Friday Reboot: Dig Dug!

For this week's reboot, I wanted to look at a classic game that I'm sure a lot of people remember fondly, but really hasn't been touched for a very long time: Dig Dug.

The idea behind Dig Dug was to dig tunnels and defeat monsters by inflating them. This is one of the first games that actually incorporated an element of stealth gameplay since what players usually wanted to do was attack the creatures from behind. Much like Donkey Kong, there wasn't a whole lot to it other than playing level after level until you reached the "kill screen."
With such a simple premise behind the game, it lends a lot of freedom to the developers for a new generation so let's get started.

GAMEPLAY
Dig Dug was about digging tunnels and tunnels are what you'll get, but the reboot should expand beyond that. Dig dug needs to include an element of exploration where players are free to discover new areas just by digging in any direction. It can help create a puzzle element to the world and allow for extended gameplay with players having a whole world to discover outside of the story elements. This can be related to power-ups, unlocking new gadgets, or a sort-of open world approach to the game which brings me to my next aspect.


Stealth and digging work together like peanut butter and jelly. What better way to surprise an enemy than dropping down from above or sneaking up from behind with tunnels hidden all around a cavern? For example, one of the most enjoyable elements of Batman: Arkham Asylum dealt with the stealth take-downs a player could use while hanging from above or crawling through air vents. This seems like a natural fit with Dig Dug, the exception being the player is free to set traps of their own design.

What better way to add to the player designed traps than giving Dig Dug more than just the bike pump of old. It would diversify the mechanics of the game to avoid repetition and include elements of strategy. The gadgets can range from different weapons to destroy monsters to new elements of cave exploration like grappling hooks, rocket packs, and wall walking boots. These lend themselves to a more whimsical style of game rather than the hyper-realistic, violent theme of shooters, but when you're a guy who digs holes, I think you can't take things too seriously. Dig Dug whould bring back classic memories and fun rather than the adrenaline pumping style of Gears of War.

STORY
Although the game would have a light hearted feel to it, that doesn't mean you have to have a nonsensical story. Games like the Oddworld franchise, Ratchet and Clank, and Jak and Daxter have shown that you can have a serious plot without sacrificing some of the fun. The setting could be a post-apocalyptic world living underground, offering fun surprises for exploration. Another idea is a more science fiction feel to it with exploring an alien world underground and dealing with a more extraterrestrial threat looming in the shadows. It's not hard to express some freedom in story telling when the original premise was "dig and pop." I'd even recommend giving him a side-kick, but that's only because I'm a sucker for the Clanks and Daxters of the world.

The point is Dig Dug is a classic game that can be rebooted to be something for everybody. The original design could translate into a brand new 3D world full of challenges for players to solve and secrets to explore. Throw in some impenetrable rocks to keep the player in a manageable space with the tunnels and you have a retro game with a brand new appeal.

When Fan Service Becomes Rotten Easter Eggs

SDCC 2010 wrapped up on Sunday and the convention brought about a lot of announcements, whether it be in movies, comics, TV, or video games. I'm always happy to see with the panels and announcements that the experience is really for the fans. It's great to be able to celebrate fandom and show appreciation for one of the biggest contributors to the industries. But the appreciation doesn't stop there. It continues on with Captain America's shield in Iron Man 1, Harvey Dent posters in Arkham Asylum, and the thousands of quotes of "IT'S A TRAP!" It's all part of the repayment known as fan service.

But when does the mountain of fan service take away from the content? Marvel Studios had panels to discuss the Thor and Captain America movies coming out next year but threw in announcements for what they and Iron Man have been working toward, the crossover film event of the Avengers. If anything is a monument of fan service, this is it. So far the actors mentioned to be in the movie are Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Don Cheadle (War Machine), Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Samuel L. Jackson (Nick Fury), Scarlett Johansson (Black Widow), Chris Evans (Captain America), Jeremy Renner (Hawkeye), Mark Ruffalo (Hulk), with rumors of Nathan Fillion (Ant-Man) and Eva Longoria Parker (Wasp) also included. That's 10 heroes and 1 villain so far.

I'm sure plenty of fans out there are dying to see the real life renditions of the characters, but even if it were to be a 3 hour movie, what kind of story can be told that doesn't put some of these stars into a walk-on role? With the X-Men films, the characters had pretty much the same understanding for all of them being there; other people didn't like them. Even with those movies, many of the characters had but minutes of screen time. Spider-Man 3 was weighed down heavily with its 3 villains with none of them really feeling fleshed out. Dark Knight slipped by with its 2 villains, but even so Two-Face felt more like the story of Harvey Dent, which isn't bad but that story ended abruptly. The Avengers' director, Joss Whedon, has the geek background to show some real appreciation for the characters and put together a great story, but most of his experience is in TV. He's shown he can handle a handful of entertaining characters over a series, but his first film, Serenity, suffered as a stand-alone piece. Without viewing Firefly, the TV series leading up to Serenity, the large cast felt more like place holders rather than a mix-matched crew of scoundrels. Maybe Whedon has picked up some tricks in the last 5 years, but I think it's a monster for even some of the greatest actors to tackle.

Will Marvel Studios be able to pull of the giant pile of fan service that is The Avengers or will it just be another kind of pile? We've got a few years before we find out but I'm going to hold off on my excitement. Secretly, my inner Akiro Kurosawa fan hopes Whedon makes it as much like Seven Samurai as the Magnificent Seven, but I can only dream.

Is Kinect Too Late?

There's been a lot of animosity coming since E3 toward Microsoft's Kinect, a peripheral that was highly talked about a year ago. Recently, Xbox Live's Stephen Tolouse made the statement that hardcore gamers have been wrong for the last 10 years, referring to the surprising success of Nintendo's Wii. I blame the sudden switch in gamers' attitudes to the weak performance by Microsoft at E3 this year, taking almost a step back as far as showing off what Kinect can do. With it Microsoft looking to take away Nintendo's lunch money, it makes me wonder if Kinect is just too late.

