Here we are on a Saturday night, less than 48 hours away from the release of Bit.Trip VOID. Are you excited? I am... sort of.

Honestly, I'm not quite as preoccupied with the release of the game as I was when I started this Cblog series last night. Right as I was doing that "Countdown to Bit.Trip VOID Day One" post about 24 hours ago, I got an tiny piece of information regarding the next Bit.Trip game, tentatively called Bit.Trip 4. This "tiny piece" of info was actually a megaton bomb of amazing that totally blew my mind, but I can't tell you what it is. Suffice to say, I now want Bit.Trip 4 just a tad bit more than I want VOID, which is actually saying a lot, because I really want Bit.Trip VOID.

Anyway, with that disclaimer out of the way, I'll touch a little bit on the other big game that Bit.Trip VOID reminds me of -- Tumiki Fighters.



Katamari Damacy may have started the whole "get greedy, get in trouble" game genre about growth and consequences, but Tumiki Fighters was the first game (that I know of anyway) to take that concept to the world of shmups. As you can see in the above video, the game is all about grabbing destroyed enemy ships an attaching them to yourself, to eventually become the very type of over-sized boss bastard that lies in wait at the end of a level in any reputable shmup. The downside of getting boss-tough, you're also more vulnerable to attacks when you're as big as the screen, so constantly shrinking and growing yourself is a must if you want to stay alive (and keep a high score).

If you haven't played the game before, you really should- It's free, and it's fantastic. Like Ikagura, Tumiki Fighters appeals to our primitive understanding of the world and it's rules. Where Ikagura looks at how we want stuff that matches us and avoid stuff that's different from us, Tumiki Fighers is all about how the big guy is stronger than the little guy, and that people with more stuff have more worth than people with less stuff. What's really great about the game is that it takes a look at the flip-side of that idea as well. It asks you to become small and weak at times in order to survive, and shows you that being a screen-filling boss isn't as easy as it looks.

To make a game where the player is given the opportunity to meet a base desire (get big and kick ass), but is tasked to repress that desire (by getting small to stay safe) if they want to survive, is about as interesting as game design gets. Others "get big" games like Katamari Damacy and Nobi Nobi Boy are great too, but they don't involve the dangers of excess in the same way.

Tumiki Fighters also got released on the Wii as part of the game's semi-sequel, Blast Works. Not only does Blast Works contain it's own original Tumiki-style campaign, but it has the original Tumiki Fighters, three other Kenta Cho games, and an awesome shmup construction set. It's only $10-$20 new, so pick it up if you see it.

As soon as I have the time, I'm going to make a Bit.Trip VOID themed level in Blast Works. I'll let you know when it's done. Until then, check out this Blast Works-powered video of Halo 4.

So, Bit.Trip VOID is coming out on Monday, and I'm totally psyched. In fact, I'm so preoccupied with excitement over the game, that I just had to through out a quick Cblog on the topic in order get my mind off of it, so I can get back to "real work".

So, are you up for a two day countdown? I sure am. But, what do I countdown with? A clock? That seems sort fo unofun, right?

Instead, I thought I'd just do a couple of posts that talk the games that seem to be a major influence on VOID. Like the other two Bit.Trip games, VOID takes it's visual cues from the 2600 era, with the monochrome Pong feel being more prominent than ever here. That's just surface level stuff though. In terms of actually gameplay , I just can't shake how much Void reminds me of Ikagura... and how awesome that is.

Why didn't Treasure ever make a sequel to Ikagura? Surely it would have sold well,or at least, as well as the other games they make. Kenta Cho gave one of his freeware shmups an Ika-mode (the name of exactly which shmup escapes me at the moment) but other than that, VOID is the first game I've seen to take the "hit one color, avoid the other" concept into full swing.

There is something so simple, so elegant about this gameplay design. It just resonates on a very primitive, visceral level to want to collect the things that match you, or in the this case, your color, and to avoid the things that are the opposite of you. I'd say that along side Pac-Man and Tetris, this type of play may be the most pure and streamlined out there.

