Geek Beats Episode #2: Sypro the Dragon

Recently I was watching some of the Did You Know Gaming videos on YouTube (it's a great series, I suggest you check it out if you haven't already), and I stumbled onto their video on the Spyro the Dragon series. The second I clicked play and the music started the nostalgia bug bit me again. I knew I had to talk about this game and, more importantly, the awesome music associated with it.

Spyro the Dragon is a 3D platformer developed by Insomniac Games for the PlayStation. It was originally created because Sony wanted more kid friendly games to compete with Nintendo. The game follows the adventures of scrappy young dragon Spyro as he roams around the Dragon Realms in order to free the other dragons of the land that have been frozen inside crystalline statues by banished antagonist Gnasty Gnorc. Enemy interaction with the playable character was implemented, bringing a unique charm to gameplay. A.I. would react to Spyro's presence with taunts and charges rather than following a static movement line. It was definitely one of the best platform games for PlayStation at the time, and of course it had some really amazing music as well.

The music of Spyro the Dragon was composed and performed by Stewart Copeland, former drummer of The Police. Many of the pieces or musical motifs from the game have been used in other Copeland pieces, such as the theme to The Amanda Show (hopefully some of you out there are old enough to remember Amanda Bynes' early years... you know... before the crazy). Each track has a fresh and catchy theme. The title screen theme, along with many others, features a driving bass line, twangy guitar, catchy drum beat, and vamping synth. Every home world has its own essence, and the musical themes fit every location.

Here is the opening title theme.

Game: Spyro the Dragon
Title: Opening Titles
Composer: Stewart Copeland

As an added bonus, I wanted to include gameplay of my favorite home world and favorite theme from the game.

Title: Magic Crafters Homeworld

Spyro the Dragon Wiki
DYKG Spyro the Dragon

The True Price of Cinematic Games - The Last of Us Thoughts: Part 2

There's a lot of ongoing talk concerning games that are highly cinematic and whether they should really be considered "video games" as we understand them or be put into an entirely different category altogether. The Last of Us has particularly been the example game in this debate, but I'm not here to argue for or against what the technical classifications of a game of this type should be. My real issue is with what The Last of Us offers and whether or not it's really worth $60 out the gate.

My previous post about The Last of Us expressed my disappointment in the ending of the game, and coupled with my short play time of only about 13 hours, I personally did not feel like this game warranted a full price tag. If I had picked this game up day one, I would have been upset about spending that kind of money. A general counter to this argument is usually how the multiplayer mode makes up for the short gameplay, but that only brings up another bothersome can of worms. Why does every game need a multiplayer mode? And furthermore, why does the mere existence of a multiplayer mode in a game supposedly justify the cost of a game?

All of this is more or less here to lead up to what could be a bold but possibly advantageous decision to make by a publisher of a story and cinematic-driven game. Instead of creating a multiplayer mode that is statistically destined to die out fairly quickly, how about just saving that money? A successful multiplayer experience in a game is a good way to encourage players to buy new and retain their copy of the game for its replay value instead of immediately selling the game back to stores like Game Stop. If a dev and publishing team cannot ensure a good multiplayer experience, then they might as well leave it out altogether.

Here's where the REALLY crazy idea comes in. Once the decision to leave out a multiplayer mode is made, sell the game cheaper at launch. Hear me out... The reason this could work is because right now, relatively short, cinematic games fall somewhere between longer games with much higher replay value or higher gameplay hours clocked in and epic movie trilogies. If there was a price tag attached to cinematic games that reflected the time commitment and value to playability in relation to longer games and movies, then I would wager more people would be inclined to pick it up new rather than wait for a cheaper used copy at some later time. If used games sales are so bad for devs and publishers, this could be a way to help counteract Game Stop's effectiveness. $40-45 for 13 hours of gameplay sounds a lot better than $60 if you're comparing it to a Skyrim, Fallout, Far Cry etc. that can give you anywhere from 30-100 hours of gameplay.

Obviously this wouldn't work in every situation, and it would be a big risk for a publisher to take, but I would love to see more price flexibility in general. With so much debate surrounding cinematic games' true value, this would be the best starting place for big publishers to take a chance at shaking up the status quo.

The Last of Us: Overview Thoughts - Part 1

I finished The Last of Us a little while ago, and although I'll put a foot on the bandwagon and agree that it is a game with a phenomenal story, there's definitely been something bothering me about the amount of hype vs. actual gameplay as far as my personal experience went. As an average Jane, I don't have the ability to run out and buy every hot game as soon as it hits the shelves, so I inevitably end up reading other people's opinion about a game before I myself get a crack at it. In the case of The Last of Us, it was particularly the ending that was so unlike the impression I had gotten from other people's opinions that it left me with a sour taste. Statements from average fans of the game as well as highly regarded video game reviewers painted a picture in my head of a game that was completely strong from beginning to end, that gave the player a sense of closure and satisfaction, and that, most importantly, actually ended. Like, wrapped it up, all the way, no loose ends. A game with a beginning, middle, and end. And the end is the end... I don't know if any of you realize how rare a game like that is, or any story-based entertainment for that matter, but when I believed that The Last of Us was one of those games it made me excited, and I'll explain why.

Too much of a good thing can turn into a bad thing very quickly and easily. As much as I love certain video game, movie, and t.v. show series, I always want it to end before it's overstayed its welcome. That's why certain series (The Simpsons and Assassin's Creed, for example) are killing me inside; these are series that flourished at one point, providing compelling storylines and genuine entertainment based on ingenuity. But to me, they're losing their character, the thing that made them what they were in the first place. I hate to see that in new IP more than anything, which is why the prospect of a game that can be stand alone and do extremely well without needing to be open ended is such a powerful gesture.

To put it bluntly, I'm the one who goes, "Come on, devs, don't punk out. Kill that character off if you got the balls the do it, you know that's a better story, so do it!" I'm not saying that I wanted any particular character killed in The Last of Us, I'm just giving an example of my mindframe concerning this topic.

In any case, in the ever raging battle of "Bioshock Infinite vs. The Last of Us: who dun it better?" I think I'm going to preliminarily side with Bioshock for the time being. It gave me what I wanted, a story that was essentially uncompromising in its ending (and I do say "essentially" because I acknowledge what argument could be used against this). Of course, I'll reserve final judgement until I play through both games again.

Maybe this is why I like George R.R. Martin so much, that guy's not afraid to kill anyone.