Minecraft just recently added a new update, and I figured I would start a new game to get the fresh experience with the changes. Wolves are a non-aggressive pet that can be tamed, beds now act as spawn points and small tweaks have been made to prepare for achievements. Minecraft is a game of new beginnings - sometimes a playthrough gets boring, and starting anew is a great way to reinvent interest.
Beds are incredibly easy to make. Three pieces of wool and three planks. That's it. Both sheep and trees are in abundance, and just walking away from the spawn point for a few minutes you're bound to run into tons. I did, but wanted to find an area high up in the clouds overlooking a canyon. The perfect area to inhabit is hard to find, so I had the bright idea of taking after a good friend of mine and taking matters into my own hands. Violently flailing away at dirt for a good hour, I had sixteen stacks. And it was now time. Time to make my own support.
I built a column straight up, five by five blocks, until I could taste the clouds. Then I expanded outward, plopped the essentials in their respective corners, made some windows and took the time to enjoy the view. It's weird to have clouds glitch through the walls (what should be fixed) because I almost fell to my death. Luckily I elevated my bed so my spawn point is in my house, and not outside. It'd be unfortunate to spawn and die over and over again. As I slept for the night, I quit the game and took a nap (in real life). Minecraft is so realistic that it made me tired in real life. After sitting down for two hours I was creatively exhausted. My brain actually hurt.
Expect part nine tomorrow. I may be taking part in a multiplayer server! Ciao!
March 31, 2011
A Rant on PETA and The Next Madden Game
The next Madden game, a series I've grown accustomed to over the years, is in a weird place. The chance of the approaching season being canceled is more and more becoming a reality, and needless to say many don't expect much to change in this year's release. Rosters will stay the same with the only change being those college players who are drafted, who won't see any game time in their first year as players. The issue boils down to one thing: the allocation of money. The players accuse the owners of hoarding too much, and the owners want the eradication of a preseason and for those two games to count as seasonal games. That change would effectively bring the total number of games to eighteen. Given the risky, combative play of football, the players are concerned an increase in seasonal games played will increase the likelihood of injuries.
This isn't a sports blog; it just pains me to see fans of the sport lose out over such a stupid issue. Anyway, not only does EA have the NFL to deal with, PETA is breathing down their neck as well. Michael Vick is one of the favourites to be the cover athlete and respectably so. He defied the odds, came back, and played like nothing happened. He served his time and has publicly acknowledged and apologized for his dog fighting scandal, but still PETA is pressuring EA not to consider him for the cover. What Michael Vick did is ancient history now, and as a player and human being he has moved on. Or I hope he has. If not, well, PETA has a right to protest. But if Electronic Arts does end up giving Vick the coveted spot on the cover, the company isn't promoting what Vick did; they are just rewarding him free publicity and going for an increase in revenue.
EA Sports won't acquiesce to the demands of the animal rights organization. The much publicized sex scandal of Tiger Woods hurt his own reputation but also the reputation of golf, and as the sponsors dropped off like flies, EA continued to support him. I understand the concern of PETA, and the dog fighting scandal is still fresh in the minds of everyone that follows sports, but Vick's personal life should stay just that, personal. As a sports fan I really could care less what professional athletes get up to in their own time. As long as they perform when necessary, I am a happy camper.
What Vick did was one of the cruelest crimes any human being with a conscious could commit. Animals do not deserve to be mangled or mistreated in any way, and some people will never forgive Vick for his crime. But he served his time in prison, what a judge deemed appropriate, and now he has learned his lesson. Last year he had one of the best comeback seasons of any professional athlete in history, and through exemplary means, he has separated himself from his past actions. Donating to charity, funding animal shelters; all enough in my mind to redeem himself to society.
It's funny, because a lot of fans will be pushing for him to be on the Madden 12 cover. Especially fans of ANY OTHER TEAM in the NFL. Like Sports Illustrated, there is a curse. He previously appeared on the cover of Madden NFL 2004, and that season broke his leg missing eleven games. I don't know if players are asked if they want to be placed on the cover, but Vick should consider his decision - for not PETA, but for his own safety.
I was reading about this on GamesRadar and I was in the mood to rant, so here I am ranting. This topic shouldn't be at all controversial. PETA has been known to sensationalize trivial things in the past, and this is them meddling again. On another note, I am getting close to 100 posts! I'll think of an extra special topic for hitting the century mark. Check back later for more posts. Ciao!
This isn't a sports blog; it just pains me to see fans of the sport lose out over such a stupid issue. Anyway, not only does EA have the NFL to deal with, PETA is breathing down their neck as well. Michael Vick is one of the favourites to be the cover athlete and respectably so. He defied the odds, came back, and played like nothing happened. He served his time and has publicly acknowledged and apologized for his dog fighting scandal, but still PETA is pressuring EA not to consider him for the cover. What Michael Vick did is ancient history now, and as a player and human being he has moved on. Or I hope he has. If not, well, PETA has a right to protest. But if Electronic Arts does end up giving Vick the coveted spot on the cover, the company isn't promoting what Vick did; they are just rewarding him free publicity and going for an increase in revenue.
EA Sports won't acquiesce to the demands of the animal rights organization. The much publicized sex scandal of Tiger Woods hurt his own reputation but also the reputation of golf, and as the sponsors dropped off like flies, EA continued to support him. I understand the concern of PETA, and the dog fighting scandal is still fresh in the minds of everyone that follows sports, but Vick's personal life should stay just that, personal. As a sports fan I really could care less what professional athletes get up to in their own time. As long as they perform when necessary, I am a happy camper.
What Vick did was one of the cruelest crimes any human being with a conscious could commit. Animals do not deserve to be mangled or mistreated in any way, and some people will never forgive Vick for his crime. But he served his time in prison, what a judge deemed appropriate, and now he has learned his lesson. Last year he had one of the best comeback seasons of any professional athlete in history, and through exemplary means, he has separated himself from his past actions. Donating to charity, funding animal shelters; all enough in my mind to redeem himself to society.
It's funny, because a lot of fans will be pushing for him to be on the Madden 12 cover. Especially fans of ANY OTHER TEAM in the NFL. Like Sports Illustrated, there is a curse. He previously appeared on the cover of Madden NFL 2004, and that season broke his leg missing eleven games. I don't know if players are asked if they want to be placed on the cover, but Vick should consider his decision - for not PETA, but for his own safety.
I was reading about this on GamesRadar and I was in the mood to rant, so here I am ranting. This topic shouldn't be at all controversial. PETA has been known to sensationalize trivial things in the past, and this is them meddling again. On another note, I am getting close to 100 posts! I'll think of an extra special topic for hitting the century mark. Check back later for more posts. Ciao!
Dragon Age II Afterthoughts - Victim of Hype?
The fabled Dragon Age: Origins shows us gamers two things: a new IP can still be wildly successful in the current environment and the action-RPG is here to stay. Following what some tout as one of the best games this generation, was Dragon Age II doomed from the start? Was Origins just too good that a sequel couldn't even begin to surpass its greatness?
When Dragon Age II was announced, the hype train began. Bridging the gap between generations and setting up what will hopefully be an amazing third game, wide speculation began as to what Bioware had up its sleeve. Would the Darkspawn again arise and threaten the very order of Ferelden, or would the plot shift entirely? The demo was released and immediately one thing felt off: the inability to design your own character. The only choices were pre-designed renderings of how Bioware felt Hawke should look. One of the many aspects praised in Origins was making the adventure your own. That included picking a background story and designed the Warden to your liking, and I can tell you I spent a few minutes doing so. I understand that the way DAII started it was impossible to come up with an origin story of sorts, but I wish you could maybe answer some questions as to how you think Hawke would respond in different situations. Character customization would have been nice; personality customization would be even better.
Booting up the demo, something was definitely off. It came as no surprise (at least to me) when I'm pretty sure a Bioware developer came out and said EA put a rush order on the game. The time frame between release dates was only a year-and-a-half, where two years has become industry standard. The only reason I can think of for Electronic Arts to rush the game's development is the publisher didn't have faith in the franchise. This was a foolish assumption because many gamers have waited for a current-generation spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and Origins was the perfect game to fill that void. Also the review scores and sales numbers for the first game were better than anyone expected, selling 3.2 million units in the first quarter after release and averaging 91 for the PC version on Metacritic.
So that begs the question: Why did EA put a rush order on the game? The publisher had to take into consideration noticeable shortcomings would affect sales and review scores, and review scores are a deciding factor for some in buying a game. Reputation aside, Dragon Age II was far from being a bad game. Standing on its own one could say it is one of the better games this console cycle. Had Origins not been the success it was, Dragon Age II would be considered the best. That's an unfortunate side-effect of making the first iteration of a series so impressive; it's difficult to make improvements.
Nobody should blame Bioware. If anyone does, they are completely misinformed on the situation. Electronic Arts set a developmental time frame and Bioware met that time frame. A year-and-a-half is not long enough for how big Bioware wanted to make DA2 and the developer did the best it could. However I do have one more complaint. I wish there was more variety in the environments. Spending 90% of the playthrough in the increasingly familiar Kirkwall is tiresome and monotonous. Thankfully there is a mod to ramp up the graphics on PC. If I had a computer fast enough to run it, you wouldn't see me for a week. I'll be renting it soon on 360 eventually. All this information I gathered while taking notes watching a playthrough. That's what a nerd like me does on a Thursday afternoon.
So, was it a victim of hype? The answer is obvious. Let us all hope both companies have learned from this awful experience and take great care in giving us a thrilling and comprehensive conclusion to a great franchise.
When Dragon Age II was announced, the hype train began. Bridging the gap between generations and setting up what will hopefully be an amazing third game, wide speculation began as to what Bioware had up its sleeve. Would the Darkspawn again arise and threaten the very order of Ferelden, or would the plot shift entirely? The demo was released and immediately one thing felt off: the inability to design your own character. The only choices were pre-designed renderings of how Bioware felt Hawke should look. One of the many aspects praised in Origins was making the adventure your own. That included picking a background story and designed the Warden to your liking, and I can tell you I spent a few minutes doing so. I understand that the way DAII started it was impossible to come up with an origin story of sorts, but I wish you could maybe answer some questions as to how you think Hawke would respond in different situations. Character customization would have been nice; personality customization would be even better.
Booting up the demo, something was definitely off. It came as no surprise (at least to me) when I'm pretty sure a Bioware developer came out and said EA put a rush order on the game. The time frame between release dates was only a year-and-a-half, where two years has become industry standard. The only reason I can think of for Electronic Arts to rush the game's development is the publisher didn't have faith in the franchise. This was a foolish assumption because many gamers have waited for a current-generation spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate, and Origins was the perfect game to fill that void. Also the review scores and sales numbers for the first game were better than anyone expected, selling 3.2 million units in the first quarter after release and averaging 91 for the PC version on Metacritic.
So that begs the question: Why did EA put a rush order on the game? The publisher had to take into consideration noticeable shortcomings would affect sales and review scores, and review scores are a deciding factor for some in buying a game. Reputation aside, Dragon Age II was far from being a bad game. Standing on its own one could say it is one of the better games this console cycle. Had Origins not been the success it was, Dragon Age II would be considered the best. That's an unfortunate side-effect of making the first iteration of a series so impressive; it's difficult to make improvements.
Nobody should blame Bioware. If anyone does, they are completely misinformed on the situation. Electronic Arts set a developmental time frame and Bioware met that time frame. A year-and-a-half is not long enough for how big Bioware wanted to make DA2 and the developer did the best it could. However I do have one more complaint. I wish there was more variety in the environments. Spending 90% of the playthrough in the increasingly familiar Kirkwall is tiresome and monotonous. Thankfully there is a mod to ramp up the graphics on PC. If I had a computer fast enough to run it, you wouldn't see me for a week. I'll be renting it soon on 360 eventually. All this information I gathered while taking notes watching a playthrough. That's what a nerd like me does on a Thursday afternoon.
So, was it a victim of hype? The answer is obvious. Let us all hope both companies have learned from this awful experience and take great care in giving us a thrilling and comprehensive conclusion to a great franchise.
First Epic Court Case of 2011!
2011 has started nicely; lots of news in time generally light of it. For the person who maintains a gaming blog, I personally thank the industry for being so fucked up and interesting all at the same time. Last year was one for the ages in terms of the number of important court cases, and this year, hopefully, will be no different. A court case involving some big names in the industry may see its end this year, and things are hyping up for a spectacular finish.
Too Human, a game famous for its extraordinarily long development time, failed on almost every level. The sales and review scores were miserable and the prolonged development time made the game look dated. In development hell for a decade, Silicon Knights planned for a trilogy. Their plan didn't work out too well, and in response the studio sued Epic Games for failing to give the studio the full use of Unreal Engine 3. Silicon was then forced to rewrite parts of the engine, which was publicly mocked at a demonstration for journalists. Silicon couldn't obtain a new engine because the studio was contractually-bound to Epic, and also faced with the decision of stopping development time temporarily to risk losing funding from Microsoft. Oh the pressures of releasing an exclusive game.
New developments could see the case battled before a jury in the coming months. If Silicon wins, I hope they start work on a new franchise instead of a sequel. The reputation of Too Human would make work on any sequel comic fodder. But then again, Silicon could design an entire new engine and start working on the game they wanted to make. Business-wise that probably wouldn't make any sense but corporate pride may impact their decision.
If the St. Catharine's, Ontario based developer (gotta love Canadian studios) is still working hard on its controversial franchise, we'll definitely see something in June. It has been three years after all. Imagine if the Too Human series took thirty years to complete? Fans would be distraught - the three of you out there.
Too Human, a game famous for its extraordinarily long development time, failed on almost every level. The sales and review scores were miserable and the prolonged development time made the game look dated. In development hell for a decade, Silicon Knights planned for a trilogy. Their plan didn't work out too well, and in response the studio sued Epic Games for failing to give the studio the full use of Unreal Engine 3. Silicon was then forced to rewrite parts of the engine, which was publicly mocked at a demonstration for journalists. Silicon couldn't obtain a new engine because the studio was contractually-bound to Epic, and also faced with the decision of stopping development time temporarily to risk losing funding from Microsoft. Oh the pressures of releasing an exclusive game.
New developments could see the case battled before a jury in the coming months. If Silicon wins, I hope they start work on a new franchise instead of a sequel. The reputation of Too Human would make work on any sequel comic fodder. But then again, Silicon could design an entire new engine and start working on the game they wanted to make. Business-wise that probably wouldn't make any sense but corporate pride may impact their decision.
If the St. Catharine's, Ontario based developer (gotta love Canadian studios) is still working hard on its controversial franchise, we'll definitely see something in June. It has been three years after all. Imagine if the Too Human series took thirty years to complete? Fans would be distraught - the three of you out there.
March 30, 2011
Explosions and The Eradication of The Humanity? What Could Go Wrong? - Battle: Los Angeles Review
See what I did there. As the title says, Battle: Los Angeles shares one important aspect with the recent bust Sucker Punch. There are explosions. Lots of explosions. So many explosions that I got tired of explosions. As a pyromaniac, I thought such a thing was absurd - borderline insane - but both movies have that many explosions. Is it a recurring theme in the movies I go to see this year? We'll see. If any other trailers have a ton of explosions I'll be guaranteed to see and review those movies. And talk about how much I love explosions, or hate explosions, or get annoyed by explosions. Anyway, enough rambling about explosions; here's my review on the Aaron Eckhart alien invasion film, Battle: Los Angeles.
From the trailers, I knew what to expect. A gruesome, and somewhat believable, way human civilization might fall in the future. I am a firm believer in the existence of other lifeforms, and something we can't gauge is how much farther ahead technologically these races are. Some will find this opinion disgraceful, ridiculous; maybe comment on the craziness of the statement. Unfortunately, however, it is entirely possible that an alien species could invade Earth at any given time. Anticipating it playing out like the plot of Battle: Los Angeles is something for the experts to debate, so enough editorializing this review.
The idea for the movie is the great exaggeration of a speculated invasion of Los Angeles back in 1942. UFOlogists claim the cause was of extraterrestrial nature, and some claim it was just a false alarm. Whatever it was didn't matter and rumours abound ranged from a Japanese invasion (fresh off the bombing of Pearl Harbour) to a government cover-up of something greater. No one publicly knows what happened that day, and Battle: Los Angeles looks to make big bucks sensationalizing the event.
The plot is as simple as simple gets. Nothing original, but I wasn't looking for original. I wanted explosions and the movie didn't disappoint. A harmless meteor shower gets reported on and with everyone ignoring the news. Suddenly several meteor showers appear across the globe and governments militarize, ready to combat anything. The story follows a group of marines led by Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) who take destiny into their own hands. Don't expect a completely thought out story here; it's all stuff we've seen before. As many invasion movies go, the plot doesn't really need to play a role. The movie focuses more on the relationship between the marines still standing and their conflict with Staff Sergeant Nantz, who gained the malicious reputation of leading some of his men to death in a previous conflict. That relationship leads to one pivotal scene where the marines must make a difficult decision - I won't spoil it.
The action scenes are what shine here through and through. Destruction is in the spotlight here, and several helicopter overviews of an embattled Los Angeles really give you the perspective that humanity is doomed. The fight scenes are similarly convincing and I had the sense Jonathan Liebesman (the director) was aiming at the same intensity of epic war films in these scenes. The combat scenes, which appeared more frequently than dialogue, never fail to disappoint and are mildly entertaining. Other than that, the movie is just a typical alien invasion film.
