondrous and ZombiU (again, names) is really fun and unique but these games aren’t going to sell millions of units on their own.

The good news for Nintendo: they still have time to figure it out. The bad news: the window is closing. PS4 is coming and the next Xbox will not be far behind. If these two new systems hit before Nintendo has figured out its marketing problem, the Wii U will be in serious trouble. My advice to the big N: change the name. It’s not too late and no one (trust me no one) out there loves the name Wii U. Even Wii 2 (while still bad) would have been at least clearer. Nintendo is the brand name that should be counted on to sell. It worked for the Nintendo, the Super Nintendo, the Nintendo 64, the Nintendo Gamecube and the Nintendo Wii. We don’t want more Wii, we want more Nintendo. I really hope they figure that out.

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

When you need a sheet to further explain your product, that means you're doing it wrong.
When you need a sheet to further explain your product, that means you’re doing it wrong.

Repetition vs. Atmosphere: Doom 3

Posted on by Colin McMahon

Let us look back on the year 2004. A strong year for the first-person shooter genre in video games. 2004 saw the release of Halo 2 on the Xbox, Half-Life 2 for the PC, and Doom 3, also for the PC. Of the three just mentioned, Doom 3 arguably has had the least impact on the world of video games. How can this be? How can a game from the Doom series, arguably the greatest first-person shooting series in the history of video games, make so little splash? I’m not going to talk about the flashlight, although I will acknowledge that that gameplay decision made a huge impact on Doom 3’s reception (as well as the subsequent change in the BFG Edition). Instead I would like to focus on the level design and enemy pacing.

Doom 3 is a tight, claustrophobic game from beginning to end. Think about your memories with Doom 3: where are you? Does a dark corridor with flickering shadows fit the description? Maybe that one corner that’s always out of sight? You step forward, shine your light, walk forward again – then BLAST, a harsh sound behind you announces the arrival of an imp. Really this scene, in my belief, sums up the vast majority of the Doom 3 experience. The result of this constant feeling of vulnerably pressured by unrelenting attacks that creates an atmosphere of dread and foreboding. Sadly it also leaves Doom 3 with only one single, repetitive feeling of gameplay.

In my opinion, part of the success of Half-Life 2 lay in its ability to convey an almost theatrical sense of acts. It has been years since I last played through the game but I can still clearly remember the intro, the boat chase, Ravenholm, the ant lions, and the tower. Every portion of that game had its own feel. With Doom 3, all I remembered was the base and hell. I am replaying that game now (the Doom 3: BFG Edition on my Xbox 360) and I still can only recall the base and hell.

Hell should never feel like a breath of fresh air in any medium. The passage through the portal is sold as terrifying. The silent protagonist is literally pulled through the portal after a fierce battle with two Hell Knights (recreations of the Barons of Hell from the first game). You lose all your weapons. So basically you’re trapped in THE dimension of evil, full of monsters, and you have no way to defend yourself. My reaction: at least it’s not another flickering hallway.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Doom 3. I believe it is a very good game, rich in atmosphere that can make the player’s heart race while exploring. Yet every good horror experience has a sense of pacing. There has to be a breath, even a false sense of security, to enhance the horror. Doom 3 never achieves this. At the very beginning the protagonist is plunged into a series of unrelenting waves of attackers that never lets up until the Cyberdemon’s final breath. Yes, it gives the sense of a futile struggle against the forces of hell, but is that fun to play for 10+ hours, nevermind two expansions? The answer: yeah but only if you’re really into that type of experience. I can understand why most players would prefer a game like Half-Life 2 to Doom 3. If you want a sense of horror, guess what: it’s also in the Ravenholm portion of Half-Life 2.

There was a period of between two to five minutes in this last playthrough of Doom 3 where I was wandering the corridors and did not encounter a single monster. That stretch (which I do not remember experiencing in my first time) was, by far, the scariest moment in my second experience of this game. I experienced several stages of emotion. The first: “thank god, finally a room without demons. Oh look, another corridor without demons, this must be my lucky day!” This quickly turned to paranoia: “where are they? Why aren’t they still coming?” and ended in the unbelievable dread of: “oh god, they’re planning something. Just come out. Dear god, they’re going to kill me.”

Just a few minutes of non-attack were enough to trigger this entire wealth of emotion. Yet I am unsure if the result was more from simple luck than game design. The developers at id Software are quite content to bombard me at every other stage so I am inclined to believe it was the former. This is really too bad as that one short period of time gave me a taste as to the terror that a game like Doom 3 was capable of unleashing.

I am really looking forward to playing Doom 4 in the next few years and I hope id refines their technique. Doom 3 was not a wrong step in the series; it is the stepping stone to a new frontier of survival horror in video games. Whatever is behind the door is always scarier; it just isn’t so scary when it has leapt out from behind said door a total of two thousand times throughout the course of the game.

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