Review – Patapon

Let’s leave the game for a second and talk some about criticism. In movies, I’ve adopted a system of error correction based on genre. What this means is that I, for example, automatically bump up the average rating of a movie by a star if it’s a non-indie comedy; because critics hate non-indie comedies. I automatically drop the rating by a half star if the movie deals with a “very special issue”–see, e.g., Waitress. A full star if it’s an anti-war movie. Critics don’t seem to think like normal people do.

The gaming world is mostly free of this sort of nonsense, or at least suffers from it much less than movies do. There are a few notable exceptions, though:

1. Flagship games for their respective consoles are usually overrated (See: Halo 2 & 3, Final Fantasy games, Zelda games)
2. Niche games are usually underrated (rhythm games, board game ports, lesser-known RPGs)

And the one relevant for this review: Arty games demonstrating completely new gameplay concepts are usually overrated.

Patapon is a weird melding of rhythm, strategy, and RPG gameplay. You command an army of Patapons, little weird looking creatures that march to your beat. You give them commands by punching out sequences of buttons to the beat. Square-Square-Square-Circle (why can’t Sony just use letters, dammit!) will command your army to march forward, while Circle-Circle-Square-Circle will command your army to attack.

The problem is that there’s very little gameplay here. 3-4 hours into the game, there are only 3 commands: Attack, Move, and Defend. That’s it. Which means that the actual gameplay usually consists of just pressing the same buttons in rhythm over and over and over again, and if I wanted to do that, I’d go play the drum part to Roam.

Speaking of the comparison to Rock Band, this game is on the wrong control scheme. It was a budget title anyways, so the developer should have released it on XBLA and PSN with a capability for Rock Band drum input. Patapon with the ability to do war drum inputs would be spectacular.

Anyways, the art is wonderful, the soundtrack is nice, but there’s just not enough of a game there. Even if you restrict it to quarter notes in a 4/4 beat, there’s 256 different possible commands; they could come up with more than 3.

Takeaway: Good concept; execution needs a lot of work. To compare to 2007’s best game, it’s still really at the Narbacular Drop point; someone needs to turn it into a Portal.

When is it OK to charge for DLC?

Kotaku reported, and later confirmed, that EA will be charging for guns in its upcoming multiplayer shooter, Battlefield: Bad Company. It’s my opinion, and quite a lot of others’ opinions as well, that this is an offense against decency and a horrible idea.  Obviously it’s bad for consumers; here’s why it’s bad for the company.

If I know before a game comes out that people who pay extra are going to have an advantage, then I’m not going to buy the game!  It’s not enjoyable to play a multiplayer shooter when you’re at an unfair disadvantage to the other players.  This means that to enjoy Battlefield: Bad Company, I’m going to have to pay for the Gold edition or the extra DLC guns, which means the game will really cost $70 or $80 rather than the $60 that’s standard for a 360/PS3 game.  And hey, I can buy the Orange Box, Halo 3, or Gears of War for less (all top multiplayer shooters), or wait for another new FPS that’s at the standard price (there’s never going to be any shortage of FPSs coming out for the 360.)

So be smart, EA, and drop this idea.  Well, that’s something we can’t expect; let’s hope customers just won’t buy it.  I won’t.