Of course, that concept alone wouldn't be enough to make Ikaruga and Void great games. It takes amazing bullet patterns arranged in an alternating succession of "good" bullets and "bad" bullets to make that happen.

Take a look at the video above, and the video of Ikagura below, and tell me if I'm crazy for seeing the connection between the two games.

<p> I love you Samit! I wish I could get as much fun out of sports (and sports games) as you do.</p>

I started this as a comment in Ryu's blog, but it was getting too long, so I made a separate blog out of it all.

To quote Burch and DAvis- "Deal with it."

First (and off-topic), I want to say something about the word "fanboy" itself.

It sort of pisses me off.

I mean, what's wrong with being a "fan"? What's wrong with being a "boy"? I mean, that's most of us, right? The truth is, most of the people we call "fanboys" (or who call others fanboys) aren't really videogame fans at all. Sure, videogame fan can have their preferences and favorites, but any true fan of the medium would never "swear allegiance" to just one videogame console. If they did, they'd miss out on too many great games.

I think we should think of something else to call "fanboys", like "haters" or "shit-breathing fucking haters". It's the dislike of videogames (usually the ones they don't have) that make "fanboys" so irrritating, not the fact that they are fans or boys. To use the term "fanboy" in a negative way just feels a little like self hatred to me. Like I said we're all fans here, and most of us are boys, so why would we want to turn "fanboy" into a dirty word?

Take the movie Fanboys (seen above) for instance. It's about Star Wars fans, and it makes them look like sweet, dedicated, lovable dudes, devoid of hate or malice. There is nothing in there about being biased against Star Trek fans or bashing The Matrix for not being "hardcore" enough. The term "fanboy" in other areas of geekdom, doesn't mean "mean spirited, biased dickhead" like it does among videogame fans. I think that may be because other types of "geeks" aren't quite as self-loathing as videogame fans sometimes are.

Which puts me back on topic. I think a lot of the people we call "fanboys" are really, really self loathing. I mean, these are people that get so worked up about the fact that their taste in videogames isuniversally approved of that they feel the need to fight it out on the internet with other videogame fans who have just slightly different tastes than theirs. I know that to a Sony fanboy or a Nintendo fanboy, the difference between the two companies may seem huge, but to most people it's like arguing about what's better, llama farts or donkey farts.

OK, not really. I just wanted an excuse to type "llama fart", but you get the picture.

My point is, what does that tell you about the the self esteem of a "fanboy" that the need to constantly put others down in order to build themselves up (in their own mind, anyway) and fight their fear of not being perfect? Those are all signs of someone with "little ego strength" as they say in the psych world, and are meant to be pitied, not further belittled.



On the other end of it, some people who only buy console per generation and go on to "fight" to prove that their console is the "best", do so out of genuine investment in the evolution of videogames. These are the "fanboys" who take their stance in "the console wars" to be more like a democrat of a republican takes on an election. If they go about their self appointed tasks properly, they don't completely ignore the strengths of the other party, but ultimately, they still want their philosophy to win.

That's because with videogames, these "wins" matter. The kind of game that becomes dominant in the market right now may continue to be dominant for a long time, or at least, that's what the opinionated fan sometimes believes. As someone that loved 2D games (and still do), I admit that I was quite the raving "fanboy" in the mid 90's, when 2D games started to die out and polygon based graphics started to take over. I didn't want my favorite types of games to become extinct, and sadly, they did anyway. All my letters to DieHard Gamefan about how Street Fighter Alpha looked better than Tekken 2 did nothing to stop the tides of gaming's development. Yes, I was a sad, angry panda at that time, thought I've since learned to shut up and just love 3D fighters for what they're worth.

Anyway, that kind of near-complete extinction of an entire genre is still possible with videogames, because videogames are the only form of entertainment that is still really, truly evolving. All genres of film, music, books, even fine art have all pretty much established themselves by now. The same kinds of movies made big money in the 70's still make money now. The same types of books that people wrote in the 60's are the same that people write in today. Styles change over the years, but the at their roots, the genres of romance, drama, horror, and comedy are still the same, and still all have a place in entertainment.

