Games that changed the industry #2 Ball

Ball. Yes, that’s the game, Ball. No, I’m not talking about playing with a dog (though the person that thought that one up should have something written about them as well). I mean a video game, and to top that, one that opened the door for one of the biggest games manufactures today.

It’s important to point out before anything else that the gameplay in Ball isn’t the most exciting, revolutionary or otherwise unique that you might have come across up to this point. To sum it up briefly, you played as Mr Game & Watch, juggling balls aiming not to drop them by using your characters’ two arms. As I say, not what anyone would consider mind-blowing. However, the impact and legacy is something that could not be ignored.

Released in 1980, Ball was significant for so many reasons. Perhaps the most important is that Ball was the first successful game to be released by Nintendo. Nintendo had forayed into the early gaming industry before 1980, creating games as early as 1974, but to little success. Shipping somewhere around a quarter of a million units, Ball sent Nintendo into the big time allowing for more games to be produced on the platform.

source:wikipedia

What a platform it turned out to be, Ball was the first title in Nintendo’s revolutionary hand held, Game & Watch series. Each game came in its own, self contained unit so at the time it was possible to pick up several mini hand held gaming devices for every game you bought.

Even though Ball wasn’t the most exciting invention seen by early gamers, the pathway it laid down has seen it come to critical acclaim in recent years, with Nintendo remaking the game in its original form in 2010.

So, I’m not going to recommend searching for an emulator for this one, but next time you pick up your 3DS or decide that Wii Fit needs to come out of the box, spare a thought for where it started and thank Mr Game & Watch.

Games that changed the Industry: Pong

The first in a series of articles I'm writing: games that changed the industry:

Finding a place to start in this column was difficult. There are plenty of games out there that should get onto an industry-defining list, but finding where to start left me feeling a certain weight of responsibility. All things must have a beginning, and so it was with games, yet I’m going to skip a couple of games and bring us to the magnificent year that was 1972.

In 1972, the Olympics were held in Munich and Ben Affleck was born but more importantly, the game that would lead to the industry we knew today was released.

Pong was essentially table tennis in an arcade box. Created by Allan Alcorn with a wooden cabinet and a black and white TV, the aim, simply, was to move your paddles vertically to stop your computerized opponent scoring and in return score against them. How did you win you might ask? Score 11.

This though was not the first game ever created, in fact a quick Google search will tell you that a patent was filed for a ‘Cathode Ray Tube Amusement Device’ in 1947. In fact it wasn’t the first game even appear in an arcade box for mass production (have a search for Computer Space from the previous year, go on, you want to).

What it was though was a game that lots of people wanted to play. It was exciting with the bonus of also being accessible to the masses and in 1974 a home version of the game was released as a standalone console, with 2500 units on order before release. Atari went onto sell 35000 copies of the game, with many thousands of imitations also sold.

Perhaps most significantly, Pong set the marker for games through the rest of the 1970’s. Though simplistic, it held it still holds it’s appeal now, remaining popular online and through smartphones. Being a game changer doesn’t necessarily mean being timeless, but in Pong’s case it certainly is.

Xbox One Digital TV Tuner Review

One of the problems we’ve seen with the Xbox One since its launch late last year is the release of products and features that haven’t really been wanted or appreciated by the community. The obvious example of course is Kinect, which since June when it became a standalone peripheral has practically disappeared from new big budget games.

The latest hardware release for Microsoft’s console is a digital TV tuner, allowing European users to stream, pause and catch up with free-to-view channels directly through your Xbox One. In the words of Microsoft, ‘our fans in Europe have been asking for this functionality’. However, at £25 a go, a direct line through the Xbox may to seem to many another option that can just be given a miss as TV is so accessible without the console.

Of course the TV tuner does have its benefits: free HD channels that aren’t accessible through all TV boxes suddenly become available, as do the aforementioned catch up and live pause functions. Snap functionality is also included so playing and watching suddenly becomes a lot easier for those that were originally reluctant to connect their digital boxes to their Xbox One.

Undoubtedly then a digital tuner is a useful device. It means that the Xbox One can begin taking another step towards being the single box in your living room. However, the problem Microsoft once again face is convincing their audience that they all want TV through their console. Though nowhere near as significant as Kinect, a failure here would further cement critics’ points that gamers want a console to play games on and more often than not, that’s enough.

The lower price tag and obvious as well as ongoing function should encourage Xbox One owners to buy into the idea of Microsoft’s latest hardware release, even if its attraction wont be as widespread as gaming itself.

Super Smash Bros. 3DS Review

It is widely thought that Nintendo have had success based on well developed series’ based on fun and exciting characters that are known by gamers regardless of whether or not they ever bought a Nintendo console. Characters such as Mario, Link or Donkey Kong each have their own successful franchises that have made them as popular as they are but surely the pinnacle of Nintendo’s achievement is in bringing all of these iconic characters, plus some extras, together in the Smash Bros series. The most recent generation to be released sees the first handheld version on the 3DS.

