Wii U – Page 7 – Colin McMahon

Oversaturation: First Reactions to Batman: Arkham Origins

Posted on April 10, 2013 by Colin McMahon

In 2009, then little known developer Rocksteady Studios released Batman: Arkham Asylum for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. The game made a splash and for good reason. Not that there hadn’t been a Batman game before, there had – Batman Vengeance, Batman: Dark Tomorrow and Batman: Rise of the Sin Tzu just to name a few of Arkham Asylum‘s more direct predecessors. All these Batman games ranged in from mediocre to downright horrible. Batman: Arkham Asylum wasn’t the first good Batman game, it was the first great Batman game. For the first time, players really felt that they were inhabiting the role of the Dark Knight. Add the incredible voice talents of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill mixed with tight level design and an entertaining story by comic book guru Paul Dini and Batman: Arkham Asylum quickly became an essential for any video game fan.

Fast forward two years and we get the sequel. Batman: Arkham City was bigger than Arkham Asylum is nearly every way. More Batman characters, more cool locations, more excellent voice work. What would be Mark Hamill’s swan song as the Joker became an incredibly entertaining game and another excellent addition to the Batman video game universe. However, things were not as tight (video game wise) this time around. Remember fighting Deadshot and Hush in the game? I don’t. The design structure of the story lead very easily to whole sections being omitted on the first time around. Sure with more playthroughs, it’s easy to go in an find everyone but I have always wondered at this design decision. Why spend all that time making a game, crafting the characters with so much care – if your design will make it so easy to skip the entire experience? Don’t get me wrong: Arkham City is a great game but ultimately I feel that Arkham Asylum was a little tighter and better crafted in terms of delivering the complete experience the first time through.

This guy was in the game? Really? Where?

Anyway, we’re not here to talk about either Arkham Asylum or Arkham City, we’re here to talk about the recently announced Batman: Arkham Origins. I’m just going to come out and say it – I am not excited to play Batman: Arkham Origins. How can that be? I just said I consider Arkham Asylum and Arkham City to be wonderful games. Yes, that is true but think of the ending in Arkham City. Did that ending scream sequel?

Obviously with a name like Arkham Origins, we’re most likely going into prequel territory but still. Is it really necessary? Origin stories have been already done to death in Hollywood (did we really need to see Peter Parker get bit by a spider AGAIN in the Amazing Spider-Man) and I feel there is not much more wiggle room in video games. I don’t care about how the slums of Arkham City began, in all honesty I feel that having a city full of criminals as a solution to crime is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. The only reason I enjoyed Batman: Arkham City was for the rich narrative that Paul Dini wove into the place. As far as I know, he is not connected with Batman: Arkham Origins in any way and neither for that matter is Rocksteady Studios.

That’s right, it’s a different developer this time around. Warner Bros. Interactive is directly taking the reigns for this third Arkham installment. This doesn’t meant that we’re guaranteed an inferior product; Warner Bros. could very well do an excellent job with Arkham Origins. Yet it does beg the question – why not Rocksteady? Warner Bros. Interactive cannot be unhappy with the developer after two stellar (and profitable) Batman games. The answer is that Rocksteady is busy… busy making another Batman game. This untitled project will be set in the Silver Age of the Caped Crusader (silver age refers to a period in comic book development in the 1950s). That sounds pretty awesome – so wait, we’re getting two new Batman games? Oh by the way, that one doesn’t have Paul Dini either – http://www.vg247.com/2012/08/03/batman-arkham-city-wont-return-for-silver-age-prequel-rumour/.

Anyway – we’re getting two. One from Rocksteady and one from Warner Bros. Interactive. With no official announcement yet for the Rocksteady game, we can expect not to see it until next year at the earliest. Batman: Arkham Origins, however, is slated for release this year for the Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii U video game consoles. With no announcement for the Playstation 4, we can assume that Arkham Origins will be created on largely the same technology as Arkham City – meaning one should not expect a huge leap in terms of visuals.

Also do not expect Mark Hamill to return as the iconic Joker. The voice actor made it very clear last time out that Arkham City would be his last appearance voicing the clown prince of crime.

Heath Ledger may be the face but Mark Hamill is the iconic voice of the Joker.

So we’re going to be missing a few things. Not that many Batman essentials will not return (players can expect to see Jim Gordon, Penguin and Black Mask in this new game) but again I question – do we need this? With Rocksteady Studios working on a new Batman game, do we need this to hold us over?

It seems the fate of big series to become prone to oversaturation. What do I mean by that? Simple: when a game sells well, the publishing studio naturally wants another one. The number of additional games usually reflects how large the series has become. Look no further than our yearly installments of Call of Duty, Halo and licensed sports games. Not to say these games are bad but did we really need Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 3, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: World at War, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Call of Duty: Black Ops II in the last eight years? Not to mention the one that will inevitably be released this November? Are those games really that different from each other?

Here is my fear with this new Batman. With Arkham City, I felt that Rocksteady Studios was concluding the story they began in Arkham Asylum – they did a great job. With Batman: Arkham Origins, it honestly feels like a grab at our dollars before the release of Playstation 4 and whatever the next Xbox is called. Maybe I’m wrong, hopefully I am… but I rather doubt it. The AAA video game market is dominated by series and sequels. It seems like even the Dark Knight is not above the lure of another dollar. So I ask you – do you really need two more Batman games? Especially when the untitled Silver-Age Rocksteady game will most likely be exclusively for next generation consoles? Warner Bros. Interactive is betting you do. I believe they are willing to bet sixty dollars on it.

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

PS – Many apologies for not posting anything on Monday. I am currently completing a University degree. However, since what I was working on for school is revelent to our media-oriented blog. I will include a link to my work here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV7Dw13XK3I. Enjoy that.

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

Posted on March 29, 2013 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 March 27, 2013 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.