Sega and Nintendo Are Getting Cozy

If you've been paying attention to Wii U news at all in the last day or so, then you've seen the above screenshot.  You know what it is.  You know -why- it is.  So you know why I'm using it - not only because it's like the only damn screenshot flying around (I believe), but because it's already created a little bit of a buzz on its own merits.  For those in the dark, the above is a screenshot or concept shot of Sonic:  Lost World, the newly announced Sonic game that will launch exclusively for the Wii U and 3DS at some point in the near-to-far future.  However, what it represents is something far bigger than just one game, no matter how good or not the game itself will be.  Personally, based on Generations, I'm hedging towards "really good", but we'll just have to see on that one.

Sonic:  Lost World is the first of a three-game exclusivity deal titled as a "Worldwide Partnership" that Sega and Nintendo have decided on with regards to the Sonic franchise.  This was announced during the Nintendo Direct from the other day and, as mentioned, made something of a splash considering Lost World -seems- like it's going to be a big-deal Sonic game.  Of course, Sonic games coming out exclusively on Nintendo consoles isn't anything new - look at Sonic and the Secret Rings, Sonic and the Black Knight and Sonic Colors, all exclusive to the Wii, with at least Colors being fairly well-regarded.  So to find out that they're running with that (ha!) still isn't much of a surprise, even after Generations skipped the Wii (and I believe the 3DS version wasn't quite full-featured).

The second game of the three-game deal, you might be wondering?  Mario & Sonic at the Sochi 2014 Olympic Winter Games for the Wii U.  It's the fourth installment of that particular franchise that I really don't see how it has seen four iterations.  It's...probably going to release sometime around Winter.  Moving on...

Switching gears for -just- a moment, and offering a nice little segue in the process, another part of the Nintendo Direct was the announcement that the 3DS' Virtual Console is getting more classic Game Gear games.  And classic in this case actually means classic, and not 'classic'.  With just about every Sonic game that came out for the device announced - Sonic Blast, Sonic Drift 2, Sonic Labyrinth, Sonic the Hedgehog, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 and the tangentially related Tails Adventure - and a few other things to write home about surely - Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine, Shining Force II:  The Sword of Hajya and Vampire:  Master of Darkness - it's more than a little bit of a welcome development.  Announced all at the same time, it sort of elevates it by that much more, and makes me wonder how Sega can manage to get that many games up at once (or at least lined up at once), given how....difficult it seems to be to actually populate the Virtual Console.

Getting back to that third game that was mentioned as part of the deal, you're probably wondering what it is.  Truth is, we -all- are, since it's yet-to-be-announced and is likely going to be an E3 hold-over (even though Nintendo still isn't going to have an official E3 presser, just an obvious presence).  But simple knowing that it's going to be -something-, and that it's going to involve Sonic in some fashion leaves the door wide open to a whole network of possibilities.

From my little bit of investigating and a little bit of my own thought, one prominent theory seems to be a Mario Kart/Sonic All-Stars Racing Cross-over.  Which, I personally think is rather brilliant.  For some reason, to me it's felt like the Mario Kart series has been going a little downhill, though I'm not quite sure if I base that on my own personal opinion or opinions I've gleaned from portions of the internet.  Still, regardless of quality or lack thereof, the Wii U has not yet seen a Mario Kart game and with Nintendo's pro-crossover stance (as evidenced by Pokemon X Nobunaga's Ambition, Fire Emblem X Shin Megami Tensei, etc.) combining what are, in fact, two actual popular franchises into one with the added effect of that extra impact seems like a no-brainer.  Who -wouldn't- want to hop into a vehicle as Knuckles and Dash past Bowser, for instance?  Or, maybe even drive Luigi right past Sonic to pick up a last-moment first place?  It's definitely the thing I would expect from the last game of the deal, but we won't hear anything about it til about E3.

