The Downey Obscure Game Report: Week Two

When asked, video game developers will gladly give all of the reasons why it is so hard to make a video game adaptation of a licensed product. "What works in one medium might not work as well in another." "The people who own the license tend to not know much about developing video games, but we still have to respect their wishes concerning how their product is portrayed." "If we're making a game based on a movie that's coming out soon, then we need to be able to ship our product at around the same time that the movie is released, regardless of how much advance notice our bosses give us."

These interviews are pretty fun to read, since you can pretty much see that the interviewer was too afraid to address the elephant in the room. You see, there's no logical reason for any bad licensed video games to be released.

"What about money?" you might ask, and okay, that's kind of hard to argue--IF you go back 2 decades, when (a) the cost of making video games was lower and (b) the consumer was dumber. One of the worst video games ever made was "E.T." for the Atari 2600 (not the subject of this week's article), and that...thing still sold 1.5 million copies (and here's something to think about: despite selling that many copies, "E.T." was actually a big financial failure for Atari, since they had produced 4 million copies of the game and the movie rights hit them in the wallet hard). Nowadays, it takes millions of dollars just to DEVELOP a video game, never mind mass-producing it, and the consumer has plenty of video game magazines and websites to assist them in separating the cream from the crap.

"What about franchises that don't translate into video games well?" What about them? Look, I'm not a video game programmer, but I'm pretty sure that there are months of planning done by supposedly smart people, making sure that what they invested in will make for a good product. Hell, why not have that meeting BEFORE agreeing to take on a license? That would make a hell of a lot more sense from a financial standpoint, and if the people who own the franchise turn you down, you might still have the groundwork for a great game that you could use for your own devious purposes.

Then again, "Where's Waldo?" for the NES (not the subject of this week's article) exists. The developers apparently decided to translate the concept of the book to the NES, without considering how proficient the NES was at showing detailed pictures. Without detailed pictures, "Where's Waldo?" is pointless. Fortunately, the developer of that game, Bethesda Softworks, went on to do many good things, so all's well that ends well, I guess.

"Why are you so hung up on licensed video games?" Because it's a simple idea that most companies seem to mess up. You already have a built-in audience, so all you have to do is replicate the elements that the audience enjoyed from the license and put a good game on top of it. If you're making a Batman game, then you need to make sure that all of Batman's gadgets work, and beating up people must feel satisfying. If you're making a Lord of the Rings game, then the battles need to look like they came right out of the movie, and that your actions still matter in how things turn out. If you're making a Simpsons game, then you have to include elements and music from the TV show, and then make sure that all of the other stuff works.

"Why do you keep saying that everything has to work?" Because the Wii version of "Jenga" doesn't work.

"What would you know about making a licensed product?" Actually, as part of an art class, I made a "Jurassic Park" board game. I was able to recreate the thrills of running away from (not shooting at, or playing as, which was what lazy video game designers did) dinosaurs, and make it play well, too. If I had more time to work out some minor problems with the rules, and I had a skilled artist to help make everything look good, the thing would have passed for professional quality. Oh, and I made it in middle school.

So how good can a video game based off of a comic strip from the 1910's be? In this case, it turned out to be one of the best games for the NES.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you...
While looking up the developer, I said to myself, "I hope they went on to do even better things." Then I saw that it was developed and published by Capcom in 1990, and all was good.

"Little Nemo: Dream Master" has you play as a child named Nemo, navigating him to Slumberland. The road is tricky, though, as most of the creatures you'll encounter will try to kill you. It's not helped by the fact that Nemo is not physically up to this task; he can't jump high, he's relatively slow, and he is completely incapable of killing his enemies.

Nemo's only hope of getting through each stage is to throw candy at creatures that are willing to accept it. After getting full, these creatures will fall asleep, at which point Nemo can touch them and gain abilities that change depending on which creature you've possessed.

This is genius shit. While you're not able to possess the vast majority of creature that you'll encounter (though those creatures can be temporarily stunned by your candy), you're still given access to 8 creatures that you'll need to use in order to complete each level: fish (can swim fast), frog (can jump high, and can kill enemies), gorilla (lots of health, can climb walls, can punch enemies), hermit crab (can dig in sand, can pinch enemies), hornet (can shoot stingers, has limited flight capabilities), lizard (can climb walls, very fast), mole (can dig through dirt) and mouse (can climb walls, Nemo can hit enemies with a hammer). Consider that "Super Mario Brothers 3" gave you access to 6 powers. Also, you're not really given the choice between which creature you think is best for a given situation. You use what the game gives you.

Oh, and simply getting to the end of the level won't do you much good. In order to complete a level, you have to collect 6 (most of the time) keys. They are hidden throughout the level, and most of them can only be found by possessing a creature. Now, item collecting has become a trademark of lazy platform-game developers, but this game does it right: it tells you what you have to collect, how many of them you have to collect, and getting them is not an impossible task. This also forces the player to see as much of the level as they possibly can, which makes it hard to ignore the art design.

And, well...
Look at the details given to the mushrooms. Look at the personality given off by the shrubbery. You can see a sense of emotion on Nemo's face. You can tell that jumping on that snail's back is a bad idea. It's easy on the eyes, despite the black backdrop. THIS is how you make a good-looking 8-bit game.

And it's hard. There are only 8 levels, but it's hard. And that's a good thing. Video games nowadays are way too easy, and playing something from way back when reminds me why I had such a sense of accomplishment from playing video games. The soundtrack rules, too.

There's no reason why you shouldn't track this game down. It's an excellent platformer with as much gameplay variety as "Super Mario Brothers 3". Why this isn't on the Virtual Console is beyond me. I can't recommend this game too highly. PLAY IT.

I might take a week off from writing this thing (I almost took this week off!), but that doesn't mean that I've abandoned this idea. Next column, I'll talk about an interactive movie that's completely awesome for 3/4 of the game, and then extreme disappointment for its last 1/4. It's spiritual sequel, though, is one of the most anticipated titles for 2008. Happy Holidays.

(originally published December 22nd.)