WHAT I LIKE ABOUT KINECT

One of the criticisms about Kinect is the rumored price of $150 for the unit. A lot of people are commenting that it is too much of a buy in when you can get a Wii for $200 and have everything you need. But the problem the Wii has faced with many gamers is it's pretty much just a machine for party games. Most people I know who own one have it collecting dust and just get it out whenever a group of people get together. Since the Wii only comes with one controller, you end up having to buy or borrow 3 more. With Motion+, that comes to $70 a bundle, making the cost of the Wii $410 without a new game. So far Kinect has been shown to recognize two players and if it can pull off 4 that's even better. The potential cost for a new Xbox 360 and Kinect comes to $400. Even if it is only 2 players at a time, it's still not bad for a system you'll actually play any other time. If some parent asked me which one I'd recommend for their kid, I'd go with Microsoft based on it being the better value, but that's partially because I've always related the Wii to Apple, being a trendy electronic that's built on hype. I'm sure they're finding out now though they're not invincible.

Another aspect I like about Kinect comes from the buzz around it when it was first announced, the potential. Sure, Skittles didn't seem like much except fulfilling a secret fantasy to be Mike Tyson and own a tiger, but there's more to it than that. By recognizing hand gestures and finger movements new doors can be opened up with brand new elements of gameplay. It could be something small like in a game similar to Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time where the player would have to memorize finger placements to play a song, or it can be more involving like dribbling the ball in a basketball game. There's also the added advantage of returning to my youth and flipping the checkers board when I was going to lose. It gets to a point where a peripherals failure may not be so much on the manufacturer or console as it is developers not leaving their comfort zone to develop new software.

THE HURDLE

Microsoft's real enemy in all of this has been time. It's been years since the Wii was released and there have been enough purchased that I'm sure most of the people interested in motion control already have one. Their saving grace is the probability that any Wii that isn't in a retirement home or bar has another console with it. If they can launch Kinect with a strong line-up of games, then it stands a chance to dethrone Nintendo. They need to stay away from the piles of shovelware that has created 90% of the Wii's library.

Microsoft may think hardcore gamers have been wrong, but they still need them to succeed. Just look at the sales for non-Nintendo Wii games and you see where the strength of the industry lies.

Kids Like Collecting Stuff, Right?

Want a cheap way to extend gameplay? Try adding something to collect!


With the recent release of Crackdown 2, with its orb-collecting fun, I thought I'd take some time to talk a bit about collecting in a video game. For some games, it's a way to add a few more hours for those die-hards out there that have to complete 100% of the game. Other franchises, like Pokemon and its numerous knock-offs, have it at the center of the gameplay. Like an OCD obsession, people getting all of something... so long as that something has value.

Just as it's rare to find someone collecting Pauly Shore movies, it's also rare for gamers to complete a collection in a game that isn't going to reward them. Pokemon offered new abilities with each critter you found, InFamous increased the electricity the character could hold by collecting blast shards, and Crackdown increases gameplay abilities with the orbs collected. Each of these offers some kind of reward for the added effort to play the game, an incentive that could make the game a bit easier as you go on. Other games may use the collections as a way to unlock characters, like Ratchet and Clank, or even vehicles. The point is it in some way changes the gaming experience.

However, there are times when it just feels added on as an afterthought. Prototype offered many challenge missions aside from the plot to keep people entertained, but the added aspect of collecting around the city just seemed so pointless. They amounted to nothing more than something to fill time for the trophy/achievement whores out there. Even the web of conspiracy, with its 100+ people, didn't offer much of a reward. The point was to absorb the memories of various people around New York City to learn more about the outbreak. What players were given was a shoddy cut-scene of still photos with voice work lasting 30 seconds with no real revelation. Sure, once somebody collected all of them, they could piece it together by replaying the scenes in order, but it didn't offer anything new that wasn't part of the overall plot.

What ultimately makes collecting work is the reward. Whether it's unlocking new areas, completing missions, or added abilities, when collecting works it can add some extra fun to the game. I love messing with the physics of a Spider-Man game, swinging around the city, and it adds to that experience when a game like Web of Shadows adds the collecting to it. Not only does it offer the reward of increased abilities, but it gives me something to do when exploring the city. Collecting is like any other element in game development, it needs to be respected and used properly. It can't just be added on to any sandbox game without offering some sort of payback. When elements of gameplay aren't respected, it leads to piles of shovelware like the bullet time games that filled the 2000s, and that's not a place I want to go back to.

Friday Reboot: Godzilla

Back finally with another Friday Reboot. This time I'm going to look at a franchise that already had one try in America and ended up as one of the most hideous bastard children of the 1990s, but for some reason Hollywood is going to give it another go, Godzilla.


1998 was America's first try at bringing the giant lizard to America with Mathew Broderick as the unlikely hero scientist to battle the beast. It was dumped on by critics and to this day, even among the tradition of summer blockbusters lacking any substance, it is still seen as a different kind of monster than intended by almost everyone. Yet for some reason there has been talk within the last year of trying it again. I'm a bit pessimistic for it yet I really want to see something beyond a foam rubber suit on the silver screen, and nobody knows how to blow a budget on a movie like America. But to do a proper reboot, you first need to see what went wrong the first time.

GODZILLA


The biggest complaint about the 1998 movie was it just wasn't Godzilla. You had a giant iguana with spikes on its back and had it breath fire. In a very vague way, they got it, but at the same time they were way off the mark. It's almost like they were trying to create Jurassic Park in a way. You see it often with video games but from time to time it happens in movies, somebody has an idea they want to sell and they shoe-horn it into a licensed property to make it look more promising. The 1998 film wasn't Godzilla, it was "Giant Lizard Attacks New York." It just didn't have the soul that Godzilla typically has in the Japanese movies, that feeling like when Optimus Prime finally shows up in Transformers and you know things are about to get awesome. The 1998 film built to that point with the partial reveals of the monster, but then instead of seeing Optimus Prime, you got a Go-bot. One of the key ingredients to pull off the reboot is to really make it feel like Godzilla. In Japan, Godzilla wasn't just some giant monster who happened to come across Tokyo, he was an unstoppable force of nature bordering on chaotic animal and god-like protector.