With the move to a handheld system and the success of the previous game in the series, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, Nintendo could be forgiven if the latest installment was lacking some degree of finesse. This however doesn’t seem to be the case, though the 3DS installment doesn’t have a story mode like the previous game, there are plenty of different ways to play the game, some of which, such as Smash Run, will be exclusive to the handheld version. Challenges always have the potential to offer problems to players, while never feeling overly frustrating.

Of course for many though, the biggest draw to this game, as any Nintendo game, will be the vibrancy of the playable characters. With almost 50 different characters from various Nintendo and third party games there is plenty of variation and as a result replay value is a given. Though there isn’t any character development or any real sense of what you’re trying to achieve, most people wont mind too much with the different fighting styles and game modes to explore.

The best way though to play the series has always been with friends and the newest addition to the series is no different. With options to play co-operatively, individually, with friends or with anyone there are no shortages of online options to keep you occupied. Despite this, the best way to play this game will be locally with friends around, the social element of the series has made it as popular as it is and will continue to do so for this game’s life cycle as well.

Disconnecting Kinect- the end of something promising

It has then been announced that from early next month (June 6th to be precise), Xbox One will go on sale without the Kinect sensor. For many, this will come as welcome relieve from the gimmicky attempt to incorporate motion controls into a gamers consoles. It will also be a relieve for those that have held back on purchasing a next-gen console because of the extortionate price; from now on the Xbox One will be able to match the price of the PS4 at a mere £349.99.

The hope of course for Microsoft and Xbox is that the sales of the Xbox One will now be able to made some gains on the PS4 which has been outselling its rival by 7 million to 5 million. It should, however, be pointed out that both consoles are doing substantially better than their predecessors at the same time in their respective life cycles. Saying that, ignoring a 2 million sales dip compared to your biggest rival would be a mistake that even Microsoft couldn't make.

But what of Kinect? Is it dead? If so, is it a good thing? Well, the sad truth is probably yes. Reports coming out of Xbox are that the console will be able to improve its output without the Kinect sensor. If this is true, why would developers take a risk making games for half of half the market. Many made it quite clear that they didn't want a motion sensor when they decided to jump ship over to Sony this generation. That, though, doesn't mean that losing Kinect is the best thing to happen.

source: digitalrivercontent

The Wii U has been embarrassingly far behind its two rivals this generation with motion controls that have failed to impress and the PS4 has opted to keep its motion control options as an added extra. Yes, the Xbox One's graphics may have suffered slightly and the frame rate might not have been so impressive, but it has the potential to become the best of both. Very few people could actually notice the difference between 900p and 1080p on a television smaller than around 55 inches. With time motion control could have been a very impressive, integrated feature of the Xbox One. That doesn't mean it had to be fundamental to every game, but the option was there for something a bit different; something that let the games industry move on slightly from the same format we've seen for the past two generations.

Ah well, I suppose we'll just have to wait  and see what happens next time.

Sexism in gaming: a problem that needs fixing

Earlier this week a moderator on the Star Citizen forum banned a user and pulled a thread called 'Female gamers group'. Today, it was announced, the developer has reinstated the user and the thread while also suspending the moderator pending investigation.

There are so many questions that come out of this. The most pressing of course is, was the thread pulled because it was meant to be a female only thread? Such threads are created in the first place because of the intimidating environment created by some senseless, aggressive male gamers who don't think that women should be invaded 'their personal gaming space'.



source: statista


The problem for male gamers inclined to take this view is that the gender split in gamers in shortening all the time to the point where at the start of 2014, 48% of US gamers were female. That is not a proportion that can be shrugged off as an insignificant minority and for any of the male gaming community to think that would be a falsehood. As platforms evolve, the gaming community is growing to incorporate a wider range of people that in the past would not have fitted into the typical gamer mould- that is something that should be embraced, yet still people want to live in a time where games were for men who, so to speak, had no life.

Star Citizen is by no means the only example however. Spend a few hours on any MMORPG or multiplayer shooter and regardless of gender you're likely to suffer from some kind of abuse- for some reason however some find it acceptable to make it gender specific in the case of women.

It is true that gamers have a somewhat tarnished reputation. A stereotypical image would be of a socially awkward teenage boy who develops an aggressive streak while spending the majority of his time on some kind of video game. We only have to look to current affairs, where recently the Daily Mail made the (albeit somewhat tenuous) link between the game playing habits of a teenage boy and the charge of murder that he is facing.

When things like such as blatant sexism occur, stemming from influential members of the community (I'm talking about the moderator in this case), it is hard to see how the reputation of what is generally a very positive and progressive group of society can be improved.

Controversial Endings: Mass Effect 3

A couple of weeks ago I wrote a piece based on how much I enjoyed Mass Effect 3 despite not actually having finished the game. As was also alluded to in that article, there was a concentrated effort on my part to finish the game so that I could have an opinion on what has caused much anguish among many fans of the series; that time has come and now you'll have another opinion.

