Saturday, July 17, 2010

Peggle



Okay, it's Peggle. This game probably doesn't need an introduction (it's PopCap, after all, the 800 pound gorilla of studios that make little games), but here we go -- Peggle is like Breakout played on a Pachinko machine.

This is a good game, of sorts. It's almost a stretch to call this a game, it's more like an incredibly clever toy.

In my childhood there were always interesting puzzle-based toys anywhere we'd go for vacation -- at the lake house, in whoever's cabin we were borrowing, those sorts of out of the way places -- and this game reminds me of those things. These things were always interesting diversions, but only for a limited period of time. As it always goes, you can be sure that we stay wherever this toy resided long enough to become so bored one would wind up playing with the thing way, way past the point of disinterest.

Another way of putting this idea, maybe, is that Peggle has the feel of a game one has played a million times and the activity itself has become completely perfunctory. Like playing a game of cards for a few hours with the same people, no one stops to ask who's supposed to deal or what the score is or whether anyone needs another beer. Everyone just knows, things progress like clockwork.

So it's fairly interesting that Peggle has this feel from the outset. This is a game everyone has played before, even if they've never played it before.

Then, of course, it's made by PopCap. This isn't a little software project, it's a goddamn huge software project. Reading the credits for the game is a staggering experience -- all those people contributed to this tiny little thing?! Well, yeah. This is a game that has been through more QA than some full-priced current generation console titles. It's been released on more platforms than one can probably name off the top of one's head. Of course tons of people worked on Peggle. Loads of resources were poured into making this game.

All that effort really shows, too. Peggle is ridiculously polished. Here's a niggle, though, relating to this particular version of the game:

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to not put the "fire" button in line with the scrollwheel thinger the player is using to adjust the angle of the launcher? I can't say that this was some sort of gigantic tragedy, because I only ever won through luck anyway, but I definitely launched more than a few balls inadvertently because my finger swiped a bit too high.

Now there's a real problem -- it shouldn't matter that I'm not looking at what my fingers are touching when I'm playing a game. That's basically the whole point of video games, that feeling of immersion where the controls disappear and you're just projecting yourself entirely into the virtual environment. With this touchscreen crap, though, everything feels the same. That scrollwheel thinger feels the same as the button that's right above it. It's all just the same seamless glass surface. As I'm watching the screen, waiting for the right moment to fire the ball, I can't say for sure whether my thumb is hovering over the fire button or if it's slightly off to one side or another. (My thumb was, pretty often, off to one side or another. Again, not a huge tragedy -- nothing happened when I failed to press the button. But, still.) So this is something that's just retardedly stupid about trying to play video games on a device with no buttons.

On the other hand, it's worth recognizing the fact that I was so engrossed in the details of this bouncing ball that my gaze regularly became focused on an area so small I couldn't see what my fingers were doing an inch or two away. That's pretty impressive. This is definitely an engrossing little game (or toy, if you buy my previous argument).

One last criticism: the art here is pretty bad. It's color is garish, the characters are poorly drawn and the composition is cluttered. ...Yeah, I still kind of like it, but it is pretty crappy. I mostly hated the music, too, although the Ode To Joy bit was probably my favorite move in the game, as far as stylization goes.

I played all of the "adventure" portion of the game and a few of the challenges.

2 comments:

  1. The ode to joy, slow motion insanity is a really delightful moment. The production values, as you say, are high (in both senses of the word). It's those damn instructors that get me — the unicorn with the rainbow colored fangs? I think they're just trying to win some street cred, but it isn't working.

    They lose 100,000 points because their icon is not properly rounded rectangle shaped. It's like catching the snitch in harry potter, except in reverse — automatic lose.

    It's strange how satisfying it is to have your ball land in the "Free ball!" trampoline at the bottom.

    The thing that kills me about this game is that it doesn't really seem like much of a game in terms of actually controlling the ball. It's 90% chance, 10% skill, in my opinion. I think the moron test, on the other hand, that's a skill…

    Note the sheer number of success events — every time the damn ball hits a peg, your brain gives you a molecule of endorphins. And so few fail events, and you can see them coming from a mile away!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I absolutely agree on all fronts. Also, what is it with you and success events? Was your father killed by a success event when you were a kid, or something?

    I'm just teasing. That seems like a very good metric for evaluating video games, one that is especially pertinent to the meta-genre of "casual gaming." It's definitely true that in this case the ratio of success events to user input is staggeringly high.

    It's a shame that, in the end, the only success event that matters (completing a level) is almost entirely out of the user's control. I mean, everyone must have had the experience of thinking "Well, I'm never going to complete this level" and then having three lucky shots that save the day. That's the more-toy-than-game thing we're both seeing, I think.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.