Out of Principle: Why Money Speaks Louder Than Words

Chris Mrkvicka: “Gamers always say they're going to boycott something or other. Nine times out of ten, they don't. So I really don't take the internet, especially forums very seriously. If they were a good reflection Modern Warfare 3 would have tanked horribly.

     Gamers have a lot of power and say in the industry when we know how to use our influence. It’s easy for us to preach things like the evils of pumping out yearly Call of Duty titles and decry the lack of core titles for the Wii on forums, blogs, Facebook fan pages and gaming articles. All this criticism, unless it is reviewers’ low scores that impact the sales of a game, usually doesn’t accomplish anything. The only case in which fans were actually able to impact something they didn’t like was the Mass Effect 3 ending. The discussion over whether BioWare should have come out with the Extended Cut DLC or if that DLC was enough to quell fans’ anger was enough is not the topic at hand. I don’t think BioWare would have listened to fans at all if the game hadn’t sold well. With millions of copies sold and a majority of those customers very unsatisfied with the ending, if BioWare wanted to make future games in the Mass Effect universe they had to try and appease those customers as much as they could so they didn’t lose them as customers for future games.
     Money does the real talking in the industry. Even if a groundbreaking game receives critical acclaim, the only things a publisher/developer will see are the sales figures on the quarterly results. This is why despite the criticisms from gamers of yearly sequels being pumped out, expensive DLC, and other types of things they frown upon, they make money. This is where as consumers, gamers have enormous power. Your money decides what trends and business models succeed and fail in the game industry. If you want something to succeed, buy it. If you don’t approve of a practice, don’t buy into it. I have made many sacrifices and investments out of principle.

   
     I was a huge fan of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare. My friends and I used to play that all the time online and at each other’s homes. Some of the best multiplayer games I’ve had I will always remember as no-scoping the last kill for my team or hearing people laugh and cry when I released a tactical nuke, prematurely ending a game. When it was announced that Modern Warfare 2 would not have dedicated servers for the PC, I was appalled. Dedicated servers have always been a staple of PC gaming for me and I am not willing to give those up in the name of weeding out cheaters when dedicated servers run by Activision or myself can do just as well. I was the only one of my friends who stuck with the Modern Warfare 2 boycott. It hurt not being able to play with my friends online, but I didn’t give in to peer-pressure. I know that people found ways to have dedicated servers for Modern Warfare 2 but even if I did use a workaround for them why would I give money to support the people who I felt made a terrible decision? I was ecstatic when I heard that Black Ops and future Call of Duty titles supported dedicated servers, but now my problem with the series was that it was coming out yearly. The updates and changes were not enough for me to warrant a purchase each year, especially when all I usually played was multiplayer. Assassin’s Creed has engrossed me in its developing story and evolving gameplay. That has kept me buying the major releases each year so I am not against yearly sequels when they improve significantly upon their predecessors. To this day I have not bought a Call of Duty title past the first Modern Warfare.

     I also have not invested money in any game that has a free to play model. Team Fortress 2 (TF2) and League of Legends (LoL) are great fun but I will never buy anything from the Mann Store or buy skins and characters in League of Legends when I can just get it by just playing. I do not mind paying for these types of games; I bought TF2 for $20 and have greatly enjoyed it. I am glad that I am not forced to buy anything from these two games but I will stop playing these games if I am ever forced to buy characters or weapons just to keep up with everyone. I would rather watch a minute ad before each time I play than spend a dime on content I should be able to earn through playing.    

     Another thing I will never pay for is on disc DLC or day one DLC. DLC should never be on the disc already. If DLC is made while the main game is still in development it should be included with the full game and available to all. Bioshock 2 and Street Fighter x Tekken have both been guilty of locked content in retail games for multiplayer content and fully playable characters. I like DLC and don’t mind paying for more content when it is developed after the main game and set at a reasonable price for the content provided, such as Mortal Kombat’s new characters and new stories for Fallout 3. The “To Ashes” DLC for Mass Effect 3 is a prime example of day one DLC gone wrong, with playable code already on the disc and when reviewers have said that it is an integral part of the story that feels is was cut out of the main game. As much as I want to play it, I will not part with ten dollars for something I feel should have been in the game already.