Now, my own personal hope would be for something a little more....inspired.  Which is a funny thing to say since my idea is basically Sonic Generations, but with Sonic -and- Mario, but, hey, Generations was pretty damn inspired, really.  Both franchises have seen shining installments in side-scrolling and fully 3D games and doing a mash-up of their various levels and styles would be something to see, especially since you have to find a happy middle ground for their clashing design philosophies.  Since Sonic is 'Gotta Go Fast', meaning he's got to have a longer track to go on than most of the classic Mario levels could offer, perhaps they could do a sort of system where all levels of a zone are connected end-to-end (as they are in the game, really) so Sonic speeds through an entire zone in a go rather than just 1-1 or 3-2.  Alternatively, having Mario bounced around by bumpers in a 3D, brightly-lit Casino-themed level from one of the Sonic installments with badass music in the background just brings some sort of sensation of joy to my brain and I'm not sure why.

If nothing else, that just goes to show just how open speculation can be on this sort of thing since details are very very sparse and we're just given a few things that are, likely just meant to inspire certain avenues of thought.  I know people are already thinking Lost World might be in the vein of a Mario Galaxy-type game because of the look of that single screenshot and Nintendo's involvement, and hell, that might actually be a good idea.  And even if the third game is 'just' a Mario Kart/Sonic All-Stars Racing Cross-Over, well, that's not a bad deal at all.  Of course, the game doesn't -have- to involve Mario at all, but it would seem a bit silly to announce two Sonic games...roughly at the same time, which is what they'd do, so unless he's partnering up with a different character (which isn't a bad thought), then look for -some- sort of Mario involvement.  Just one more reason to eagerly await E3, I suppose.

Sega also announced Yakuza 1&2 HD for the Wii U in Japan only and I couldn't think of a way to integrate that since it means nothing for North America, goddamnit Sega

Nintendo Announced Some Things

Yesterday saw yet another Nintendo Direct wherein Nintendo saw it fit to throw even more things on the 3DS, finer-tuning their laser focus while....mostly ignoring the Wii U still.  Which is kind of the exact opposite priorities they should probably have at the moment considering the 3DS can probably carry on its own momentum for a while, whereas the Wii U needs help desperately, but hey, what do I know.  I'm sure it doesn't have anything to do with the disparity of success between the -other- things in the respective markets or anything like that.  Regardless, like most Directs, there was some reiteration of some points while also providing a few rather large announcements that deserve a mention.

The biggest news, certainly, is that a sequel to The Legend of Zelda:  A Link to the Past is in the works for 3DS.  Yes, a sequel.  A direct sequel.  In Legend of Zelda.  (Yeah, it's happened before, but that was a -while- ago)  Or at least a game that takes place in the exact same world as A Link to the Past, albeit with a brand new story, new dungeons and the like.  Something else that it adds that I'm a little undecided about is Link's ability to turn paper-thin and walk along walls which is, obviously new to the series and a decided reference to Paper Mario.  While it is an interesting mechanic, I can't help but look at it, scratch my head and say "Why? because it is...more than a little confusing.  It seems superfluous at best and the only thing I can figure is that it's the answer to the "Dark World" transformation that, for a little while, turned Link into a bunny.  But that was not a mechanics thing and it wasn't permanent, so I don't even know what to think.

Those aren't the only sequels that are now heading for the 3DS however!  Joining LTTP2 is yet another Mario Party and a sequel to Yoshi's Island, also known as "That game with Baby Mario".  And yes, Baby Mario returns and yes, he probably cries very horribly once again.  Possibly.  From what I can tell, there is damn near no information on either game except a screenshot of Yoshi's Island 2 (probably not the title) showing Yoshi with Baby Mario on his back in an area similar to the original with a slightly different aesthetic.  One comment states that it looks more watercolor than crayon which is very astute.  Yoshi's Island, I can understand since that was a game that people liked, despite its issues, but when has Mario Party been relevant after the first three iterations?  No online play was mentioned which probably means there will be none which means....there is very little incentive to buy it unless you are constantly around people who have 3DSes and you all want to play what amounts to a board game on them, I suppose.