THE STORY

One thing that stands out about what Japan has done with Godzilla is the movies aren't really about Godzilla. There's always been some underlying theme for the most part, whether it has to do with genetic experimentation, nuclear weapons, or cultural discrimination. That was usually the purpose of the other monster involved, a product of our own evil with the unstoppable destroyer turning into our savior. Sony's 1998 Godzilla was man versus beast, a nerdy scientist becoming a hero and saving the world from a giant monster. There was not much else going on. What could have been a statement about the military, environmentalism, or any number of additional topics was boiled down to a crappy B-movie plot.

For the reboot, the easiest way to solve the problem with the story is to not make an origin movie. So much is spent in American films explaining the monster. We have to know why there is this monster, yet it is this very attitude that ruins zombie movies. Part of what makes the first Living Dead movies so great is George Romero didn't care about explaining the zombies. He has even said he just wants to make movies about people and zombies help him get the funding. In a way, that's how Godzilla should be treated. J.J. Abrams was successful in telling a compelling story with Cloverfield by treating the monster as more of a natural disaster than an enemy. It was a story about a guy trying to get to his girl and there just happened to be a monster tearing up the place while he was at it. It is said that all good science fiction stories have very human problems. The new Godzilla can take any number of approaches with this. The story could be about global warming, an environmental disaster like BP is currently part of with the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, over-consumption of natural resources, and yet still keep to the original origin of nuclear testing. The key is to make the story about people, not the monster.

HAVE ANOTHER ANTAGONIST

As it seems to be the theme, the problem was man versus Godzilla. Another antagonist would help to add that more human of a story. Typically it came in the form of another monster, something I would really like to see Hollywood do just because I think it would be awesome to have two CG monsters tearing up the city. It doesn't have to be though. Depending on the story, it could be an evil corporation, government agency, mad scientist, or even some kind of super weapon. Personally, I'd be leaning toward having the giant monster and one of the others. It would be an easy story to have a statement on genetic manipulation and have Godzilla fight a giant monster created using a sample of his DNA and offer an explanation for why this monster is suddenly attacking. The company finds possibly a dead infant Godzilla, takes it for samples bringing the real deal to attack the location, and the company then creates a monster to stop the destruction it unwittingly caused. The monster goes wild and the people end up needing Godzilla to take care of the problem. The human feature could come from the hero of the story having a relative who could benefit from genetic manipulation, whether it be in the form of a disease or any other illness and this could be the main focus of the story, the hero's struggle against the evil company.

In 1998, Hollywood found out people come for the monster, but stay for the story. Unfortunately they didn't have much of a story. True, Godzilla is a giant monster, but at his heart that's not what Godzilla is about. Let's just hope Sony gets it right this time.

E3 Day 1: The Big 3's Big Sells

After a bit of hiatus I'm back for possibly my favorite week of the year, a week I look forward to more than Christmas or birthdays, the Electronic Entertainment Expo or E3.

Although E3 didn't officially begin until today, there were already plenty of press conferences and announcements on Monday. Although a majority of the week is filled with updates and suprises on new games, each year the Big 3 of Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony are always the most anticipated. It's the console developers that ultimately shape the future of the industry. Usually at this point we'd be seeing announcements of new consoles in development, but with the state of the economy and the price of current systems, nobody expected to see that. The current generation is finally becoming affordable and Blu-ray is just becoming the mainstream standard. So with no new consoles, what did they have to show?

The simple answer: HARDWARE

MICROSOFT

The big announcement from the Xbox 360s proud parent is was already announced last year, but this time around it had a new name and more to show for it. Project Natal is now known as Kinect and shows promise to be the next phase in gaming. Kinect's motion capture camera allows stronger interaction with gaming by making the player the controller. Showcased this year was new titles featuring the hardwares ability to recognize different actions and its possible implementation. I think Kinect is what Nintendo wanted the Wii to be, that fully immersive gaming experience. Personally, I hope they can achieve more than a collection of crappy carnival games. There's plenty of promise for Kinect to reshape gaming but ultimately it's up to developers to create something people will enjoy.

The other big announcement in hardware was the new Xbox 360 Elite with a 250GB hard drive with included wireless internet. Honestly, I can't believe it took this long. There's been more rumors flying around about an HD Wii being in the works than the 360 having wireless included yet you'd think once the PS3 came out as wireless, it would have been the first hardware change to implement. But then again, they did have that whole overheating problem to work out.

NINTENDO

Oh Reggie Fils-Aime, where do you get your ideas? I'm not saying the President of Nintendo of America is a creative developer, but more of a creative salesman. I've long had a real disdain for Reggie because of how he comes off when selling the Nintendo brand. Sony and Microsoft give the others credit for what they do and show some honesty, but I've never really noticed Reggie really acknowledging successes of the other two or Nintendo's own short comings. What has me so riled up this year is his statement that NPD data shows the Wii is the most played system by its owners over any other system. Anybody I know who has a Wii has it collecting dust. Now I'm not saying Nintendo is lying, but just being creative with statistics. I've got a background with conducting studies and experiments so the first explanation that came to mind was who owns a Wii. I give them credit for having a huge install base, but I think that skews the data. How many grannies and college girls actually own a PS3 or 360? I want to see a study done by people who do own more than one system and see what that data says.