The current Rotten Tomatoes rating is 34% last time I checked, so not good. It is unfair because for the alien invasion genre, it is hard these days to come up with an original and inventive plot. The acting was decent, and I never expected Aaron Eckhart to be good as the soldier lead in a movie. He played the distressed solider well enough, and it was fun to see his aggressive personality counterbalance those of his compatriots. Given his comedic background, the change from comedian to serious actor was a nice change and something he should do more often.
Overall, the movie was exactly what I thought it would be. This is a straight-up alien invasion flick with the intensity of a doomsday war scenario and good acting to boot. If you like explosions and seeing the military in action, by all means go and see this. If not, well then this movie is probably not for you.
From the trailers, I knew what to expect. A gruesome, and somewhat believable, way human civilization might fall in the future. I am a firm believer in the existence of other lifeforms, and something we can't gauge is how much farther ahead technologically these races are. Some will find this opinion disgraceful, ridiculous; maybe comment on the craziness of the statement. Unfortunately, however, it is entirely possible that an alien species could invade Earth at any given time. Anticipating it playing out like the plot of Battle: Los Angeles is something for the experts to debate, so enough editorializing this review.
The idea for the movie is the great exaggeration of a speculated invasion of Los Angeles back in 1942. UFOlogists claim the cause was of extraterrestrial nature, and some claim it was just a false alarm. Whatever it was didn't matter and rumours abound ranged from a Japanese invasion (fresh off the bombing of Pearl Harbour) to a government cover-up of something greater. No one publicly knows what happened that day, and Battle: Los Angeles looks to make big bucks sensationalizing the event.
The plot is as simple as simple gets. Nothing original, but I wasn't looking for original. I wanted explosions and the movie didn't disappoint. A harmless meteor shower gets reported on and with everyone ignoring the news. Suddenly several meteor showers appear across the globe and governments militarize, ready to combat anything. The story follows a group of marines led by Staff Sergeant Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) who take destiny into their own hands. Don't expect a completely thought out story here; it's all stuff we've seen before. As many invasion movies go, the plot doesn't really need to play a role. The movie focuses more on the relationship between the marines still standing and their conflict with Staff Sergeant Nantz, who gained the malicious reputation of leading some of his men to death in a previous conflict. That relationship leads to one pivotal scene where the marines must make a difficult decision - I won't spoil it.
The action scenes are what shine here through and through. Destruction is in the spotlight here, and several helicopter overviews of an embattled Los Angeles really give you the perspective that humanity is doomed. The fight scenes are similarly convincing and I had the sense Jonathan Liebesman (the director) was aiming at the same intensity of epic war films in these scenes. The combat scenes, which appeared more frequently than dialogue, never fail to disappoint and are mildly entertaining. Other than that, the movie is just a typical alien invasion film.
The current Rotten Tomatoes rating is 34% last time I checked, so not good. It is unfair because for the alien invasion genre, it is hard these days to come up with an original and inventive plot. The acting was decent, and I never expected Aaron Eckhart to be good as the soldier lead in a movie. He played the distressed solider well enough, and it was fun to see his aggressive personality counterbalance those of his compatriots. Given his comedic background, the change from comedian to serious actor was a nice change and something he should do more often.
Overall, the movie was exactly what I thought it would be. This is a straight-up alien invasion flick with the intensity of a doomsday war scenario and good acting to boot. If you like explosions and seeing the military in action, by all means go and see this. If not, well then this movie is probably not for you.
March 29, 2011
"Highly Anticipated Sequel" From GameInformer - A Discussion
What happened to E3 being the benchmark for game revelations? Every single gamer out there wets their pants mid-June when the speculation train begins. Every franchise is rumoured to be getting a sequel, and most of the industry talks mindless, unneeded banter that gives us gamers false hope. GameInformer, arguably the leading gaming magazine, has the unrivaled reputation of unveiling massive games to the world, and generally these are overhyped. Rumours are abound about what the next game could, or should, be, and I just want to sit back and see what's announced. Let the fanboys duke it out and leave me out of it.
Asked if the game is the upcoming Hitman 5, GameInformer Editor-in-Chief Andy McNamara said it isn't, unfortunately, but a project just as big. Some have said a sequel or re-imagining of the long dormant Syndicate is the likely candidate, but in the video games universe anything is possible. So let the speculation begin! These are games I would like to see sequels for.
Since the project is probably a sequel to a smaller franchise, it wouldn't be on the same level as Halo or Splinter Cell. A franchise of that fanfare will get a proper announcement at E3, Gamescom or the Tokyo Game Show. Bungie is working hard on a brand new IP for Activison, but the independent studio has many divisions. I would like to see the revitalization of either Oni or Myth. Oni was an amazing game, and the fan base has been longing for a sequel that included multiplayer. The unique perspective of hand-to-hand combat in a third-person shooter should make for some fun times online.
Although already announced, Max Payne 3 never got a proper reveal and GameInformer is a perfect platform. The game was originally scheduled to come out in late 2009, but a series of delays has put a release before 2012 in doubt. Remedy's latest project, Alan Wake, disappointed financially and a sequel is unlikely; going back to an established franchise is always a great business move, and Max Payne will sell well.
Another game speculated is a sequel to WarHawk, the Sony-exclusive multiplayer game received favourably. Fanboys galore are begging for a game, but ever since Incongito closed in the middle of 2009, a future to the franchise is questionable. A majority of the developers moved on to create Eat Sheep Play, currently hard-at-work on the new Twisted Metal game. Dual projects for a small studio is highly, highly unlikely but again we never know.
And last but not least, I wish it was Battlefront 3. Many gamers consider the series lamented since Free Radical saw its demise. The wavering development of Force Unleashed 3 means LucasArts is looking for a new project, and Battlefront 3 is the perfect candidate. The studio still has faith in the franchise because a game was developed for the PSP in 2009. It wouldn't make sense for a series so highly regarded in the video game community to be outright ignored given LucasArts current situation with its prime franchise. We will see an announcement of Battlefront 3 soon, if not at E3; this is just me fetching for comments. *smiley face*
So there we go! A sequel is incoming, so what do you think it is? Post your grievances in the comments below or send me an email at filthcardia@gmail.com and I'll add to this post gradually. Ciao!
P.S. I am going to see Battle: Los Angeles tonight so expect a review. I've decided that sometimes I will pop in reviews of films somewhat unrelated to video games here, and in doing so I may redesign the blog. Who knows. But check back daily for updates! And the review later tonight.
Asked if the game is the upcoming Hitman 5, GameInformer Editor-in-Chief Andy McNamara said it isn't, unfortunately, but a project just as big. Some have said a sequel or re-imagining of the long dormant Syndicate is the likely candidate, but in the video games universe anything is possible. So let the speculation begin! These are games I would like to see sequels for.
Since the project is probably a sequel to a smaller franchise, it wouldn't be on the same level as Halo or Splinter Cell. A franchise of that fanfare will get a proper announcement at E3, Gamescom or the Tokyo Game Show. Bungie is working hard on a brand new IP for Activison, but the independent studio has many divisions. I would like to see the revitalization of either Oni or Myth. Oni was an amazing game, and the fan base has been longing for a sequel that included multiplayer. The unique perspective of hand-to-hand combat in a third-person shooter should make for some fun times online.
Although already announced, Max Payne 3 never got a proper reveal and GameInformer is a perfect platform. The game was originally scheduled to come out in late 2009, but a series of delays has put a release before 2012 in doubt. Remedy's latest project, Alan Wake, disappointed financially and a sequel is unlikely; going back to an established franchise is always a great business move, and Max Payne will sell well.
Another game speculated is a sequel to WarHawk, the Sony-exclusive multiplayer game received favourably. Fanboys galore are begging for a game, but ever since Incongito closed in the middle of 2009, a future to the franchise is questionable. A majority of the developers moved on to create Eat Sheep Play, currently hard-at-work on the new Twisted Metal game. Dual projects for a small studio is highly, highly unlikely but again we never know.
And last but not least, I wish it was Battlefront 3. Many gamers consider the series lamented since Free Radical saw its demise. The wavering development of Force Unleashed 3 means LucasArts is looking for a new project, and Battlefront 3 is the perfect candidate. The studio still has faith in the franchise because a game was developed for the PSP in 2009. It wouldn't make sense for a series so highly regarded in the video game community to be outright ignored given LucasArts current situation with its prime franchise. We will see an announcement of Battlefront 3 soon, if not at E3; this is just me fetching for comments. *smiley face*
So there we go! A sequel is incoming, so what do you think it is? Post your grievances in the comments below or send me an email at filthcardia@gmail.com and I'll add to this post gradually. Ciao!
P.S. I am going to see Battle: Los Angeles tonight so expect a review. I've decided that sometimes I will pop in reviews of films somewhat unrelated to video games here, and in doing so I may redesign the blog. Who knows. But check back daily for updates! And the review later tonight.
I Want to Be A Video Games Journalist
As much as I love researching and writing these blogs, delving into sections of the industry I wouldn't find myself in before, I want to move up. A blog is a great start, and I have written for small gaming sites in the past, but nothing that could lead into something better. Many gamers aspire to be such, and I understand that I am just part of the pack; but I do have the two major requirements to have a successful career in the video games journalism industry: a passion for video games and a handle of the English language.
Video game journalism has garnered a despicable reputation within the world of journalism, and I've heard comparisons to celebrity journalism. A single person might not make an impact, and my quest to change the perception of this specific type of journalism may seem daunting, but the last thing I intend to do is give up. I'm not saying it needs saving - the actuality is quite the opposite - but an intellectual look of games is generally rare. I want the ability to play games, study them, and realize why certain games have an impact and others don't. Or, I could just write about games. Either option would be a dream come true.
That being said, and I am not trying to be extremely pessimistic here, but the thought of writing about video games may be just that, a dream. The industry is very small, with only a handful of sites really gaining a substantial audience to stay afloat. Another option I have considered is starting my own website, and reading up on it changed my mind quickly. It's a long and difficult process, taking hundreds of hours for one person, and to maintain it would have to be my day job. There are legions of small gaming sites out there and most don't get the traffic or recognition to sustain long-term viability. It's the nature of business, but leaves us wannabe gaming writers at a massive disadvantage.
The largest gaming sites rarely look for new writers, especially those with limited or no experience at all. But that is also a blessing-in-disguise; the few that don't give up will likely land a job somewhere. My future as a gaming journalist looks incredibly bleak, therefore I will make an effort.
For those of you reading this that intend to get into the industry, there are a multitude of tools online to help you in your quest. Certain sites like Digital Journal and Bleacher Report offer pay for any contribution, via PayPal. One site great for volunteer opportunities is videogamejournalismjobs.com. Several sites post ads every week looking for potential talent, and chances are if you apply you'll find something. Be aware that 99% of these postings are volunteer work, but there is always a possibility of something stable. Check out the traffic of the website on Alexa if necessary, and post on forums to see who frequents the site regularly. Some of these sites include: Game Podunk, Digital Hippos, GameDwellers and RipTen.
I was inspired to post on this topic from something I read on earlier this morning on a forum. Some guy was begging to the forum-goers for any advice and I felt bad for him. Hopefully he takes his information to heart and uses it productively.
Video game journalism has garnered a despicable reputation within the world of journalism, and I've heard comparisons to celebrity journalism. A single person might not make an impact, and my quest to change the perception of this specific type of journalism may seem daunting, but the last thing I intend to do is give up. I'm not saying it needs saving - the actuality is quite the opposite - but an intellectual look of games is generally rare. I want the ability to play games, study them, and realize why certain games have an impact and others don't. Or, I could just write about games. Either option would be a dream come true.
That being said, and I am not trying to be extremely pessimistic here, but the thought of writing about video games may be just that, a dream. The industry is very small, with only a handful of sites really gaining a substantial audience to stay afloat. Another option I have considered is starting my own website, and reading up on it changed my mind quickly. It's a long and difficult process, taking hundreds of hours for one person, and to maintain it would have to be my day job. There are legions of small gaming sites out there and most don't get the traffic or recognition to sustain long-term viability. It's the nature of business, but leaves us wannabe gaming writers at a massive disadvantage.
The largest gaming sites rarely look for new writers, especially those with limited or no experience at all. But that is also a blessing-in-disguise; the few that don't give up will likely land a job somewhere. My future as a gaming journalist looks incredibly bleak, therefore I will make an effort.
For those of you reading this that intend to get into the industry, there are a multitude of tools online to help you in your quest. Certain sites like Digital Journal and Bleacher Report offer pay for any contribution, via PayPal. One site great for volunteer opportunities is videogamejournalismjobs.com. Several sites post ads every week looking for potential talent, and chances are if you apply you'll find something. Be aware that 99% of these postings are volunteer work, but there is always a possibility of something stable. Check out the traffic of the website on Alexa if necessary, and post on forums to see who frequents the site regularly. Some of these sites include: Game Podunk, Digital Hippos, GameDwellers and RipTen.
I was inspired to post on this topic from something I read on earlier this morning on a forum. Some guy was begging to the forum-goers for any advice and I felt bad for him. Hopefully he takes his information to heart and uses it productively.
March 28, 2011
Dynasty Warriors 7 Review Preview
Before I start this blog post, I'd like to formally thank all the visitors to my lovely blog in the past few days. My Sucker Punch review got more hits than I anticipated, and my short but informative Gears of War 3 Beta Rewards has received almost 30 hits. People are getting really excited for the beta! (Thirty hits might seem like a tiny amount, but for a blog that has 650 page visits total, it's an amount to make me joyous.) I'm going to start aiming for two blog posts a day, so if you are reading this and want something covered, email me at filthcardia@gmail.com. If you have a blog you'd like me to plug, I'd be more than happy to include the URL in a post or two. But only if you let me steal some of your ideas in the process! I'll credit you of course, and I won't reiterate what you say so don't worry about that. Anyway, gotta get going to write a blog post. Ciao!
Today is Monday, which means tomorrow is Tuesday, and gamers everywhere are anticipating the weekly releases. For us North Americans the craziness has started revolving around the 3DS and an arsenal of games are available tomorrow. All the attention will center around this magical device - and other games tomorrow will be lost in the filth. One franchise which has stood the test of time, the test of multiple console generations, releases another game tomorrow. It should be a momentous occasion, and in the past games of this franchise did garner great fanfare, but I haven't heard anything. Not even a shred of excitement. I'm not concerned; I have had my fun with games past, and now it's time for this franchise to die. The Three Kingdoms of Ancient China will never be sorely monetized like this again - that's right, Dynasty Warriors is back.
Koei's most valuable franchise, Dynasty Warriors has basically been the same button-mashing goodness since the first game. The series does stay true to its origins (The Romance of the Three Kingdoms; considered one of the Four Great Classical Novels of Ancient China) and between games, Koei makes an effort to try and mix up their games. Giving characters different weapons, more playable characters, co-op and online versus play, and so everything has been done. Who is still buying this franchise? I've never seen ONE person excited for any game in this series, and the only game I bought was Dynasty Warriors 4 for the PS2.
I'll credit Koei to make people still buy its premier franchise, even though the gameplay is unnecessarily repetitive, and frankly what is a downgrade of the hack-and-slash genre. Since I made a claim like that, I'll be renting it tomorrow and give a proper review. Lately I've been craving the ability to complete decimate anyone in my path, and Dynasty Warriors 7 could satiate that fix. Check back tomorrow.
Today is Monday, which means tomorrow is Tuesday, and gamers everywhere are anticipating the weekly releases. For us North Americans the craziness has started revolving around the 3DS and an arsenal of games are available tomorrow. All the attention will center around this magical device - and other games tomorrow will be lost in the filth. One franchise which has stood the test of time, the test of multiple console generations, releases another game tomorrow. It should be a momentous occasion, and in the past games of this franchise did garner great fanfare, but I haven't heard anything. Not even a shred of excitement. I'm not concerned; I have had my fun with games past, and now it's time for this franchise to die. The Three Kingdoms of Ancient China will never be sorely monetized like this again - that's right, Dynasty Warriors is back.
Koei's most valuable franchise, Dynasty Warriors has basically been the same button-mashing goodness since the first game. The series does stay true to its origins (The Romance of the Three Kingdoms; considered one of the Four Great Classical Novels of Ancient China) and between games, Koei makes an effort to try and mix up their games. Giving characters different weapons, more playable characters, co-op and online versus play, and so everything has been done. Who is still buying this franchise? I've never seen ONE person excited for any game in this series, and the only game I bought was Dynasty Warriors 4 for the PS2.
I'll credit Koei to make people still buy its premier franchise, even though the gameplay is unnecessarily repetitive, and frankly what is a downgrade of the hack-and-slash genre. Since I made a claim like that, I'll be renting it tomorrow and give a proper review. Lately I've been craving the ability to complete decimate anyone in my path, and Dynasty Warriors 7 could satiate that fix. Check back tomorrow.
March 27, 2011
Explosions and Hot Girls? What Could Go Wrong? - Sucker Punch Review
Only once this year did I feel my eyes were melting inside my face, and I wanted only that one time. It may be a trivial complaint, as explosions and hot girls kicking ass is badassery at its finest, but during a movie I desire the same care to be taken to other parts of the movie, even if it's made to be trashy. I just got back from seeing Sucker Punch - yes, a movie on a video games blog - and the rare time I will make a post reviewing a movie related to video games. Or films that could make for awesome video games. With the onslaught of video game-related projects gracing silver screens soon, it's only necessary I get the practice now to make for better reviews later. So, here we go, ladies and gentlemen, my first ever movie review. The first victim, Sucker Punch.
