New 3DS

I originally planned to post an opinion piece about hype today, but Nintendo doesn't agree with my plans, or so it seems.

Because today Nintendo announced the New Nintendo 3DS and the New Nintendo 3DS XL and I'm a little bit torn. But first let me tell you about the facts.

The new 3DS has some nice improvements over the original one. First it now has ZR and ZL shoulder-buttons and a second circle pad. The second circle pad is located next to the A/B/X/Y buttons and much smaller, but it seems to handle quite nicely. It will be supported through games like Super Smash Bros. 3DS, Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate and the newly announced Xenoblade Chronicles, which is exclusive to the new 3DS.

Apart from that the new models has a slightly bigger screen and an improved 3D effect. Through facetracking it will now be possible to see the 3D effect from different angles. So no more straining the eye, or at least it will be greatly dimished.

The next improvement comes with an integrated NFC reader on the lower screen. So Amiibos can be used without the adapter, which Nintendo will release for the older 3DS-Systems.

The last improvement is the one that creates the dilemma for me. The new System has an improved CPU. At first I didn't think that this is a problem. Faster loading times while browsing the net, the Miiverse and the e-shop sounded like a nice bonus for the buyers of the new model. But then Nintendo also announced that Xenoblade Chronicles for 3DS would be exclusive to the new model. And that's the problem.

With that Nintendo creates a rift between owners of the original system and the new one. So if I want to play the new game I have to upgrade my System in the middle of its life cycle. It's ok to release revisions of your hardware, but when you begin to exclude the owners of the original to (maybe) force them to upgrade, we have a problem. Nintendo did many things right in the last couple of months, but this doesn't make them immune in this case.

If you want to play Xenoblade you have to buy the new system. And if this applies to more games from now on I see a big problem. The games business is front loaded. And by the constant revisions and now with the release of an 1.5 version of their hardware in the middle of its life cycle Nintendo conveys an image, that their first releases aren't worth it. Why should I buy the next handheld from them when it releases, if I may not be able to play all games developed for this hardware? Who says that the won't release a revision like the New 3DS again, so that I have to upgrade again in the middle of a life cycle to be able to play the newer games?

With the 3DS-XL I didn't feel excluded. It provided improvements, but I can enjoy all the features of it on my original 3DS. But if want to enjoy Xenoblade I have to pay 180 bucks to upgrade. All the other things I could enjoy on my original 3DS through the use of adapters and so, and that is ok, but gating games is not. How would the reaction look like if, for example, Microsoft releases a new X-Box One after two years and says, that if you want to play Halo 5 you better upgrade. The shitstorm would be unbelievable. I'm a big Nintendo fan and I'll often and gladly defend them when they get flak for some shit, like it happens so often, but as a fan I'm also the first to criticize them if they do wrong. And with the exclusivity of Xenoblade they did wrong in my opinion. I just hope that this stays the only game that is exclusive, but I don't really have much faith.

Also this will create massive confusion with the costumer. People who don't see the difference between the Wii and the Wii-U will buy Xenoblade for their children and when it doesn't work on their 3DS systems... well lets just say that this doesn't shed a good light on Nintendo in the eyes of the normal customer.

TL;dr: 

The New Nintendo 3DS has some nice improvements and overall sounds pretty good, but by making Xenoblade Chronicles 3DS exclusive to this new version of the system Nintendo creates a rift. And the only way to cross this rift is with money. If this applies to more games in the future Nintendo conveys the picture that it's not worth to buy their hardware at release, but to wait till the definite version releases 2-3 years later. To improve your hardware with revisions is ok, but don't gate actual content like games behind the new version.

A little news bit to end this post on a positive note. Amiibos will release this winter and cost 12 bucks a piece. I think this is a fair price and I can't wait to get my hands on Samus.

Here's also a pic of the twelve amiibos which will be available with the launch of Super Smash. Bros for Wii-U.

And as always

thanks for reading

Picture Source: Nintendo

Mario Kart 8 DLC

Yesterday Nintendo announced that they're planning to release DLC for Mario Kart 8. And the reaction has been mostly positive so far. At least on the sites and forums I frequent recently.