But anyway, on to their big sell. This year it was about returning favorites from Nintendo's classic games, including Kid Icarus, but their main feature was on the next handheld, the 3DS. The promise from Nintendo is the 3DS will offer 3D gaming in the palm of your hands. I've already expressed my opinion on 3D as being the wrong direction for entertainment but the 3DS comes off as even more of a gimmick. The inclusion of a camera in the DSi seemed a little unnecessary for me since I already have that with a phone, but the 3DS claims to be able to take 3D pictures. Ultimately, I'm not against Nintendo handhelds. I enjoy my DS for it offering a solid experience in 2D gaming but I don't see the need for 3D. How immersive of an experience can you have when it's on a small screen between your hands? Nintendo also has the difficulty of trying to impress people without actually being able to show them something. The 3DS is something that needs to be experienced in person and I can see it being a challenge to convince cautious consumers. However, if 3D is the future, I think the 3DS is the way to go with technology offering an experience without headache inducing glasses.

SONY

Sony didn't really bring anything new as far as their main feature this year, not even a new name. The Playstation Move is a motion controller utilizing the Playstation Eye with a 1:1 movement ratio. Most of their conference was demonstrating the new peripheral with gameplay styles and expressing its potential. Although not earth-shatteringly impressive, it looks like the Playstation Move is what the Wii wanted to be. It has more precise motion control and the lollipop-like light on the end offers new gameplay options on top of just waving your arm around. I don't see the Move having a place in every household, but again, it is up to developers to make software that will define its success.

Another matter of Sony that let me breathe a sigh of relief was the clarifications made of Playstation Plus. Rumors had been circulating about Sony going with a paid system for their PSN services similar to Xbox Live. The concern was much of the paid services of Xbox Live were free for PSN. The question was were these free services suddenly going to have a fee. I was happy to see that the free services were not changing. Instead, premium services will be offered with beta access, faster downloads, and exclusive demos. I'm not sure if I'll go for the Playstation Plus, but I was glad to hear the current services wouldn't be changing.

Oh, and one more thing...

TWISTED METAL!!!!!

A Black Spider-Man? Wasn't That the Third One?

The internet has been roaring with the call for Donald Glover as Spider-Man, but the reason for the attention is when most people picture Spider-Man, I doubt they picture this.

I wasn't a fan of Tobey McGuire but some of the ideas being thrown around by Hollywood are up and coming teen pretty boys like Logan Lerman. However, what can really restore the Spider-Man movie franchise is someone who can really fill the character, not just eye candy.

One of the things that irritated me about Tobey McGuire was his portrayal as Spider-Man. He was great as Peter Parker, the nerdy school boy who couldn't get the girl. He had a certain awkwardness that was comical at times as audiences rooted for the underdog to finally come out on top. However, his costumed Spider-Man was anything but the arrogant jokester fans would expect him to be. His jokes were dry and sounded like they were dubbed in as Mcguire read from a script.

Glover has the potential to do so much more than McGuire as Spider-Man. For starters, he's a comedian. He's already great on Community and could easily adlib some lines in to give the character that witty punch that would capture audiences. One of the things that has made Spider-Man so relatable to audiences is he's a guy that never really wins. The first movie really showed it with the ending where even though the bad guy was beaten, it came with a cost. But it's the light hearted nature the character goes about life that keeps it from being so depressing.

But the likeliness of Glover landing the role is pretty slim, mainly because Peter Parker isn't black. But hey, what better way to tell audiences it's a reboot than to drastically changing the lead role? It's frustrating being the geek who knows a movie is a reboot and having to explain to a non-geek why the previous movie doesn't matter, although I'm sure we can all agree everyone will be better for forgetting Daredevil. For some, Punisher and Punisher: Warzone coming out relatively close to each other created some confusion for the non-geeks. A black Peter Parker would be an easy way to say to audiences "look, this is going to be something brand new." I hope Hollywood is listening because Glover is ready to jump into the blue and red spandex.

But the Glasses Hurt My Brain!

Ever since James Cameron's Avatar set box office record, there's been a new concept flying around. It was one of the bullets that killed the Spider-Man movie franchise, built up interest in PC gaming again, and became a new reason to make TVs expensive again. All of this happened because 3D became cool again.

New movies are being either created or adapted to be in 3D ever since the financial success of Avatar. Clash of the Titans received the update months before its release along with summer blockbusters like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, Shrek Forever, and Toy Story 3. It didn't take long to jump the shark though because this summer we'll be seeing Step Up 3D. If there's one thing that will make my life meaningful, it's seeing bad acting like I'm already there. It's the night of local theater I've secretly dreamed of!

But the 3D train wreck doesn't stop there. The Sony has announced the PS3 will be 3D capable by the end of the year and recently Killzone 3 would also have the capability. This follows the Avatar tie-in game featuring 3D, which seemed like a last minute add-on, and 3D graphics cards for computers. CES 2010 was loaded with new 3D televisions and a 3D version of Avatar for Blu-Ray has been promised. ESPN and Discovery channel have already stated their intentions for 3D stations of their programming. With all this steam, 3D has to be the next wave, right?

Too bad it will take too long to be affordable. You just dropped a big chunk of change on a 3D capable TV? I hope you bought the goggles for it too. Those are a couple hundred on top of the TV. Want to share it with friends? Better buy some extra goggles. I find it hard to spend $60 to buy another PS3 controller to have friends join me in LittleBigPlanet, let alone $200 for the one in one hundred game or movie that will be in 3D. Sorry, dudes, but you better bring your own goggles. Movie theaters are struggling to keep up with new summer blockbusters in IMAX and 3D as they were unprepared for the sudden influx. Avatar will be seeing a second release in August because Fox complained Alice in Wonderland 3D kept it from making more money. 3 months in theaters wasn't enough? As the summer rolls on, Iron Man 2 was already pushed out of IMAX by Shrek Forever after only 2 weeks. With the state of the economy and the theaters, the public is not ready to make the transition to 3D as quickly as it is being pushed. This will cause the 3D movement to burn out as little more than a fad... hopefully.