I'm no movie critic. In fact I usually end up seeing one, maybe two movies a year. Anything video game-related I am guaranteed to see, so expect those in the near and distant futures. Sucker Punch is an awkward first movie to stab a review at, ultimately because it fails on almost every level. There is a lot to analyze so let's get started.
By thy hand of the movie gods, please layeth the smackdown on the candy asses who were involved in the making of Sucker Punch. Four hot girls trapped in an insane asylum which, through the power of imagination turns into a brothel, devise a plan to escape. Using the help of the Wise Man, four essentials are necessary for survival: a map, fire, a knife, a key and a mysterious fifth thing only Babydoll (Emily Browning) can realize. She uses her erotic dancing to distract various characters in-and-out of the asylum to attain the ingredients for freedom, and in her imaginary world she embarks on a unique quest each time.
The only, and I mean only, shining aspect of this movie is the CGI effects. The fight scenes were set up obviously to be the primary eye candy, and the scenes suit the purpose. There are some gorgeous set pieces here inside the different dreamlands. One, the girls have to cross No Man's Land to gain the map, massacring thousands of wannabe Nazi soldiers, with zeppelins and airplanes fighting over top. In another scene, the group has to save a futuristic city from a bomb-strapped train to get the knife. The action sequences slaughtering murderous robots are awesome, and probably my favourite part of the movie. Abbie Cornish is incredibly sexy while handling a shotgun.
But unfortunately the movie gods refrained from smiling on this nightmare. The cliched dialogue made characters seem fake and the terrible plot added to the misery; even Carla Gugino having a Russian accent (I think?) couldn't save this movie. Some reviews I read beforehand called Sucker Punch the beginning of the decline of brilliant filmmaking. Such an accusation is undeserving. The movie may be a mess, and a waste of a good ten bucks or so, but to fully appreciate the stellar CGI scenes and worlds created inside Babydoll's head you have to see it in theatres. You'll be scratching your head afterward, like I was, about just what the hell is going on, but maybe that is part of the overall allure. The mission of Zack Snyder was to make you leave your seat and question what just happened on screen; or at least that's what it should have done. There was potential for a compelling story if some weight has given to character development; only three of the girls are given reasons as to why they are in a mental asylum. Blondie and Amber may have been minor characters, but some backstory could have given the film some personality. The worst part of all is the ending; I won't spoil it, but the metaphor is so bitterly obvious that the entire theatre broke out laughing. It was meant to be a heartwarming ending to a rather ludicrous tale, but achieved quite the opposite.
So there we go folks. The decision to see it or not rest on your shoulders, but I advise you not to waste your precious hard-earned dollars unless your fix of cheesy dialogue and incredible fighting sequences has yet to be satisfied this year. Sucker Punch fits the bill perfectly.
P.S. I decided to write a review for this movie because it plays out like a video game, and it was definitely meant for the inner nerd in all of us. Appreciating this movie takes a lot of guts, but for the video game enthusiasts it's hard not to compare it to any personal quest in any game. Hopefully this will be the first of many reviews - Halo, Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed, Warcraft, Gears of War and many other franchises are rumoured to be diving into the movie spotlight. Movie critics will pick these movies apart although the original premise is unbeknownst to them. The best opinion to trust is the words of a gamer, someone that has actually held back the Covenant and the Locust, help defeat rogue government agencies and the Templars, and murdered dozens upon dozens of Horde. (I was forced to choose Alliance.) So check back here and I'll have explicit opinions on just how much Hollywood has ruined our treasured franchises, if by chance any of these actually do come out. Ciao!
I'm no movie critic. In fact I usually end up seeing one, maybe two movies a year. Anything video game-related I am guaranteed to see, so expect those in the near and distant futures. Sucker Punch is an awkward first movie to stab a review at, ultimately because it fails on almost every level. There is a lot to analyze so let's get started.
By thy hand of the movie gods, please layeth the smackdown on the candy asses who were involved in the making of Sucker Punch. Four hot girls trapped in an insane asylum which, through the power of imagination turns into a brothel, devise a plan to escape. Using the help of the Wise Man, four essentials are necessary for survival: a map, fire, a knife, a key and a mysterious fifth thing only Babydoll (Emily Browning) can realize. She uses her erotic dancing to distract various characters in-and-out of the asylum to attain the ingredients for freedom, and in her imaginary world she embarks on a unique quest each time.
The only, and I mean only, shining aspect of this movie is the CGI effects. The fight scenes were set up obviously to be the primary eye candy, and the scenes suit the purpose. There are some gorgeous set pieces here inside the different dreamlands. One, the girls have to cross No Man's Land to gain the map, massacring thousands of wannabe Nazi soldiers, with zeppelins and airplanes fighting over top. In another scene, the group has to save a futuristic city from a bomb-strapped train to get the knife. The action sequences slaughtering murderous robots are awesome, and probably my favourite part of the movie. Abbie Cornish is incredibly sexy while handling a shotgun.
But unfortunately the movie gods refrained from smiling on this nightmare. The cliched dialogue made characters seem fake and the terrible plot added to the misery; even Carla Gugino having a Russian accent (I think?) couldn't save this movie. Some reviews I read beforehand called Sucker Punch the beginning of the decline of brilliant filmmaking. Such an accusation is undeserving. The movie may be a mess, and a waste of a good ten bucks or so, but to fully appreciate the stellar CGI scenes and worlds created inside Babydoll's head you have to see it in theatres. You'll be scratching your head afterward, like I was, about just what the hell is going on, but maybe that is part of the overall allure. The mission of Zack Snyder was to make you leave your seat and question what just happened on screen; or at least that's what it should have done. There was potential for a compelling story if some weight has given to character development; only three of the girls are given reasons as to why they are in a mental asylum. Blondie and Amber may have been minor characters, but some backstory could have given the film some personality. The worst part of all is the ending; I won't spoil it, but the metaphor is so bitterly obvious that the entire theatre broke out laughing. It was meant to be a heartwarming ending to a rather ludicrous tale, but achieved quite the opposite.
So there we go folks. The decision to see it or not rest on your shoulders, but I advise you not to waste your precious hard-earned dollars unless your fix of cheesy dialogue and incredible fighting sequences has yet to be satisfied this year. Sucker Punch fits the bill perfectly.
P.S. I decided to write a review for this movie because it plays out like a video game, and it was definitely meant for the inner nerd in all of us. Appreciating this movie takes a lot of guts, but for the video game enthusiasts it's hard not to compare it to any personal quest in any game. Hopefully this will be the first of many reviews - Halo, Splinter Cell, Assassin's Creed, Warcraft, Gears of War and many other franchises are rumoured to be diving into the movie spotlight. Movie critics will pick these movies apart although the original premise is unbeknownst to them. The best opinion to trust is the words of a gamer, someone that has actually held back the Covenant and the Locust, help defeat rogue government agencies and the Templars, and murdered dozens upon dozens of Horde. (I was forced to choose Alliance.) So check back here and I'll have explicit opinions on just how much Hollywood has ruined our treasured franchises, if by chance any of these actually do come out. Ciao!
March 26, 2011
The Perfect First-Person Shooter?
Claiming a game in any genre the best certainly takes some balls, and subsequently the trouble received after may not be worth the risk. But here I go, diving into the world of certainties, and declaring Call of Duty 4 the best first-person shooter in history. I have good reasons, I swear; I was tenth prestige, twenty-five days unjustifiably and unhealthily invested in the multiplayer, and I had the time of my life. Sometimes I do miss it. The endless nights of gaming with the same guys absolutely destroying everyone in our path, drinking mountains of coffee and red bull to play that one extra game. I was addicted, and no other game has given me that same thrill. One exception may be World of Warcraft, but I haven't played long enough to really thoroughly enjoy my experience.
In the simplest of terms, Call of Duty 4 had the perfect multiplayer format for a first-person shooter game. The energetic chaos of urban warfare and redefining the term "run-and-gun" mashed into a fun and explosive package made Infinity Ward famous, and made the series the behemoth seller it is today. Some would argue that formula is getting stale, and there are projections the next game in the series will be the tipping point of its popularity. Other franchises like Battlefield and Homefront are slowly eating away at the ever persistent fan base, and will eventually swallow it whole.
The biggest complaint heard about CoD4's multiplayer was the overpowered M16. New players definitely felt overwhelmed - I didn't get into the game until six months after it was released, and it was painful to continuously respawn after getting demolished by the burst-only weapon. Also some maps weren't the best designed, but understandably every map in a multiplayer game isn't the greatest. Those were my only objections, except the rampant no scoping eradicated in Black Ops.
I haven't played a Call of Duty for more than a month since the original Modern Warfare, but that is only because subsequent iterations played much differently. Not to say they are bad games (Modern Warfare 2 has now been fixed), however.
Maybe I'll have the balls to declare my favourite in another genre sometime later on. Just Call of Duty 4 did so many things right that current first-person shooters are tragically missing. Check later today for more blog posts. Ciao!
In the simplest of terms, Call of Duty 4 had the perfect multiplayer format for a first-person shooter game. The energetic chaos of urban warfare and redefining the term "run-and-gun" mashed into a fun and explosive package made Infinity Ward famous, and made the series the behemoth seller it is today. Some would argue that formula is getting stale, and there are projections the next game in the series will be the tipping point of its popularity. Other franchises like Battlefield and Homefront are slowly eating away at the ever persistent fan base, and will eventually swallow it whole.
The biggest complaint heard about CoD4's multiplayer was the overpowered M16. New players definitely felt overwhelmed - I didn't get into the game until six months after it was released, and it was painful to continuously respawn after getting demolished by the burst-only weapon. Also some maps weren't the best designed, but understandably every map in a multiplayer game isn't the greatest. Those were my only objections, except the rampant no scoping eradicated in Black Ops.
I haven't played a Call of Duty for more than a month since the original Modern Warfare, but that is only because subsequent iterations played much differently. Not to say they are bad games (Modern Warfare 2 has now been fixed), however.
Maybe I'll have the balls to declare my favourite in another genre sometime later on. Just Call of Duty 4 did so many things right that current first-person shooters are tragically missing. Check later today for more blog posts. Ciao!
Where Have The Stories Gone?
Watching an entire playthrough of Heavy Rain left my mind boggled. Clearly it was a game, a very pretty game, but it plays out like a movie - a thriller for the ages. A thriller with a twist not all of us saw coming (I knew who the Origami Killer was beforehand), but still enthralling nonetheless. Heavy Rain humanized video games, at least for me; a powerful epic tale of four lives intertwined in an emotional conflict. Quantic Dream's masterpiece set the bar extremely high and necessarily put other games like it to shame. So is that why we haven't seen many games like it? Where gameplay takes a backseat and the primary focus is on storytelling and characters? Alan Wake and Enslaved are the only other comparisons I can think of released last year.
Remedy's classic had an engaging albeit confusing plot, believable characters, but a shortsighted ending. The DLC answered some questions, but I hope there is a sequel. Although not a problem, comparing it to Heavy Rain is wrong on my part - Alan Wake had great gameplay, where Heavy Rain was all quick time events. Enslaved is the direct opposite. Ninja Theory, a studio renowned for heavy storytelling in its games, certainly had that thought in mind. Enslaved's gameplay was nothing stellar, and the sales may have reflected that, but the compelling story made it worth a purchase. I hope Namco Bandai warrants a sequel because the IP is promising, and can be innovated greatly.
Heavy Rain was one of the better received titles of last year, and it's my hope that feedback resonated with studios in their development rooms. Honestly, I am getting tired of games having a sub-par multiplayer component, and games where the multiplayer is the focus. The FPS genre is generally accused of this and I agree; Medal of Honor tried too hard to steer clear of this unfortunate reputation and it fell short. Ninja Theory should be applauded for sticking with their principles in the name of bad sales, even if their games are incredible. Quantic Dream took a massive risk and it paid off handsomely. Other studios need to take note of this and a new genre could be born. I don't know what that genre would be called, but the incoming Rockstar epic L.A. Noire will answer that question.
What sets L.A. Noire apart from Heavy Rain is the realistic look of its characters. Employing the same method seen in Avatar (the James Cameron flick), actors portray the characters instead of faces being electronically generated. The game itself looks extremely promising, with vivid characters and elegant storytelling, and I'll be buying the game day one. (Plus it's from Rockstar. It's impossible not to be bad.)
Will we see more games like this? Probably. Heavy Rain was hugely successful, and unexpectedly was received generously by gamers and reviewers alike. Microsoft's Kinect could enhance such a game, and if Microsoft looks to break into the core audience with the device, such a game may just do that. So let's get on it studios. Give us stories. Indulge us gamers with those creative minds of yours. I beg of you.
Remedy's classic had an engaging albeit confusing plot, believable characters, but a shortsighted ending. The DLC answered some questions, but I hope there is a sequel. Although not a problem, comparing it to Heavy Rain is wrong on my part - Alan Wake had great gameplay, where Heavy Rain was all quick time events. Enslaved is the direct opposite. Ninja Theory, a studio renowned for heavy storytelling in its games, certainly had that thought in mind. Enslaved's gameplay was nothing stellar, and the sales may have reflected that, but the compelling story made it worth a purchase. I hope Namco Bandai warrants a sequel because the IP is promising, and can be innovated greatly.
Heavy Rain was one of the better received titles of last year, and it's my hope that feedback resonated with studios in their development rooms. Honestly, I am getting tired of games having a sub-par multiplayer component, and games where the multiplayer is the focus. The FPS genre is generally accused of this and I agree; Medal of Honor tried too hard to steer clear of this unfortunate reputation and it fell short. Ninja Theory should be applauded for sticking with their principles in the name of bad sales, even if their games are incredible. Quantic Dream took a massive risk and it paid off handsomely. Other studios need to take note of this and a new genre could be born. I don't know what that genre would be called, but the incoming Rockstar epic L.A. Noire will answer that question.
What sets L.A. Noire apart from Heavy Rain is the realistic look of its characters. Employing the same method seen in Avatar (the James Cameron flick), actors portray the characters instead of faces being electronically generated. The game itself looks extremely promising, with vivid characters and elegant storytelling, and I'll be buying the game day one. (Plus it's from Rockstar. It's impossible not to be bad.)
Will we see more games like this? Probably. Heavy Rain was hugely successful, and unexpectedly was received generously by gamers and reviewers alike. Microsoft's Kinect could enhance such a game, and if Microsoft looks to break into the core audience with the device, such a game may just do that. So let's get on it studios. Give us stories. Indulge us gamers with those creative minds of yours. I beg of you.
March 25, 2011
Angry Birds Should Be Considered GOTY
Historically, only the biggest budget games get any consideration for the illustrious game of the year awards. Winning one of these gives a game instant spotlight and a huge number of sales, and this free publicity has driven games to profitability. After a post on Kotaku (I'll include the link at the bottom of the post), it got me thinking: should the whole idea of "game of the year" be changed, or reinvented?
There are pristine video games released every year, and in almost every case these are high budget, high-selling, hotly anticipated titles. Mass Effect 2 being the best and most recent example. Anything Mass Effect related gets huge buzz, and the franchise has risen Bioware to the top. But is just being a perfect game really enough? That sounds obvious as I write it, but let me explain.
In the Kotaku article, David Jaffe, a legendary developer, made the case for Angry Birds to receive a game of the year award. It was nominated for the title at the Annual Interactive Achievement Awards, presented by the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. It's was an unlikely case the mega-selling smartphone game would win, being up against titles like Mass Effect 2 and Red Dead: Redemption, but there was a building number of developers who were rallying for the underdog. And I was sitting back cheering as well.
The consideration of Angry Birds made me reanalyze the process for pondering game of the year nominees, and it sparked an interesting idea: what if games that had a cultural impact were considered contenders? Angry Birds is the perfect advocate for such a proposal - 100 million units sold, an incomprehensible addictiveness, and bringing a massive new audience into the world of gaming. Forty-year-old women will never be the same again. Long trips on transit will never be the same again. Some may call tablets or the smartphone a fad, but the products are here to stay and Angry Birds is a large beneficiary. The mobile game has sold 100 million units; even if the game is priced at cheap, that is still a GIGANTIC amount for how crowded the mobile market is today. The success of Rovio's game might have something to do with that, but most games are playing catch-up. Rovio also has plans to bring their moneymaker to consoles as well, and even a Facebook port is in the works. Angry Birds has become an institution in the industry, and a game of the year nomination would reflect the success.
Game of the Year is a fallacy anyway. It is completely wrong to compare two games in two different genres, even if one is imperfect. Why this title receives so much fanfare and debate is stupid and unnecessary, but there's nothing I can do to stop it. Picking one game that is better than everything else released that year undermines other great games, even if the titles are nominated. Competition only leads to better games, as shitty games get lost in the filth, but there's no reason games like Angry Birds (a great game itself) should not get the recognition deserved from within the industry. As much as I don't agree with the whole process, Angry Birds should be considered.
At the end of the year I won't be doing a "game of the year". I'll spotlight a game in each genre that did something particularly well, and call out games that in my eyes sucked. Metacritic scores aside.
