Professor Layton and the Curious Village

"Every puzzle has an answer."

That puzzle for me had been this quirky Japanese game series, Professor Layton. Years ago, I've seen this title and it never seemed to arouse my curiosity, at least, not enough to actually go out and find it. Here was yet another DS title, albeit with a charming simplistic animation direction, that attempts to cram mini games down DS owners throats. With this conclusion, however, the game was somehow lodged at the back of my mind, whispering softly every now and then.

When the game finally came out in America, that seemingly small voice had grown more vocal. The charming characters had somehow found their way to my good side. But deep down, I knew Layton was nothing more than a dressed up puzzle game. It was the only thing I knew it was really about.

Even with that mindset however, somehow, it was a title I had never totally forgotten, and it seemed like something I would be willing to try now. This, I think, is the first real credit to Level 5's game. No matter what you see in the Layton games meat, the art design is always welcome no matter who you are. And at times, it may be so good that it beckons you to play it.

Professor Layton and the Curious Village unfolds as a sort of crime mystery filled with puzzles from the puzzle-addicted folks of St. Mystere. You accompany Professor Layton and his young apprentice, Luke in their quest to solve the mystery of the Golden Apple. Sounds like Sherlock Holmes? Indeed it is. Layton was indeed designed after the fabled inspector from London according to Level 5.

The puzzles you encounter range from the obvious, to the deft, to the devious. No matter who you are, there will be something that will make you scratch your head. This smoothly combines mind bending puzzles with a story that, by its own right, is a cleverly presented one. Layton also side-steps from the common pit fall of most adventure games. The puzzles aren't ones that you'd end up trying to turn lipstick to bullets (This is a reference to one game I absolutely abhor). Instead, the puzzles stand on their own and have little to no connection to the running plot. They are simply devilishly mind twisters meant to stir your thoughts.

This is the real meat of Professor Layton and the Curious Village. It's as I thought it would be. But there is a certain charm to it that keeps you going. Professor Layton's real power comes from the puzzles and a total charm of story.

But here, in its strength, lies the game's weakness. The puzzles you solve, don't have a life span that goes beyond it. For the hundreds of puzzles packed in the little cartridge, once it's done, there's no more going back to it. And frankly, the puzzles are often so absorbing, you might end up talking to people hoping they'd toss you another one. Often they do, but this gradually leads you away from the plot and into a puzzle hunt. At times, the dialogs will be totally unimportant and simply serve as a tack on to provide you with puzzles. I don't mind, but it doesn't make it all the more natural.

With this problem though, the game does gracefully guide you back to the plot. The expertly created animated cut scenes deliver the kind of feel that gets you right back into the game. It's also so well done, you'd want to go back and see it again. The voice acting is also equally superb. This is one area, that I believe the English version surpasses the Japanese version. The voice actor for Layton delivers the kind of intelligence you'd expect from a man of his stature. Luke shows the typical curious apprentice. In fact, a lot of Layton's characters are really typical but again, these are things that you tend to not mind a lot.

To say Professor Layton is a triumph of innovative game design would be a lie. But to think that Professor Layton series does not deserve merit would be a disservice as well. The truth is, Professor Layton and the Curious Village is as good as they say and is far more accessible than most of the conventional fair games out there. It's the one game I don't mind tagging along, even if the game concepts seem quite too simple for a single package. I wonder the longevity of the series, but till I hold the sequel in my hands, cheers to Layton and Luke!

PC Gaming... WHAT THE HELL?!

I started first and foremost as a PC gamer. This goes way back in the 80s. I've always been one even though I owned console games after. There are games that are just tailor made for PCs. I remember the classic King Quests and Quest for Glory, the games that brought back good memories. In recent years, some of the console games trickled on PC and I really have no qualms that they are around. It just means the games that aren't released on my console could still be played on PC and I spent quite a bit of cash to get myself a very good PC back in 2005. All was well back then, butterflies fluttering, birds chirping under the shade of trees, and me blasting virtual enemies away on my PC.