This brings me to the other concern of the 3D push, sacrificing quality for the sake of a gimmick. Sam Raimi struggled with Sony over Spider-Man 4 being in 3D. Raimi's main argument against it was he knew nothing about it and didn't think he'd be able to make a quality movie with it. For the horrid monster that Spider-Man 3 was, Raimi regained some respect from me for showing some integrity. The Avatar game was panned by critics for its unfinished flaws, yet it manages to sell almost 3 million copies. Nintendo has announced their next handheld system will feature 3D, possibly a worse gimmick than motion control turned out to be, and I'm sure will lead to mountains of shovelware in the following months. Unfortunately, 3D brings in quick money and therefore is quickly becoming the new standard. Soon enough we'll be seeing the likes of Frost/Nixon in 3D, and the part of me that appreciates reason will cry itself to sleep at night with Nixon's nose jammed in its face.

It's yet to be seen if I have a prediction or a dream, but I hope for everyone who enjoys a good story and realizes the medium is just as meaningful as the content that 3D is just a fad. Wait until next summer and we'll see how much life it still has left in it.

Friday Reboot: Maniac Mansion

Well, it's a day late, but it's time for the weekly reboot. This time around it's time for a classic favorite of anyone who played a Nintendo Entertainment System beyond Super Mario Bros. and Duck Hunt. In those 8-bit days, very few games fed into the player's creativity. Most games only had the choice of moving left or right and that's as far as they'd go for open-endedness. But in 1987, the company now known as LucasArts put out a game with optional characters, multiple endings, and hidden comedy ranging from pop culture references to exploding hampsters. It's time to go back to the Maniac Mansion.




If Maniac Mansion had anything, it was a high replayability factor. With seven different endings, six characters having different abilities with only two to select for the game, and the capability to interact with almost any object you came across, anyone would have a difficult time playing it the same way twice. But the times have changed and there are even more possibilities for open game styles. This is a title that would need a serious overhaul to be ready for today's market.


CHARACTERS


One of the most memorable aspects of the original was its diverse cast of characters, playable and non. The Edisons, the primary antagonists living in the mansion, were a colorful group besides their blue skin. It was a family consisting of an evil scientist, a militaristic son, an obsessive daughter, and two tentacles. Depending how you played the game, you could turn your enemies into allies. However, Edna could use some more fleshing out beyond the romantic who hung out in the kitchen at the beginning of the game.

The playable characters could transition into a more modern interpretation but it could stand to have them more balanced. Bernard, the do-anything nerd (and possibly a character created as wish fulfillment on behalf of the developers), could be scaled back with a modern interpretation. I also never saw the need for two musicians when neither of them offered anything different. There is also the option to diversify the gameplay with photography and Easter Eggs with radio channels.

GAMEPLAY

Gaming genres have diversified much more since the days of the NES. Thanks to games like Resident Evil, games offer more suspense and terror than most horror movies now. The classic adventure style of gaming has been fading for a while and perhaps the best way for a reboot to succeed would be to follow more of a survival horror style of exploration. Maniac Mansion, with all its goofy humor, still created a feeling of suspense. You didn't know if the next room you were about to explore would be occupied by one of the house's residents or what kind of danger there was to interacting with any given item. They just have to make sure they get the camera right.

STORY

Obviously there would have to be more to the story in a new generation of the game, not only because of hardware ability but because a refreshed version of the old game wouldn't offer much to old fans. A bigger mansion offers more interactions for side stories and character development. But the most important aspect would be more endings. The original Maniac Mansion and similar games like Crono Trigger begged to be played again just to discover what other outcomes there were. Maybe give Edna that romance she was always looking for. Personally, I'd love to see a giant hampster rampage through town after giving it radioactive water.

With the rough economy, many publishers are going to already established IPs rather than risking a new one. LucasArts is still around and I'm sure they wouldn't have any trouble finding a publisher for a reboot. Maniac mansion is one of those classic games that can send a group of 20-somethings reminiscing of hidden jokes and crazy story developments. It was Maniac Mansion that taught this gamer if you have a problem with something, throw it into the trunk of somebody else's car.

What? No Recent Warfare?

There's been a lack of news regarding the Activision/former Infinity Ward employees lawsuit, but recently there have been some developments that might be hinting on the future of the Call of Duty franchise as far as Activision is concerned.

Part of the lawsuit involves contention over the Modern Warfare name, what I consider an important part of moving forward if either party continues with shooter games. Recently though, Activision has registered domain names for possible titles Future Warfare, Space Warfare, Secret Warfare, and Advanced Warfare. Could this be a sign of their intentions or possibly branching off from the franchise? Shooters are a dime a dozen these days and with Activision having projects underway with Sledgehammer Games, Raven Software, and a dismantled but functioning Infinity Ward, it makes me wonder if the Call of Duty title will become the new Guitar Hero, slapped on any piece of shooter shovelware that's pushed out the door.

When the dispute over the Modern Warfare license first broke, the first thing I thought of was the implications if Activision were to lose it. With Call of Duty: World at War's zombie DLC being received fairly well, it's evident Activision could take the franchise into alternative history styles like Wolfenstein or Freedom Fighters, a personal favorite from the PS2. With Future Warfare and Space Warfare, it seems they may be shedding their realistic base and going more into the direction of Halo and other sci-fi shooters, which is interesting considering their new partnership with Bungie. When it comes to space warfare though, a certain Lombax already has that market cornered in my heart.

The titles of Secret Warfare and Advanced Warfare lend themselves to a more traditional interpretation though. Secret Warfare would fit in with the announced Call of Duty: Black Ops, focusing more on a stealth style of gameplay. Advanced Warfare might as well be Recent Warfare. There's tons of interpretations that could be taken from the title, whether it be expanding on strategy and supply drops to a not-quite-future style.

