May is just around the corner and that means a new mess of games for us to meddle in. One game, though, some won't be meddling in at all. Rockstar, infamously known for its Grand Theft Auto franchise, is drastically changing the company's narrative with L.A. Noire - a game I cannot wait for. This time around, instead of an emphasis on killing people, Rockstar is solely focusing on great story and using calculated investigative skills to get the job done. There are shooting aspects in L.A. Noire, however Rockstar has recognized not everyone will enjoy those parts. So the developer plans to make those sequences skippable for players who want to fully interact with game's 2200 pages of script (that's a lot of writing).
A site I won't mention questioned this initiative, basically saying Rockstar shouldn't have included the scenes and just made the game one big interactive adventure on par with Heavy Rain. I'm sure doing that wouldn't undermine the playability, and it makes for an interesting concept, but Rockstar is looking for a larger audience. The biggest genre currently is FPS, and to not include some shooting sequences could leave a gap in sales. I like a good shooting game, and going in I understand the sequences aren't the primary focus. But it is nice to enjoy other gameplay and not just sleuthing for an extended period of time. And that is my fix, how I like to play games. When a great game can pull off variability in gameplay well, I can appreciate it much more. Given, we don't know what other tricks Rockstar has up their sleeve. Up close investigations and shooting sequences have been confirmed, but this is indeed a Rockstar game. Expect the unexpected, or so they say.
The big Rockstar games generally follow the Grand Theft Auto formula, a formula that works ridiculously well. Red Dead Redemption capitalized and epitomized the formula with stellar gameplay and Rockstar wore the title of having the best game released in 2010. It's been a year, and L.A. Noire will continue the trend of the games finally shedding off that childish reputation and appealing to the mass public. L.A. Noire is certainly a contender for the coveted Game of the Year awards, so could May be a magic month for Rockstar? We'll all be waiting until May 17 to find out.
Now, an issue of other importance. I know people were anxiously anticipating to hear some wannabe journalist's views on the gorefest Mortal Kombat, but current time restraints working nights has hindered my ability to game temporarily. I'll most likely be finding something else soon working days, so my weekends will be free for gaming. And thank goodness, too, because I pre-ordered Gears of War 3 for the beta (and I wanted to make a post about it), but sleeping during the day has forced me to play sparingly. Maintaining a night job and an active gaming blog is harder than I thought. Hopefully I'll be able to get those posts up within the next week given the Mortal Kombat review is still relevant. Anywho, ciao!
April 29, 2011
Sony is F*****
The PlayStation division at Sony must be in chaos right now. Their service has been hacked and offline for a week now; 2.2 million credit cards may be compromised; and now every crime organization, including the FBI, is launching an investigation into what happened. It's estimated several million people will cancel their credit cards costing international banks about $300 million. Could we throw in a potential lawsuit from the banks onto the pile of probable lawsuits impending from this situation?
I hate to blame Sony here, but the company is terrible at crisis control. The fan base should've been informed almost immediately that there was an "external intrusion" occupying the service, regardless of the status of personal information. To tell them six days later, a long period of time, is irresponsible and reprehensible. But I have said enough about that. I wanted to discuss what Sony does from here, and whether any compensation would be enough. As I said before, an apology would be a great place to start.
Apologies can only go so far, and Sony knows. The company has said they are cooking up something for PS Plus subscribers, but nothing I could find about the 77 million people subscribed to the service. That's not entirely unexpected, Sony giving the free crowd nothing, but it would be nice to see those suffering through the downtime rewarded in some way. Doing that would be a great start in reinventing the company's beleaguered reputation. A free downloadable game of the player's choice would be nice, or the company could exploit the hacking by giving everyone a free taste of what PS Plus is like. It would be a trial of sorts, and Sony may even gain a substantial subscriber base from doing so.
Gamers aren't the only ones affected by a week's downtime. Developers of arcade games (especially those exclusive to the PSN, i.e. Joe Danger) are struggling, and Sony has promised more advertising of those games. But I don't think that goes far enough. The Easter weekend was a missed opportunity, so to compensate for lost time, Sony should devise a strategy to pay back developers for how long the service is out. The developers would dearly appreciate it, and that care might get more arcade games to go exclusively on the platform. I think Sony understands they are going to lose a lot of money from this, but putting the company in a favourable position going forward should be most important.
The passionate fans will stay with the service, but undoubtedly some will flock to its heated rival. For Sony to regain the trust of the public, the company should try and entice those who make new accounts. Obviously, to not abuse the feature, it'd be one per console. I don't know what the freebie could possibly be, but then again I don't work for a company nor do I specialize in crisis mode situations. The small things the public appreciates, and would go a long way to reinstutiting their lost reputation.
Sony has a daunting task ahead of them. They better have something up their sleeve or the company is in big trouble.
I hate to blame Sony here, but the company is terrible at crisis control. The fan base should've been informed almost immediately that there was an "external intrusion" occupying the service, regardless of the status of personal information. To tell them six days later, a long period of time, is irresponsible and reprehensible. But I have said enough about that. I wanted to discuss what Sony does from here, and whether any compensation would be enough. As I said before, an apology would be a great place to start.