 

     The biggest sacrifice I feel I have made out of principle yet is not buying Diablo III. As much as I loved Diablo II and enjoyed the open beta for III, it baffles me why I am forced to play online. If there was an option to play offline I would not mind. Options are good and the free to play model shows that can work; people can either pay for content or earn it the old fashioned way. I use my laptop to play all of my PC games. I am on the road a lot and the internet where I stay at most of the year is not reliable so this makes playing Diablo III frustrating because I’m not allowed to play what I would pay $60 for wherever and whenever I wanted. I also don’t like being online all the time; the ability to disconnect and get lost in my own world is precious to me. I don’t want any other games to follow this model. I know I am in the minority but I will never buy Diablo III for this reason alone.
     I’m in the minority of other things I do support as well. I paid to see Scott Pilgrim on opening day but it didn’t end up doing well in the box office. I bought games such as No More Heroes, MadWorld and the Resident Evil games for the Wii but those companies ended pulling their support for core games because of disappointing sales. Unless a game is only available as a digital download I will go to the store or order from Amazon a physical copy. I always show my support in hopes that others will follow and stand by it even when what I supported fails.
     Show your support to trends and companies with your money. Protest exploitation and unfair practices online and withhold your wallet no matter how it hurts so companies will think and be aware what they can do to improve. It is not my choice what you support, but if you’re one of those people that complains about something but pony up the cash for it every time it releases in hopes it will be different this time without reading reviews or doing your homework, you’re insane.

Thank you all for reading. What are practices in the gaming industry that you agree or don't agree with? Leave your thoughts in the comments below. Don't be afraid to give critique.

Read more »

The Big 5 Gone Mobile: A Strategic Comparison

    

     There are five major players in the mobile gaming industry with distinct, competitive hardware. Split between those companies sticking to dedicated handhelds and the smartphone Operating System (OS) vendors, Google, Apple and Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony have each planted a foot firmly in the rink as they compete for market share. These companies take different approaches to mobile gaming and their interplay will ultimately shape what games end up in the palm of our hands. Let us consider each of these companies in turn.

Nintendo: Riding the DS Legacy
     Nintendo has long enjoyed being the leader of mobile gaming and the 3DS continues to take the lion's share of sales of the dedicated handheld market. Although its lead over Sony's Playstation Portable line is not as pronounced this generation (yet), Nintendo looks like it has nothing to fear. The new challenge is that fewer developers are looking to Nintendo when they can release on Google's Android or Apple's IOS for a fraction of the cost and potentially reach a larger audience. The difference though is quality. Much of the cheaper market may have been siphoned off to other mediums, but some experiences simply can't be ported. Nintendo is counting on the quality of its third party titles to differentiate the 3DS from the competition.
     This puts the 3DS in direct competition with Sony's PS Vita, but competing with Sony is hardly a new experience for Nintendo. No one can say for sure what will happen in the future between these two handhelds, but as of now Nintendo has two advantages. First, it beat Sony to the market by a year. This translates into better initial sales and more titles. Sony was unable to release the PS Vita in time for the holiday season, which cost Sony another two months. Second, the 3DS costs less than the PS Vita, in terms of manufacturing cost and retail value. The DS line has a reputation, and especially for kids and parents, the price seals the deal for Nintendo. Nintendo will soon be able to sell the 3DS at a profit, but in order to equal the 3DS's price, Sony would have to sell the Vita at a steeper loss. In order to perform well, all Nintendo would have to do is continue to attract third-party developers to ward off the threat of losing sales to smartphones while underselling Sony to stay on top of its own market. As Nintendo turns its focus to the Wii U, it can be confident that it has the upper hand in the mobile console market.