The move into spin-offs for the Call of Duty franchise may be a way for Activision to mitigate damage done to the development cycle. While litigation is pending, it would be unwise to release a Modern Warfare 3 unless they feel comfortable paying out royalty checks. However, if Activision fails to release a new title annually, the fickle minds of the shooter masses will easily forget it. It didn't take long for the bugs of Modern Warfare 2 to send gamers over to Battlefield once it was released. If the new titles end up being garbage software to fill a time table though, it will have seriously damaging effects on the brand of Call of Duty. It's taken a while for the stigma of being a WWII shooter to wear off and right now they run the risk of running the IP into the ground.

Friday Reboot: Ghostbusters

Like many children who grew up in the 80s, I pretended to be a Ghostbuster. I had the proton pack, the trap, the fire house playset... The only toys I had more of were my beloved Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. It's funny looking back now to think how we fought over who got to play as one of the nerdy, balding men. But Ghostbusters has been one of those timeless franchises that when watched when you're older, still seems really cool. You can imagine how crushed I was to here Bill Murray say to David Letterman that there will not be a third movie. When the recent video game was announced, rumors started to fly and it all came crashing down.

But thanks to reboots, not all hope is lost. There's still a chance they'd want to pass the torch on, which was rumored to be the plot of the third movie, and let somebody else take over. It's this dream that I share as part of this week's Friday Reboot.

THE CAST

For starters, you're going to need a terrific cast to pull off the character magic that was Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, and Harrold Ramis. With the current trend in Hollywood, things would have to be full of action and in 3D, but my goal is to pay as much homage to the original while updating for current generations.


Bill Murray was able to pull off a charming and somewhat heroic loser in the form of Dr. Peter Venkman. He was always after the girl and never seemed to take the job seriously. However, he was easily recognized as the leader of the group because of his quick wit and confidence. Whoever stepped up to replace Murray would have a big role to fill and have to bring a lot of character to the table. I admit my choice is a bit biased, but the actor I think would be perfect for the roll is...





James Roday. Roday plays the roll of Shawn Spencer for USA Network's Psych, a charismatic slacker able to get by with pop culture jokes yet commanding and confident enough to have you believe he's the hero of the story. It'd be a bit hard to picture his as a professor of paranormal psychology, but how many people actually remember the Ghostbusters working for a university before being kicked out? For the sake of a reboot, I think that's one detail that can be rewritten. Ghost Hunters is big now, why not cast them as paranormal researchers?



Next up is Dr. Raymond Stantz, more professional than Venkman but always seemed to come off as being a bit immature. He always reminded me of the happy-go-lucky chubby kid, like Chunk to the Goonies if you will. The next Ray Stantz would have to be professional enough to be believable as a scientist yet have that oddball quirk to add some comic relief. Honestly, Ray was my favorite Ghostbuster and picking someone was a bit difficult.







I'm not a big Seth Rogan fan, but he's in practically everything already. I think if you get him away from some of the stoner roles he's been cast as, he has the possibility to truly develop into a believable follow-up to Aykroyd. He's capable of the humor yet still able to pull off a more serious tone. I say give him a shot.








Dr. Egon Spengler was the brain of the group, with jokes delivered so dry, anyone without a sense of sarcasm wouldn't realize the humor hidden inside. This was a role, much like with James Roday, where I instantly had someone in mind.



Neil Patrick Harris is known currently for How I Met Your Mother, but he's already played two doctors, which qualify him enough for me. He's someone who can pull off the geek look but still sound sophisticated and confident enough to believe he's the brain of the group. Throw him in a lab coat again and Dr. Horrible would fit right in hunting ghosts.




Winston Zeddmore felt like a convenient plot device for the first movie, the new guy hired in so the rest of the team could explain to him (and the audience) how they captured ghosts and introduce the containment grid. Other than that he didn't offer a whole lot of character for the team. However, I think a reboot would benefit from a more fleshed out character. Rather than playing the straight man to the rest of the team, a role I found Egon fitting perfectly and probably made Winston more forgettable, he would fit better as more of a wild card for the team. Ernie Hudson deserves credit for what he's done, but my pick for Winston would be...


Wyatt Cenac of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. It would be the perfect role for him to branch out into film and he has that every-man quality that would help the audience relate to being the new guy on the team. He's got the comedic ability to really make the role shine.




For Louis Tully, the team's future accountant, attorney and dog-man, Rick Moranis was perfect for the role. You don't see too many people become famous playing the role of a nerdy, wimpy guy, but there's one on the way now that Moranis has left the spotlight.






Christopher Mintz-Plasse has played the role before of the nerdy guy who thinks he'll get the hot chick. I don't know how much of an honor it is to say this, but he's this generation's Moranis. Keep an eye out for him if I ever start drudging up a Honey, I Shrunk the Kids reboot somewhere down the line.





Dana Barrett, the damsel of the story, was played by Sigourney Weaver. She's made quite a career of herself but I've never really believed her as the helpless woman who needed to be rescued by another world from within a fridge. Maybe that's because I saw Alien before Ghostbusters, but who knows.



As a replacement for Weaver, I would pick Anne Hathaway. It'd be a step down from leading in romantic comedies, but she has that adorableness to play a haunted musician who turns into a hell hound from another dimension.







The final cast member to need an overhaul to shake the almost 30 years of dust that had piled up is the Ecto-1. What was a refurbished ambulance that fit well into the original movie's setting has always been instantly recognizable. To change this would almost be like changing the van of the A-Team. But because of age, many people confuse it for a hearse. This again is a sign of my own personal bias, but I would love to see a new Ecto-1.



What mode of transport would be more practical than an ice cream truck? Tear out the freezers to put in a charging station for proton packs and give it a new paint job. It already has exterior speakers which would be perfect for an ice-cream truck version of the Ghostbusters theme.





As far as directors, I think the franchise would thrive in the hands of geek favorite Joss Whedon. He's shown with his catalog of TV series that he has what it takes to fill a story with the right amount of action, comedy and whimsy with believable characters. I believe he's someone who would be able to have his own vision for the series but still be able to make fans happy.