Apologies can only go so far, and Sony knows. The company has said they are cooking up something for PS Plus subscribers, but nothing I could find about the 77 million people subscribed to the service. That's not entirely unexpected, Sony giving the free crowd nothing, but it would be nice to see those suffering through the downtime rewarded in some way. Doing that would be a great start in reinventing the company's beleaguered reputation. A free downloadable game of the player's choice would be nice, or the company could exploit the hacking by giving everyone a free taste of what PS Plus is like. It would be a trial of sorts, and Sony may even gain a substantial subscriber base from doing so.
Gamers aren't the only ones affected by a week's downtime. Developers of arcade games (especially those exclusive to the PSN, i.e. Joe Danger) are struggling, and Sony has promised more advertising of those games. But I don't think that goes far enough. The Easter weekend was a missed opportunity, so to compensate for lost time, Sony should devise a strategy to pay back developers for how long the service is out. The developers would dearly appreciate it, and that care might get more arcade games to go exclusively on the platform. I think Sony understands they are going to lose a lot of money from this, but putting the company in a favourable position going forward should be most important.
The passionate fans will stay with the service, but undoubtedly some will flock to its heated rival. For Sony to regain the trust of the public, the company should try and entice those who make new accounts. Obviously, to not abuse the feature, it'd be one per console. I don't know what the freebie could possibly be, but then again I don't work for a company nor do I specialize in crisis mode situations. The small things the public appreciates, and would go a long way to reinstutiting their lost reputation.
Sony has a daunting task ahead of them. They better have something up their sleeve or the company is in big trouble.
Microsoft Reluctant to Release A New Console?
There's been a lot of scary talk about a new generation already, which just solidifies how quickly this generation has come and gone. The release of "Project Cafe" early will surely dictate how the next round of consoles will operate, and it's great Nintendo is setting the bar high immediately (even though Nintendo is frantically getting this thing out as soon as possible to keep profits high from the Wii). But something unexpected has happened which will most likely affect Microsoft's willingness to jump on the new system bandwagon.
First quarter profits from Microsoft were down overall, but the Xbox division saw a 60% increase in the green stuff. The company's motion control device (I refuse to say the name) is the sole reason, and on this news expect Microsoft to push the device at E3. Kinect (there, I said it) has had remarkable success, selling ten million units even with the poor lineup of initial games. Another reason for Microsoft to shove Kinect down our throats come gaming's biggest conference.
Could actually hearing the success be the catalyst to Microsoft riding out the motion control storm until possibly 2014? Early rumours tend to say so, and those rumours were indirectly generated by Sony and Microsoft claiming this generation can still be profitable five years down the line. The consoles can, and will. But sales of "Project Cafe" will be a huge determinant. If motion control is emphasized, the upcoming console will say buttloads, and competitors will be forced to be squash Nintendo's console.
I previously said (too lazy to find the blog post) this generation could last double the traditional cycle, and I'm glad the gaming giants agree. There is still a ton of potential here and I don't want to see that go to waste. Hulu Plus is coming to Live shortly and Qriocity is a new music service on the PlayStation Network. Netflix has become an overnight success only because of the machines, and now the service has a higher subscriber base than anyone else in the United States. So I pose the question: how can we further enhance the non-gaming aspect of this generation? The public has come to know video game consoles as an invaluable part of any entertainment center and that recognition is what the companies are salivating over. The conditions are perfect for such a radical change in the general perception of gaming.
Microsoft is sitting pretty right now. E3 will just solidify that fact.
First quarter profits from Microsoft were down overall, but the Xbox division saw a 60% increase in the green stuff. The company's motion control device (I refuse to say the name) is the sole reason, and on this news expect Microsoft to push the device at E3. Kinect (there, I said it) has had remarkable success, selling ten million units even with the poor lineup of initial games. Another reason for Microsoft to shove Kinect down our throats come gaming's biggest conference.
Could actually hearing the success be the catalyst to Microsoft riding out the motion control storm until possibly 2014? Early rumours tend to say so, and those rumours were indirectly generated by Sony and Microsoft claiming this generation can still be profitable five years down the line. The consoles can, and will. But sales of "Project Cafe" will be a huge determinant. If motion control is emphasized, the upcoming console will say buttloads, and competitors will be forced to be squash Nintendo's console.
I previously said (too lazy to find the blog post) this generation could last double the traditional cycle, and I'm glad the gaming giants agree. There is still a ton of potential here and I don't want to see that go to waste. Hulu Plus is coming to Live shortly and Qriocity is a new music service on the PlayStation Network. Netflix has become an overnight success only because of the machines, and now the service has a higher subscriber base than anyone else in the United States. So I pose the question: how can we further enhance the non-gaming aspect of this generation? The public has come to know video game consoles as an invaluable part of any entertainment center and that recognition is what the companies are salivating over. The conditions are perfect for such a radical change in the general perception of gaming.
Microsoft is sitting pretty right now. E3 will just solidify that fact.