Before really talking about what happens at the end (yes, there will be spoilers), it should be observed that any game that has to have an 'extended cut', primarily adding to the ending suggests that perhaps something wasn't quite right with the original, basic version. Indeed, if the original ending had been up to standards on release in the view of the developers, why did they need to add a chunk of extras in to improve it? Simply, people didn't like it, and for a series that has been so popular generally, but has in particular been critically acclaimed for its plot, that wasn't acceptable. Moreover, the promise was not to have just 3 endings, seriously- they said that would not happen, yet, that's what was given. Something had to be done.

That aside, this article is going to assess the above mentioned 'extended cut' and where it leaves the Mass Effect series with a new game teased and sure to be elaborate on at E3 later this year.

Source: gameinformer

Perhaps the first point that should now be looked at is the concept of past decisions affecting the finale. The notion suggested by some that the decisions made throughout the game have no affect on the ending is not unfounded but is heavily exaggerated. Furthermore, the series ends, somewhat appropriately, with a key decision that leads to any of four outcomes. These outcomes are not simply as some may say, a different coloured flash of light, though that is included, but a back drop to what must surely be the next game in a new series of Mass Effect games.

Let's speculate a little. It has been widely rumoured that the new game will not contain Commander Shepherd. Quite right too if you have played through many possibilities and seen Shepherd die making that final decision. For those who have delved slightly deeper, you will have seen that given the right circumstances there is a scenario where the Commander in fact survives after choosing the Destroy option. Now in previous games BioWare has allowed the player to move their character through from the previous game, but what if that wasn't a feature of the next game and we had to deal with the idealistic paragon that Shepherd would have been? Well of course it would have had a perfect Effective Galaxy Rating so we can assume he would survive, but, as the Catalyst pointed out, more problems are sure to arise at a later date. Does that not sound convenient to anyone else?

The ending then has clearly been improved, but now it has a direction, somewhere to take a new spin off or continuation, and most people will praise it for that more than anything else.    

Ultimate Timewasters: Civilization 5

Strategy games have always tended to take a long time to complete. Good strategy games take a long time without making you realise it, and none does this so well as the Civilization series.

Before the fifth instalment I had never experienced the series which had already been hugely successful, with some even arguing that the fourth game is in fact better than its successor. However, that aside there are a lot of things to like about the game; perhaps it is odd, but the first thing I find myself enjoying is that there is so much to learn. Though there is no denying that the game is very complicated, it is no way unaccessible. From personal experience, I can say after several single and multiplayer games I am much more comfortable than I was to begin with, although am still asking for help regularly.

Source: Eurogamer

Somehow the game gives you the feeling both of genius and helplessness. There is a tendency for the game to switch on its head very quickly: at one moment everything might be going very well, but a few turns later cities maybe under siege and your resources could be being drained. What is most significant though is the time it takes to get to those pressure swinging situations, though I can guarantee you wont realise how many times. The time it takes to move from, say, the classical to renaissance period should in theory take a lot of your effort and time. Well actually, it does take a lot of time and effort, but you wont realise.

You could spend weeks playing this game. Literally, thousands of hours. Then, Civilization V is in anyone's book a very good game, but after all of the things that are impressive about this game, I challenge anyone who plays this game to stop themselves saying at one stage or another: 'Just one more turn.'

Is it wrong to 'love' a game that was never finished?

Recently I've been putting a few hours into Mass Effect 3 in an attempt to finally get it finished. As a game that's been on the go for at least the past year I'd be lying if I said I haven't come to love the game in the same way I'd enjoyed the previous games in the series.

Some might say that this is completely irrational. How can I claim to 'love' a game if I don't know the ending? Okay, so you come back at me and say that it is widely documented that the ending of Mass Effect 3 is exceptional in as much as it is about as poor as any decent game's ending could be. To me that's irrelevant; you could put any game in this scenario and still have this argument.

There are though a couple of factors that I'm taking for granted that should first be made apparent: firstly, I'm assuming that you haven't stopped playing the game, also I'm imagining you've played the game long enough to at least get an idea of some of the key plot concepts. 

With all of that aside, what is there to actually say here. Well, in terms of my recent Mass Effect experience, one might well argue that I'm still reliving the nostalgia of the previous game and the latest instalment isn't the game I'm really enjoying; by the time I finish the game I will have seen all of its shortcomings and forgotten what I thought I'd liked so much about it. 

Source:gamingbolt

Surely though the point isn't about how I feel after I've turned off the console with the main storyline completed and I'm ready to move onto the next game. If, as I am currently, you are enjoying a game that you're yet to finish, I'd say that this is the best time to 'love' it. The whole idea of playing games can't purely be to say to your friends 'I've finished a game'. Each game poses it's own challenges, pushing players to improve whether that be in replays of the campaign or other single player modes or in online and multiplayer environments. In many cases it is not even the case that there are ways to get better after the first time, sometimes games push you to get better before getting to the end the first time round (Dark Souls is probably the most notorious example here).

Though finishing a game is surely the main objective, most developers (I would imagine) would say that the creating the best journey is more important than anything other individual element. Therefore, I'm going to suggest that the best thing for a gamer is playing a good game, and if you don't finish it, as disappointing as that definitely is, it doesn't mean you can't or don't love the game.