Boom Blox with Children
It took a commercial. I’ve had Boom Blox sitting here and I’ve heard the game is good but for some reason, other game have gotten in the way during GamerFamily playtime. Then a commercial came on and I saw my wife’s reaction and smiled, saying: “Uh, I’ve got that one you know. . .” In it went and up we came, here’s a full report.
The Game
Boom Blox (reportedly from Stephen Spielberg but I think they mean “We told Spielberg’s people what we were doing and he contributed money to help”) is a simple game. Simply use the Wii-mote to throw a ball to knock block towers down (blocks are worth points and the throwing is as simple as Wii bowling), or use it to grab blocks in a Jenga style games, or use it as a light gun (fires with the A button) for some target shooting. The game couldn’t be simpler, the art is pleasing and amusing (mostly animals in rectangular shapes), and the music is fantastic. The physics work; things bounce, fall, collide, and ricochet convincingly.
Ages
Henry is 5 and Maggie is 8. Both could handle the throwing games but shooting got hard to follow with four people playing (we also had incidences of Wii remote failure that I haven’t seen with any other game). Henry had a really hard time with the grasping, his first attempt was the equivalent of grabbing a bottom block in Jenga and moving it up and through the remaining blocks. The resulting explosion was hilarious – game over man! – but it reduced poor Henry to tears. The throwing game has you lock on with the A button (then swinging the remote gives it velocity and releasing “A” throws the ball) and both kids had a sometimes irritatingly hard time pinpointing a throw (irritating because you feel the frustration from watching).
Bottom Line
We’ve had a grand time and a lot of laughs. Chain reactions happen all the time and are hilarious, the kids were annoyed at one level where the middle of the blocks proved too resilient until Henry’s throw made him go from 50 to 200 points. It was like a slot machine and it happens often enough to make anyone feel cool.
The game is a great party game for non-gamers too. All three playstyles are easy enough to grasp for newbies and combine enough luck and skill to please both camps. Sadly, I hear the game isn’t a big hit. That’s too bad because any family burned on “almosts and not quites” like Decca Sports, EA Playground, Wii Carnival, and many, many more, would love this latest blockbuster from Stephen Spielberg.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:31 am
I figured it was kind of like “Steven Spielberg Presents Animaniacs.” The name’s just for show.
I’ll probably snag Boom Blox when the price goes down. –Cary
June 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
I was saddened to hear how poorly this wonderful game is selling. We have barely cracked it, having just got the Wii set up in the kids nice 18 x 24 playhaven of a furnished side of the basement a couple of weeks ago …
June 25th, 2008 at 11:07 am
I did wonder why there’d be no story about this, as it gets fantastic press everywhere, even if you just want to play the single player campaign.
I’m with Cary though; I can’t spend $50 on this.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:14 am
We’ve been playing this at home as a family more than any other game (besides Wii Fit). My 5 year old loves the game and while I help our 3 year old throw he loves the art design. Our 5 year old has the mechanics of the throwing and targeting down pat. He’s even starting to see some of the physics involved. It’s also been the first Wii game my wife will actually ask to play together.
We had family over last weekend and it was the I used to demo the Wii. It made for a great party game and everyone got involved. Glad to hear you guys had fun with it too. Only hope it has a longtail for sales, since the numbers were so poor.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:15 am
oh and Simon and Cary… I bought it for $40 on sale at Target. Which should have been the price point to begin with.
June 25th, 2008 at 11:54 am
I got the same sale price at Target. They were also running a deal where if you got that and another game, you got High School Musical Sing It for free.
June 25th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
I got it at Costco, and it’s gotten my lapsed-gamer wife playing again. She gets a bit competitive sometimes, so she really enjoys the head-to-head bits, especially when she wins =-)
I was hoping my 3-year-old would “get” it, but she isn’t quite there with the pointer. I’ll try again in a couple of months.
June 25th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I skimmed over this, sorry:
reportedly from Stephen Spielberg but I think they mean “We told Spielberg’s people what we were doing and he contributed money to help”
I believe this is not the case at all, Spielberg is knowledgeable about games and was very involved in its development. I was going to refer to the article in EGM, but I appear to have thrown the issue out and it’s not on 1up.com yet.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Yeah I’m in the “when the price comes down” camp.
I think the game will have legs because word of mouth is good and because it’s a game for the masses.
I think it was hurt by a lack of understanding what the game is about. It’s a new property and the person on the street has no idea whether or not the game is good. IT can’t help that EA hasn’t exactly made a AAA Wii game yet either. The artwork in the game doesn’t really make one go ‘Wow!’ Last it didn’tt help to release the game just after MK Wii and before WiiFit.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Oh sure, EGM would definitely independently verify the PR claims and expose the hyperbole and . . . 😉
I believe Spielberg is a gamer, I believe he got briefings and sat in on maybe one meeting – maybe – and I do think he probably played the beta (and I know he appeared with an EA person at a convention for a photo op) but do I believe a busy guy like Spielberg, a guy who makes a blockbuster per year, had anything substantial to do with this adorable little game?
Well, I doubt it I guess you could say…..