Kotaku Link: http://ca.kotaku.com/5751876/the-argument-for-angry-birds-as-the-game-of-the-year?skyline=true&s=i
There are pristine video games released every year, and in almost every case these are high budget, high-selling, hotly anticipated titles. Mass Effect 2 being the best and most recent example. Anything Mass Effect related gets huge buzz, and the franchise has risen Bioware to the top. But is just being a perfect game really enough? That sounds obvious as I write it, but let me explain.
In the Kotaku article, David Jaffe, a legendary developer, made the case for Angry Birds to receive a game of the year award. It was nominated for the title at the Annual Interactive Achievement Awards, presented by the Academy of Interactive Arts and Sciences. It's was an unlikely case the mega-selling smartphone game would win, being up against titles like Mass Effect 2 and Red Dead: Redemption, but there was a building number of developers who were rallying for the underdog. And I was sitting back cheering as well.
The consideration of Angry Birds made me reanalyze the process for pondering game of the year nominees, and it sparked an interesting idea: what if games that had a cultural impact were considered contenders? Angry Birds is the perfect advocate for such a proposal - 100 million units sold, an incomprehensible addictiveness, and bringing a massive new audience into the world of gaming. Forty-year-old women will never be the same again. Long trips on transit will never be the same again. Some may call tablets or the smartphone a fad, but the products are here to stay and Angry Birds is a large beneficiary. The mobile game has sold 100 million units; even if the game is priced at cheap, that is still a GIGANTIC amount for how crowded the mobile market is today. The success of Rovio's game might have something to do with that, but most games are playing catch-up. Rovio also has plans to bring their moneymaker to consoles as well, and even a Facebook port is in the works. Angry Birds has become an institution in the industry, and a game of the year nomination would reflect the success.
Game of the Year is a fallacy anyway. It is completely wrong to compare two games in two different genres, even if one is imperfect. Why this title receives so much fanfare and debate is stupid and unnecessary, but there's nothing I can do to stop it. Picking one game that is better than everything else released that year undermines other great games, even if the titles are nominated. Competition only leads to better games, as shitty games get lost in the filth, but there's no reason games like Angry Birds (a great game itself) should not get the recognition deserved from within the industry. As much as I don't agree with the whole process, Angry Birds should be considered.
At the end of the year I won't be doing a "game of the year". I'll spotlight a game in each genre that did something particularly well, and call out games that in my eyes sucked. Metacritic scores aside.
Kotaku Link: http://ca.kotaku.com/5751876/the-argument-for-angry-birds-as-the-game-of-the-year?skyline=true&s=i
March 23, 2011
What We WON'T See at E3 2011 - Part 2
The reason I broke this up in two parts is partly because my brain hurt. Yes, the almighty Filthcardia is human, and he does get a headache from time-to-time (and it's weird referring to yourself in the third person). Anyway, here is the second half of the list!
4. One company conceding the console war
Heh. This is the most unrealistic, but I think Microsoft would be more likely. Although their console does lead right now, there's no telling how long that will last. This year, with Microsoft only having announced two major exclusives and Mass Effect being on the PS3, and the stellar lineup Sony has in the next nine months, Microsoft may get scared and develop a console in time for E3 2012-2013. There has been a lot of industry chatter regarding development of a new console, surrounding Microsoft and Nintendo. A sequel to the Wii has been speculated for an announcement as soon as E3, and we may see something major soon.
3. CliffyB announces real Lancers to hit store shelves soon
I'd be scared. I'd be really scared. People rampaging in the streets, chainsawing everything in sight; we can't have that now, or can we? The weapons would be great for scaring raccoons out of the garbage, or rats out of the attic, or the neighbour's dog from barking the night away. Don't get carried away however - we don't want PETA taking away our precious weapons. I'd probably name mine Betsy. Or Wilma. Can't go wrong with Flintstones references.
2. There is no Call of Duty this year
Yeah, right.
1. A game from Valve
I respect the way the studio runs their business, giving us some of the greatest games ever made. But the studio's constant nitpicking and perfectionist nature has earned it a legendary reputation within the industry. Portal 2 comes out next month, so at E3 we may see some tidbit about potential downloadable content. Or, hopefully, the revelation of something related to their zombie-killing franchise, Left 4 Dead. L4D2 came out in 2009 and the response generated by the immediate release after the first game caused controversy, and Valve heard the call. So hopefully the developer has taken the sweet time to create a thrilling, engaging and gory adventure to compete with Dead Island.
These are things you WON'T see at E3. If one of these things does happen, I'll update this blog and note where necessary. And take credit for calling it out when no one else has. Ciao!
4. One company conceding the console war
Heh. This is the most unrealistic, but I think Microsoft would be more likely. Although their console does lead right now, there's no telling how long that will last. This year, with Microsoft only having announced two major exclusives and Mass Effect being on the PS3, and the stellar lineup Sony has in the next nine months, Microsoft may get scared and develop a console in time for E3 2012-2013. There has been a lot of industry chatter regarding development of a new console, surrounding Microsoft and Nintendo. A sequel to the Wii has been speculated for an announcement as soon as E3, and we may see something major soon.
3. CliffyB announces real Lancers to hit store shelves soon
I'd be scared. I'd be really scared. People rampaging in the streets, chainsawing everything in sight; we can't have that now, or can we? The weapons would be great for scaring raccoons out of the garbage, or rats out of the attic, or the neighbour's dog from barking the night away. Don't get carried away however - we don't want PETA taking away our precious weapons. I'd probably name mine Betsy. Or Wilma. Can't go wrong with Flintstones references.
2. There is no Call of Duty this year
Yeah, right.
1. A game from Valve
I respect the way the studio runs their business, giving us some of the greatest games ever made. But the studio's constant nitpicking and perfectionist nature has earned it a legendary reputation within the industry. Portal 2 comes out next month, so at E3 we may see some tidbit about potential downloadable content. Or, hopefully, the revelation of something related to their zombie-killing franchise, Left 4 Dead. L4D2 came out in 2009 and the response generated by the immediate release after the first game caused controversy, and Valve heard the call. So hopefully the developer has taken the sweet time to create a thrilling, engaging and gory adventure to compete with Dead Island.
These are things you WON'T see at E3. If one of these things does happen, I'll update this blog and note where necessary. And take credit for calling it out when no one else has. Ciao!
March 21, 2011
What We WON'T See at E3 2011 - Part 1
It's March, and I guess conference fever has started. Every single website I've gone to has a "top ten things to expect at E3" or a "top ten moments you won't expect at E3". That defeats the purpose of the article because we now know what to expect. I hate these types of articles - I get it, sometimes video game news is as slow as the sport of curling (it's a Canadian thing), or pick your favourite niche market. The news is slow, and even I've considered the idea of spanning the restrictions of this blog to movies, or comics, or anything else I can get my hands on only because I want an excuse to keep writing. For now, however, it'll stay with video gaming.
E3 is the big game conference, I get it, I really do. But does every single website feel obligated to include the same ten or eleven things in different order? A new console from Nintendo, more games for Kinect and Move, Sony incredulously boasting of their lineup for this year; we've all heard it and we all expect these things to happen. And this is not just because of these damned lists - looking at the current state of the industry. With the 360 actually winning two months in a row in global sales, obviously the Wii is floundering. The system has lost its swagger and Nintendo has something up their sleeve. Then, we can all forecast Microsoft shamelessly bragging about the rapid success of their motion control device (ten million units sold in four months is impressive) and lay out what to expect for the year. The only major exclusives Microsoft has this year are Gears of War 3 and Forza 4, and Sony has bragged about their lineup in the past, so how could we NOT see the company doing that again?
I didn't want to do a list, but I think I will. Last year's E3 has its drags, its downs, and a few shining moments. And since every gaming website has told us everything we already know we'll be seeing, here's a list of things we WON'T see at E3.
10. The advertising of other gaming conferences
Wouldn't this be a surprise? What if the dick that comes out and announces who is speaking next just quips in, "And don't forget to check out Gamescom for more on this!" I bet that would be the talking point of the conference. Screw gameplay, screw brand new announcements. Screw the console wars; I wanna start the conference wars.
9. Someone gets their eye shot out
Last year, in awkward and embarrassing fashion, Ubisoft unveiled a game we certainly didn't expect, nor really cared about. Joel McHale, the host, seemed winded by the onslaught of grown teenagers running rampantly around shooting each other with invisible lasers. It was impressive that he kept a straight face, and even stayed enthusiastic throughout the ordeal. He had better been paid handsomely. So this year, with Joel McHale graciously hosting again (in what will be against his will; please don't threaten to kill The Soup) wouldn't it be awesome if someone got their eye shot out in Battle Tag 2? If someone can get stabbed at Comic-Con over seating arrangements, it's possible for someone to lose an eye. Then we'll see who's laughing now (probably me and the thousands of other gamers watching). On that note, I wonder how much those kids got paid to make asses of themselves. Pick me next time Ubisoft; I'll give them a show.
8. A brand new IP
I'll probably get some comments about this, but stirring up controversy is always fun. The video game industry has contracted a bad, bad, bad case of sequelitis (but most of the games are really, really, really good). It's a fallacy to call this terrible; sequels to Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect have transcended their predecessors and excelled in every amazing aspect. In all seriousness, however, the current economic status has forced developers of big name titles to rely on those titles, and not let their imaginations shine. This makes me sad. But that's another blog post idea. In June, the two sequels I can't wait for are the fourth Assassin's Creed and Borderlands 2 (which will be called Borderworlds).
7. The 3DS
Who am I kidding? Nintendo's conference will rest solely on two things: the three dimensional handheld and Skyward Sword. Why I mention this is because I really couldn't care less about the 3DS. Sure it's something promising from Nintendo, and sure it falls into the great fad that has ruined the movie industry, and sure it has an analog stick - I still don't care. To continue this rant, I couldn't care about the PSP2 either. Before I said I found it thrilling - I was dared to say enthralled - and now I may not watch any conference this year.
6. Star Wars: Battlefront III
The thought of this game existing is comforting. When Free Radical was downed in combat, the project was sure to die with it. Then persistent rumours popped up over and over, and false hope was given to the legions of Star Wars fans out there. Even a site (http://www.battlefront3.net) was created to gather all those rumours in one helpful place in anticipation of something being announced. It's been too long, and the excitement of the fan base has not wavered a bit; LucasArts should restore their credibility and give us a game we actually want to play. Not these four hour "adventures" where the main character has several lives. He's not a fucking cat.
5. ESPN 8: The Ocho coming to Xbox Live
Watching last year's E3, there was one announcement that really resonated with me. As a Canadian the only opportunity I'd have to watch ESPN is illegally online (I've never done that; don't hurt me). The possibility of watching live college football games on my console is an idea that tickled my toes, but I knew there was a catch. Only certain cable companies carry ESPN3, and what do you know - it wasn't available in my area. So that's why I am not predicting we will see ESPN8: The Ocho, covering the Dodgeball Championships, will not be on Xbox Live. How in the hell will I watch Average Joe's beat those assholes at GloboGym? (I watched Dodgeball a few nights ago; awesome movie).
Check back tomorrow for the countdown to continue.
E3 is the big game conference, I get it, I really do. But does every single website feel obligated to include the same ten or eleven things in different order? A new console from Nintendo, more games for Kinect and Move, Sony incredulously boasting of their lineup for this year; we've all heard it and we all expect these things to happen. And this is not just because of these damned lists - looking at the current state of the industry. With the 360 actually winning two months in a row in global sales, obviously the Wii is floundering. The system has lost its swagger and Nintendo has something up their sleeve. Then, we can all forecast Microsoft shamelessly bragging about the rapid success of their motion control device (ten million units sold in four months is impressive) and lay out what to expect for the year. The only major exclusives Microsoft has this year are Gears of War 3 and Forza 4, and Sony has bragged about their lineup in the past, so how could we NOT see the company doing that again?
I didn't want to do a list, but I think I will. Last year's E3 has its drags, its downs, and a few shining moments. And since every gaming website has told us everything we already know we'll be seeing, here's a list of things we WON'T see at E3.
10. The advertising of other gaming conferences
Wouldn't this be a surprise? What if the dick that comes out and announces who is speaking next just quips in, "And don't forget to check out Gamescom for more on this!" I bet that would be the talking point of the conference. Screw gameplay, screw brand new announcements. Screw the console wars; I wanna start the conference wars.
9. Someone gets their eye shot out
Last year, in awkward and embarrassing fashion, Ubisoft unveiled a game we certainly didn't expect, nor really cared about. Joel McHale, the host, seemed winded by the onslaught of grown teenagers running rampantly around shooting each other with invisible lasers. It was impressive that he kept a straight face, and even stayed enthusiastic throughout the ordeal. He had better been paid handsomely. So this year, with Joel McHale graciously hosting again (in what will be against his will; please don't threaten to kill The Soup) wouldn't it be awesome if someone got their eye shot out in Battle Tag 2? If someone can get stabbed at Comic-Con over seating arrangements, it's possible for someone to lose an eye. Then we'll see who's laughing now (probably me and the thousands of other gamers watching). On that note, I wonder how much those kids got paid to make asses of themselves. Pick me next time Ubisoft; I'll give them a show.
8. A brand new IP
I'll probably get some comments about this, but stirring up controversy is always fun. The video game industry has contracted a bad, bad, bad case of sequelitis (but most of the games are really, really, really good). It's a fallacy to call this terrible; sequels to Assassin's Creed and Mass Effect have transcended their predecessors and excelled in every amazing aspect. In all seriousness, however, the current economic status has forced developers of big name titles to rely on those titles, and not let their imaginations shine. This makes me sad. But that's another blog post idea. In June, the two sequels I can't wait for are the fourth Assassin's Creed and Borderlands 2 (which will be called Borderworlds).
7. The 3DS
Who am I kidding? Nintendo's conference will rest solely on two things: the three dimensional handheld and Skyward Sword. Why I mention this is because I really couldn't care less about the 3DS. Sure it's something promising from Nintendo, and sure it falls into the great fad that has ruined the movie industry, and sure it has an analog stick - I still don't care. To continue this rant, I couldn't care about the PSP2 either. Before I said I found it thrilling - I was dared to say enthralled - and now I may not watch any conference this year.
6. Star Wars: Battlefront III
The thought of this game existing is comforting. When Free Radical was downed in combat, the project was sure to die with it. Then persistent rumours popped up over and over, and false hope was given to the legions of Star Wars fans out there. Even a site (http://www.battlefront3.net) was created to gather all those rumours in one helpful place in anticipation of something being announced. It's been too long, and the excitement of the fan base has not wavered a bit; LucasArts should restore their credibility and give us a game we actually want to play. Not these four hour "adventures" where the main character has several lives. He's not a fucking cat.
5. ESPN 8: The Ocho coming to Xbox Live
Watching last year's E3, there was one announcement that really resonated with me. As a Canadian the only opportunity I'd have to watch ESPN is illegally online (I've never done that; don't hurt me). The possibility of watching live college football games on my console is an idea that tickled my toes, but I knew there was a catch. Only certain cable companies carry ESPN3, and what do you know - it wasn't available in my area. So that's why I am not predicting we will see ESPN8: The Ocho, covering the Dodgeball Championships, will not be on Xbox Live. How in the hell will I watch Average Joe's beat those assholes at GloboGym? (I watched Dodgeball a few nights ago; awesome movie).
Check back tomorrow for the countdown to continue.
March 19, 2011
Should Games Stir Political Debate?
Often when I sit down to write a blog post, it never goes as I plan. My hope is I will magically have an idea and start rambling, or my brain conjures up a really good idea the night before, but then I realize there is enough weight behind the topic to waste bandwidth on. That's one of the minor hardships - if not the only one - with writing a topical blog where your sources of information are limited. You see, if I had the power to control my destiny, I would be in the very heart of it all, reporting on the up-and-coming gadgets and games that we'll be spoiled with; and I'd be in regular contact with any and all developers I can get a hold of questioning their latest projects, getting their thoughts on the industry. My intention in starting this whole process was to bring up topics to get the creative juices flowing, to give my own unique perspective on events happening in and around the industry, and to make it exciting for everyone.
But as a lonely college student with limited resources, at times it seems like an impossibility. I'll continue to ramble on drunkenly about things people say, or stupid ideas for games and the like, but that's all it'll be. So I leave anyone reading with this thought: if you want to hear the inane, unceremonious babbling of a disorderly college kid, I applaud you. Really, I do. And if not, well, you are in the wrong place.
So now that's off my chest and my tea is done, we get to the actual content of this blog post. Last night I was sifting through old blog posts on various websites, and I came across an interesting topic. It may not be all that relevant now, but who doesn't like stirring up some respectful and productive debate.
As is the case with movies, games have become a visual representation of the way we see the world. The way certain characters are portrayed, the way a plot ebbs-and-flows at a developer's will - different aspects are based on our life experiences or political opinion. Both mediums have stirred passionate debate before on a whole array of topics, anything from the perpetual glorification of violence to human rights issues to even questioning our own sanity. This is the sheer brilliance of it all - the ability to feel one way and after a two hour movie or seventeen hour game, your argument has completely changed. That being said, is it appropriate for games to have that much influence on a person, and if so, should we see it more or less?