April 27, 2011
A Disastrous Situation for Sony
A dire situation has turned disastrous. What started as the mysterious collapse of the PlayStation Network has turned into credit card fraud on a grand scale. Australian police have even gone so far as to warn PS3 users to call their banks. Before we knew personal information was at risk, Sony's handling of this epidemic was abysmal but expected. But now, millions of people are worried about their financial being, and Sony still has not publicly commented. With the story receiving worldwide news coverage, Sony's reputation has been kicked, punched, stabbed and thrown in the ditch. Even if this problem isn't the company's fault, it is purely irresponsible for Sony not to be transparent about the situation. Therefore, with Sony's tarnished reputation and the security of their service in question, what happens next?
First and foremost, to gain some respect back among us gamers, Sony needs to apologize to all affected and reimburse them in some way. These people trusted Sony to protect their private information and the company has an obligation to pay everyone back. All Sony has done for PR is update the PS blog, and not come out publicly to face scrutiny. This is completely undermining the severity of the issue. Sony needs to reengage the PS3 community and firmly state they are doing anything possible to curtail more information leaking out to the parties responsible.
The industry is fiercely competitive, and when a major competitor falters in any way, someone will capitalize. Microsoft is smiling big right now. This disruption is bound to cause an uptick in Xbox Live traffic, and the company has said they expect as such. The distrust for Sony gamers is palpable and could many loyal fanboys switch over to the mortal enemy? Probably, but only for the time being. If Sony continuously works on updating the service, or closes the community off like Microsoft has, the legions of fanboys will run back. One thing Sony has going for it this year is the fantastic lineup of high-profile games.
Speaking of that lineup of games, if this hacking problem persists, sales would obviously be affected. And right now, small developers are wetting themselves because the loss of a week is substantial sales down the drain. Sony has pledged to give arcade games a boost once the PSN is back online, but what good could that do. The Easter weekend has come and gone, and gamers don't need a fix to pass the time anymore. The next big weekend isn't for a month or so, so great timing Sony!
The hackers responsible are patting themselves on the back right now, relentless in the fight to persecute Sony on GeoHotz's behalf. Or this could be some crazy lunatic taking advantage of the ongoing fight with Anonymous to make a quick buck. We'll never know for sure. But one thing we do know is Sony needs a better PR department.
First and foremost, to gain some respect back among us gamers, Sony needs to apologize to all affected and reimburse them in some way. These people trusted Sony to protect their private information and the company has an obligation to pay everyone back. All Sony has done for PR is update the PS blog, and not come out publicly to face scrutiny. This is completely undermining the severity of the issue. Sony needs to reengage the PS3 community and firmly state they are doing anything possible to curtail more information leaking out to the parties responsible.
The industry is fiercely competitive, and when a major competitor falters in any way, someone will capitalize. Microsoft is smiling big right now. This disruption is bound to cause an uptick in Xbox Live traffic, and the company has said they expect as such. The distrust for Sony gamers is palpable and could many loyal fanboys switch over to the mortal enemy? Probably, but only for the time being. If Sony continuously works on updating the service, or closes the community off like Microsoft has, the legions of fanboys will run back. One thing Sony has going for it this year is the fantastic lineup of high-profile games.
Speaking of that lineup of games, if this hacking problem persists, sales would obviously be affected. And right now, small developers are wetting themselves because the loss of a week is substantial sales down the drain. Sony has pledged to give arcade games a boost once the PSN is back online, but what good could that do. The Easter weekend has come and gone, and gamers don't need a fix to pass the time anymore. The next big weekend isn't for a month or so, so great timing Sony!
The hackers responsible are patting themselves on the back right now, relentless in the fight to persecute Sony on GeoHotz's behalf. Or this could be some crazy lunatic taking advantage of the ongoing fight with Anonymous to make a quick buck. We'll never know for sure. But one thing we do know is Sony needs a better PR department.
April 24, 2011
A Dire Situation for Sony?
A topic that has become one of the most popular searches on Google, the PlayStation Network being down is front-and-center among gamers right now. Usually the PSN going down is nothing new, or even newsworthy, but this case is extraordinary. Sony's online service has been down since Wednesday morning, and will last a week with the way things are going. Many have said the ongoing fight with Anonymous is to blame, but the internet group has denied involvement, although Sony has said the network being down is from an "external source". The company refuses to say anything more about the situation and PS3 fans everywhere are calling for answers.
There is a bit of irony here on Sony's part. They have purposely publicized Anonymous' doing to show other hackers who is boss, yet they refuse to publicly state why the network is down. Sadly, we don't know who is at fault because Sony hasn't told us anything. Saying this is an act from an "external source" is indefensibly vague, and although I may disagree with how Anonymous handled the situation, Sony is handling it even worse.
Sony doesn't realize the effect of having their service down for an extended period of time. There are a lot of developers out there who rely on the free service, and these past four days means a potential loss in sales. Especially for those companies who released games recently hoping to bank on the extended Easter weekend. Also the three major releases this week are affected because SOCOM 4, Portal 2 and Mortal Kombat aren't being played to their full potential. The SOCOM franchise is renowned for its multiplayer, fighting games like Mortal Kombat play better on PS3, and Sony fanboys barely had any time to experience the co-op of Portal 2. Steam accessibility on the console is a great idea, but completely useless if PSN is down.