It's not like there wasn't -any- Wii U news announced at this Direct thing, however!  Next week, the oft-mentioned Spring System Update is hitting, which brings a lot of little improvements to the Wii U's overall workings.  Faster Load times, the ability to boot right into Wii Mode and some fancy things with downloading games and updates for said games in the background are all included as well as the actual, really real Wii U Virtual Console.  As in the platform that will allow you to buy NES, SNES and eventually GBA and N64 (and possibly other systems) games and play them with full integration to the Wii U's features, including the ability to play directly on the tablet to free up your TV.  Also Miiverse stuff, which I suppose is good since it is apparently to thank for Earthbound getting a VC release.  Apparently a flood of Miiverse posts and the like wanting Earthbound is what inspired them to do that.  That's...you know, probably not true, since doing something like this isn't a magic wand type of deal, but it's nice all the same.

Of course, the bit I'm most interested in, if you couldn't tell, is that the Animal Crossing 3DS XL Bundle is coming to NA, which is the thing at the top of this post.  It's not exactly what I want, and I know I'm going to be disappointed by New Leaf, but I want a 3DS XL and my only other options are Washed-out Red or Blue, maybe pink, and the special Pika-Nipples Yellow unit.  (Seriously, I bet you can't unsee it now)  So I figure, I'm getting New Leaf, I'm getting a 3DS XL and that one's not -bad-.  Besides, the version of the game is digital, coming pre-loaded on a 4 gig SD stick (that is easily moved to a bigger stick which is exactly what I'm going to do), so I'll be able to have it available whenever in case I feel like just hopping into it for a bit between Harvest Moon sessions.

There were a few other announcements, but those are the main ones that grabbed me in any way, so they're the only ones I'm really concerning myself with bringing up.  It seems pretty divisive, with either people being in the "oh shit the is all of the amazing at the same time" camp or people being in the "meh" camp about it.  With the people from the former camp being absolutely disgusted at the people in the latter, it seems.  Obviously, I'm more in the latter camp since even a sequel to my favorite Legend of Zelda game only has me wary instead of excited, but maybe that'll change when we start getting some more information about it.  Still, I guess it's a successful Direct, since they've finally convinced me to part with 220 of my dollars come June 9th, and I'm probably going to pick up a few 3DS games between then and now in preparation for when I actually get my system.

Nintendo Spoiling All of the E3 News

Yeah, yeah, so it's not -all- of the E3 news, but Nintendo has officially outed two of their own announcements, which, if you think about it is a good chunk of an E3 presentation.  These two things, especially, would probably be 'big things' for Nintendo to spring (though one isn't a surprise at the least), which would have, in turn, made the presentation seem better.  I guess they're hoping on people to be excited for specific things going in, rather than hoping their 'surprises' will earn a lot of good will.  Or...I'm just overexamining things.  Which is entirely likely since I do that a lot, which is something you all know about quite well.  Regardless, I think two announcements like this is a big enough deal to talk about it for a bit even if I don't...personally care about the contents all that much.

Unsurprisingly, the first announcement was the existence of a Mario Game for the Wii U that they're planning on showing off at E3.  Now the particularly 'big' news about this is that the game will be based on the Super Mario Bros Wii - Mii Edition game that was showed off last year.  Which is apparently what is in the above picture and....doesn't look exactly thrilling to say the least.  I'm sure the end product will end up being something to possibly hold a little excitement for, I feel like until it's out and played, it will just be known as "New Super Mario Bros. Wii with Miis", indicating that they think of it not as a finished game, but as a game that is directly linked to another game as a sort of 'cash-in' attempt or something.  Luckily, this would be the first time that a Nintendo IP would be used in such a fash-...

Hrm.

Anyways, for my part, I played about five minutes of New Super Mario Bros. Wii and absolutely hated the physics used in it.  I then embraced the hilarious irony that this game was likely touted for those controls and those physics by the very same people who would bash LittleBigPlanet and its ilk as 'too floaty' or 'sloppy'.  I'm pretty sure that it's well known that the controls in NSMBW are -not- spot-on or even close, because that's part of the, er, fun of it, since it caters to the 'party' aspect of it.  The griefing that can be had with said physics in Multiplayer is likely legendary, those I would suggest partly so because it's just, well, poor unfortunately.  Regardless, that's just my opinion and it has been quite a while since I played it.  I'll just have to fall back on the ol' 'Different Strokes for Different Folks' so as to not make it seem like my word is law or anything regarding this.  Because it certainly isn't, as it's not even popular opinion.  Whatevs.