The general public perceives a game as just mindless fun and nothing more. Before I got into video games I shared this opinion. But after the years of playing I stand on the complete other side of that debate now, and some games have made me cast doubt upon my own beliefs, generally involving foreign affairs. The recently released Homefront is a great example. Is it possible for a country like North Korea, with the largest standing military of any country, to invade the last remaining superpower and gruesomely slaughter thousands of citizens? Of course it is. And playing through the campaign makes that seem real; a simulated walk through the future, if that's a better way of putting it. Regardless of whether the game is making a statement about the current vulnerability of the US amidst the economic crisis and the thousands of troops abroad, it makes me think: "Should the US reevaluate its foreign policy?" I haven't played Homefront, but after seeing a very, very detailed walkthrough, I have but one conclusion. Hell yes! Coming from a Canadian, a North Korean invasion would be the worst possible scenario!
The modernization of the first-person shooter has made for some delightful discussion involving this topic. A perfect example is the revamp of Medal of Honor, depicting the cataclysmic events of the War in Afghanistan. The question was, is it appropriate to recreate a current conflict? With the persistent fear of what the Taliban are capable of, Medal of Honor was forced to reinvent its multiplayer component. The force facing the US military came to be known as the Opposing Forces, and yet the game was still banned from being sold in military stores. Was it distasteful what Danger Close did? I'm not one to answer that, but it certainly put the studio and Electronic Arts in poor standing with world governments and the military. The fierce debate sparked after news broke of the content packed into Medal of Honor hit the airwaves hard, and it was difficult not to find a news outlet reporting on the story. They all said it plainly: is there a barrier, a protective shield, around sensitive topics or are these topics allowed to be exploited? (Their word, not mine.) United 93, a movie detailing the last moments of passengers aboard one of the planes involved in 9/11, received the same public outcry. Even five years after there was still emotional aftershocks of what happened. And as September 11, 2011 approaches, a good decade has passed, and this debate will likely arise again when some young shmuck gets a terrible idea. Whether game developer or movie producer, sensitivity within the arts is a debate that will never be resolved, regardless how passionate people can be.
When I was two, I wasn't much for blood, or gore, and scared shitless when watching any horror movie. And I'm still that way. In 1992, a fighting franchise started that made it possible for blood, gore and guts to exist in gaming, and this franchise became famous for it. Everyone knows what I am talking about - Mortal Kombat, of course. Any gamer knows how much MK changed the arcade scene, competing against Street Fighter for all those precious quarters. The fighting franchise, after many hearings involving US Senators, forced gaming to have a ratings board, what we know now as the ESRB (for us North Americans). Many games, notably San Andreas and Manhunt, have pushed the ESRB to its knees and been given the coveted Adults Only rating. The reboot of Mortal Kombat arrives on shelves soon, and it looks even gorier than past games; so let's see if it stirs up any needless debate again. Hearing politicians squirm is fun. Sometimes.
So, after giving three solid examples, that leaves one thing to tackle: should we see more or less political ambitions for games? It's healthy and ultimately necessarily for a democracy to have these debates. As childish as some issues seem surrounding video games, political debate is never bad. It may seem harmful at first, but until we can get the industry to a point where it's not vilified and seen as "something for kids", debate is what we'll settle for.
So that concludes post eighty folks. It was fun writing this article, and these are the kind of things I hope to cover more in the near and far future. But for now, stay safe and enjoy the weekend. I'll be recording my podcast today (belowradarpodcast.podbean.com) and enjoying some college basketball. Maybe I'll post something else tonight if I can think of something to talk about. If not, wait patiently for next time. Ciao!
But as a lonely college student with limited resources, at times it seems like an impossibility. I'll continue to ramble on drunkenly about things people say, or stupid ideas for games and the like, but that's all it'll be. So I leave anyone reading with this thought: if you want to hear the inane, unceremonious babbling of a disorderly college kid, I applaud you. Really, I do. And if not, well, you are in the wrong place.
So now that's off my chest and my tea is done, we get to the actual content of this blog post. Last night I was sifting through old blog posts on various websites, and I came across an interesting topic. It may not be all that relevant now, but who doesn't like stirring up some respectful and productive debate.
As is the case with movies, games have become a visual representation of the way we see the world. The way certain characters are portrayed, the way a plot ebbs-and-flows at a developer's will - different aspects are based on our life experiences or political opinion. Both mediums have stirred passionate debate before on a whole array of topics, anything from the perpetual glorification of violence to human rights issues to even questioning our own sanity. This is the sheer brilliance of it all - the ability to feel one way and after a two hour movie or seventeen hour game, your argument has completely changed. That being said, is it appropriate for games to have that much influence on a person, and if so, should we see it more or less?
The general public perceives a game as just mindless fun and nothing more. Before I got into video games I shared this opinion. But after the years of playing I stand on the complete other side of that debate now, and some games have made me cast doubt upon my own beliefs, generally involving foreign affairs. The recently released Homefront is a great example. Is it possible for a country like North Korea, with the largest standing military of any country, to invade the last remaining superpower and gruesomely slaughter thousands of citizens? Of course it is. And playing through the campaign makes that seem real; a simulated walk through the future, if that's a better way of putting it. Regardless of whether the game is making a statement about the current vulnerability of the US amidst the economic crisis and the thousands of troops abroad, it makes me think: "Should the US reevaluate its foreign policy?" I haven't played Homefront, but after seeing a very, very detailed walkthrough, I have but one conclusion. Hell yes! Coming from a Canadian, a North Korean invasion would be the worst possible scenario!
The modernization of the first-person shooter has made for some delightful discussion involving this topic. A perfect example is the revamp of Medal of Honor, depicting the cataclysmic events of the War in Afghanistan. The question was, is it appropriate to recreate a current conflict? With the persistent fear of what the Taliban are capable of, Medal of Honor was forced to reinvent its multiplayer component. The force facing the US military came to be known as the Opposing Forces, and yet the game was still banned from being sold in military stores. Was it distasteful what Danger Close did? I'm not one to answer that, but it certainly put the studio and Electronic Arts in poor standing with world governments and the military. The fierce debate sparked after news broke of the content packed into Medal of Honor hit the airwaves hard, and it was difficult not to find a news outlet reporting on the story. They all said it plainly: is there a barrier, a protective shield, around sensitive topics or are these topics allowed to be exploited? (Their word, not mine.) United 93, a movie detailing the last moments of passengers aboard one of the planes involved in 9/11, received the same public outcry. Even five years after there was still emotional aftershocks of what happened. And as September 11, 2011 approaches, a good decade has passed, and this debate will likely arise again when some young shmuck gets a terrible idea. Whether game developer or movie producer, sensitivity within the arts is a debate that will never be resolved, regardless how passionate people can be.
When I was two, I wasn't much for blood, or gore, and scared shitless when watching any horror movie. And I'm still that way. In 1992, a fighting franchise started that made it possible for blood, gore and guts to exist in gaming, and this franchise became famous for it. Everyone knows what I am talking about - Mortal Kombat, of course. Any gamer knows how much MK changed the arcade scene, competing against Street Fighter for all those precious quarters. The fighting franchise, after many hearings involving US Senators, forced gaming to have a ratings board, what we know now as the ESRB (for us North Americans). Many games, notably San Andreas and Manhunt, have pushed the ESRB to its knees and been given the coveted Adults Only rating. The reboot of Mortal Kombat arrives on shelves soon, and it looks even gorier than past games; so let's see if it stirs up any needless debate again. Hearing politicians squirm is fun. Sometimes.
So, after giving three solid examples, that leaves one thing to tackle: should we see more or less political ambitions for games? It's healthy and ultimately necessarily for a democracy to have these debates. As childish as some issues seem surrounding video games, political debate is never bad. It may seem harmful at first, but until we can get the industry to a point where it's not vilified and seen as "something for kids", debate is what we'll settle for.
So that concludes post eighty folks. It was fun writing this article, and these are the kind of things I hope to cover more in the near and far future. But for now, stay safe and enjoy the weekend. I'll be recording my podcast today (belowradarpodcast.podbean.com) and enjoying some college basketball. Maybe I'll post something else tonight if I can think of something to talk about. If not, wait patiently for next time. Ciao!
March 18, 2011
Is Rocksmith the next Guitar Hero?
Minus continuing support through the means of downloadable content, we can declare Guitar Hero good as dead. Much debate erupted after that fateful announcement by Activision as to whether the dying franchise could still sustain itself. Financial analysts cited the failure because of flailing gamer interest, which to a degree is true, but we can't forget how blatantly Activision oversaturated the market trying to capitalize on the fad the genre turned into. A release every six months is not an economic model for success; an annual release and a solid stream of content through the store could have saved Guitar Hero. The reason I reiterate this moot point is the recent announcement of Ubisoft giving the same thing a try.
Rocksmith is meant to capture the audience still reeling after the death of the once beloved franchise, but with a twist. This time it will feature in actual guitar, with actual strings, and the entire game will play out like the pro mode in Rock Band 3. Not an innovative concept to say the least, but it's good to see the industry still has faith in what was one of the first new successful post-millennium franchises.
The one thing that game should be proudly, proudly boasting about is the ability to just plug in any regular electric guitar and start playing. No need for the corner of your living room to look like band practice; and all the fans of Hero will be able to dust off their old guitars and rock out. Could Rocksmith start a brand new genre of game, well, that isn't really a game? Parents everywhere will be grateful that one game their kids want to play isn't about shooting aliens or other people, but actually teaching them something they can use. It's not mindless fun, it's progressive fun; and the industry needs more of that. Good on you Ubisoft.
Ubisoft's try at the music simulation genre isn't meant to be as accessible as Guitar Hero once was. The days of the rainbow notes are seemingly over, and now Rocksmith looks to take the place of any music teacher. When the game is released later this year, we'll see if the music teaching profession is at risk.
Rocksmith is meant to capture the audience still reeling after the death of the once beloved franchise, but with a twist. This time it will feature in actual guitar, with actual strings, and the entire game will play out like the pro mode in Rock Band 3. Not an innovative concept to say the least, but it's good to see the industry still has faith in what was one of the first new successful post-millennium franchises.
The one thing that game should be proudly, proudly boasting about is the ability to just plug in any regular electric guitar and start playing. No need for the corner of your living room to look like band practice; and all the fans of Hero will be able to dust off their old guitars and rock out. Could Rocksmith start a brand new genre of game, well, that isn't really a game? Parents everywhere will be grateful that one game their kids want to play isn't about shooting aliens or other people, but actually teaching them something they can use. It's not mindless fun, it's progressive fun; and the industry needs more of that. Good on you Ubisoft.
Ubisoft's try at the music simulation genre isn't meant to be as accessible as Guitar Hero once was. The days of the rainbow notes are seemingly over, and now Rocksmith looks to take the place of any music teacher. When the game is released later this year, we'll see if the music teaching profession is at risk.
March 17, 2011
Same Old Greatness - Pokemon Black & White Review
The same recycled gameplay over a decade would certainly cause some people to hate that franchise, so knowing that, why has Pokemon garnered so much success? The argument also applies to the sports genre, and yet both series sell millions of copies. Does Pokemon have the perfect formula to compliment the core gameplay, or is there just a persistent fan base who knows what they are going into?
Every gamer knows the process of these games: get your starting pokemon, beat eight gym leaders, overcome a group threatening world domination, beat the Pokemon League and catch all the critters. The same goes for the recently released Pokemon Black & White, and both games go on to sell two million copies in the US. I suckered into it, but that's mainly because I haven't played an iteration since Silver and I was interested to see the changes. My podcast buddies (belowradarpodcast.podbean.com) encouraged me to get one of the versions, and we decided to mostly dedicate an entire episode to the game.
Now to the actual review and enough of my rambling. The advantage of not playing one of the games for so long is the fresh perspective, and no preconceived expectations. The decision to buy the game rests on two things - are the new generation of Pokemon and additional changes enough to warrant the purchase? I think so.
For a game that shares the formula of generations past, it's impossible not to compare it to those previous generations. First starting your adventure, you'll only run into the new batch of creatures and not any old ones. With so many new additions to the Pokedex, this is perfect because it familiarizes fans with the new group, and keeps the fresh perspective for people coming back to the franchise. By the end of the game, a new area is unlocked and so is all of the Pokedex. Also, knowing which version to buy is a strategic choice - not only for the version exclusives, but each version includes a special area. White version has the White Forest, where Pokemon are loved and cherished and treated like gods, and Black version has Black City, where trainers rule the streets.
The most interesting change, obviously, is the new array of Pokemon to dominate your friends. In typical fashion there are some that look really cool, like the surprisingly powerful Krookodile (final evolved form of Sandile), and some that look terribly stupid. So far, I have seen a garbage bag, an ice cream cone, an old bodybuilder carrying a weapon, a set of gears and one that can embody itself inside an appliance. Your friggin' Pokemon can turn into a toaster oven. Up until this moment I still question whether that is awesome, or Nintendo is running out of ideas. Nevertheless, as stupid as these may be, they are strong and serve a great purpose if EV trained correctly. Although I prefer to do the classy thing and win with my favourites.
Unlike other cases before, the starting creature you choose has an effect on the range of difficulty early on. Snivy presents the biggest challenge, while Tepig can breeze through the first five gyms. Snivy, previously known as Smugleaf, is the coolest; his facial expression is where he gets his infamous nickname, and he's just awesome. Tepig is fire/fighting, nothing new, while Oshawott is a pure water type and best for those that want to build a strong and diverse party right off the gate. The design of the three has been the subject of controversy, with many fans accusing Nintendo of not caring anymore. I'll admit the designs could be better, and maybe greater variety; ever consider switching up the types a bit? Not grass, fire, and water; I'd love to start with a ghost or ice Pokemon. But I do understand the balancing issues so if this is ever implemented, I hope it's taken with caution.
The game is the best in the series so far, and I'm sure Generation VI will overshadow it. Both versions are the fastest-selling DS titles and highest-selling behind one of the Professor Layton games, and for good reason. In not playing a Pokemon for so long it feels great to get back into it, and I actually wanted to wait a while before writing a review. But then any review might become irrelevant. Similar to other games, however, it's impossible not to invest a week's worth of time into it. And that's the beauty of this franchise - how a concoction can be so simple yet so complicated at the same time. It's clear what type is useful against what type, and which abilities are useful in different situations; but having a counter for every move, and a counter to your opponent's counter drives up the games' complexities.
Get it. The Pokemon games never fail to disappoint.
Every gamer knows the process of these games: get your starting pokemon, beat eight gym leaders, overcome a group threatening world domination, beat the Pokemon League and catch all the critters. The same goes for the recently released Pokemon Black & White, and both games go on to sell two million copies in the US. I suckered into it, but that's mainly because I haven't played an iteration since Silver and I was interested to see the changes. My podcast buddies (belowradarpodcast.podbean.com) encouraged me to get one of the versions, and we decided to mostly dedicate an entire episode to the game.
Now to the actual review and enough of my rambling. The advantage of not playing one of the games for so long is the fresh perspective, and no preconceived expectations. The decision to buy the game rests on two things - are the new generation of Pokemon and additional changes enough to warrant the purchase? I think so.
For a game that shares the formula of generations past, it's impossible not to compare it to those previous generations. First starting your adventure, you'll only run into the new batch of creatures and not any old ones. With so many new additions to the Pokedex, this is perfect because it familiarizes fans with the new group, and keeps the fresh perspective for people coming back to the franchise. By the end of the game, a new area is unlocked and so is all of the Pokedex. Also, knowing which version to buy is a strategic choice - not only for the version exclusives, but each version includes a special area. White version has the White Forest, where Pokemon are loved and cherished and treated like gods, and Black version has Black City, where trainers rule the streets.
The most interesting change, obviously, is the new array of Pokemon to dominate your friends. In typical fashion there are some that look really cool, like the surprisingly powerful Krookodile (final evolved form of Sandile), and some that look terribly stupid. So far, I have seen a garbage bag, an ice cream cone, an old bodybuilder carrying a weapon, a set of gears and one that can embody itself inside an appliance. Your friggin' Pokemon can turn into a toaster oven. Up until this moment I still question whether that is awesome, or Nintendo is running out of ideas. Nevertheless, as stupid as these may be, they are strong and serve a great purpose if EV trained correctly. Although I prefer to do the classy thing and win with my favourites.
Unlike other cases before, the starting creature you choose has an effect on the range of difficulty early on. Snivy presents the biggest challenge, while Tepig can breeze through the first five gyms. Snivy, previously known as Smugleaf, is the coolest; his facial expression is where he gets his infamous nickname, and he's just awesome. Tepig is fire/fighting, nothing new, while Oshawott is a pure water type and best for those that want to build a strong and diverse party right off the gate. The design of the three has been the subject of controversy, with many fans accusing Nintendo of not caring anymore. I'll admit the designs could be better, and maybe greater variety; ever consider switching up the types a bit? Not grass, fire, and water; I'd love to start with a ghost or ice Pokemon. But I do understand the balancing issues so if this is ever implemented, I hope it's taken with caution.
The game is the best in the series so far, and I'm sure Generation VI will overshadow it. Both versions are the fastest-selling DS titles and highest-selling behind one of the Professor Layton games, and for good reason. In not playing a Pokemon for so long it feels great to get back into it, and I actually wanted to wait a while before writing a review. But then any review might become irrelevant. Similar to other games, however, it's impossible not to invest a week's worth of time into it. And that's the beauty of this franchise - how a concoction can be so simple yet so complicated at the same time. It's clear what type is useful against what type, and which abilities are useful in different situations; but having a counter for every move, and a counter to your opponent's counter drives up the games' complexities.
Get it. The Pokemon games never fail to disappoint.