In addition, the original cast making cameos, whether as a group of ghosts hanging out together or squeezing them in anywhere like Stan Lee in the Marvel movies, would be an Easter Egg for the fans of the original.

The Story

As far as the story goes, technology has caught up now where I think Aykroyd and Ramis can do what they really wanted to. Some of the early drafts called for the team to be dimension hopping warriors with glowing wands. I say keep the proton packs but who's to say the inside of Dana's fridge couldn't be another world? Have a bunch of fresh faced ghost hunters running around New York City busting phantoms and find a way to tie the original scripts with a remake of the final product.

However, there is one recognizable cast member that wouldn't make the final cut: the Stay Puff Marshmallow Man. Nothing against the guy, he was always one of my favorite, but I don't think there's any way they could do the original justice. As part of the re-imagining, a giant stuffed animal, cartoon character, or fast food mascot would work as a great replacement. Shower the citizens below in stuffing or fried chunks of hamburger and it still pays tribute to the original ending.

As timeless as Ghostbusters is, it could use an update for current generations. I lost it when I went around my office finding that at least half of my department hadn't seen this classic film. I think it's a sign that the generation following my own missed out on some of that wonder that made a franchise like Ghostbusters so great. In the right hands with the right parts, a reboot of the series could pay mountains of respect to the original while updating the story while breathing new life into it.

The Final Few

On April 15, 2010, a part of gaming history died, or at least it was supposed to. Microsoft had planned to disband their Xbox Live service for the original Xbox. What they didn't count on was a group of faithful 14 fans of Halo 2. As of May 10th, only 2 remain. Part of me applauds them for keeping the dream of retro gaming alive. I've always been a fan of reverse compatibility because I don't want to have tons of wires hanging out the back of a TV with my entertainment system full of consoles.

But for all the hype surrounding the Final Few, it makes me wonder about them. Were these just people who couldn't let go of their Xboxes? I still bust out my SNES from time to time, but I'm not going to waste the electricity and everything else involved involved with keeping it running. This is really a big commitment to make. These guys are sacrificing internet speed and energy costs just so they can still play Halo 2 together. Al Gore must be pissed.

Why obsess over Halo 2? There's been 2 full games and a beta out now that have made a lot of improvements. It's like playing a Mega Man game after they gave you the slide. You can't go back and play Mega Man 1 again without wishing the Blue Bomber could do that crazy sideways slip. I can appreciate the simplistic fun of playing a less complicated game. That's why I have a DS, but I'm not going to organize a sit-in protest when they discontinue the hand held.

So why have these 14 die-hard gamers dwindled down to 2? For starters, apparently electronics are not meant to constantly run 24/7. I hope they realize the sacrifice they made for Halo 2 that now they'll never be able to play it again, offline or online. Some of them ended up with losing connection and others my always favorite: the internet going out. I can't even imagine how that service call went with some of the language I've heard playing games online. I only hope they had one of those automated "tell me the nature of your problem" systems. I wonder what response it has programmed for "You're a f**king f*ggot, you homos!"

Honestly, I think Microsoft should just pull the plug. Most people couldn't hold it against them with the service being available for years after the Xbox 360 came out. They did their duty and these guys just need to let go. The last 12 were already given Halo: Reach beta codes to get in on the next installment of the game. They've gotten their fame as hero outlaws among gamers. But when it's down to 2 and you're still holding on, it changes from inspirational rebellion to just sadness.

Personally, I wish Xbox Live was being held up by two guys refusing to forfeit a paused game of Madden NFL 2003.

Friday Reboots: Why I Love a New Spin on Things

One of the most controversial aspects of our culture is the reboot. It's the idea of taking something that's been around and starting it over, getting a fresh spin on things. With the down economy we've been in, it's something pretty common for Hollywood right now. Why take the risk of a brand new idea when you have an established audience for old ones? It's especially popular with things that didn't go over the first time around, but there are some people who think some things you just don't touch.

For example, I'm sure plenty of Trekkies out there were pretty pissed off J. J. Abrams would even consider starting over with Star Trek, yet last summer the movie was one of the summer's biggest blockbusters. It was an interpretation that was respectful of its roots but offered a brand new direction for the franchise. It was fresh enough for the masses to enjoy yet had the Easter Eggs for long time fans.

Other franchises are in desperate need of some fresh ideas. There are a number of super hero movies that have bombed, video game franchises that have gone off the rails from their successful roots, and TV shows that started great but jumped the shark.

This all comes down to why I love reboots. It's great to see a new interpretation on a classic character we all know, no matter what horrible monstrosity it comes into the world as. Even though I hated Sony's Godzilla, it was nice to see the rubber suit get the CG treatment. Christopher Nolan reinvented Batman for a modern age where the basics are still there, but it is a more practical imagining of the hero. It's the idea of taking something familiar and giving it a new spin that is so exciting. Who doesn't want to try the new recipe of their favorite dish at a restaurant, or their least favorite? There is always that intrigue to see if things turn out better.

To show my love for reboots, I'm starting Friday Reboots. Every Friday I will discuss a reboot that will or should happen, and what I think could help make it better. Think Ghostbusters needs some updating? Maybe if somebody just tried to make a new Jaws then there wouldn't be so many crappy shark movies out there. How can Sonic the Hedgehog get back in the race? How would a ninja side-kick affect Mr. Rogers? I'll be taking a franchise and looking at what worked, what didn't, and maybe even offer my own spin on things.

For every good idea, it inspires a thousand others. That is the concept at the heart of the reboot and why I love them.

It's Like Hookers for Games!

I'm not a fan of stereotypes. Not any of them. Sure, my background is in Sociology, which is basically studying groups of people and predicting how they react, but that's a bit more complex than stereotyping. But one of the stereotypes I really don't like is the idea that a guy would do anything for a pretty girl, especially nerdy guys who of course have no chance of spending time with a pretty girl outside of hooking up their computer. But now there's someone out there who seemed to think this made a pretty good business plan and called it...