Sony: Quality Over Quantity
     As seen from the above section and by market share, Sony is not outperforming the 3DS. Their mobile offering, however, is not weak. While the 3DS appeals to a broader audience, from the casual gamer to the core gamer, the raw horsepower and superior controls (analog sticks shouldn't be a peripheral, Nintendo) make the PS Vita the console of choice for a more core audience. For evidence of this, look at the titles of some of the current most popular games for each: Super Mario 3DS and Uncharted. Sony knows that it's unlikely to steal the younger market from Nintendo and is instead shooting for more core, graphically intensive titles that play to the strengths of the Vita.
     Yet, superior technology is not a cruise control for success. As with the Sega Game Gear and the Neo-Geo Pocket Color before it, the Playstation Portable failed to rival Nintendo’s DS for key reasons. The DS sold for $150 while the PSP sold at $250. The DS’s games were usually priced at $35. The PSP sold games ranging from $40 to $50. The DS used cartridges that were cheap to manufacture and easy to carry around, unlike the expensive and bulky UMDs. The PSP required special memory sticks that were priced higher than standard SD cards. Developers tried shoehorning the console experience into the PSP instead of making a game fitted for the system like the DS. The PS Vita has switched to cartridge games but you still see PS Vita games hitting $50 compared to the 3DS’s $35 to $40 range. Those $50 games are high quality but when Resident Evil: Revelations can sell for $40 on the 3DS one has to ask why Vita games can’t be priced that low. The Vita still outperforms the 3DS in the multimedia department but when their audience is core gamers, it’s hard to have that as a selling point when phones and iPods can do the same things. For the Vita to put its chops to use it needs a wide variety of games.
     Sony still has a card hidden up its sleeve: cross-platform compatibility between the PS3 and PS Vita. It is unlikely, however, to gain much ground as long as it requires the consumer to purchase two copies of the same game. Sony does offer a free Vita or PS3 download for MotorStorm RC, Hustle Kings and Top Darts, but for every other title that supports cross-play a separate copy is needed. It is unclear whether this potentially revolutionary feature will gather dust or be picked up for mass consumption. As of now it is little more than a gimmick.

Microsoft: A Late Challenger Approaches
     Microsoft is no stranger to the gaming industry, but they have yet to make a name for themselves in terms of mobile gaming. With the least popular of the main smartphone OS (sorry RIM, but the days of the Blackberry are long gone), Windows Phone 7 is a strong mobile offering, but its slim market share has severely restricted its potential when it comes to grabbing exclusives. This perhaps explains why games are usually released later for it and why they are sometimes more expensive. Microsoft isn't ignorant of this and has come up with a way to compete: Smartglass. The ability to turn your mobile device into a peripheral on demand is an exciting prospect, but has yet to prove its mettle in the arena. Still, this represents a challenge to the powers-that-be.
Tablets Aren't Just Large Phones Anymore: Windows 8
     Rather than trying to compete directly with the current leaders by starting from the bottom (a tactic that has proven ineffective at grabbing market share with Windows Phone 7), Microsoft has brought its already powerful ecosystem of Windows and Xbox machines down into the mix. This will fuel development for its new ecosystem and Windows 8 for ARM, the version of the OS likely to appear on lower-end slates, restricts access to the now-standard Win32 APIs (Application Programming Interface). Translation: Developers will be forced to adopt Microsoft's Metro interface on the lower-end hardware, forcing them to choose between tossing large parts of their code base to fully adopt Microsoft's Metro UI and philosophy or else settle with a smaller user base. It may be a hassle now, but in the long run these developers will enjoy compatibility on tablets, phones, and traditional desktops within one ecosystem. Microsoft may be losing the short-term battle, but it seems to be looking far into the future and making strategic decisions that will put it ahead in the long term.

The Smartphone Leaders: Google and Apple

     Unlike the dedicated console manufacturers, Apple and Google had the advantage of not having to care about games; originally, games were not an essential part of their business strategy. However, games have become a larger part of their overall strategies if the App Store and Android Marketplace are any indicators. It has introduced more people into games with social games such as Words With Friends and addictive games like Angry Birds. Games on these markets don’t have the high price barrier of traditional consoles, most games either cost a few dollars or use a free-to-play model. With a wide variety of users, these low cost games are quite lucrative, especially free to play games with their micro transactions. Already, we see that IOS and Android have gobbled much of the mobile market.

     While those games are currently the bread and butter of those markets, more money is being invested to create richer experiences and bring in the core gamer. Games such as Final Fantasy III (Square Enix) and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Capcom) have been re-released on mobile phones, and games such as Infinity Blade (Epic Games), Dead Space (EA) and Mass Effect: Infiltrator (BioWare) show that game companies are willing to invest the time and effort into creating AAA quality games into the market place, and that these investments can pay off handsomely.

     The App Store and Android Market are in a Wild West period; it’s all new and exciting with new developers coming onto the scene and making a name for themselves but it is a struggle to shine because of the lack of quality control; it’s not strong in either market. This year there was a fake Pokemon game released for the App Store which climbed up the sales charts before being removed. There are 250 zombie games that are not very different from each other in the App Store. The App Store has a disjointed approval process but the Android Market has no quality control. Games and apps can just be put on the market by anyone regardless of whether or not it works properly. This alleviates the stress of having things approved but it floods the market full of lots of terrible games and apps. User reviews help both markets inform other customers what is good or not, but others would argue that user reviews can only go so far and that the Google and Apple need to protect customers.