March 16, 2011
Remembering the Past (Name Pending) - March 16
Before I ramble on, I just wanted to say that I might turn this into a feature, or it might stick to this post. I'll judge by the reception. I thought it was a cool idea.
Now I've left you thoughtless. I know I have, because with a weird opening like that, anything could happen. And something will happen. You see, I was feeling nostalgic. Someone referenced a game of ages past, and inclined to know more, I researched the topic. It lead to almost an entire night of reading and understanding the complexities of the MMORPG genre - a genre many are skeptical to get into knowing the addictiveness. A good example is in the middle of last year, a man named Craig Smallwood (not joking, that's his real name) sued NCsoft for not warning players of the addicting nature of their game, Lineage 2. Smallwood claimed to have played 20,000 hours in five years - that's 45% of five years spent playing. That's a long fucking time staring at a screen. Hearing of stories like this scares players, and rightfully so; the last thing you want is to lose sleep or your livelihood over a bunch of pixels.
And in hearing this, it makes me wonder how the MMO genre has survived for so long, and continue to flourish. World of Warcraft is the clear example, and it will certainly last another six years. Longevity is one huge advantage this genre has over others, and a game to last over a decade is nothing short of extraordinary. Released a day after the fateful Ides of March (that's March 15) in 1999, EverQuest was born.
Games in the promising genre had preceded EverQuest, and being launched so early in the genre's lifestyle it never saw massive success. But the game didn't need a large amount of subscriptions to be successful - sustainability is its strong suit, going for twelve years now. In the fast-paced technology world of today, twelve years is a long time, if not a lifetime. Even releasing a sequel hasn't stopped players from packing the servers. Albeit EverQuest II has a bigger populous, and even the greatest MMOs will die out eventually, but the first EverQuest is clear evidence that continuous content can sustain a game for a long time. Seventeen expansions, twice a year, for twelve years. That's a long of content to sift through, and sadly to say the game will probably not exist in the next few years. Back in 2010 Sony Online Entertainment did a server merge, cutting the total number in half. Down from twenty to just ten, the move really showed the game was beginning to show its age.
As Lineage did with Asian audiences, EverQuest was really the first wildly successful MMORPG in Western households. Being the first big one has inevitably helped it stay afloat for all the years, but since more MMOs have come on the market, many are looking for a new fix. If EQ does in fact die soon, it will have a sweet and memorable funeral, and those left disgraced, disgusted or disgruntled, have EverQuest 2 to hold you until the pain stops. EQ2 was launched in 2004, and a new game in the franchise is in development as revealed in August of last year. Let's hope it can last ten years as well.
Sidenote: If you haven't gathered what this feature is, I go back in time and discuss a game that made a cultural impact on the current date. Reading up on EverQuest gave me the idea, and it gives me an excuse to write a daily blog post. I have yet to come up with a name for this series but hopefully I will in the coming future. This is just a test to see how it would go. If you like it, send me some feedback at filthcardia@gmail.com, and maybe even request a game! Check back tomorrow for another post.
Now I've left you thoughtless. I know I have, because with a weird opening like that, anything could happen. And something will happen. You see, I was feeling nostalgic. Someone referenced a game of ages past, and inclined to know more, I researched the topic. It lead to almost an entire night of reading and understanding the complexities of the MMORPG genre - a genre many are skeptical to get into knowing the addictiveness. A good example is in the middle of last year, a man named Craig Smallwood (not joking, that's his real name) sued NCsoft for not warning players of the addicting nature of their game, Lineage 2. Smallwood claimed to have played 20,000 hours in five years - that's 45% of five years spent playing. That's a long fucking time staring at a screen. Hearing of stories like this scares players, and rightfully so; the last thing you want is to lose sleep or your livelihood over a bunch of pixels.
And in hearing this, it makes me wonder how the MMO genre has survived for so long, and continue to flourish. World of Warcraft is the clear example, and it will certainly last another six years. Longevity is one huge advantage this genre has over others, and a game to last over a decade is nothing short of extraordinary. Released a day after the fateful Ides of March (that's March 15) in 1999, EverQuest was born.
Games in the promising genre had preceded EverQuest, and being launched so early in the genre's lifestyle it never saw massive success. But the game didn't need a large amount of subscriptions to be successful - sustainability is its strong suit, going for twelve years now. In the fast-paced technology world of today, twelve years is a long time, if not a lifetime. Even releasing a sequel hasn't stopped players from packing the servers. Albeit EverQuest II has a bigger populous, and even the greatest MMOs will die out eventually, but the first EverQuest is clear evidence that continuous content can sustain a game for a long time. Seventeen expansions, twice a year, for twelve years. That's a long of content to sift through, and sadly to say the game will probably not exist in the next few years. Back in 2010 Sony Online Entertainment did a server merge, cutting the total number in half. Down from twenty to just ten, the move really showed the game was beginning to show its age.
As Lineage did with Asian audiences, EverQuest was really the first wildly successful MMORPG in Western households. Being the first big one has inevitably helped it stay afloat for all the years, but since more MMOs have come on the market, many are looking for a new fix. If EQ does in fact die soon, it will have a sweet and memorable funeral, and those left disgraced, disgusted or disgruntled, have EverQuest 2 to hold you until the pain stops. EQ2 was launched in 2004, and a new game in the franchise is in development as revealed in August of last year. Let's hope it can last ten years as well.
Sidenote: If you haven't gathered what this feature is, I go back in time and discuss a game that made a cultural impact on the current date. Reading up on EverQuest gave me the idea, and it gives me an excuse to write a daily blog post. I have yet to come up with a name for this series but hopefully I will in the coming future. This is just a test to see how it would go. If you like it, send me some feedback at filthcardia@gmail.com, and maybe even request a game! Check back tomorrow for another post.
March 15, 2011
Bioware vs. the Internet - THE SHOWDOWN!
As a gamer, it pains me to see developers getting in the reviewing business of their own games. It's a known common practice, and ethics would dictate such an action shouldn't happen, but money is money and companies will do anything to make more. I can speak for a majority of gamers when I say I anticipated Dragon Age 2 to get better review scores than it did, but then again we had no idea EA put a rush on the game. That corporate involvement shows, and sales and reviews scores being less than favourable are a direct result. Dragon Age 2 in itself isn't a bad game, just compared to its predecessor it fails on multiple levels.
On the site that has extraordinary power within the industry, an overall ranking on Metacritic has some weight for gamers in deciding whether to buy, rent, or completely ignore a game. Dragon Age 2 was no different, and in an age where gamers expect any release to score 80 to perfect, the array of scores is disappointing to say the least. But the action of purposely writing a review to bump up a score is even more disappointing, especially when it comes from the developer itself.
GatoFiasco, a user from Reddit, has a sharp eye. He noticed a raving review for the game on Metacritic, a review he wrote sounded like a press release. The user review's name was "Avonost", and had only written one review on the ranking site; so his curiosity peaked and he searched Google. His investigation lead to a LinkedIn profile sharing the name, and found this mysterious figure was an engineer at Bioware. The allegation turned out to be true; EA flat out said the developer did it, and that it's the way things are done in the industry. I'm not the first to say this is unethical, bordering on impractical, and having it as corporate policy is downright pathetic.
The user review section of Metacritic has always been sketchy. The section is open for any and all members, and is usually filled with all levels of opinions. The Bioware developer obviously has the right to post a user review, and after this little debacle I won't be trusting any user reviews again. I go to professional sites (or as professional as sites can be) for an opinion on a game. I'm just surprised the developer at Bioware didn't cover their tracks; pick any other name besides the one of your LinkedIn profile. Don't underestimate the power of the Internet. That's all I'm saying.
The unraveling of this event may put some distrust in the gaming community with professional reviewers. A site I often go on, GameTrailers, repeatedly praises Call of Duty, and the forums tend to vilify any review. Other sites have been accused as well, so if you know of any other circumstances, shoot me an email at filthcardia@gmail.com and I'll add it to this post.
I hope this gets resolved quickly and efficiently, and that review didn't fraudulently convince to purchase the game.
On the site that has extraordinary power within the industry, an overall ranking on Metacritic has some weight for gamers in deciding whether to buy, rent, or completely ignore a game. Dragon Age 2 was no different, and in an age where gamers expect any release to score 80 to perfect, the array of scores is disappointing to say the least. But the action of purposely writing a review to bump up a score is even more disappointing, especially when it comes from the developer itself.
GatoFiasco, a user from Reddit, has a sharp eye. He noticed a raving review for the game on Metacritic, a review he wrote sounded like a press release. The user review's name was "Avonost", and had only written one review on the ranking site; so his curiosity peaked and he searched Google. His investigation lead to a LinkedIn profile sharing the name, and found this mysterious figure was an engineer at Bioware. The allegation turned out to be true; EA flat out said the developer did it, and that it's the way things are done in the industry. I'm not the first to say this is unethical, bordering on impractical, and having it as corporate policy is downright pathetic.
The user review section of Metacritic has always been sketchy. The section is open for any and all members, and is usually filled with all levels of opinions. The Bioware developer obviously has the right to post a user review, and after this little debacle I won't be trusting any user reviews again. I go to professional sites (or as professional as sites can be) for an opinion on a game. I'm just surprised the developer at Bioware didn't cover their tracks; pick any other name besides the one of your LinkedIn profile. Don't underestimate the power of the Internet. That's all I'm saying.
The unraveling of this event may put some distrust in the gaming community with professional reviewers. A site I often go on, GameTrailers, repeatedly praises Call of Duty, and the forums tend to vilify any review. Other sites have been accused as well, so if you know of any other circumstances, shoot me an email at filthcardia@gmail.com and I'll add it to this post.
I hope this gets resolved quickly and efficiently, and that review didn't fraudulently convince to purchase the game.
March 14, 2011
Grow Up, Australia!
For any Australians reading this, I feel sorry for you. I really do. The Australian video gaming authority has become infamous in the eyes of most gamers for their inability to give adult, mature, conscious gamers the games they want. The actions taken to limit violence and profanity in games in the country only shows either the government does not trust its countrymen, or is babying them.
The most recent victim of this pathetic onslaught on gaming is the reboot of Mortal Kombat. Due to the gore shown during some of the fatalities, the Australian Classification Board has outright banned the game from Australian stores, twice. That's right - after not realizing their mistake once, the board does it a second time. Warner Bros. Interactive petitioned the board to change their mind, but lost the reversal and any chance of the game being released there.
If any country were to ban anything for being too gory, I'd thought it would be the United States. The strict standards and conservative ideals on television are clear evidence of that. But honestly, I thought it was public knowledge now that the average gamer is not a prepubescent teenager with no friends and terrible skin. Several studies released over the years prove the average gamer is 35, if including all PC and social media gamers. The falsified vision of the former has been so imprinted in the conservative and overprotective collective conscious that they can't help but imagine what they think is obvious. The success of console gaming is to blame, which is not necessarily bad. In the next two decades, those who started gaming on Ataris and the NES will become parents and grandparents; and the responsibility falls on that crowd to praise gaming so generations past understand. Then, just maybe, there will be a hive mind-like shift to see gaming on par with movies, or television. You know when you see an old person and picture sitting there with fake teeth, a bad back, not remembering your own name? Well how awesome would it be to do all that and play Mortal Kombat at the same time? it'd make at least one Australian grandparent happy, I guarantee it. (I am ranting here; I thought I would try and hit the point home by appealing to the emotional side of people.)
The Australian Classification Board will never read this, but if one of the committee members by chance stumbles on this post, please realize that gaming is not only for kids. Gaming has been around for a good forty years now, and won't disappear anytime soon. Older people deserve their chance to tear the spine out of an opponent and eat it; that's a great way to get the anger out from having to take so many goddamn pills every morning.
The Mortal Kombat franchise was built on the idea of gratuitous gore, and that said gore has made it one of the great franchises of our time. Characters like Sub-Zero, Scorpion and Johnny Cage have become culture icons, and letting an entire country lose out on all that culture is only hurting yourselves. I hope this bullshit changes soon, and a rating is put in that functions like the Mature rating established by the ESRB. There's no reason one can't, or shouldn't, exist, and the foolish hoopla (love that word) surrounding the issue has turned Australia into a laughing stock.
Change it now, ACB. A mob of thousands of gamers can be an angry crowd.
The most recent victim of this pathetic onslaught on gaming is the reboot of Mortal Kombat. Due to the gore shown during some of the fatalities, the Australian Classification Board has outright banned the game from Australian stores, twice. That's right - after not realizing their mistake once, the board does it a second time. Warner Bros. Interactive petitioned the board to change their mind, but lost the reversal and any chance of the game being released there.
If any country were to ban anything for being too gory, I'd thought it would be the United States. The strict standards and conservative ideals on television are clear evidence of that. But honestly, I thought it was public knowledge now that the average gamer is not a prepubescent teenager with no friends and terrible skin. Several studies released over the years prove the average gamer is 35, if including all PC and social media gamers. The falsified vision of the former has been so imprinted in the conservative and overprotective collective conscious that they can't help but imagine what they think is obvious. The success of console gaming is to blame, which is not necessarily bad. In the next two decades, those who started gaming on Ataris and the NES will become parents and grandparents; and the responsibility falls on that crowd to praise gaming so generations past understand. Then, just maybe, there will be a hive mind-like shift to see gaming on par with movies, or television. You know when you see an old person and picture sitting there with fake teeth, a bad back, not remembering your own name? Well how awesome would it be to do all that and play Mortal Kombat at the same time? it'd make at least one Australian grandparent happy, I guarantee it. (I am ranting here; I thought I would try and hit the point home by appealing to the emotional side of people.)
The Australian Classification Board will never read this, but if one of the committee members by chance stumbles on this post, please realize that gaming is not only for kids. Gaming has been around for a good forty years now, and won't disappear anytime soon. Older people deserve their chance to tear the spine out of an opponent and eat it; that's a great way to get the anger out from having to take so many goddamn pills every morning.
The Mortal Kombat franchise was built on the idea of gratuitous gore, and that said gore has made it one of the great franchises of our time. Characters like Sub-Zero, Scorpion and Johnny Cage have become culture icons, and letting an entire country lose out on all that culture is only hurting yourselves. I hope this bullshit changes soon, and a rating is put in that functions like the Mature rating established by the ESRB. There's no reason one can't, or shouldn't, exist, and the foolish hoopla (love that word) surrounding the issue has turned Australia into a laughing stock.
Change it now, ACB. A mob of thousands of gamers can be an angry crowd.
My Adventures in Minecraft - Part 7
Everyone that has played Minecraft has a set goal in mind before embarking on their own individual adventure. Some want to build massive structures and recreate feasts for the eyes; some want to explore and find extravagant treasures; and some just want to be friends with annoying farm animals. Whatever ambition you have when you start playing, you'll get lost and sidetracked and forget all preconceived ideas. My ambition was to find diamond. That's mainly why I've been digging for such a long time.
We left last with me wondering whether I still had my file. Thankfully I did, but it reverted back to my last manual save, so my glass cathedral was gone. I was sad, but some things aren't meant to happen; by thy hand of the Minecraft gods I am stuck with my stone house. So, to make up for lost time, I went to continue my mine. In my last save I was close to hitting rock bottom, and thus I was excited. I eventually hit bedrock (the absolute bottom of the Minecraft world where all the goodies are).
There are a few ways to go about making a mine. One strategy is to go in blind and hope for the best. In doing so, you're almost guaranteed to hit a lava pool or a monster spawner before finding the illustrious diamond. Stay calm, and section off parts of the mine to dig out. A calculated attempt is less likely to get you killed. Also, always keep a stack of the cobblestone you've been slowly gathering and torches with you; a tidbit like this may be common sense, but you'd be surprised how often I've mined through forgetting one or both of these things. The cobblestone stack is useful in two key situations - quickly placing a block to disallow any lava to seep through, and for no arrows to fly through in case you hit a pesky monster area.
Knowing this, I planned my route accordingly and went to work. Fifteen minutes later I made the essentials: a workbench, a range and a chest. The chest is mainly for any gems I found, and easier to keep them down there instead of making the long trek to the surface. Not even ten minutes into digging, my eyes fluttered. One of my problems with games is I am extremely attracted to shiny things, and immediately stumbling on some redstone I had to have it. Redstone can be used in some unique scenarios, such as making a switch to open a door, or for torches to provide dim lighting. Whatever your fix, it's a neat little element to obtain. After finding a massive deposit of redstone, I continued in one direction for a while and looped around to connect with another hallway.
And there it was. It's as if the Minecraft gods (whom I pray to most nights) were smiling upon me, blessing my character. In front of me laid a stockpile of diamond, a gargantuan deposit of seven ores. In the Minecraft universe, a high amount in a condensed area is very rare, and I was lucky beyond words. However, the victory was short-lived when I realized I didn't have an iron pickaxe. Iron is slightly rarer than coal, and often veins comes in pockets of three-or-less blocks. A rare commodity, but very useful when looking for precious minerals like gold, redstone and diamond. I punctured many a stone block furiously, frantically looking for any trace of iron. Three was all I needed; when I started my mine, the LAST thing I considered was finding diamond before iron. A messed-up trip I had.
As I ventured further into the underground, I discovered many interesting paths and caverns that will be explored in later blog posts. But for now, I must take my leave. Good'day to you all.