It is pricy btw. $30 would be ideal. But GamerMom had this to say:
“I’d pay $50 – if only because all the crappy family games we have for the Wii are the same price. This one is ideal for a family.”
Value is a relative term, which is why I usually ignore it and let the reader decide if a game like Boom Blox, however good, is worth the money.
I hope they drop the price and I hope then it’s the success it deserves to be.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Well I don’t think he was in there setting breakpoints in the debugger, but by all accounts he had near weekly meetings with the team to make sure things were shaping up as he wanted.
June 25th, 2008 at 10:18 pm
Yeah, that’s a nice claim but I don’t believe that for a second. He spent a lot of time this past year on location. Indy didn’t make itself. As for the game? I think he probably got memos and summaries, yeah, but beyond that? Why? He can’t be that anal and “hands on.”
Also, “shaping up as he wanted”? Not exactly a challenging concept or execution. The game is mainly great because it’s got a lot of polish and had a better budget than most puzzle-ware/casual fare. There’s nothing Speilbergian in this game, nothing that anyone else couldn’t have contributed.
I think Cary is right on the money.
Again, I bet he was involved in approving big decisions and signing off on builds – how much of that was hands on? I doubt much. He’s a very busy man.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:06 am
From this:
And despite the director’s busy schedule, particularly with the release later this year of the new Indiana Jones movie, he displayed his commitment to the projects with regular office attendance.
“He came up with the original concept, but he also – when he wasn’t off shooting Indiana Jones or doing other big projects out of town – I’d say he was in the office on average every week.”
Depending upon his schedule, Spielberg would spend anywhere from an hour to up to three or four hours, according to Rahimi, kicking around ideas: “His passion for the industry really came through.”
June 26th, 2008 at 8:26 am
And again . . .
Yeah, that’s a nice claim but I don’t believe that for a second . , ,
I never said it wasn’t true or that anyone was lying… but you’re not exactly quoting sources that “go beyond what they’re told.”
All that you and Simon have proven to me is that EA told something to EGM, GameIndustry, etc., and they printed what they were told as fact and that you read it and you believed it. I’ve been doing this long enough to find what they’re claming unlikely enough to think it an extremely exaggerated claim.
June 26th, 2008 at 9:07 am
OK, splitting hairs, extreme exaggeration and disbelief, but not claiming they are lies 😉
I am more thinking from a corporate perspective – I deal with high level people all of the time, and none of them are really involved in a technical way with things they are ‘heading up’. What I read jibed with what I have witnessed for VP / COO sorts of folks with pet projects / new endeavors, minor oversight and some occasional involvement.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Let’s put the argument about how involved he was to one side, because.. does it matter? I can certainly understand your cynicism, and I’m sure that’s what the common perception, so my question is – why did they attach his name to it? Does anyone else think this is actually hurting Boom Blox? With the amount of crap the Wii gets, I think a lot of gamers tuned this out, and the skepticism was only increased with the addition of the Really Big Name With No Apparent Gaming Connection.
‘Course, none of this is as harmful as the $50 price point IMO 😀
June 26th, 2008 at 11:15 am
Ouch. You guys are jamming way too many words into my mouth.
Mike, I said I didn’t think the journalists are lying, I’m familiar with business, I know “truthiness” matters more than accuracy in those circles.
Simon, I never said it was a bad thing to involve Spielberg’s name or use his idea. Tom Clancy has nothing to do with games bearing his name (other than collecting royalty payments) and many Sid Meier games feature him as a playtester more than anything.
But point of fact, it was just a throw-away line. One I didn’t think would be especially provocative. And you know what? I wrote a lot of other words we could be talking about instead. Maybe we were all better off when you’d just skimmed the message. 😉
June 26th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Oh, somehow I deleted this part:
“Yeah, the name doesn’t sell to gamers but I bet mainstreamers would give the box a second look in the store, The name indicates production values, if nothing else.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:18 am
I mean, cause you’re right, as the article says I’ve had this game for a month or two now and only played it because my wife liked the TV commercial. Then again, if my wife was intercepting packages she probably would have shown an interest because of the Spielberg seal of approval. So there you go. We’re all right.
June 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Good point – putting a big name on a game can work two ways …
What I want to see – ” George Lucas Dialogue Training” for the DS 😀
June 26th, 2008 at 11:37 am
“I said I didn’t think the journalists are lying, I’m familiar with business, I know “truthiness” matters more than accuracy in those circles.”
It is interesting that there has been a lot of stuff around this lately, and not just in gaming circles … but you are right.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
@MIke
“What I want to see – ” George Lucas Dialogue Training” for the DS ”
Whoo what a load of Bantha poodoo. Meesa tink it be bombad.
June 26th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
I’m in GamerDad’s camp on the Spielberg thing.
I’m sure no one at EA will underestimate Spielberg’s involvement if you know what I mean.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I’d buy it if weren’t for the fact that after renting it it turned out to be an almost total clone of another, more importantly, FREE game.
http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2005
If you hadn’t guessed it’s the once called ‘Toblo’.
Yes it’s more basic but the similarities are striking and personally I thought it was more enjoyable.