Apple: The Upper Hand
     While Google's and Apple's phones are comparable in many respects, Apple wins two major victories in this particular arena: cross-device compatibility and profitability. First, the smaller selection of form factors and hardware capabilities of Apple devices make games simpler to develop. The smaller selection means that a developer can test their device on only a few devices and be confident that his customers will get a consistent experience. While this is certainly a nicity, the numbers show that IOS developers tend to make more than their Android counterparts.

Touchy-Feely Controls
     Touch controls work fine for most games but there is a demand for a controller. While some developers have embraced the touch screen and made their games benefit from the new interface, many have not been so successful. Instead, workarounds like on-screen buttons, directional pads, and even analog sticks have become commonplace, and quite frankly, the games suffer for it. Quite frankly, the screen is small enough already without the user's thumbs obscuring half of it. Thus, the demand for solid, dedicated controllers has steadily risen. A few examples include the SteelSeries Ion for Androids with the layout of a Dualshock, the iCade for iPad arcade games and it is rumored that Apple is preparing a controller for the iPad and iPhone.

Upgrades: The Elephant in the Room
     While dedicated handhelds arguably offer the superior gaming experience right now via a combination of control options and graphical superiority, this lead is not likely tremain. Control issues have already begun to be addressed and graphical superiority may not last. Dedicated handhelds have long lifetimes with both the Nintendo DS and Sony PSP lasting seven years. Smartphones are lucky to last two years and will be replaced. At the rate smartphones have improved and with the availability of better control schemes, current handhelds will no longer lead technologically. Two years down the line, which consumers will drop hundreds of dollars on a dedicated handheld when their new phone will blaze past Sony's and Nintendo's finest? Even if the difference isn't that pronounced in two years, if we expect the current handheld generation to last even half the amount of time as the previous generation, most people will have upgraded their phones twice. The 3DS and PS Vita are effectively frozen in time, unable to substantially improve before the next generation. While firmware updates will undoubtedly abound, there is an upward limit to the hardware. Meanwhile, Google and Apple, who already have a lead in market share, will blaze past. People still played their DS and PSP six years past its release because they offered the best gaming experience to be had. The 3DS and PS Vita won't have that luxury. The latter though may have the luxury of price. Even with smartphones subsidized by carriers, a top of the line smartphone will cost around $200 with a plan. Based off the assumption of a life cycle comparable to the previous generation, if consumers do upgrade their phones every two years they will spend near $800 compared to $180 (3DS) or $250 (Vita) for a dedicated gaming handheld that developers will have had the time to practice with and improve upon.

     Whatever may occur, it is an opportunistic time for the handheld scene. Smartphones and Windows 8 are challenging the status quo touted by Nintendo and Sony, and competition breeds innovation. While subsidized smartphones and free-to-play pricing force the cost of mobile gaming lower and lower, the big five attempt to compete in their own style. Apple and Google will rule the smartphones, Microsoft will unite its ecosystems, Nintendo will cater to its younger and dedicated audiences, and Sony will do the same with its core gamers. As gamers, we’re excited.

*This article was co-authored by Sami Elahmadie, a computer-science major at Carleton College. He has a deep love for all things tech, and looks forward to future contributions with Arnie.


*This article was co-authored by Arnie Hermes, a Literature/Creative Writing major at Franklin College Switzerland. He has played video games all his life and aspires to be a novelist. He runs a blog on GameInformer under the name Glasses.

Read more »

Pixar Not "Brave" Enough To Take Risks (film review)