Looking at Assassin's Creed on PC coming out soon though, reality started to settle in. You can check the info here and here (courtesy of Kotaku). What the hell do they think? Do I grow a money tree in my backyard? Am I supposed to keep spending money on my PC parts just to play their new fangled games? I suppose if I really earned a lot of money and throw a couple of thousand dollars away for games and hardware this would be perfectly fine. But the expenditures are starting to outweigh the benefits. The specs are ridiculous and I suppose a few years and those prices will drop. But what will be the standard specs by then?

I'm sorry you moronic PC developers. I don't have infinite money. There's enough games out now that will keep me busy without having to pick up your games with stupid requirements. I'm out.

Thoughts on Rally Games

I have a tremendous love for rally games and I've played quite a few of them, but it wasn't always like that. I remember 3D-Hot Rally back in the old days, where Mario and Luigi drove a 4x4 monster truck on this never ending road that went to different surfaces. Back then, I barely knew what rally was, and I didn't have fond memories of that title. It was reminiscent of Sega's Outrun except that the car had damage and Mario and Luigi would need to make repairs at the expense of time, which you chased against. I could never finish that game, nor do I even want to try. It was practically impossible for me to play these games. Everything seemed so random. I passed on this and never looked back to playing it... and that gimmicky 3D goggles suck!

My next foray into rallying came in Lombard Rally on PC, in the good old CGA days. I still had no idea what rally was and played this game wishing it was much easier. The co-driver held a map, and you as the player had the responsibility to drive and look at that tiny map to figure out where to go. It was not easy, and chasing clocks were never my thing. I pretty much gave up on any racing game at that point. It just never seemed fun at all and I always lost.

Incidentally, after many years of playing different game genres, I found a motorsport I could connect with, Formula One. This is going to be brief, but I have to stress this. I played Video System's F1 World Grand Prix on N64 and it was nothing close to easy at that time. But instead of folding, I put in some good time and played some good laps. It was my reinduction to racing games.

From my beloved N64, I played Top Gear Rally, which was intriguing in terms of decal options, was not the kind of rally game I wanted. It felt like a standard racer and nothing more. I also played the atrocious V-Rally '99. And to think Eden Studios was supposed to be one of the best ones at it. The cars felt strange, and floaty. While this game was difficult, I was less interested to put in the time to it. In fact, I didn't want to.

Some time later, I found WRC on tv and managed to get more informed over what rallying was all about. It was a shame I missed the tighter years of WRC, but I could accept Loeb's battle against Petter and co. At this time, my brother played and eventually completed Sega Rally 2 on Dreamcast. While I was opened to playing it and put in some laps, it just never really felt like rallying to me. It was understandably an arcade game, but it just never clicked, and playing a racing game on a split screen is never the way to go. I love to hear my engine. I love to see what my car did. And with Sega Rally being a game that seemed so much like other arcade racers, I just hung up my gloves on it.

Incidentally, it was at this time where I'd eventually find rally games that I loved. First up was V-Rally 3 on PC. It was unforgiving, but it felt 'right', at least at the time. The car choices were limited, and I was a little less interested in going the full mile, but I was content in running the stages and setting good times and doing it over and over again. That is more than I can say for any of the previous rally efforts.

When my new PC could no longer play V-Rally 3 due to potential issues with hyper-threading, my brother was indeed looking for another title. Colin McRae Rally 2005 or Richard Burns Rally. Unfortunately, he picked Colin's.

This isn't to say Colin's game is terrible, because it's far from it. I put in good stage times. I used the class B cars, class A cars and drove at my favourite stages. But the game just never gave me the satisfaction V-Rally did. It felt OK, but not mind-blowing. It was at that point that I needed to know what Richard Burns had to offer.

Unlike Colin's title, where most reviewers praised to high heavens, Richard's title had more mixed ones. Preposterous physics and a constant comparison drawn over Colin's effort were what I felt was the overall tone. But I played Colin's title, and I wasn't interested in what some bloke said made Colin's title better than Richard's. I had to find out for myself.

My first run at Rally School in Richard Burns Rally lasted approximately less than ten seconds. I didn't know, I wasn't looking at the clock. The first ford section threw my Impreza to the trees and the car never recovered. But somehow, for a title that seemed inhumanly difficult, it put a smile from ear to ear. It felt like gold. It felt really good. It felt like rallying. Those ten seconds I had with it was worth more than the days I put on Colin McRae Rally 2005.