Mario Kart DLC is something a lot of people asked for. Especially considering the... not so optimal battle mode. It only makes sense for Nintendo to respond to that and give the people what they want. Each Pack will cost roughly 8 bucks and if you buy both of them at the same time, you'll get a discount. So 12 bucks for sixteen ''new'' (yes some of them will be reworked retro tracks) courses, eight new karts and six new drivers is a fair price. Also you get 8 different colors for Yoshi and Shy Guy if you buy both DLC packages. Nintendo has been experimenting with DLC for quite some time now. The overpriced level packs for New Super Mario Bros. 2, the Season Pass like, already made Cups in Mario Golf for 3DS and the full blown addon like Super Luigi U. And if that Mario Kart DLC or something like Luigi U. are their sweet spot I'm totally fine with that. Also the dates on which the DLC will be released (November 2014 and May 2015 respectively) show that they started working on this new tracks only after the core game was released.

So all in all the DLC sounds pretty awesome, but I'm still going to complain anyway. Now I don't want you to get me wrong. I will buy both packs and I will absolutely love them. That I'm sure about, but I still think Nintendo could have done better.

Characters:

Buying both packs will get you six new characters. Cat Peach, Tanuki Mario, Dry Bowser, Isabella, the Villager and Link. Honestly this is the only gripe I have with the DLC. Why do they add Link and Animal Crossing characters. The answer is obviously Amiibos, but I'm not sure how I should feel about this. Yes it's cool that you can race as Link, but I'm afraid that this opens the floodgates. Why can't I drive as Samus, Fox or Captain Falcon? With this Nintendo moves Mario Kart in the direction of Smash Bros. And I'm not sure I like it. Having Mario characters race each other for fun is one thing, but for example, with Samus it just doesn't feel right.

It's just strange to play a real Metroid Game and after that have Samus squeeze herself into a much to small kart (Just look at link) and drive around colorful courses.

I full understand anyone who absolutely loves the idea and I can see why you're probably pretty excited about this DLC, but I personally would have preferred if Mario Kart would stay Mario Kart.

The only character I truly am excited for is Dry Bowser, because he's just Metal as fuck. Yes I needed to say that.

If I could choose which DLC characters I would want, it would be something like this:

Pack 1 (Minions Pack): Boo (Light), Kamek(Medium), Dino Piranha (Heavy)

Pack 2 (Koopa Pack): Dry Bones (Light), Bowser Jr. (Medium), Dry Bowser (Heavy)

Pack 3 (Kong Pack): Dixie Kong (Light), Diddy Kong (Medium), Funky Kong (Heavy)

That would be my humble suggestions for characters.

Karts:

I don't have much to say about the new karts. I only saw the blue falcon so far and I like it. It's a nice nod towards the neglected F-Zero franchise and it fits Mario Kart 8's anti-gravity theme.

Courses:

First let me say, that it's awesome to get new courses. The ''old'' ones didn't get stale for me yet, as I only reached 3000 points in online races so far, but I can see it happening if you play the game extensively. So new course are always welcome. And the inclusion of the Zelda and Animal Crossing franchise opens up cool possibilities, but Nintendo doesn't seem to restrict it to these franchises.

On the screenshots released so far you can spot a course which is obviously located in Mute City and one which seems to be inspired by Excite Bike. It's really cool and I'm hoping for a Zelda Course in which you either race through Hyrule City and the castle, or around Death Mountain.

But does it really need this? It's only another step in the direction of Nintendo Kart. Mario Kart 8 showed us that there are no boundaries in the Mario series for creative courses. Or would you have thought something like Mount Wario or the Water Park would be possible, before seeing them? Adding these other franchises adds more possibilities one might say now, but I'm not so sure. I would rather say that it adds more boundaries.

Now you have to do a Zelda course each time. You have to do your Animal crossing race track. And some things just don't mix. You can't have a water park esque course on the shores of lake Hylia.

Maybe I'm just too skeptical and negative, but I'm just not a fan of the nintendo kart idea. But even I have to admit, that this is a DLC done right. It's a really good deal and I'm sure it will be top notch quality wise. And they even got pre-orders right for me. The Yoshi and Shy Guy skins are not really a pre-order bonus, because you get them even when you buy the packs separately and it doesn't matter when you buy them.