     (SPOILER FREE) Pixar’s first female protagonist is a tease. The first trailer showed us Merida, a red-haired lass riding through a dark forest, brandishing a bow and arrow and standing her ground when a bear four times her size stood in her way. The second trailer showed us more of Brave’s cast, Merida adventuring out in the land and wanting to change her fate but contemplating the cost of it. Instead of a an epic tale of a strong woman spitting in fate’s eye and adventuring on her own audiences are presented a tale about breaking tradition and other heavy handed morals. While Brave is a fairy tale that is beautiful to watch on screen it cannot change its fate that it is the prolific studio’s worst film since Cars.
     Pixar rewrote its entire animation system for the first time in twenty-five years and the effort shows. The set pieces are immense and full of life. Within the Scottish castle the 10th century decorations and architecture give off a sense of brutal royalty earned with years of battle. The locations outside of the castle such as the forest or the ruins of a castle offer the most depth and variation. The rivers and forests in the day are colorful and fun with the shining sun and wildlife while the depths of the forest when the sun goes down or the thick fog surrounding the ruins of a castle are dark and foreboding. If one were able to push the camera past the scene one could see deer running through the trees or a bear’s glittering eyes through the fog. The characters are wonderfully animated. The fluid animation gives personality to each character, even when it’s a random guard in the crowd cheering. This film has the best computer generated hair I have ever seen as evidenced by Merida’s large curls bouncing in the wind while riding her horse.

   
     The gorgeous scenery cannot save Brave from its lackluster story. Merida is a young woman who is betrothed to be married to one of three suitors from allied clans. However, Merida wishes to ride through the forest on her horse and shoot her bow, not to be the wife of someone she doesn’t love. She gets her tomboyish nature from her father, the king of the four allied clans but her mother tries her best to raise her “proper” because “a lady must strive for perfection.” Merida feels powerless to do anything about the betrothal so she flees into the forest to seek refuge. It is there that she meets a witch who promises she can change her fate. Seeing no other options, Merida agrees and the witch casts a spell on her family. How this spell affects the family is surprising and it focuses the story more on Merida’s relationship to her family and destiny.
     The story has the makings of an engaging fairy tale in the tradition of the Brothers Grimm but has as much depth as the sanitized versions of those classic tales. There are unexpected and surprising moments sprinkled throughout the film such as the suitors’ test, the witch’s cottage and the ruins but without much change in the pace the rest of the script fails to be as engaging without enough exciting or gripping scenes that last more than two minutes. Most of the characters are bland and forgettable, the animation giving them more life than the script. The film’s most engaging character is the mother. The film does well to give us the opposite point of view through her and it makes Merida look like an immature brat instead of the image of the strong woman that the film tries so hard to convince us and itself of, which makes it so hard to side with her. The comedy is smart at times with Merida and her father’s witty remarks but Brave relies too much on slapstick throughout the whole film. The first couple times I saw the Scots getting into scuffles over or Merida’s small brothers tormenting their nanny I chuckled, but after several times before even half the movie was over I was groaning. The film has three main morals and while good the film heavy-handedly preaches them to the audience. Instead of letting individual scenes speak for themselves Merida states them out loud for all to hear when she had no need to.

   
     One can tell that this film lost its original direction. This could very well be because of the change in directors from Brenda Chapman (director of The Prince of Egypt) to Mark Andrews (co-writer of John Carter) over creative disagreements. The film felt too safe, unwilling to take risks and deviate from the average “rebellious teen learns a lesson” plot.  Despite the troubled production, Brave is a beautifully told fairy tale that will have movie goers pleasantly entertained despite its shortcomings in its plot and pacing. You may not remember the majority of it in morning but you will grudgingly remember those moments when you could feel how great Brave could have been.
FINAL VERDICT: 7/10 (Average)

Read more »

Series That Deserve Proper Endings

     The first thought that popped into my head when the new Devil May Cry game was announced was “where does this fit in the timeline?” When I found out that it was a reboot, I knew that revisiting the old timeline would most likely never happen. I understand that movie and game series need a fresh start sometimes and I am looking forward to the reboot, but what upsets me is that fans never got a proper ending to the original Devil May Cry series. I am not saying that every series needs a definitive ending; there are series whose games have the same characters but are separate adventures just like the Tomb Raider series. What I mean is that these following series’ stories were never finished or were not given a proper “final game” in my opinion. (SPOILERS AHEAD)

1. Devil May Cry series (original)

     The original Devil May Cry games were not released chronologically, but the timeline goes Devil May Cry 3, Devil May Cry, Devil May Cry 4 and Devil May Cry 2. All of those games excluding 2 were fantastic titles that followed the exploits of demon hunter Dante. Each of those had their own standalone story but were all tied together by characters from previous games. Vergil, Dante’s brother, died in DMC but was established in DMC3. Trish (DMC) and Lady (DMC3) were in the final cutscene with Dante at the end of DMC4, which introduced Nero into the mix. DMC2 is the black sheep of the family with a convoluted, boring plot, a bland second character, easy difficulty, an unrefined combat system compared to the other games and hardly any connection to the rest of the series. That is not a fitting end to a stellar series. It would be great if after the new DMC comes out to create one last, stellar game revolving around all the original DMC characters so it could have a proper farewell.