I loved it. And I put a video to show my sample run, albeit not too good, was good enough for me.

Strangely though, it wasn't the last rally game I have fond memories of. I put in some time on portable space in the form of Colin McRae Rally 2 on GBA. It's an old title, needless to say, but it felt remarkably similar to its brethren, albeit in a smaller screen and on the go. It's good and it ultimately defined what my choices were on the portable space and the PC platforms.

As I think about all this, and wonder what Petter Solberg Rally will be, I tend to hope it would be as good or even better than Richard Burn's effort. And I also hope it runs on my computer. Here's to hoping for a great simulation and a very satisfying game. After all, it's all in the feeling.

Opinion on Adventure Games

Adventure games have been with us from decades ago. It is hard to believe how far the genre has survived since the old Sierra days. Adventure games had primarily been a story-focused affair with players being inundated with more developed graphics, videos, puzzles and a complex story. At first, I was at ease with this kind of trend. How much more game play can you really add to games of this ilk? Most of these games were laid-back gaming affairs, choosing to let the player play at his own pace and at the same time throwing strange and often frustrating puzzles as an indication of levels of difficulties. While at the time, I thought it was fine, my interest in them started to diminish.

My problem was primarily in that there's no real form of immersion. The pretty screens can only go so far, and the kind of game play involved harkened back to the early 90s. My thoughts about these games started to shift in that this can no longer be the same kleptomaniac style play of picking up all you can pick up and sticking the square plug on a circular hole till it fits. It's a shame that the gameplay has gone stale since then, opting to give you video cutscenes which in my opinion, isn't really a bad idea. But it cannot be the be-all-end-all of the game contents. Videos are good ways of pushing the story forward, but it surely does not make the game any more interactive.

I think adventure games need to have a higher level of interactivity, and a lesser level on throwing puzzles for the sake of it, and hinging your game success on videos. Games are interactive form of entertainment, and adventure games tend to have the least amount of them.

In recent memory, I remember two adventure games that have given me that kind of satisfaction and reinforces the thoughts for me. The first is Indigo Prophecy.

Atari and Quantic Dreams created a stellar of a game that dwelled on a great plot, as well as keeping a good flavour of adventure in it. It had a more engaging element to the way you played it and it certainly was all I had hoped for. It certainly was not a laid-back type of adventure game, which I believe lead to it being a hit or miss title for adventure gamers, but it gave a new level of interactivity to it, even though the ideas used aren't very original. Though the PC port had a bit more questionable controls layout, over all, it did not become a detriment in my enjoyment. That Quantic Dreams had focused on creating a game that gave players more to do than just picking up items and solving puzzles had earned them some respect in my books.

The second is Hotel Dusk: Room 215 on the DS. From the first screenshot and the catchy title, I had already marked the title as a must buy. Hotel Dusk though dwells a little bit more in the traditional adventure sense, but creates a satisfying dialog system that you don't mind talking to these well-written characters. It had created a good sense of immersion in the game. Unlike other adventure games were the dialogs only drop clues on what to do next, Hotel Dusk makes the dialog system part of its focal point in the game. The dialog choices have consequences, and it gives the player that bit more thought and interaction with the game. Even though Hotel Dusk follows adventure games a bit more in the traditional sense, it knows its strengths and focuses on that to give players a more engaging experience.

After playing these two titles, I am convinced that the genre can thrive, but developers have to try and put more thought and effort to the products they do. In my opinion, the traditional sense of adventure games is purely pre-historic. The genre has to evolve into something much more than the conventional sense. And I think it mainly involves a clever way of interactivity.

Gamecube - GBA Wasted Potential

In the era where Microsoft and Sony were the only focus of the console war, Nintendo was the odd man out. Trying desperately to squeeze itself into the picture, however, in spite of some very good first party titles, it lacked support. Support that even its predecessor enjoyed more. Their console was nothing short of a colossal failure while the others thrived. Companies put titles on the two elites, the Gamecube was left picking the bread crumbs from the dinner table. How was Nintendo going to etch itself back into play in the Gamecube years when the online support was nothing short pathetic? Nintendo would need somethings unique to the system that would make it a must-buy. One of such things they unveiled was the GC-GBA connection.