What Sony does next could hurt or help your reputation greatly. Just give us what the real issue is, not some corporate bullshit, and you can seek forgiveness. Get the damn service up, would you?
There is a bit of irony here on Sony's part. They have purposely publicized Anonymous' doing to show other hackers who is boss, yet they refuse to publicly state why the network is down. Sadly, we don't know who is at fault because Sony hasn't told us anything. Saying this is an act from an "external source" is indefensibly vague, and although I may disagree with how Anonymous handled the situation, Sony is handling it even worse.
Sony doesn't realize the effect of having their service down for an extended period of time. There are a lot of developers out there who rely on the free service, and these past four days means a potential loss in sales. Especially for those companies who released games recently hoping to bank on the extended Easter weekend. Also the three major releases this week are affected because SOCOM 4, Portal 2 and Mortal Kombat aren't being played to their full potential. The SOCOM franchise is renowned for its multiplayer, fighting games like Mortal Kombat play better on PS3, and Sony fanboys barely had any time to experience the co-op of Portal 2. Steam accessibility on the console is a great idea, but completely useless if PSN is down.
What Sony does next could hurt or help your reputation greatly. Just give us what the real issue is, not some corporate bullshit, and you can seek forgiveness. Get the damn service up, would you?
The Wii and Project Cafe Could Co-exist
All this hoopla (what an awesome word) surrounding "Project Cafe" has me enticed but skeptical. Everyone has labeled it the Wii 2, but what if that is entirely wrong? It wouldn't be so outlandish to think Nintendo still believes the Wii has some life left. Even with slowing sales and the rapid growth of Kinect, the Wii can still co-exist as a viable option. Nintendo just had the wrong marketing plan. They put out too many gadgets too fast, capitalizing on the hype, and now the company is in a strenuous position. When a developer releases a new console it's a last resort scenario. But I firmly believe the Wii still has some fervor left. So, hypothetically speaking, what if Project Cafe is still something entirely different?
I'm not so good at the hypothetical situations. Coming from a journalism background, I prefer to deal with hard facts; I once heard a crackhead in Downtown Toronto go on for a good half-an-hour about "dabbling with the paranormal" (referring to what the future holds) and so that's what I'll call what I'm doing.
When the Wii was first speculated, everyone was thrown off. The weird looking controller, the size of the system and other variables really took us for a spin. Back then we didn't think the Wii would revitalize the dying brand of Nintendo and usher in a new era of gaming. You see, any gaming fan knows what the Wii did for Nintendo's reputation with the hardcore, so what if Project Cafe is the developer's way of reimbursing the hardcore for the lost years with the Wii? Going by the persistent rumours, I'd say it is. With that being said, why couldn't Nintendo have the Wii for the casual audience and their new console for the hardcore? The two consoles can co-exist if marketed correctly, and it could give Nintendo the jump necessary to gain a bigger foothold than Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo has a pool of money sitting around somewhere to invest in such an ambitious project, and this would be an effective way to use it.
Project Cafe (now rumoured to be called "Stream") will likely have some sort of motion control attachment, but that doesn't mean the Wii is done. The Wii still has strength left, and I'm surprised Nintendo is scrambling to release a new console early. Since Sony and Microsoft seem to think this generation is still profitable, maybe Nintendo is trying to take the lead? Start the next generation early and leave their competitors to duke it out. It's an interesting idea, and one that certainly makes sense on paper, but how it will apply to gamers has yet to be determined. Sales of the Wii will persist over the next couple years and the console will turn into the next PS2. A console that still manages to sale great numbers years past its prime. There are companies still making current generation ports for the PS2. The WWE lineup has been infamous for that.
The two consoles could co-exist if Nintendo really wanted things that way. Just saying.
I'm not so good at the hypothetical situations. Coming from a journalism background, I prefer to deal with hard facts; I once heard a crackhead in Downtown Toronto go on for a good half-an-hour about "dabbling with the paranormal" (referring to what the future holds) and so that's what I'll call what I'm doing.
When the Wii was first speculated, everyone was thrown off. The weird looking controller, the size of the system and other variables really took us for a spin. Back then we didn't think the Wii would revitalize the dying brand of Nintendo and usher in a new era of gaming. You see, any gaming fan knows what the Wii did for Nintendo's reputation with the hardcore, so what if Project Cafe is the developer's way of reimbursing the hardcore for the lost years with the Wii? Going by the persistent rumours, I'd say it is. With that being said, why couldn't Nintendo have the Wii for the casual audience and their new console for the hardcore? The two consoles can co-exist if marketed correctly, and it could give Nintendo the jump necessary to gain a bigger foothold than Sony or Microsoft. Nintendo has a pool of money sitting around somewhere to invest in such an ambitious project, and this would be an effective way to use it.
Project Cafe (now rumoured to be called "Stream") will likely have some sort of motion control attachment, but that doesn't mean the Wii is done. The Wii still has strength left, and I'm surprised Nintendo is scrambling to release a new console early. Since Sony and Microsoft seem to think this generation is still profitable, maybe Nintendo is trying to take the lead? Start the next generation early and leave their competitors to duke it out. It's an interesting idea, and one that certainly makes sense on paper, but how it will apply to gamers has yet to be determined. Sales of the Wii will persist over the next couple years and the console will turn into the next PS2. A console that still manages to sale great numbers years past its prime. There are companies still making current generation ports for the PS2. The WWE lineup has been infamous for that.