The next and undoubtedly much more interesting news is that another one of the E3 reveals will be A New Pikmin Game that has been long, long, long-awaited.  Of course, there aren't a whole lot of details beyond "We're doing it" and "People who loved Pikmin games will enjoy this", presumably meaning that it will, you know, be Pikmin 3 and thusly a continuation of the franchise in much the same way as the previous two games played.  It's going to play like a Pikmin game, is kind of where I was going with that, but that's mostly conjecture on my part.  If past reports are to be believed, this will, as well as the game above, be shown off as a Wii U game and, if Nintendo really wants to sweeten the pot, they'll announce it as a launch title as well.  So they can build up a really good launch and people can then say that a good launch line-up always makes a good system while continuing to ignore the Vita because.

Unfortunately, I don't know a whole lot about Pikmin as a series as it was one of those things that I ignored by virtue of not owning a GameCube and not caring about Wii games beyond a few non-Nintendo franchises.  (Also Animal Crossing)  I guess the thing of it was using armies of little creatures to gather parts of your crashed ship to return it so you could fix it and leave?  Every Pikmin seems to have a different element it's good with which makes party management of them crucial and adds a strategy element to the game as well.  Of course, this is all from cursory glances towards the game, so I could be well off on the concept, but that is what it seems like to someone who's just looking at the series quickly.

A Pikmin 3 has been something that I'm sure a lot of people have wanted, and I think I remember some clamoring about it last year, what with Kid Icarus finally being revamped and all.  So with any luck, this will be the game that those people want, the true threequel to the Pikmin franchise which has been fairly ignored to this point.  And...with any luck the Super Mario Bros. Mii game will be good as well.  Better than New Super Mario Bros. Wii, at least, hopefully, even though I doubt anyone will care if it's not.  But with two E3 announcements down, I have to wonder if there's going to be any other announcements to stem the leaks, or if we'll just get the usual exciting E3 fare.  Personally?  I'm hoping for the latter because it is just so much more fun that way.

Random Thoughts - Older Gaming vs. Newer Gaming

So, I picked up and started playing a rather older game a few days ago (I think I'll try to keep it anonymous for now in an attempt to make more conversation for the Weekly Wrap-Up) and managed to finish it off today and it left me fairly conflicted, really.  I like it, but goddamn, do I hate playing it.  And it really got me thinking of a lot of older games that I'd have problems playing today, not because they wouldn't be as good, theme-wise and such (what you're more apt to remember in a game as time goes by) and why that's sort of a thing.  And while I won't really touch on all the issues involved, I do want to touch on a few points that I thought through earlier.

I think the biggest difference between the Newer caste of games and older caste is that, while both attempt to be entertaining above all else (though not necessarily 'fun' in some cases), their approaches to this end vary greatly.  In my opinion, older games tried to sell you their entertainment value through their concept, outside lore (manuals) and charm foremost, which honestly worked for a lot of them.  The more notable example that comes to mind being Mario in Super Mario Bros.  About all there is to it is concept; a plumber (which you wouldn't be able to tell on looks alone) in this weird, trippy world who runs from left to right, eating mushrooms, stomping things and saving a princess.  In the gameplay front, you have running, jumping and shooting fireballs sometimes.  It is, nearly by definition, barebones.

This is by no means me saying that old games are bad because they were often as shallow as a puddle; far from it.  Just that there's no subtle nuances in gameplay, little evolving mechanics and the like in general, leaving your game to sink or swim on whether it's charming and/or entertaining in concept and delivery.  Obviously much of this is from technical limitations, but that's not an excuse, just a general fact of it all.