Game Crush

So here's how Game Crush works: for $8.25 per 10-minutes, an "attractive" female gamer will play a game with you. It ranges from a quick flash game to Xbox Live. In exchange, the girl gets paid 60% of the final cost for her time. Doesn't seem like a bad deal, does it? The nerdy guy gets to spend a "date" playing video games with a hot girl without leaving the confines of his obvious home of his parents' basement and the girl gets a decent chunk of change for just playing games and talking.

Here's the thing, there are some major ethical issues going on here. For starters lets look at the target audience. The entire business plan is based on the idea that there are some hopeless geeks out there who believe that some girl out there will play video games with him and somehow fall madly in love with him to spend the rest of her life with him. Obviously geeks have money to blow because they just waste it on Star Wars merchandise or whatever obsessive fetish they have, am I right? What harm is there in relieving them of this burden by exchanging social interaction for money? That's healthy, right? Here's the thing, when you're marketing to a crowd that's already socially insecure it becomes morally questionable to play on those insecurities. Sure, it can be argued with body images for women and things like that, but that's an argument for another day, one that I support. This kind of act targets people who are already emotionally fragile enough to keep them from socializing on their own, and tries to crush them even more with the idea that not only would a woman not have sex with them without payment, but they won't even spend time with them unless there's money involved.

There's also the issue of where fantasy and reality blur. What about the obsession you see on occasion with some men and strippers? I don't think it'd be too long before we start hearing about girls being stalked because they played a game with some guy. When I was growing up phone sex lines were all the rage on the news with reports of the actual women on the phone being nothing as advertised. It all came down to how their voice sounded. I tend to be quite cynical when it comes to things and I honestly believe that's going to be going on here. Whether or not the girl is "attractive" is the issue. If somebody wants to play a game, I could care less how they looked. Where this becomes an issue is the truth in advertising and how damaging it would be to both players if the truth were known. There's enough racist, homophobic, angry teenage trash talking going on with online games as it is. How do you think the reaction will go when they find out the "hot" girl they're playing with isn't as advertised?

My other issue with this is part of the debate of sexism in our culture. This is part of that slippery slope that runs down through strip clubs and prostitution into sexual violence and the objectification of women. This is no different than GameFly adding a bonus girl to your game rental. It treats women as a commodity, categorizing them as "flirty" or "dirty," depending on what you're in the mood for. On top of that, the girl is rated based on "gaming skill," "flirtiness," and "hotness." Only one of those should really matter if they're just selling someone to play games with. This is a step into the "female companionship" of the digital age, where the girl is reduced down to a voice and an avatar, the sad old man sitting alone at the strip club at 3:00pm.

On the other hand, if you're interested, I wholly endorse is SessCrush. I honestly would pay for this.

Video Games - E3 2010

Interesting Times indeed...

Anyone who pays much attention to video games beyond the store shelf is probably aware of the current fiasco with publishing juggernaut Activision. Almost all of the internet already hated CEO Bobby Kotick for his public comments on "taking the fun out of making video games" and talk of releasing games as part of TV peripheral hardware rather than console software. Activision's unpopular reputation as of late has only been worsened with the legal suits and dismissals between the publisher and members of developer studio Infinity Ward. Many employees have already resigned and found a new home in Respawn Entertainment, created by Infinity Ward founders Jason West and Vince Zampella in partnership with EA games. While the controversy continues to storm, Bungie Software recently announced a ten year deal with Activision, leaving many to collectively reply with "WTF?"

Details have emerged with the Bungie/Activision deal revealing what could possibly be an interesting new trend between developers and publishers, retaining the rights of an intellectual property. Part of the drama surrounding the Activision/former-IW members law suits is the ownership of the Modern Warfare title. For the casual gamer, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, a game that made $1 billion in two months, the title is simply Modern Warfare 2. Modern Warfare is the brand and the title is a key part in ensuring the success of a sequel. It has a reputation when it comes to multiplayer gaming, just as among many solid platforming games, Mario is the most recognizable. But with Respawn participating in EA Partners and Bungie's deal giving them the rights of the new IP, what we're seeing now in the game industry is the beginning of a movement which has affected other industries from comics to film: the ability for the creator to own their ideas.

Every creator has the dream of coming up with the next Harry Potter, Mario, or James Bond, that timeless concept that goes on to have them swimming in money like Scrooge McDuck. Their idea is their baby, and they don't want to just hand it over to let them do what they will. As more and more creators start standing up and keeping their babies, we'll see some very interesting things happen:

• BETTER QUALITY GAMEPLAY - How many times has a game been passed on to another studio and you felt that it just wasn't as good? Sure, the Knights of the Old Republic games are both solid titles, but what about Spyro the Dragon? Insomniac Games' baby hasn't had the chance to bounce back yet.

• BETTER QUALITY STORY - It's a lot easier to tell when a series was put together by the same people. Compare the pre-Christopher Nolan Batman movies. If you handed someone Batman Returns and Batman Forever who didn't know much about Batman before, they wouldn't really know what's going on. The Jak and Daxter Precurser trilogy has that pay off where those of us who were with them for the whole ride really got to see the big picture in the end.
  

• DEVELOPERS WHO CARE ABOUT THE FINISHED PRODUCT - Not to say that an employee can't care about what they're doing just because they didn't create it or own it, but it's clear to see with franchises like Guitar Hero where it was just being shoveled onto the market. A lot of emphasis is placed on the yearly cycle of releasing a game, but as GTA4 showed everyone, if you put out a quality product, people will wait for it.

Creator ownership is a trend I want to see continue and expand, not just as someone who likes to create something, but as a consumer. You get the best thing you can get when people care about it. Congratulations to both Bungie and Respawn because those are the first steps to stand out and bring us into what I think are going to be some very interesting times.