The two consoles could co-exist if Nintendo really wanted things that way. Just saying.
Woah! I Can See Myself Through The Wall! - Portal 2 Review
There was a change of plan. Originally I wanted to tackle Mortal Kombat first and Portal 2 after, but the place I rent from didn't have MK in stock. I guess the order doesn't really matter. Anyway, on to the review!
What has two holes and can last you seven hours? That statement can lead to some interesting answers, but the answer I was looking for is Portal 2. Yes, the sequel to Chell's adventure through the testing facilities of Aperture Science has hit part two. It has become the highest-rated game so far this year and I couldn't agree more. For those unfamiliar with Portal, spoilers are ahead.
After the demise of GLaDOS in the first game, the very mute Chell (a fact mocked in the campaign) mysteriously finds herself back in the Enrichment Center, to go through even more tests. Wheatley, a loose personality core awoke at the end of Portal, desires to detach himself from the facility, but he was told if he did he would die. He wakes up Chell from stasis to catch him, and the two make a bid for escaping.
Within the confines of scientific discovery, amidst all the diabolical plans of world domination and the skeletons of lost test subjects, simple is as simple does. Two holes to carefully manipulate the surroundings to get from point A to point B. The concept sounds painfully easy, but the execution is complicated. Some of the puzzles later on took me almost half-an-hour to figure out, and I'll admit I was forced to turn to video sharing sites for additional help. The puzzles are ingeniously thought out, almost works of art, and the new obstacles to overcome are creative and work well.
The puzzles are exemplary, but what really shines are the characters and voice acting. In typical fashion, the voice acting is stellar, and gives these robots a shred of humanity. The robotic bickering in the latter half of the campaign between GLaDOS and Wheatley is hilarious, with GLaDOS repeatedly mocking Wheatley by calling him a "moron". It's evident Valve took as much time in crafting perfect dialogue alongside perfect gameplay, and it makes the game that much more enjoyable to play. The writers at Valve are some funny bastards.
One of the only complaints about Portal was the lack of co-op, and Portal 2 answers those calls. In what is a complete separate adventure, you play as P-body and Atlas (referred to as Blue and Orange by GLaDOS), two robots seen sporadically in the single player campaign. GLaDOS acts as the derogatory referee in what is a splendid experience, testing both players' smarts. The addition of co-op completes what is an amazing package and does give you full value for the purchase.
No game can go without faults, however, and Portal 2 has two very noticeable ones. First, the constant loading screens is more of a minor annoyance; the levels load fast, but Portal 2 could have done without them. Second, the game can be repetitive at times. Most of the puzzles are majorly different, but those with a short attention span will get bored quickly. Previous Portal fans know exactly what to expect. These don't hinder the gaming experience at all - I am only nitpicking.
Cleverly simple yet delightfully complex, Portal is one of the best paradoxes in recent gaming history. How could something so simple like two portals be made into one of the great franchises of our time? Only the guys at Valve could pull it off. Don't miss this one. Best game so far this year, bar none.
It was really fun playing through Portal 2. I had a friend over who is significantly better at puzzle games than I am, and even he had trouble at parts! Let's hope the rental place has Mortal Kombat so I can start committing some fatalities. Bring on the gore!
What has two holes and can last you seven hours? That statement can lead to some interesting answers, but the answer I was looking for is Portal 2. Yes, the sequel to Chell's adventure through the testing facilities of Aperture Science has hit part two. It has become the highest-rated game so far this year and I couldn't agree more. For those unfamiliar with Portal, spoilers are ahead.
After the demise of GLaDOS in the first game, the very mute Chell (a fact mocked in the campaign) mysteriously finds herself back in the Enrichment Center, to go through even more tests. Wheatley, a loose personality core awoke at the end of Portal, desires to detach himself from the facility, but he was told if he did he would die. He wakes up Chell from stasis to catch him, and the two make a bid for escaping.
Within the confines of scientific discovery, amidst all the diabolical plans of world domination and the skeletons of lost test subjects, simple is as simple does. Two holes to carefully manipulate the surroundings to get from point A to point B. The concept sounds painfully easy, but the execution is complicated. Some of the puzzles later on took me almost half-an-hour to figure out, and I'll admit I was forced to turn to video sharing sites for additional help. The puzzles are ingeniously thought out, almost works of art, and the new obstacles to overcome are creative and work well.
The puzzles are exemplary, but what really shines are the characters and voice acting. In typical fashion, the voice acting is stellar, and gives these robots a shred of humanity. The robotic bickering in the latter half of the campaign between GLaDOS and Wheatley is hilarious, with GLaDOS repeatedly mocking Wheatley by calling him a "moron". It's evident Valve took as much time in crafting perfect dialogue alongside perfect gameplay, and it makes the game that much more enjoyable to play. The writers at Valve are some funny bastards.