This connection allowed the Gamecube and the GBA to communicate with each other that could result in some more interesting gameplay opportunities. This concept isn't totally new though, as the N64 had the GB pak before though that wholely delved only in mere data transfers. Being able to directly link the two systems had tremendous potential and Nintendo was in a unique position in the industry to make it happen.

To utilize this feature, you obviously needed the Gamecube, at least a GBA unit, the cable that would hook the GBA into the controller port of the GC, and frequently, both GC and GBA titles. Adding all up, you had a ridiculous number of requirements to take advantage of this system. That said, such setup could result in some good potential, that may produce a fresh kind of play.

When the titles unfolded with this feature, a lot of application was downright rubbish. Football games that display score stats totally underused the potential. Hooking both products to unlock levels is another form of underuse. Primarily in both cases, the only form of use that happens is data transferring. There is no actual interaction that is now capable by connecting the GBA. Mini-games is a form of interaction, but totally from a GBA perspective. What is missed in this is the GC spectrum. All of them are totally useless ideas. The true intriguing point of the feature was new gameplay, not shoe-horn usage. The people who implemented these features had been nothing short of lazy.

In my opinion, the GC-GBA connection play is always supplemental to the GC game. It's not required to own this, but with such a feature, it creates a new dynamism to the GC game. Only two games I've played have ever done this effectively. Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell and Legend of Zelda Windwaker, with Splinter Cell coming out on top.

A lot of people scorn and ridicule the "exclusive" feature of the Cube version, but what I feel isn't recognized with Redstorm's effort is that this was the first Splinter Cell that allowed two people to play the game cooperatively. The GBA connection allowed for disarming mines, taking control of guns, checking out enemies in the map and others. It was an invaluable tool, and under the hands of another player, it resulted in a kind of communication that was not in any of the other versions. It made the game experience different from the lone single-player affair of other releases of Splinter Cell. Granted it was not perfect, but the first effort was truly a good addition to an already well-executed product.

Windwaker employed a similar take with Tingle, the Rupee hungry gremlin that assisted Link through the use of different spells and abilities. Tingle may not be the most charismatic of characters, but the gameplay addition was welcome and was not overpowering. And the use of Tingle did not necessarily make the game ridiculously easy, though he does help at the hands of someone who knows how to make it work.

These are intriguing new gameplay additions resulted by it. But at times, this kind of focus goes overboard with the likes of Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles. Not only was the single player totally a lonesome and ultimately boring affair, the multiplayer needed at least two GBAs and two connections to make it accessible. The kind of communication in multiplayer indeed makes for quite a different form of cooperation, but this kind of hardware requirement makes the product extremely inaccessible. To make matters worse, the GBA connection use on the single player mode is totally devoid of any sort of cooperative gameplay at all. FFCC had turned this feature from a supplement to a requirement, and that ultimately is a design mistake.

Looking forward to the Wii and DS, I am yet again dismayed by the lack of use of such potential. Using the DS as a controller and replacing the Wii controls is utterly not a good idea. The DS is capable of some very interesting potentials given the hardware capabilities. Would it be possible to have a rally game where the Wii player drives the car and the DS acts as a co-driver calling out the pace notes and perhaps even writing its own notes? Or how about a Formula One title where the DS formulates the team strategy while the Wii player focuses on the wheel? There could be special implementations such as when you have a Wii strategy game and the DS performs some interesting part of the game, perhaps acting as an adviser.

Hardware requirements are reduced but not totally lost. The requirement of the Wii and DS units still makes it somewhat a difficult requirement, but without the cable requirements obviously makes it more accessible. Please, give the time to think about this feature. Let's not waste a good opportunity for interesting gameplay, unlike the failure the GC-GBA connection was.

Wii, Hardcore gaming system?

This idea just makes my head swirl in pain. How many people have criticized or insert praises on the Wii because of the way it's churning out weird, quirky titles. It's been a year and true that we've seen some weird titles come out. Japan entrant Wii Fit surely signals the strange nature of gaming that we are in today. I've also come across several friends who tell me they don't want the Wii because it's a casual gamer's system. Well, I've got a question along that line.