2. Viewtiful Joe series

     Viewtiful Joe received wide praise amongst critics and gamers for its gorgeous cel shaded graphics, intense action and entertaining story that made homage and fun of popular film genres as Joe fought to destroy evil in Movie Land. A second game was made and ended with a cliffhanger where Joe and Sylvia head towards a dark castle in the distance to defeat the last and final threat to Movie Land.

     This idea of a trilogy was first brought up at the end of Viewtiful Joe 1 where Captain Blue says that Movie Land will be threatened two more times. Instead of a third and final game, Clover Studios made Viewtiful Joe: Double Trouble for the DS (spinoff) and Viewtiful Joe: Red Hot Rumble (Super Smash Bros. clone). While I had fun with both games I eagerly awaited a Viewtiful Joe 3. My hopes were dashed when Clover Studios was dissolved in 2007 and Capcom retained the rights to the franchise while members of the old studio went to form Platinum Games. Capcom has said that they would like to continue the series but that they have no plans to at the moment, if ever. Viewtiful Joe once said that “something always goes wrong once before you get to the happy ending.” Hopefully this is that plot twist before Joe gets his happy ending.

3. Prince of Persia (2008 reboot)

     This was a “love it or hate it” game. Half of the people who played it disliked it for its lack of challenge, dependence on orb collecting and little combat compared to the Sands of Time trilogy. I was in the next half that fell in love with the game for its watercolor world, character development between the Prince and Elika, dream-like control, tight platforming and story dealing with destiny vs. free will. The game was easy as you could never get a “Game Over” screen as Elika would save you from death (not to say you didn’t get punished for screwing up), the combat was decent enough and there never was a sense of urgency even when the fate of the world rested on your shoulders. To me though, the game was meant to be played and enjoyed at leisure. I felt a sort of Zen as I leapt off walls and scaled buildings in search of orbs in the world of a painting come to life without the fear permanent death.

     The game ended with the Prince failing to stop the coming of the dark force of Ahriman from engulfing the world because he could not sacrifice Elika. An epilogue was later released where the Prince and Elika battle Ahriman once more and seem to defeat him. Elika is angry at the Prince and goes off to search for her people, leaving behind the Prince with Ahriman seeking revenge.

     The game got a sequel in the form of a DS game entitled Prince of Persia: The Fallen King. It takes place right after the first game and dealt with the Prince searching for a way to summon Ormazd to stop Ahriman. It was an awful 2-D side scroller that suffered from terrible controls (all touch screen based), a lackluster presentation, repetitive levels and a too easy difficulty. To go from a world that looked like I was playing in a painting, controlled like a dream and had characters I connected with to a generic side scroller with touch screen controls and characters that make cereal mascots seem straight out of Shakespeare was appalling. 

     

     Ubisoft knew that not everyone enjoyed the reboot so the last Prince of Persia game they made was a side story from the Sands of Time trilogy and no word on a continuation of the 2008 reboot’s world. The “sequel” was embarrassing, not at all what the 2008 game deserved. I would love to see a console sequel to the 2008 game and pretend as if the DS game never happened. The ideas and universe that the reboot gave us is full of potential and easily could be another trilogy like the Sands of Time. People just need to accept the fact that it won’t be anything like the Sands of Time.

     I know there are other series that have not finished or did not receive a proper final game (Timesplitters, Beyond Good and Evil and Chrono Trigger come to mind) but these are the ones I have played and would like to see finished. Do you agree or disagree with my choices? Are there any series that you would like to see finished or given a better final game? Post them in the comments below. Don’t be afraid to critique my blog either, it’s how I get better.
Thank you for reading.

Read more »

3DS for 3DS XL? Pass.

     The trend in the entertainment industry has usually been that of diminishing size: from the Gameboy to the iPods. Nintendo has gone against this industry norm twice now, first with the DSi XL and now the 3DS XL. When I first heard about it I was excited; the screens were larger and the battery was improved. I was now going to be able to see my games in greater detail for much longer and for only $20 more than the original model ($200 vs. $180). After wondering how much the “upgrade” would cost me if I traded in my 3DS to Gamestop at purchase, I began to think how impractical the 3DS XL would be for me.                               