Videogames aren't like that. There has been a constant evolution in videogames since the start, and certain genres have more or less died out over the course of that evolution. When games first got big, it was games like Pac-Manthat sold, then Super Mario Bros, then Street Fighter II, then Final Fantasy VII, then Metal Gear Solid, then GTA, and now Wii Fit; all them totally different types of games, all steps forward in the evolving face of videogames. With that level of variance in the "dominant" gaming genres over the past 20 years, fans are going to see the medium as a malleable, dangerously fragile thing; one that could change into something they don't like at all any time.

That's why I initially didn't like the 360. I saw it as a representation of everything I didn't want gaming to become; overpriced consoles focused on online, monthly pay-service games with "realistic" graphics and inflated "blockbuster" budgets. Since then, I've come to really like the 360 and what it represents, but that's because it now costs $199 and has games like 'Splosion Man, Geometry Wars, Castle Crashers and Braid.

That said, I don't think anyone, from the niche' genre fans to the online FPS fans to the "blockbuster game" fans to the old-school platforming fan has anything to worry about these days.

We're all "winners" now.

Just about every genre of game can become a hit these days. That's why I think this is really the golden age of gaming. To have Uncharted 2 and Critter Crunch both get great reviews and sell very well (by early reports anyway), and both on the PS3, and both come out in the same month shows me that today, every type of game has a chance in today's market.

So on one hand, I understand why some people get heated about their favorite kind of game and the chance that it will eventually becoming extinct, but I also think that that kind of thinking just isn't necessary anymore.

I think it will probably be a few years before "fanboys" figure that out though.

So, I deviated from the mean today and didn't purchase Uncahrted 2. No, I didn't run out of money, and no, I didn't get my legs severed in a brutal, legendary car crash. I just chose against buying the game, despite its Metacritic average being in the low 90's and despite my trusted friend and colleague Nick Chester's assurance that everyone who likes action games will enjoy it. Yes, despite all that, I still don't believe that Uncharted 2 would be worth $60 of my dollars.

How can this be, you ask? Doubtful of my logic, are you? Well, feast your doubting, skeptical eyes on this question; does the fact that the majority of the reviewers who chose to review Uncharted 2 later went on to enjoy the game mean that, in fact, scientifically, statistically speaking that I have a "very good" chance of enjoying the game as well? Is that how reviews work for you the majority of the time?

In my experience, the answer is generally "no". For example, most film reviewers have rated Raiders of the Lost Ark as the best Indiana Jones movie ever made. I happen to feel (oh wait, sorry) think that Raiders is in truth and fact, the most creatively dry and poorly crafted film in bunch. My personal favorites are Temple of Doom (specifically, Shortround kicking the crap of multiple crazed cultists, and a heart being magically ripped from a man's chest) and the fourth one (for the aliens, tribesmen that live inside solid rock, and the psychic Russians).

So, what does this mean? Does this deviation from the majority of "professional, Hollywood movie reviewing journalists" mean I have "bad taste" in movies? Maybe it does. Could it also mean that, from my perspective, to make a ridiculous, totally unbelievable Indiana Jones movie that still causes you to care about the characters is a greater sign of skill than to make a safer, more crowd pleasing period piece about World War II, Bible stuff and "father/son banter"? Could it be that Hollywood action movies, like videogames, are sometimes liked, and sometimes not liked, depending on people's "tastes", and that these tastes are forever tied to one's perception of "quality"?

I know, I know, it's bold theory. Like nothing you've ever heard before, I'm sure. But wait, I'm not done. Answer me this; what if the quality of a videogame, like Hollywood movie, may be impossible to measure in a quantitative way? Like, let's sat that one film reviewer gives the movie Citizen Kane four stars in an honest, totally and unequivocally unbiased review, while another equally unbiased reviewer gives the same film only two stars. Does this mean that the second reviewer is exactly two stars less accurate, and therefore, less qualitatively skilled at reviewing films as the first reviewer?