Of course the problem with issuing broad statements like the one above (aside from generally coming off as a know-it-all which is obviously not my intent) is that there's always ways that the statement is just not true.  The first few Legend of Zelda games being notable exceptions to the "Few evolving mechanics" statement, in that they're -mostly- about evolving mechanics.  Getting new items, new weapons, stronger versions of what you've got already is the name of the game, while also retaining somewhat of the "go for charm and concept" theory I'm placing to Mario and most of the other games from my youth. 

Whereas most older games seem to put concept at the forefront, Newer games tend to focus more on something of a more cinematic feel, trying to ensure that you're entertained constantly.  The setpiece-to-setpiece design of some games is evidence of this, and what some will complain about as games nowaday being "too easy" is further showing of this.  Which, I won't say games are 'too easy' nowadays, just that they are easier for all the right reasons.

Older games, as technically constrained as they were, had to take short-cuts here and there to pad up the difficulty and, at times, the length of the game.  Things that were acceptable back then in terms of methods and amounts of damage the character is able to take, ways the character could die or otherwise fail, and the consequences of death/failure are far different now, again in my opinion for the better.  But that just speaks more to my theory on newer games focusing more on the presentation; being able to take more damage, nearly no OHKs, and ways to make the consequences for death a little less oppressive to progress.

I think it's also shown off in general design in newer games, the concern for presentation, I mean, through gameplay design and the faith developers put in what they create.  This, of course, refers mostly to Open-world games where you're left with the option to make your own Point A and Point B in most circumstances, as there's enough variance and nuance to the existing gameplay to make it possible to do what the developers want you to do without putting the path directly before you.  After playing something of an older platformer and comparing it in my head to newer games with platforming elements (inFamous, Assassin's Creed) the difference is really clear, yet hard to place, to piece out, really.

In the older game I played, every level/area was set up directly as a "go here to go there to go there" type of thing, which clearly beat into my head that yes, I was indeed playing a platformer game where you platformed because it was a platformer.  Point A was clearly defined and the path was as well, so eventually Point B was where you got, the challenge was just ensuring you got to Point B.  Whereas in newer games that have platforming elements, the challenge usually lies in picking your course to get to wherever your Point B is. 

Taking inFamous for an example, say I were to need to get up to the top of a building while being on a shorter building.  If we say that I've got my movement abilities maxed, that gives me quite a few options.  The most linear being, of course, jumping down to street level, running towards the building I need to get up and straight up jumping/climbing it.  Or, depending on the scenery, I could jump up a few other things, grind a neighboring rail/wire towards the building and jump/glide to it.  Or I could just get to a similarly high rooftop and jump from rooftop to rooftop to get there.  Just as long as there is a Point B, there are various ways to get to it.  It's because the gameplay mechanics are so much more advanced that there doesn't need to be a defined route for most of what you need.

Of course, the downside in preferring presentation to crafting this sort of vague, yet charming world/concept is that sometimes you simply can't express what you want, and/or you can't make it entertaining enough.  Most modern shooters that some people would refer to as "Cut-and-paste shooters" or "Bald Space Marine Shooter #1412" suffer from this in that they're so focused on trying (and oftentimes failing) to make this gameplay that has been widely accepted without thinking out the concept well or executing it well enough.  What you end up with is something very shallow and bland, with the dissociation from one element to the other showing as plain as day.  Final Fantasy as a series (more notably the later installments) could definitely be accused of this (not saying one way or another if it's true or not, as that's for another time, of course and I still haven't played XIII) since it's basically the poster-child for my "Presentation is key" theory, focusing rather intensely on graphics and the like, while some would argue the game aspect of it suffers for it.

Overall, I'm not praising one school of thought or damning the other, even if it seems like I might be, as obviously there's a place for both ways of thinking, considering that some older games still are great, while some newer games are as well, for their own reasons.  I was merely considering the differences (in what I've observed/inferred) between old and new game design earlier and thought it might be an interesting article to write up.  Hopefully I don't come off as too preachy or condescending or the like, and presented my views on the pros and cons of what I think both schools of thought were in a clear way even if I'm not right on either count. 

Since, I mean, it's just, like, my opinion maaan.