1. It’s Big

     Is bigger really better? To me, the words “big” and “handheld” are like oil and water: they don’t mix well. Handhelds have always been made to fit in your pocket and take with you. I am a gamer on the go. When I have to leave my precious consoles at home to take the metro, bus, train or plane, I pull out my handheld from my pocket to pass the time. The 3DS is about as big as the DS Lite, so it fits perfectly in my roomy pockets, even if it bulges a little. The 3DS XL’s screens are 90% larger and it weighs 46% more. Walking around with it would feel like I have a small paperback novel that weighs like a small rock. The larger screen size would be a hindrance anywhere outside the comfort of home.

2. The Display and Battery Are Not Worth The Upgrade

     Portability issues aside, the larger screen size and better battery sound great. Everyone enjoys watching movies and playing games on larger, sharper screens to feel more immersed and a better battery insures we can game on.
     Member “Oni no Tenshi” brought up a great point in her article “Bigger is Better” about clarity on smaller screens. Oni mostly talked about being able to read text but this logic can be applied to screen clarity in general. A little more than a year ago I bought a Gameboy Micro on eBay for $20 (I never purchased a GBA SP) to be able to play GBA games on the go when I wasn’t able to carry my 3DS with me (I can’t wear baggy shorts every day). The screen was brighter and clearer than any Gameboy model I have ever tried, despite the much smaller size. I can play Final Fantasy Tactics and Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and can make out the detail on backgrounds and read the text without straining my eyes. The size of the screen should not matter as long as players can clearly see what they are playing.
     If a better battery is what you’re after, there are other options available for the 3DS. I myself bought the Nyko High Capacity Battery Kit. For $30 I got charge stand and a battery that is double the battery life of the original (for $20 you can get the battery without the stand). Playing 3DS games with 3D, no wireless and power saving mode on I get from 8-10 hours of straight playtime. The only downside to the Nyko Power Pak is that it adds a slight bump to the back of the 3DS and makes it slightly heavier. The weight increase should not be as much as the 3DS XL’s weight increase and the Power Pak does not make the 3DS anywhere as bulky. For $20, you will spend less on a better battery then you would trading in your 3DS towards the 3DS XL at Gamestop.

3. No Control Improvement

     I have very large hands and have never hand an issue with either holding the 3DS or smashing all the buttons at once. Unless you have enormous hands, handling the 3DS should not be a problem. Despite my larger hands, I enjoyed the DS Lite better than the original DS. While it felt a little small in my hands, the controls were much more responsive than on my first DS. From the screenshots I have seen of the 3DS XL, it does not look like there have been improvements made to the buttons. The touch screen has also only been enlarged and not improved on (though I don’t think it needs much improvement).

The DS Lite buttons pop up and are more responsive compared to the flat buttons of the DS.

4. Speaker Improvements?

     The speakers have been most likely improved, but that does not matter to me anyway as the sound comes out the same through my headphones.

What Improvements I Would Like To See

     The first and foremost would be a second analogue stick. The redesign could be slightly larger, just enough to implement the second stick underneath the face buttons on the right, similar to a 360 controller. The 3DS XL has the space for it. I know this is what everyone else is begging for, but that would be the redesign that will make me upgrade. I am sure developers would still allow for the option of a second analogue to be controlled with either the touch screen or face buttons so all types of 3DS owners can play, but most people will soon prefer to play with the second analogue. When I am on the road I do not mind playing Resident Evil: Revelations without the Circle Pad Pro because it stills controls well but at home I do not hesitate to stick that bad boy on. It is great that the 3DS XL will also get a Circle Pad Pro but that is going to make the already large handheld even bigger.
     Finally - this probably will not happen because it could take the wind out of the 3DS XL’s sails – I would like Nintendo to sell a better battery for the original 3DS. If they can double the battery life of a much larger version, surely they could do more than double the battery life on the smaller system. I would not be surprised if they could triple the battery life. For a battery like the latter, I would pay $30. 

     So what are your thoughts on the 3DS XL? Will you be getting it or not and why? Love or hate some of my points? Leave your responses in the comments below.
     As this is my first blog post, please feel free to critique it as well. The more you rip up, the less I slip up. I will be posting bi-weekly to start off with. Once I get the hang of things I will be posting three times a week.
     Thank you for reading.

Read more »