Maybe.

Could it also mean that many, many film reviewers are afraid that other people would perceive them as bad reviewers if they gave Citizen Kane two stars, ruining their careers in film critique masters forever? Could such stakes lead them all to claim to recognize the brilliance of Citizen Kane, while secretly, even subconsciously not believing that the movie is particularly well made at all?

Could the Emperor, in fact, be a naked man, and could the simple child indeed be the best videogame reviewer of them all?

PERHAPS




So yeah, I didn't buy Uncahrted 2. What did I buy then? Well, for $30, I bought The Grudge game on the Wii. So far, it has impressed me, but not totally. I got genuinely more skeebed out from the first levelthan I did from either American Grudge movie. That's at its best. At it's worst, it's just plain silly, but on the whole, it's good stuff so far.

Here's some highlights.

* All controls are done with the Wii remote; point to aim the flashlight and turn your character, press A for actions, B to move forward, and down on the C-pad to move backwards.

* Player 2 can activate new scares for player one to deal with, but only every fifteen seconds. These scares range from the totally lame (badly rendered cockroaches covering the screen for two seconds) to the unsettling (bloody paper suddenly flies at the player, a ghost's face half-appears in the lower corner of the screen) to the genuinely creepy (dead croaking girl suddenly flies upside down from the top of the screen to the bottom, or her face flies at you from out of nowhere, filling the screen as she screams)

* Scripted scares are more generally frightening than Player 2 controlled scares. For example,sometimes you'll see the little Grudge ghost boy run just into sight then disappear in seconds. One time you'll get the patterned Grudge croaky cell phone call. It may all sound old, but this stuff works just as well here, if not better, than it did in the movies.

* The graphics are really good for a budget game. The environments so far are better than those in the relatively impressive Dead Space: Extraction. It's cheating a bit because the lighting obscures so much, but on the whole the setting has been more convincing and unsettling in The Grudge.

* Sound effects, such a bangs, bug buzzing, screams, and Grudge croaking all work extremely well, at least, on a Stereo TV. I imagine on a surround sound set, it would work even better.

* Two ways to die so far- one is by running into Grudge girl and failing a to escape her (semi-QTE style), the other is by running out of batteries for your flashlight. You are constantly running out of battery life, and therefore, are always are pressured to move forward.

* The character moves really slowly and clumsily. This might frustrate people with low attention spans.

* There are secret items in every level, find them all and unlock a new stage.

* The game is scary to watch, but it's definitely more scary to play..

In conclusion, I'll be really surprised if I don't get my $30 worth from the game. They'd really have to screw up the rest of the levels for this game to be a total failure.



I also bought A Boy and his Blob today for $40. Great game so far, much harder than I thought it would be. I've only beaten the first two levels and two unlockable bonus levels, so I don't have much to go on yet.

Here are my thoughts (beware of first half-hour spoilers)-

* The premise is way stranger than I thought it would be. The boy in the game has no identifiable family. He lives alone in a giant, kick-ass tree fort. After the multiple blobs (many black and evil, one nice and white) crash land nearby, the boy goes out to investigate. He seems to instinctively know that the white blob is awesome, and trusts him %100, even after the black blobs tried to kill him on the way to the crash site. On the other had, the white blob isn't so sure about the boy . After some coaxing (meaning, after the boy says "C'MERE" a few times), they become friends, and the game begins in earnest. All this transpires in playable segments; no cut-scenes to speak of.

* The controls take a little getting used to, and its weird that you can't aim with the IR pointer where you want the boy to throw jellybeans, but otherwise, everything is smooth playing.

* I died quite a few times on bonus level 2. You have to think quick, pre-plan, and have good reflexes to survive.

* Beating bonus levels unlocks behind the scenes production art, which you view directly while playing the game. This goes a long with the seamless, menu-free, cut scene-free nature of the game. It's very effortless and classy.