What is casual? What is hardcore? Where do you draw the line between the two? I certainly don't know any definition that makes a clear division between the two. Let's see, hardcore games must have scantily clad women characters? More focus on story? I certainly cannot see how a casual game cannot benefit from one. What about casual games? What do you say to describe such titles? Are casual games those that are too shallow? I've certainly seen shallow games way before these terms have surfaced.

In my opinion, all these terms are just bollocks. I also blame Nintendo for it. Their marketing has given a focus on games that "broaden the market" and other games from other platform that are only for the "hardcore". In the end,I think this discussion on hardcore vs casual is a pointless one. I certainly cannot segregate each and every title in the universe and say this is casual, this is hardcore and that the Wii has very few titles that cater to the hardcore gamer. All I know is, if you buy a system and you have fun, isn't that all that matters? Enough of the chit-chatter on the casual vs hardcore. We should instead spend time on the games we like and have fun, because all that crap about hardcore and casual just snoozes me.

Another round of that? I'm out!

A tiny Wii bit of advise

The entire concept of the Wii has certainly created a stir in the industry. It's certainly selling a whole truck load of systems and that makes for a fairly interesting platform to throw an opinion on. The mere nature of the platform itself certainly has gotten a lot of criticisms and praise. Now that we are just over a year of Wii gaming, there's a few things I need to get off my chest about it.

It's fairly amusing how the media reactions have been with the Wii. All the 'Wii will fail', 'PS3 will overtake it', 'Xbox 360 will win' or those that say the Wii has beaten the competition are all loads of crap. First thing is that nobody has info from the future. Secondly, all the so-called analysts make a living making guesses. Thirdly, all of those statements are there to create a buzz around them. I certainly don't buy them and neither should you.

Analysts come, create a stir, then disappear after awhile, but the game reviewers surely don't. They've been the staple in the video game industry as those that report on how well the game did and whether people should buy them. If you trek through the Wii reviews, you'll likely see very polarizing or sometimes very grim scores for Wii games. There's a whole lot of crap being thrown at titles, especially third party ones and there's also some that tend to be more lax with them, and this is one thing that I really noticed throughout the year.

Reviews are especially an important benchmark for gamers read them to get a good idea whether or not a product is worth buying or renting at all. And it's with this that we need to bear in mind that no matter how objective the reviewer is, reviews tend to be subjective. After all, the only real report being done is within the eyes of the reviewer and how he interprets the game. And I believe this has never had a bigger impact than on Wii games.

More than any other platform, the mere design of Wii controls lend to even more subjective factors involved. If you are panting after a round of boxing, is it your fault or the Wii's? If you feel tired while swinging the sword, is that a point deducted on the Wii or is it because you've spent your life living on the couch? The motion detection is often reported as being wonky. Is it your fault or the Wii's? These things beg to question how Wii reviews are being evaluated at all.

The fact of the matter is, the reviews written are always the opinion of the players/journalists who played the game. It always was and it always will be. It also only represents a mouthpiece, which happens to be one people hear from afar.

My experience with Wii gaming is one that is interesting for me, since I have come across titles where agree with them and titles that I don't agree and at times, you tend to wonder what game they were actually playing. This is something that has existed in older platforms but I feel has been more emphasized on the Wii because of the very nature of play. This is also something I find disconcerting because there is quite a number of games that I like that just got slashed up to bits.

Thinking about it all though, if there's one thing I have learned from a year of Wii gaming, it is this:

Don't trust reviews.

Just don't. Nintendo was definitely right with one thing about the Wii, you have to feel it to know if it's for you. It's hard to put on paper the experience you get and often times what you feel, the person next to you has the exact opposite experience.

This isn't an article about not reading reviews. On the contrary, Wii game reviews are good articles to read for some information on the game. What it is not, is a credible measurement of the game being described. Do you enjoy a game because someone else said it's great? I don't think so. Do you think the title sucks because someone else said so? I hope not.

If there's a game you are interested, do yourself a favour and spend a few moments with it. I feel it's especially more important with the Wii because you never know what you may have missed by reading someone just dish out expletives at a title.

When all is said and done, you are the one who will play and you are the only one who can decide if it's playable or not for you. It's in the eyes of the beholder.

... Or maybe, I'm just an example of my own article. Ha!