P.S. Completely off-topic, and a couple days late, but please take note of what happened in Japan and donate to the Red Cross or other charities operating there. I wish the people of Sendai the best, and hope the region can recover soon enough. The same goes for Christchurch. A state of emergency is still there, and word now is a third of the buildings need to be demolished. Stay healthy.
P.S.S. I'll be starting a new blog about topics that may not relate to video games, or may differ entirely. The link is http://filthcardia-nonsensicalramblings.blogspot.com/ so check it out and give me any feedback! Thank you.
We left last with me wondering whether I still had my file. Thankfully I did, but it reverted back to my last manual save, so my glass cathedral was gone. I was sad, but some things aren't meant to happen; by thy hand of the Minecraft gods I am stuck with my stone house. So, to make up for lost time, I went to continue my mine. In my last save I was close to hitting rock bottom, and thus I was excited. I eventually hit bedrock (the absolute bottom of the Minecraft world where all the goodies are).
There are a few ways to go about making a mine. One strategy is to go in blind and hope for the best. In doing so, you're almost guaranteed to hit a lava pool or a monster spawner before finding the illustrious diamond. Stay calm, and section off parts of the mine to dig out. A calculated attempt is less likely to get you killed. Also, always keep a stack of the cobblestone you've been slowly gathering and torches with you; a tidbit like this may be common sense, but you'd be surprised how often I've mined through forgetting one or both of these things. The cobblestone stack is useful in two key situations - quickly placing a block to disallow any lava to seep through, and for no arrows to fly through in case you hit a pesky monster area.
Knowing this, I planned my route accordingly and went to work. Fifteen minutes later I made the essentials: a workbench, a range and a chest. The chest is mainly for any gems I found, and easier to keep them down there instead of making the long trek to the surface. Not even ten minutes into digging, my eyes fluttered. One of my problems with games is I am extremely attracted to shiny things, and immediately stumbling on some redstone I had to have it. Redstone can be used in some unique scenarios, such as making a switch to open a door, or for torches to provide dim lighting. Whatever your fix, it's a neat little element to obtain. After finding a massive deposit of redstone, I continued in one direction for a while and looped around to connect with another hallway.
And there it was. It's as if the Minecraft gods (whom I pray to most nights) were smiling upon me, blessing my character. In front of me laid a stockpile of diamond, a gargantuan deposit of seven ores. In the Minecraft universe, a high amount in a condensed area is very rare, and I was lucky beyond words. However, the victory was short-lived when I realized I didn't have an iron pickaxe. Iron is slightly rarer than coal, and often veins comes in pockets of three-or-less blocks. A rare commodity, but very useful when looking for precious minerals like gold, redstone and diamond. I punctured many a stone block furiously, frantically looking for any trace of iron. Three was all I needed; when I started my mine, the LAST thing I considered was finding diamond before iron. A messed-up trip I had.
As I ventured further into the underground, I discovered many interesting paths and caverns that will be explored in later blog posts. But for now, I must take my leave. Good'day to you all.
P.S. Completely off-topic, and a couple days late, but please take note of what happened in Japan and donate to the Red Cross or other charities operating there. I wish the people of Sendai the best, and hope the region can recover soon enough. The same goes for Christchurch. A state of emergency is still there, and word now is a third of the buildings need to be demolished. Stay healthy.
P.S.S. I'll be starting a new blog about topics that may not relate to video games, or may differ entirely. The link is http://filthcardia-nonsensicalramblings.blogspot.com/ so check it out and give me any feedback! Thank you.
March 11, 2011
My Adventures in Minecraft - Part 6
I put this series on hold only because I've been preoccupied with other games, but now I wholeheartedly promise I will continue my epic adventure. Part five, away!
As the light slowly displaced the darkness, as the bodies of murderous creatures slowly burnt up, as the waterfall north of my castle continued to splash, I knew it was going to be a good day. I arose from my bed in warming fashion, basking in the glow of mornings come-and-gone; slaughtered my morning creeper and exploded my daily dose of TNT. In typical Minecraft style, anything is possible, and today was no different.
Outside my door was a hole. Not a small, punitive hole, but a gaping, cavernous monstrosity of a hole. It was nothing short of spectacular - I aptly named it the "Small Canyon". That's part of the wonder of Minecraft - tailoring a world to how you see fit, and knowing that it is yours and yours only. I gazed down and armies of voracious, bloodthirsty critters stared back. Off from my explosion high, I dropped another block of TNT down and killed a few, slowly crumbling my artificial hill in the process. Luckily gravity takes a back seat, and I was safe for the time being. I was intent on continuing my mine, the spiraling tunnel of doom I had caved out days before. But something caught my eye - as I looked upon my kingdom, in the corner of my eye reflected a giant hill. I hadn't noticed it before, and part of me wanted to venture out there and take shelter, leaving my castle behind. And so I did. I put the difficulty on easy (because I'm a pansy) and trekked to this mysterious, gargantuan lump of the earth. As I hit hillside, what sat before me questioned my own sanity. It was an army, full of murderous, bloodthirsty creatures, that were pink and white. The farther I looked, the more I saw. Just rows and columns of pigs and cows; I felt I walked into a children's tv show.
And so I strolled over the hill a bit, thinking of creative and weird ways to inhabit this dreamland. My thoughts of a sky-palace overwrought me, and so I took action. Trees greeted the coastline in a delightful way, and at that moment I envisioned a house entirely made of glass. A daring task I imagined, something few have accomplished, and so I worked. I made a shack of dirt for the night and slept. Early morning I made my way down and avoided several zombies. Karate chopping away for a good fifteen minutes, my inventory was overflowing with sand. I punched a few trees and with the leftover cobblestone I built a furnace. Waiting for the glass to manufacture, I mentally mapped out plans for my forthcoming fortress, even coming close to hand-drawing my beautiful designs to not forget.
A good 45 minutes and several stacks of glass were made. The essentials were made: a floor, walls, a ceiling and even some room for unnecessary windows. As I've written before I have a strange fear of heights, and looking down made me a bit wheezy, but I persisted. Fighting through the fear I stacked cobblestone as cornerstones to not make my house completely invisible, and I took residence for the night. A glass fortress I had made, and boy was I proud.
Now my history of keeping a save file longer than a week has been troublesome to say the least. I don't know how many people are having issues with ambiguously corrupted files; my luck is terrible. When I logged on to continue for the sixth blog post, my file had disappeared. I restarted the game and it was still gone. Either it was hiding from me, or the frequent updates are giving me obscure trouble. I do play on a Macbook, and there has been issues with Apple products in the past. I could be SOL, but let's hope not. Next time I upload the game we will see if my file is gone and I start anew, or if my invisible fortress still exists.
Expect part six over the weekend.
As the light slowly displaced the darkness, as the bodies of murderous creatures slowly burnt up, as the waterfall north of my castle continued to splash, I knew it was going to be a good day. I arose from my bed in warming fashion, basking in the glow of mornings come-and-gone; slaughtered my morning creeper and exploded my daily dose of TNT. In typical Minecraft style, anything is possible, and today was no different.
Outside my door was a hole. Not a small, punitive hole, but a gaping, cavernous monstrosity of a hole. It was nothing short of spectacular - I aptly named it the "Small Canyon". That's part of the wonder of Minecraft - tailoring a world to how you see fit, and knowing that it is yours and yours only. I gazed down and armies of voracious, bloodthirsty critters stared back. Off from my explosion high, I dropped another block of TNT down and killed a few, slowly crumbling my artificial hill in the process. Luckily gravity takes a back seat, and I was safe for the time being. I was intent on continuing my mine, the spiraling tunnel of doom I had caved out days before. But something caught my eye - as I looked upon my kingdom, in the corner of my eye reflected a giant hill. I hadn't noticed it before, and part of me wanted to venture out there and take shelter, leaving my castle behind. And so I did. I put the difficulty on easy (because I'm a pansy) and trekked to this mysterious, gargantuan lump of the earth. As I hit hillside, what sat before me questioned my own sanity. It was an army, full of murderous, bloodthirsty creatures, that were pink and white. The farther I looked, the more I saw. Just rows and columns of pigs and cows; I felt I walked into a children's tv show.
And so I strolled over the hill a bit, thinking of creative and weird ways to inhabit this dreamland. My thoughts of a sky-palace overwrought me, and so I took action. Trees greeted the coastline in a delightful way, and at that moment I envisioned a house entirely made of glass. A daring task I imagined, something few have accomplished, and so I worked. I made a shack of dirt for the night and slept. Early morning I made my way down and avoided several zombies. Karate chopping away for a good fifteen minutes, my inventory was overflowing with sand. I punched a few trees and with the leftover cobblestone I built a furnace. Waiting for the glass to manufacture, I mentally mapped out plans for my forthcoming fortress, even coming close to hand-drawing my beautiful designs to not forget.
A good 45 minutes and several stacks of glass were made. The essentials were made: a floor, walls, a ceiling and even some room for unnecessary windows. As I've written before I have a strange fear of heights, and looking down made me a bit wheezy, but I persisted. Fighting through the fear I stacked cobblestone as cornerstones to not make my house completely invisible, and I took residence for the night. A glass fortress I had made, and boy was I proud.
Now my history of keeping a save file longer than a week has been troublesome to say the least. I don't know how many people are having issues with ambiguously corrupted files; my luck is terrible. When I logged on to continue for the sixth blog post, my file had disappeared. I restarted the game and it was still gone. Either it was hiding from me, or the frequent updates are giving me obscure trouble. I do play on a Macbook, and there has been issues with Apple products in the past. I could be SOL, but let's hope not. Next time I upload the game we will see if my file is gone and I start anew, or if my invisible fortress still exists.
Expect part six over the weekend.
A Nintendo Revolution?
The news that the Xbox 360 has won the console race for two consecutive months wasn't a surprise. A year ago, the Wii would have kicked its ass. Everyone knew the social gaming explosion directly caused by the Wii would fade eventually, and it has. Today an industry analyst has come out and said that a successor to Nintendo's console is imminent, and will probably happen this year at the granddaddy-of-them-all, E3.
Most gamers that follow the industry religiously didn't need an analyst to tell us this. With declining sales and the news that Kinect sold ten million units, Nintendo knew it was in trouble. So it's plausible to think an announcement of a new console is imminent, and needless to say a successor is necessary for Nintendo to make headway against Sony and Microsoft.
Nintendo's motion control machine launched back in late 2006, and the company tends to wait five years before bringing out a new console. 2011 is upon us, so it's more than likely Nintendo has something planned. Various Nintendo executives have confirmed something has been researched, and they could be talking about their show at E3 as I write this blog post. A funny thought I suppose.
Should their next video game box be motion control centric however? Nintendo has captured the imagination unseen in the industry before, the hearts of families everywhere. Or at least that is what they sell in their advertisements. That audience is anxious for something new, and obviously Nintendo has something up their sleeve, but the huge question is can the company go above-and-beyond? Unless it can bring out a Kinect-esque model, sticking with the same formula won't resonate the same. Nintendo hopefully knows that and will bring something out appealing to both the core and casual fan base.
The developer could expand on their current idea and make it a pure upgrade, basically a Wii with 3D capabilities. This is certainly possible with the suspected massive sales of 3D televisions and Sony adding three dimensions to such games like Killzone 3. I don't see them going back to what the GameCube or N64 was, a gaming box with huge potential but failing to reach audiences. The technology used in the 3DS, if Nintendo expanded on the idea, might be feasible in a new console, and people would be genuinely thankful for not having to wear huge glasses while jumping around.
Times are anew at Nintendo; combining the impending success of the 3DS and whatever is brewing in their console department, the company will no doubt take the top spot once again.
Most gamers that follow the industry religiously didn't need an analyst to tell us this. With declining sales and the news that Kinect sold ten million units, Nintendo knew it was in trouble. So it's plausible to think an announcement of a new console is imminent, and needless to say a successor is necessary for Nintendo to make headway against Sony and Microsoft.
Nintendo's motion control machine launched back in late 2006, and the company tends to wait five years before bringing out a new console. 2011 is upon us, so it's more than likely Nintendo has something planned. Various Nintendo executives have confirmed something has been researched, and they could be talking about their show at E3 as I write this blog post. A funny thought I suppose.
Should their next video game box be motion control centric however? Nintendo has captured the imagination unseen in the industry before, the hearts of families everywhere. Or at least that is what they sell in their advertisements. That audience is anxious for something new, and obviously Nintendo has something up their sleeve, but the huge question is can the company go above-and-beyond? Unless it can bring out a Kinect-esque model, sticking with the same formula won't resonate the same. Nintendo hopefully knows that and will bring something out appealing to both the core and casual fan base.
The developer could expand on their current idea and make it a pure upgrade, basically a Wii with 3D capabilities. This is certainly possible with the suspected massive sales of 3D televisions and Sony adding three dimensions to such games like Killzone 3. I don't see them going back to what the GameCube or N64 was, a gaming box with huge potential but failing to reach audiences. The technology used in the 3DS, if Nintendo expanded on the idea, might be feasible in a new console, and people would be genuinely thankful for not having to wear huge glasses while jumping around.
Times are anew at Nintendo; combining the impending success of the 3DS and whatever is brewing in their console department, the company will no doubt take the top spot once again.
Tom Cruise Inspired The MMO Genre
Risky business is rarely a term twinned with the industry. In the MMO spectrum it may be commonplace, however, but that's expected when a game takes eight years to complete. World of Warcraft, the presumed king of the genre, had an estimated budget of $100 million, and the reward has been huge for Blizzard. But that's the point of this blog post - the massive risk that an MMORPG is and why so many studios take the gamble.
The last couple years, the MMO genre has been overpopulated again and again. Last year, there was an MMO released every month. Not all of these were successes on par with WoW, but most of the time that's not needed to be financially successful. The Lord of the Rings Online was released with a big budget and recently went free-to-play to find its profits triple.
This blog post is inspired by news of another Warhammer MMO, Dark Millennium Online, has a budget of $50 million and we can expect it in the next couple years. That's a huge investment, but relatively small against competitors in the genre. Banking on an MMO to succeed has decided the fate of some studios, and luckily Vigil Studios is owned by THQ so there's no threat. With the mixed reaction to Darksiders, response to its biggest project yet should be interesting.
The CFO of THQ, Paul Pucino, spoke the typical business chatter at a business conference for Wedbush Morgan Securities, the same company where the Pach-Attack is employed. He anticipated a decade of straight profits, and for the game is to be successful two million units must be sold. The degrading success of World of Warcraft and the coming release of Star Wars: The Old Republic from BioWare will still dominate the genre airwaves and so the game's success is certainly in question. Though, Warhammer does have small and dedicated fan base, so I could be talking out of my ass. But purely based on other releases in the seemingly saturated genre, the game is dead-on-arrival.
As with anything, there are games that stand out, usually one each year, that threatens the reign of the genre king. Any game given the title "WoW-killer" seals its fate immediately, and Rift is this year's victim. The game mimics WoW from the dashboard to the similar PvP combat, but employs the namesake mechanic: rifts. Monsters start pouring out and it's the player job to close it. Otherwise the wave of creatures could take over important parts of the map and severely hamper attempts to level in the area. It's an interesting idea and a great way to keep yourself entertained. Other games given the title include Aion, which had a severe spike in players looking to leave Azeroth; after a few months the game died and several servers had to be merged. It's a doomed title. That's all I'm saying.
The genre is a massive gamble and most games fail. I thought I should rant. Have fun people.
The last couple years, the MMO genre has been overpopulated again and again. Last year, there was an MMO released every month. Not all of these were successes on par with WoW, but most of the time that's not needed to be financially successful. The Lord of the Rings Online was released with a big budget and recently went free-to-play to find its profits triple.
This blog post is inspired by news of another Warhammer MMO, Dark Millennium Online, has a budget of $50 million and we can expect it in the next couple years. That's a huge investment, but relatively small against competitors in the genre. Banking on an MMO to succeed has decided the fate of some studios, and luckily Vigil Studios is owned by THQ so there's no threat. With the mixed reaction to Darksiders, response to its biggest project yet should be interesting.
The CFO of THQ, Paul Pucino, spoke the typical business chatter at a business conference for Wedbush Morgan Securities, the same company where the Pach-Attack is employed. He anticipated a decade of straight profits, and for the game is to be successful two million units must be sold. The degrading success of World of Warcraft and the coming release of Star Wars: The Old Republic from BioWare will still dominate the genre airwaves and so the game's success is certainly in question. Though, Warhammer does have small and dedicated fan base, so I could be talking out of my ass. But purely based on other releases in the seemingly saturated genre, the game is dead-on-arrival.
As with anything, there are games that stand out, usually one each year, that threatens the reign of the genre king. Any game given the title "WoW-killer" seals its fate immediately, and Rift is this year's victim. The game mimics WoW from the dashboard to the similar PvP combat, but employs the namesake mechanic: rifts. Monsters start pouring out and it's the player job to close it. Otherwise the wave of creatures could take over important parts of the map and severely hamper attempts to level in the area. It's an interesting idea and a great way to keep yourself entertained. Other games given the title include Aion, which had a severe spike in players looking to leave Azeroth; after a few months the game died and several servers had to be merged. It's a doomed title. That's all I'm saying.
The genre is a massive gamble and most games fail. I thought I should rant. Have fun people.
March 8, 2011
Ramblings of a Madman - Dragon Age II - Part 1
Thanks for making my blog reach 500 page views! That may not seem like much, but certainly it is for a new blog. So thank you for anyone reading this and let's get it to 1000 due haste!