One of the only complaints about Portal was the lack of co-op, and Portal 2 answers those calls. In what is a complete separate adventure, you play as P-body and Atlas (referred to as Blue and Orange by GLaDOS), two robots seen sporadically in the single player campaign. GLaDOS acts as the derogatory referee in what is a splendid experience, testing both players' smarts. The addition of co-op completes what is an amazing package and does give you full value for the purchase.
No game can go without faults, however, and Portal 2 has two very noticeable ones. First, the constant loading screens is more of a minor annoyance; the levels load fast, but Portal 2 could have done without them. Second, the game can be repetitive at times. Most of the puzzles are majorly different, but those with a short attention span will get bored quickly. Previous Portal fans know exactly what to expect. These don't hinder the gaming experience at all - I am only nitpicking.
Cleverly simple yet delightfully complex, Portal is one of the best paradoxes in recent gaming history. How could something so simple like two portals be made into one of the great franchises of our time? Only the guys at Valve could pull it off. Don't miss this one. Best game so far this year, bar none.
It was really fun playing through Portal 2. I had a friend over who is significantly better at puzzle games than I am, and even he had trouble at parts! Let's hope the rental place has Mortal Kombat so I can start committing some fatalities. Bring on the gore!
April 21, 2011
Where Does the Military FPS Go From Here?
The tiresome mess of first-person shooters out there is a sheer sign of how times are, both in the gaming and real world. The Justin Bieber of video games (beloved yet popularly hated), Call of Duty, has redefined a genre focusing on quick and easily accessible multiplayer, instead of the cinematic single player experience. The prevalence of Call of Duty has elevated expectations for competitors in the genre, and frankly, most don't match up. Other developers twist, turn, bend and break the mold of what defines the FPS experience, and although games like Homefront employ cool variations, they just get tossed in the mess like the rest.
Many say Black Ops will be the pinnacle of sales for the franchise, and Modern Warfare 3 will begin its downfall. Hell, Activision itself even called Call of Duty "the new Guitar Hero". It's an accurate depiction of how things are going. Though I really don't see Activision killing off Call of Duty anytime soon. The games will always be hugely popular as long as the FPS continues to exist. But beyond sales, Activision was right about something else: Call of Duty has arguably defined the genre like Guitar Hero did for music simulation games. Before Guitar Hero, there wasn't really a big franchise on the market. First-person shooters existed before Call of Duty, yeah, but those games went after the single-player experience, not banking on the upcoming success of multiplayer. I'll get some scrutiny for that last statement, but it's true when you think about it. Quake betrothed the gaming world with the idea of fun, highly competitive multiplayer, but Call of Duty took that idea to the next level and made it marketable. Not just playable for the hardcore audience, but for everyone to enjoy.
That being said, the declination of Call of Duty will leave a void needing to be filled. Since multiplayer has been conquered, mastered and sent off to slaughter, what is next for the genre? Well, judging from what we've seen from the masterful guys over at DICE, Battlefield 3 is putting a large emphasis on graphics and realism. The annual releases of Call of Duty haven't given studios enough time to make the games truly beautiful, but thankfully EA doesn't work to completely monetize a series. That valuable time has given DICE the chance to create a feast for the eyes. The gameplay we've seen so far has been universally described as gorgeous, and the realism shown with destructible environments and flowerpots exploding makes my eyes water. That focus on enhancing the experience makes me think that FPS' are headed toward the cinematic, where the aim is to try and draw in the player as much as possible. Make the player perfectly understand what war is like, basically what many movies have attempted and failed.
Then again, somewhere in this vast world, there is an ambitious studio with an idea that will knock socks off. I wish I could say who (maybe Respawn?), but a game will come along that will revolutionize the first-person shooter genre and take advantage of Call of Duty's destruction. It could be Battlefield mixing things up; Brink with the inventive S.M.A.R.T. system; Homefront 2 expanding on the Battle Points system; or the looming launch of Battiefront 3 (please gaming Gods, I pray to thee). Whatever it is, I cannot wait to wreak some havoc.
That was a fun post! I saw this on N4G and thought I'd give my two cents. Anyway, Mortal Kombat thoughts and eventually a review will be going up after the weekend. Giving myself some time to play through it before I give my review. Ciao!
Many say Black Ops will be the pinnacle of sales for the franchise, and Modern Warfare 3 will begin its downfall. Hell, Activision itself even called Call of Duty "the new Guitar Hero". It's an accurate depiction of how things are going. Though I really don't see Activision killing off Call of Duty anytime soon. The games will always be hugely popular as long as the FPS continues to exist. But beyond sales, Activision was right about something else: Call of Duty has arguably defined the genre like Guitar Hero did for music simulation games. Before Guitar Hero, there wasn't really a big franchise on the market. First-person shooters existed before Call of Duty, yeah, but those games went after the single-player experience, not banking on the upcoming success of multiplayer. I'll get some scrutiny for that last statement, but it's true when you think about it. Quake betrothed the gaming world with the idea of fun, highly competitive multiplayer, but Call of Duty took that idea to the next level and made it marketable. Not just playable for the hardcore audience, but for everyone to enjoy.