* The game looks beautiful, and definitely feels retail quality. In some respects, it looks even better than Muramasa.

* The new voice for the boy is well done, with a lot of variety. It's rare to hear him say "BLOB!" or "C'MERE!" in the exact same way twice.

So yeah, loving both games thus far. Maybe when I'm done with them, I'll borrow Uncharted 2 from somebody and see if my opinion and Nick's are at all similar in this case. I hope they are, because he clearly had a great time with the game.

I should be so lucky.

Anyone else notice that the amount Wii-hate on the internet has really died down recently? It used to be that you couldn't go five seconds on a gaming blog without reading stuff like "The Wii isn't a game console, it's a toy" or "All Wii games looks like shit always all the time" or "I sold my dusty Wii because it has no games and it's not a gaming console and it waggles and I hate it and Nintendo abandoned me because they didn't go HD". These sorts of comments were bound to show up in any post about any Wii game, sometimes written by readers, and sometimes by the bloggers themselves. When I first started reading Destructoid, it seemed like I every other post was a Summa written Wii-bash. I don't miss it, or him.

These days, Wii bashing seems to be on the decline. Though there will always be a few noisy crickets, I reckon that I've seen more "Man, this almost makes me want to buy a Wii" and "That game looks fun, I hope it gets ported to a system I own" sort of comments in Wii posts than ever before.

I wonder why this is?

A few guesses-

* The Wii is getting more "hardcore" friendly games than it used to (Metroid: Other M, Sin and Punishment 2, FF CC The Crystal Bearers, Dead Space: Extraction, Silent Hill: Shattered Memories, No More Heroes 2, Muramasa, etc)

*The fact that the Wii is only sort-of kicking ass in "the console wars" instead of totally kicking ass. Becoming less of a threat makes people less afraid, and therefore less angry (thanks Yoda!)

* Most people realize that even if the Wii doesn't go on to outsell the 360 and the PS3, that it has already has "won" the philosophical side of "the console wars", as seen by Microsoft and Sony adopting as many of the Wii's attributes as possible (avatars, motion controls, etc.) Why bash a console that's already "won"?

* You can't make fun motion controls when your console of choice (360 or PS3) is adopting them as fast as it can.

* People grew up.

Those are my theories, what are yours?



I don't know why, but quite a few people have approached me via email over the past week asking if I know anything about Dead Rising coming to the Wii again. Is that because of my notoriously positive review of Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop (I still say it's a great game for $40), or because Frank West was recently announced for Tatsunoko Vs Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars? Or maybe it's because of all the Dead Rising 2 news that came out of TGS 09?

Regardless of why, people are asking me to confirm rumors about Dead Rising: Chop Till You Drop 2, or something like that. These rumors include reports of a whole new game, following Frank West and his continuing battle against the undead, to that of a simple down-port of Dead Rising 2.

For my money, the way to go with more Dead Rising on the Wii is to stay away from ports. I know it sounds like stating the obvious, but it needs to be said; put some decent money into Dead Rising Wii this time, and make the game look and play as good as RE4: Wii Edition, and you have something that would sell. Make the game a non-port starring Frank West, and I'd be just as excited for Shop Till You Drop 2 as I am for Dead Rising 2.

I've asked Capcom for confirmation or denial of these rumors, and if I hear anything, I'll let you know.



So, I'm back on TV this month, but this time it's local to New England, and only for a few minutes. Andy McCarthy, the producer/director/editor of all the videos I've done for Dtoid, and Chris Linnane(a good friend of mine named), managed to get a show made for NESN. It's called The Batter's Box, and it premiers Monday, Oct 12th at 6pm EST (that's tomorrow!)

It's a game show about Red Sox trivia, which to me, is a terrible thing. I am very easily annoyed by sports and have a general dislike for the Red Sox. Despite that, I still enjoyed the show. The host is really funny, and it's certainly more interesting that watching an actually baseball game.

OK, that's it for this quick-blog. Hope you're having a good long weekend!