It seems there's been a mixed reaction to Dragon Age II. As I progress through the first game, and from playing the demo and watching early walkthrough footage on video sharing sites from its sequel, there has been some immediate changes. Is the classic idea of an RPG becoming, well, a classic idea? Or has the term 'RPG' been deemed archaic? Or maybe are we redefining what is in an RPG?
Unfair probably and some may seem as cowardly to write about a game I haven't played. But in this day and age, with the helpfulness of the Internet, there's no need for it. Reviews will be pouring in en masse today, and this post is based off the collection of corny jokes and nit-pickings of every review I come across. I will play the game, eventually; probably steal it off a friend or something. Renting it seems unjust, as a week with a game that has so many levels is hardly enough time.
Right from the start, there is a big change. In the classic RPG motif, we get to choose the identity of our character, from name to class to description, and even the background. Dragon Age II abandons that ideal, however, and simply makes us pick an established character. Disconcerting of course, but in the short run makes sense since the main character is voice-acted. In Origins he/she wasn't, so having any name was appropriate. It'd be stupid to continuously have your character called another name, wouldn't it? It may sound like I am defending what Bioware has done here; in fact, I am just putting it into perspective. I would rather have a character voice-acted to give the dialogue more weight compared to a voiceless hero with whom dialogue seems unnatural. Consequently, the cost of having a voice-acted adventurer is a water-downed dialogue system. In Origins, several options were given to the player in every scenario. But now it behaves more like Mass Effect, where three options are given each leading to a paragon, neutral, or renegade outcome. This in itself is far from bad; were it the case that Dragon Age II was actually the first game, people wouldn't be complaining. It would just be Mass Effect set in a fantasy world. It's a simpler system, but works effectively enough to not hinder the experience.
I apologize for going on about the dialogue system. Many a review pinned that as the most aggravating change, whereas I see it as welcoming. Back to establishing your character. A predetermined character may put some people off and I understand that; part of the allure of an RPG game is defining your character, and feeling the consequences of your actions. Bioware might not be throwing that idea out the window. Maybe the developer wants it this way, to put more emphasis on the action side of things. An action-RPG is plausible, and will deter some people from buying the game and rightfully so; a lot of reviewers condemned the game for backing down from its pre-generational brethren Baldur's Gate I and II. In my experience with Origins, combat was rather difficult to get comfortable with, and even playing on the easiest mode not as a mage I still found myself dying over and over again. Could be my negligence to pay attention to the finer details of combat, and surely it was; but this was often a complain with the battle system of Origins and Bioware wanted to make its sequel more accessible. As I said, I welcome such a change, and it made me strongly consider buying the second game.
Part 2 as I watch more footage. Expect it soon!
It seems there's been a mixed reaction to Dragon Age II. As I progress through the first game, and from playing the demo and watching early walkthrough footage on video sharing sites from its sequel, there has been some immediate changes. Is the classic idea of an RPG becoming, well, a classic idea? Or has the term 'RPG' been deemed archaic? Or maybe are we redefining what is in an RPG?
Unfair probably and some may seem as cowardly to write about a game I haven't played. But in this day and age, with the helpfulness of the Internet, there's no need for it. Reviews will be pouring in en masse today, and this post is based off the collection of corny jokes and nit-pickings of every review I come across. I will play the game, eventually; probably steal it off a friend or something. Renting it seems unjust, as a week with a game that has so many levels is hardly enough time.
Right from the start, there is a big change. In the classic RPG motif, we get to choose the identity of our character, from name to class to description, and even the background. Dragon Age II abandons that ideal, however, and simply makes us pick an established character. Disconcerting of course, but in the short run makes sense since the main character is voice-acted. In Origins he/she wasn't, so having any name was appropriate. It'd be stupid to continuously have your character called another name, wouldn't it? It may sound like I am defending what Bioware has done here; in fact, I am just putting it into perspective. I would rather have a character voice-acted to give the dialogue more weight compared to a voiceless hero with whom dialogue seems unnatural. Consequently, the cost of having a voice-acted adventurer is a water-downed dialogue system. In Origins, several options were given to the player in every scenario. But now it behaves more like Mass Effect, where three options are given each leading to a paragon, neutral, or renegade outcome. This in itself is far from bad; were it the case that Dragon Age II was actually the first game, people wouldn't be complaining. It would just be Mass Effect set in a fantasy world. It's a simpler system, but works effectively enough to not hinder the experience.
I apologize for going on about the dialogue system. Many a review pinned that as the most aggravating change, whereas I see it as welcoming. Back to establishing your character. A predetermined character may put some people off and I understand that; part of the allure of an RPG game is defining your character, and feeling the consequences of your actions. Bioware might not be throwing that idea out the window. Maybe the developer wants it this way, to put more emphasis on the action side of things. An action-RPG is plausible, and will deter some people from buying the game and rightfully so; a lot of reviewers condemned the game for backing down from its pre-generational brethren Baldur's Gate I and II. In my experience with Origins, combat was rather difficult to get comfortable with, and even playing on the easiest mode not as a mage I still found myself dying over and over again. Could be my negligence to pay attention to the finer details of combat, and surely it was; but this was often a complain with the battle system of Origins and Bioware wanted to make its sequel more accessible. As I said, I welcome such a change, and it made me strongly consider buying the second game.
Part 2 as I watch more footage. Expect it soon!
Pre-Review Thoughts of Pokemon Black & White
Over the years, my central gaming platform has migrated from handhelds, to consoles, and now I am graduating toward PC. Knowing that, I feel disgraced for not keeping up with handheld releases, and today marks my first steps in a long while into the realm of handheld gaming.
In what marks something long overdue, I am finally playing a Pokemon game. Not since Silver have I fallen in love with a game in the long-running franchise, but the North American release of Black & White left me curious, and so I had to indulge. I am really glad I did, because I had forgotten the wonder of these games, and getting lost in one has reinvented that interest.
Even though the iconic formula hasn't changed, it's almost disturbing how much graphically the games have evolved. The DS series now seems archaic since the 3DS just launched in Japan to an overwhelming response, but it's still bewildering the change. Remember the Game Boy Advanced? That's the last time I played a Pokemon game. Almost ten years; seems like a lifetime ago.
Enough rambling. The following is a collection of my thoughts on my first five hours.
Nintendo has total dominance over the handheld market, and I don't see the PSP2 really making that much of an impact. The perfect example is Pokemon - in any other circumstance, a series lasting this long with really no changes to the core gameplay would be vilified by the community. But not Pokemon. It has the ideal formula for an on-the-go game and nothing comes close.
Since it has been so long, it feels refreshing for both the newcomers and veterans. Beginning the game, you'll only run into the new generation and unlock access to the others after the game is beaten. I love this because it familiarizes us with the new batch of creatures, but also gives us incentive to go and actually beat the game. Why you wouldn't want to anyway is beyond me. This is Pokemon; it's blasphemous to not at least beat the Champion. People spend 200 hours or more fine-tuning their team to beat friends, or play online against the global fan base. Online connectivity is something I wish the old Game Boys had, but obviously the technology wasn't available at the turn of the millennium.
After playing for so many hours, I realize it'll be hard to write a full on review. The pure beauty of the Pokemon games is mass complexity hidden behind sheer simplicity. IGN had a great article with the series' director detailing this fact, so I'll include a link at the end of the post. And going in, I thought it would be easier to write a review since I haven't played a game in so long. So many changes to go through, and I could draw many comparisons. I have to admit, though; the new games certainly make me feel nostalgic. The nostalgia caused me to pull out Silver on my old, scratched-up Advanced and play it for a bit. I'm sold.
Expect a review soon. I want to test EVERYTHING before writing a review, and that would take me quite the long while.
Here's the link to the IGN article: http://ds.ign.com/articles/115/1154242p1.html
In what marks something long overdue, I am finally playing a Pokemon game. Not since Silver have I fallen in love with a game in the long-running franchise, but the North American release of Black & White left me curious, and so I had to indulge. I am really glad I did, because I had forgotten the wonder of these games, and getting lost in one has reinvented that interest.
Even though the iconic formula hasn't changed, it's almost disturbing how much graphically the games have evolved. The DS series now seems archaic since the 3DS just launched in Japan to an overwhelming response, but it's still bewildering the change. Remember the Game Boy Advanced? That's the last time I played a Pokemon game. Almost ten years; seems like a lifetime ago.
Enough rambling. The following is a collection of my thoughts on my first five hours.
Nintendo has total dominance over the handheld market, and I don't see the PSP2 really making that much of an impact. The perfect example is Pokemon - in any other circumstance, a series lasting this long with really no changes to the core gameplay would be vilified by the community. But not Pokemon. It has the ideal formula for an on-the-go game and nothing comes close.
Since it has been so long, it feels refreshing for both the newcomers and veterans. Beginning the game, you'll only run into the new generation and unlock access to the others after the game is beaten. I love this because it familiarizes us with the new batch of creatures, but also gives us incentive to go and actually beat the game. Why you wouldn't want to anyway is beyond me. This is Pokemon; it's blasphemous to not at least beat the Champion. People spend 200 hours or more fine-tuning their team to beat friends, or play online against the global fan base. Online connectivity is something I wish the old Game Boys had, but obviously the technology wasn't available at the turn of the millennium.
After playing for so many hours, I realize it'll be hard to write a full on review. The pure beauty of the Pokemon games is mass complexity hidden behind sheer simplicity. IGN had a great article with the series' director detailing this fact, so I'll include a link at the end of the post. And going in, I thought it would be easier to write a review since I haven't played a game in so long. So many changes to go through, and I could draw many comparisons. I have to admit, though; the new games certainly make me feel nostalgic. The nostalgia caused me to pull out Silver on my old, scratched-up Advanced and play it for a bit. I'm sold.
Expect a review soon. I want to test EVERYTHING before writing a review, and that would take me quite the long while.
Here's the link to the IGN article: http://ds.ign.com/articles/115/1154242p1.html
March 6, 2011
Beyond Good & Evil HD - A Great Second Time Coming
THIS REVIEW WILL INCLUDE SPOILERS.
I planned originally to do a play-by-play of my run through the game, like a walkthrough with commentary. As I played, however, that soon changed. I found myself playing for long periods of time and losing track of tasks I had done hours before, and it was inevitable I couldn't keep taking notes while playing. This announcement also serves as a good precursor into my review; the game is just that good.
The lucky bastards out there who tried this game back in 2003, I applaud you. If you bought it, you deserve a standing ovation. The few of you that actually did. You see, if it weren't for the crap sales and the metacritic success the game had, there's a possibility a high definition remake wasn't going to happen. Sales were mediocre enough to call for a remake, and I'm sure Ubisoft wanted to test the waters for the impending sequel. Regardless of the developer's intentions, the game is now out and I have been enjoying myself immensely.
The story is rather straightforward: you play as Jade, a photojournalist tasked with saving your mining colony home Hillys from an alien species known as the DomZ. Jade is asked to join the rebel group IRIS Network, who believes the ruling power, the Alpha Sections, are not protecting the people, but instead hiding malicious wrongdoings. Accompanying Jade is her geezer bacon-filled friend Pey'j (a fifty-year-old pig), who is quite useful both in combat and getting through puzzles and boss fights. The story is solid and it still holds up even after seven long years. At the end, you really feel for the characters and the situations they find themselves in, especially after the credits. The scene is pivotal in setting up a sequel.
Plot aside, I wish the game presented itself as having a darker tone. It seemed too lighthearted given the circumstances near the end; thousands of people were kidnapped and the DomZ aren't the killing machines I expected. If the DomZ were presented in a more despicable fashion, the satisfaction of killing the high priest would overshadow the feeling of happiness after everyone is saved. I want to see murderous beasts; not cute little puppies.
The characters are amicable; Jade being the strong, female lead and Pey'j being the disgruntled, clumsy elder. The quips between the two range from obnoxious to hilarious, some being flat out ridiculous, but then again such a relationship I'd expect to have positive and awkward moments. I would talk about the other characters more but spoilers are abound so I'll shut my trap. It is fun to converse with Jamaican rhinos, though.
One mechanic (innovative back in the day if I'm not mistaken) made specifically for the collectible freak out there, is the ability to take photos of the different creatures that exist on Hillys. The Science Center wants to document all living organisms for reference, and you can earn Optima (the currency) quickly by snapping shots. This will be the main fuel of money in the game, and most creatures will count toward the total. Once a roll of film is done, a pearl will be yours so this is worth doing. There is an achievement for completely eleven rolls of film so get animal hunting!
Many aspects of Beyond Good & Evil are reminiscent of Jak & Daxter. The combat and gameplay are generally the same, with an emphasis on exploration. In Jade's quest, there are plenty of side missions to complete, so explore every nook-and-cranny of the map. The prized possession (although illegal) of the citizens of Hillys is pearls, and these can be bought from vendors, defeating bosses, and completing side-tasks. Collect as many as you can; that's all I'm saying. Combat feels lacking and tacked-on; battles, especially boss fights, are unnecessarily easy. I know the intent was to tell a compelling story, and Ubisoft achieved that with flying colours, but combat could have been at least challenging. Of the several side missions available, the hovercraft races are a cinch; my favourite would have to be the Looters' Caverns. In a race against time, Optima is on the line and one mistake can cost you big bucks. Those sequences are the true test of skill with the hovering machine and most took me a few tries to down.
As much as I wish it was, the game is not perfect. Seven long years have passed, and the game is showing its age. Persistent frame rate issues and constant loading screens are a drag, but don't hinder the experience enough to render it avoidable. A compelling story, lovable characters and the willfulness to save an entire civilization overshadow the faults, and make for one heck of a package. A sequel is incoming, so I can't wait. Hurry up on that Ubisoft!
I planned originally to do a play-by-play of my run through the game, like a walkthrough with commentary. As I played, however, that soon changed. I found myself playing for long periods of time and losing track of tasks I had done hours before, and it was inevitable I couldn't keep taking notes while playing. This announcement also serves as a good precursor into my review; the game is just that good.
The lucky bastards out there who tried this game back in 2003, I applaud you. If you bought it, you deserve a standing ovation. The few of you that actually did. You see, if it weren't for the crap sales and the metacritic success the game had, there's a possibility a high definition remake wasn't going to happen. Sales were mediocre enough to call for a remake, and I'm sure Ubisoft wanted to test the waters for the impending sequel. Regardless of the developer's intentions, the game is now out and I have been enjoying myself immensely.
The story is rather straightforward: you play as Jade, a photojournalist tasked with saving your mining colony home Hillys from an alien species known as the DomZ. Jade is asked to join the rebel group IRIS Network, who believes the ruling power, the Alpha Sections, are not protecting the people, but instead hiding malicious wrongdoings. Accompanying Jade is her geezer bacon-filled friend Pey'j (a fifty-year-old pig), who is quite useful both in combat and getting through puzzles and boss fights. The story is solid and it still holds up even after seven long years. At the end, you really feel for the characters and the situations they find themselves in, especially after the credits. The scene is pivotal in setting up a sequel.
Plot aside, I wish the game presented itself as having a darker tone. It seemed too lighthearted given the circumstances near the end; thousands of people were kidnapped and the DomZ aren't the killing machines I expected. If the DomZ were presented in a more despicable fashion, the satisfaction of killing the high priest would overshadow the feeling of happiness after everyone is saved. I want to see murderous beasts; not cute little puppies.
The characters are amicable; Jade being the strong, female lead and Pey'j being the disgruntled, clumsy elder. The quips between the two range from obnoxious to hilarious, some being flat out ridiculous, but then again such a relationship I'd expect to have positive and awkward moments. I would talk about the other characters more but spoilers are abound so I'll shut my trap. It is fun to converse with Jamaican rhinos, though.
One mechanic (innovative back in the day if I'm not mistaken) made specifically for the collectible freak out there, is the ability to take photos of the different creatures that exist on Hillys. The Science Center wants to document all living organisms for reference, and you can earn Optima (the currency) quickly by snapping shots. This will be the main fuel of money in the game, and most creatures will count toward the total. Once a roll of film is done, a pearl will be yours so this is worth doing. There is an achievement for completely eleven rolls of film so get animal hunting!
Many aspects of Beyond Good & Evil are reminiscent of Jak & Daxter. The combat and gameplay are generally the same, with an emphasis on exploration. In Jade's quest, there are plenty of side missions to complete, so explore every nook-and-cranny of the map. The prized possession (although illegal) of the citizens of Hillys is pearls, and these can be bought from vendors, defeating bosses, and completing side-tasks. Collect as many as you can; that's all I'm saying. Combat feels lacking and tacked-on; battles, especially boss fights, are unnecessarily easy. I know the intent was to tell a compelling story, and Ubisoft achieved that with flying colours, but combat could have been at least challenging. Of the several side missions available, the hovercraft races are a cinch; my favourite would have to be the Looters' Caverns. In a race against time, Optima is on the line and one mistake can cost you big bucks. Those sequences are the true test of skill with the hovering machine and most took me a few tries to down.
As much as I wish it was, the game is not perfect. Seven long years have passed, and the game is showing its age. Persistent frame rate issues and constant loading screens are a drag, but don't hinder the experience enough to render it avoidable. A compelling story, lovable characters and the willfulness to save an entire civilization overshadow the faults, and make for one heck of a package. A sequel is incoming, so I can't wait. Hurry up on that Ubisoft!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)