That being said, the declination of Call of Duty will leave a void needing to be filled. Since multiplayer has been conquered, mastered and sent off to slaughter, what is next for the genre? Well, judging from what we've seen from the masterful guys over at DICE, Battlefield 3 is putting a large emphasis on graphics and realism. The annual releases of Call of Duty haven't given studios enough time to make the games truly beautiful, but thankfully EA doesn't work to completely monetize a series. That valuable time has given DICE the chance to create a feast for the eyes. The gameplay we've seen so far has been universally described as gorgeous, and the realism shown with destructible environments and flowerpots exploding makes my eyes water. That focus on enhancing the experience makes me think that FPS' are headed toward the cinematic, where the aim is to try and draw in the player as much as possible. Make the player perfectly understand what war is like, basically what many movies have attempted and failed.
Then again, somewhere in this vast world, there is an ambitious studio with an idea that will knock socks off. I wish I could say who (maybe Respawn?), but a game will come along that will revolutionize the first-person shooter genre and take advantage of Call of Duty's destruction. It could be Battlefield mixing things up; Brink with the inventive S.M.A.R.T. system; Homefront 2 expanding on the Battle Points system; or the looming launch of Battiefront 3 (please gaming Gods, I pray to thee). Whatever it is, I cannot wait to wreak some havoc.
That was a fun post! I saw this on N4G and thought I'd give my two cents. Anyway, Mortal Kombat thoughts and eventually a review will be going up after the weekend. Giving myself some time to play through it before I give my review. Ciao!
April 20, 2011
Portal 2 User Reviews - Stop Being Such Babies
So... uhh... I am a little confused about something. My concern indirectly involves one of the two big games released yesterday. It's been a common trend ever since Metacritic gained prominence, and although user reviews might not play a big part in the decision to buy a game, it's still disconcerting. Immediately following the release of the highly-praised Portal 2, the Metacritic "user review" section was inundated in terrible reviews. Why such a disparity in opinion? Well the concerns weren't even with the game itself; the anger was directed at Valve, berating the great developer for releasing day-one DLC, and a message saying not to turn the console off when saving (on the PC version).
Portal 2 has received the highest average score of any game this year, and surpasses the original tenfold. GamesRadar even daringly called Portal the best game ever made. Portal 2 is better than the best game ever made. I get opinion is opinion; some people will ignore Portal 2 for not having enough content on launch, or the game's length, or some other mundane reason. But to blast a great game for something the developer has chosen to do is downright wrong. Take your objections up with Valve. Don't discourage people from buying a game on the developer's behaviour.
I'm not a big fan of day-one DLC either - hell, nobody is - but the content is there to serve a purpose. If the developer feels the downloadable content is to be released post-release, they have the right. It is abnormal for Valve to treat a game like this, but with the hype surrounding Portal 2 and the campaign Valve conjured up before its release, I'm not surprised they are taking advantage of the buzz. People will buy the content, and Valve hopefully put as much effort into the DLC puzzles as the puzzles including in-game. Valve made the highest quality game they feel they could, and any extra content is consuming more of their time. It's basic economics. There is a lot of potential with this franchise and I hope Valve continuously releases more to satiate its audience.
The other reason disgruntled gamers blasted Portal 2 was for a simple message, on the PC version, saying not to turn off the console when saving. It makes sense that PC gamers are fiercely defensive of their beloved platform, but is it so wrong to think Valve is starting to embrace the consoles? The consoles dominate the industry in sales numbers and profits. There's no reason Valve shouldn't put their games on consoles. Honestly, for PC gamers to find fault with a simple .txt message is immature. Enjoy your version of Portal 2; trust me, computer gaming is still Valve's main priority.
Speaking of big games released this week, I'll be renting Mortal Kombat tomorrow, giving it a whirl, and pick up Portal 2 next week. I hope a review isn't irrelevant by then. Anyway, I am off to start my new job. Ciao!
Portal 2 has received the highest average score of any game this year, and surpasses the original tenfold. GamesRadar even daringly called Portal the best game ever made. Portal 2 is better than the best game ever made. I get opinion is opinion; some people will ignore Portal 2 for not having enough content on launch, or the game's length, or some other mundane reason. But to blast a great game for something the developer has chosen to do is downright wrong. Take your objections up with Valve. Don't discourage people from buying a game on the developer's behaviour.
I'm not a big fan of day-one DLC either - hell, nobody is - but the content is there to serve a purpose. If the developer feels the downloadable content is to be released post-release, they have the right. It is abnormal for Valve to treat a game like this, but with the hype surrounding Portal 2 and the campaign Valve conjured up before its release, I'm not surprised they are taking advantage of the buzz. People will buy the content, and Valve hopefully put as much effort into the DLC puzzles as the puzzles including in-game. Valve made the highest quality game they feel they could, and any extra content is consuming more of their time. It's basic economics. There is a lot of potential with this franchise and I hope Valve continuously releases more to satiate its audience.
The other reason disgruntled gamers blasted Portal 2 was for a simple message, on the PC version, saying not to turn off the console when saving. It makes sense that PC gamers are fiercely defensive of their beloved platform, but is it so wrong to think Valve is starting to embrace the consoles? The consoles dominate the industry in sales numbers and profits. There's no reason Valve shouldn't put their games on consoles. Honestly, for PC gamers to find fault with a simple .txt message is immature. Enjoy your version of Portal 2; trust me, computer gaming is still Valve's main priority.
