Like many others, I briefly got my hands on the New Super Mario Bros. Wii demo at E3 this June. Still being a sucker for the franchise, I had some fun with it, and despite the simplicity of the DS game on which it was based, I was quite fond of Mario’s recent foray into 2D gameplay. New Super Mario Bros. DS was by no means as complex, expansive, or rewarding as Super Mario 3 and its ilk, but it was a refreshing reminder of the good ol’ days, and carried the promise of hopefully more retro Mario games.
After the initial enjoyment of a bunch of SMB characters running around on an old-school level subsided, I realized why the idea felt so comfortable and familiar. The fact that side-scrolling co-op platformers have been done many times before (from Chip N’ Dale’s Rescue Rangers on NES to Little Big Planet on PS3) notwithstanding, co-op in Mario felt like something that should have been done a long time ago. Considering all the advances Nintendo made in the genre, why did it take them until now to come up with this, after its been done so much before?
This feeling of general surprise at Nintendo’s failure to capitalize on this much earlier was then accompanied by a distinct and sudden memory of playing Super Mario Bros. on NES for the first time and starting up two-player mode with my little brother. I remembered the feeling of disappointment that struck me when I realized that we had to actually take turns playing – we couldn’t play together. The fact that this was a six-year-old’s first assumption on seeing that there was a two-player mode in the game makes me wonder – did it really take a Little Big Planet for Nintendo to come up with this? Having basically invented the 2D platformer in its heyday, this idea couldn’t possibly have been pushing their creative limits that much, could it? And technologically speaking it was certainly do-able.
Okay, hadn’t meant to break the G4C topics just yet but was just at the Microsoft press conference this morning at E3 here in LA. I am not the easiest person to impress at a sales pitch, but Project Natal had my jaw on the floor. This is a pretty enormous announcement for Microsoft – if nothing else, not for the product itself, but rather for what it means for the future.
Peter Molyneux’s bit is hugely significant for the possibilities of interactive fiction and technology/interaction in general – that is, depending on how much of this is smoke and mirrors.
Having recently attended this year’s Electronic Entertainment Expo, I am finally feeling sufficient drive to begin writing about my opinions and experiences with videogames, its industry, and its culture.
I’ll start with my impressions of this year’s E3.
The change E3 has undergone in the past few years is interesting, albeit staggering. The last time I attended an E3 was still during its youthful, insane, “experimental” age that all growing conventions go through after puberty. Now that it has settled into relative maturity, many people seem to lament its transformation. I for one, do not.
Previously, the E3 experience could only be categorized as overstimulating. Hoards people blanket the main exhibition hall from morning to night. Since it was open to the public at that time, the crowd is primarily composed of videogamers and fans and their excitement is almost palpable. Every aspect of E3 seemed to be designed with this demographic in mind. The booths are hyper-sensationalistic and each company does everything in their power (and budget) to grab the short attention span of the convention-goers. Many took this to the extreme by abandoning any connection between their booth and their product, favoring instead bright lights, unusual layouts, and the ever-popular “sexual appeal” of booth-babes.
Being the solitary person I am, I tend to avoid awkward situations, unnecessary long lines and social “claustrophobia”. Therefore I spent the majority of this previous e3 walking the floor, observing the videogames and chaos from a relative distance.
(as a side note, the one game i was willing to wait in line to try myself was Shadow of the Colossus which was well worth the wait)
The previous look and feel of E3′s
E3 ’08, however was of a much different atmosphere. The “booths” were merely large screens attached in an uniform manner to pillars throughout the hall. The only discerning feature between the booths were the logos printed on signs, all forms of embellishment were abandoned. The majority of studios had the same size space to show their games, however the displays ranged from 2 to 8 screens depending on how many games they had available.
This new arrangement lead to a completely different ambiance and presentation style for the show. This year the games themselves are once again the focus of the show rather than the image surrounding the game. The restriction on the public’s access to E3 also had a huge impact on how developers approached this show. Because their main goal was to present and discuss their game with attendee’s (rather than to grab the attention of as many people as possible), people who had a large role in the development of the game seem to have been much more willing personally represent their product.
This resulted in a calm atmosphere where I could approach many booths and have an in depth conversation about the games development, any issues they’ve had in the creation process, the studio’s future intentions and ideas, etc, while demoing the game.
This is a unique experience for me, because unlike the developers, businessmen, and media that comprised the majority of the shows’ audience, i did not belong there. (unless you count these postings as passable credentials for the term “media”)
The extent to which i did not belong and the situations that arose from it will be discussed in a future posting.
The entrance to this years E3 (notice the lack of flashing signs and flags)
-justin
Posted: July 22nd, 2008
Categories: E3
Tags:
Comments: No Comments.