You should never feel the need to pre-order something. If you pre-order it should always be on your own accord. It's a sign of your trust in that developer. You should never feel the need to pre-order just so you can get an exclusive DLC. And for getting that right I applaud Nintendo. But I think this is a topic for another day.

TL;dr: 

12 bucks for 16 new courses, 8 karts and 6 characters is a phenomenal deal and if you did enjoy Mario Kart you should buy it. I would prefer that Mario Kart stays Mario Kart and doesn't turn into a racing version of Smash Bros., but I get why others are excited by this very thought. Also only pre-order games on your own accord as a sign of trust to this developer, but never because the bribed you with exclusive content.

And as always

Thanks for reading

Picture Source: Nintendo

Oh the Horror...

I could talk about the whole Zoegate scandal, but honestly I don't care. So let's talk about horror games.

The reveal of Silent Hills generated some buzz, and while I'm interested in Kojimas take on horror, I'm also sceptical. Not because I don't trust Hideo Kojima, but because I don't think that big AAA Horror games work very well. The last “AAA” Horror Game that worked for me was Dead Space 1 and you could argue that it wasn't really AAA. Every other big horror game fell flat on the horror aspect. My hope now rides on the shoulders of The Evil Within, but the previews I've seen don't fill me with much confidence.

But why do AAA horror games don't work?

Horror is a niche genre. It's that simple.

True Horror doesn't have a mass appeal. The ordinary human just doesn't like beeing scared. And how do you expect to get back all your investments on fancy graphic engines, motioin capturing, voice work and marketing, if you can't sell your product to at least two million people? The answer is simple. You can't! And that is why you focus test the hell out of your product to find the biggest mass appeal. That's why RE 6 was a watered down, action mess.

The solution to this is simple and I already talked about in another blog post. Know your audience! I just don't think that horror games work on the current AAA market. But luckily we live in a time, where digital distribution makes it possible to produce smaller games. I think horror games coud thrive best in this environment. Just like Call of Juarez Gunslinger or FarCry Blood Dragon.

If you buy an AAA game for 60 or 70 bucks you expect a minimum value and play time, or you won't be satisfied. And rightfully so. But a long game time works against the ideals of horror games. The longer you play, the more you get accustomed to the situation. It becomes familiar. You know what to expect. And that's the greatest enemy of horror. There is a german saying: In der Kürze liegt die Würze, which means, roughly translated of course, keep it simple.

Fear is a basic human emotion. Normally it's a short an powerful impulse that wears down over time when we grow accustomed to the situation. Slender worked so well, because it didn't take more than half an hour to play and complete the game. But if you make your game an AAA experience you can't say stop after an hour. You have to provide more content. You have to provide variety. Different locations and different enemies. My fist encounter with a Necromorph in Dead Space was memorable. And this intensity remained for the first 1-2 hours, but after that, and with the inclusion of new monsters, they became just an nuisance. Isn't that the death of horror if your audience reaction is: Eh not those monsters again... BORING!

But the new monsters fill up that spot, don't they? Yes and no. Yes they're frighting at first, but in the back of your mind the image of the first enemy lingers. With becoming just simple cannon fodder they destroyed the picture of all monsters in the game. If they can be killed that easily, then everything can.

With your horror game you want to keep the player on the edge of his seat the whole time. At no time he should feel safe or relaxed. You don't want him to get accustomed. Yes I've said that a lot in this post, but it's important. You can keep him from growing accustomed with different means. Change the environment and the monsters constantly. Keep the game short. Create an environment in which he can't trust nothing(Eternal Darkness comes to mind). These all work if executed properly, but I think the best, and most cost efficient, way would be a short game.

For 10 bucks no one will complain if your game is only about two hours long. Well but some may complain, but they always do. With that you can keep the horror fresh without spending thousands of dollars on different locations and so on.

So that's my opinion on horror games and a possible future in which they could thrive. I just don't think that a game can carry true horror over an extended period of time in today’s industry. Of course you may disagree, so what are your thoughts on this subject? Are you huge fans of horror games? What was the last game that truly chilled your bones from start to finish?

Well anyways... thanks for reading

and... boo