Speaking of big games released this week, I'll be renting Mortal Kombat tomorrow, giving it a whirl, and pick up Portal 2 next week. I hope a review isn't irrelevant by then. Anyway, I am off to start my new job. Ciao!
April 19, 2011
Apple, Sit Down and Shut Up
Apple's lawyer team has been busy. First Amazon sued the company for use of the term "App Store", saying it was too generic for a trademark, and now Apple is suing Samsung, saying the design for its Galaxy line of smartphones and tablets copies the iPhone and iPad. Interestingly, Samsung's lineup uses Google's Android open source service.
Apple's law team is one of the busiest in the industry, suing anyone and everyone. Does the company feel its lead in the smartphone market is threatened? I'm starting to think so. The iPhone began this whole smartphone revolution, and in turn, gave birth to the success of mobile gaming. The company has the right to sue any competitor who they feel is infringing, but does that really mean going after every other company in the tech field is appropriate? I fully comprehend how the industry works, each company vying for total supremacy in a mud-slinging wrestling match of ideas (how colourful!), and it does give us bloggers and enthusiasts something to chat about, but Apple is perpetuating its weaknesses by going after everyone else. By suing everyone and their sister, Apple is showing an anxious, apprehensive defensiveness to its lead in the smartphone market.
This court case could have a disastrous effect on the mobile gaming market. Android is the leading service for game downloads, and the Samsung smartphones are one of the major causes. If Apple is successful in their lawsuit, Samsung would be forced to redesign the phones and stop commissioning sales. The people not buying the phones are a potential loss in profitability for mobile game developers, but this is a stretch. But a small loss is still a loss. Android's market share is still substantial compared to other operating services, but developers will still feel some pinch.
I'll be writing more blogs about the smartphone market, and further exploring the impact this new industry has on the typical idea of gaming. It's a huge industry and its staggering growth is hard to ignore. Plus it is fun to delve into the psyche of smartphone users to see what is popular.
Apple's law team is one of the busiest in the industry, suing anyone and everyone. Does the company feel its lead in the smartphone market is threatened? I'm starting to think so. The iPhone began this whole smartphone revolution, and in turn, gave birth to the success of mobile gaming. The company has the right to sue any competitor who they feel is infringing, but does that really mean going after every other company in the tech field is appropriate? I fully comprehend how the industry works, each company vying for total supremacy in a mud-slinging wrestling match of ideas (how colourful!), and it does give us bloggers and enthusiasts something to chat about, but Apple is perpetuating its weaknesses by going after everyone else. By suing everyone and their sister, Apple is showing an anxious, apprehensive defensiveness to its lead in the smartphone market.
This court case could have a disastrous effect on the mobile gaming market. Android is the leading service for game downloads, and the Samsung smartphones are one of the major causes. If Apple is successful in their lawsuit, Samsung would be forced to redesign the phones and stop commissioning sales. The people not buying the phones are a potential loss in profitability for mobile game developers, but this is a stretch. But a small loss is still a loss. Android's market share is still substantial compared to other operating services, but developers will still feel some pinch.
I'll be writing more blogs about the smartphone market, and further exploring the impact this new industry has on the typical idea of gaming. It's a huge industry and its staggering growth is hard to ignore. Plus it is fun to delve into the psyche of smartphone users to see what is popular.
April 16, 2011
Project Cafe - Stupid Name, High Expectations
First broke by Game Informer, the outlets have been buzzing about a potential new Nintendo console to be announced this year at E3. I don't mean to spoil Nintendo's announcement, but it's not we didn't see it coming. Society's fascination with the Wii has slowed down considerably, and Kinect has made great strides to challenge Nintendo's crown.
The project, now questionably known as Project Cafe, has piqued my interest. But I do have my concerns. We don't even know what this thing is yet, and there's reports everywhere saying different things. "Project Cafe" is quite uncreative; the GameCube was known as "Project Dolphin" and the Wii was known as the "Revolution". Maybe Nintendo is just flipping through the dictionary and picking random names. At least I hope they are. If not they need to take lessons (if such classes exist) in the study of unannounced project code names.
Over the next couple weeks every website will be spitting out articles titled "What We Want to See!" and most will say the same things (mainly those not included on the Wii). High definition capability, blu-ray, a significant increase graphically, a proper controller, and an awesome games lineup. A dream wish list; we realize Nintendo won't be able to fulfill every wish we have, but the prospect is still there to conceive a dream console.
Some details have already leaked: the controller will have a six-inch screen, and everything shown on the TV can stream on the controller. Could this mean a portable controller? One that can save data on it, and can be accessed at any point, from any console? Or one we could actually watch TV on? That last part would be undoubtedly awesome, and would seemingly act like a smartphone. Maybe an app store is in the works?
The possibilities really don't matter unless Nintendo can embrace the online revolution. Competitive multiplayer has become the norm these days, and for the leading gaming company to not have a workable online system is irresponsible. The casual audience can't carry a company forever. I pray Nintendo can get things in gear, bring back motion control and make it tolerable for both audiences, and get rid of the damn friend codes. A ridiculousness of friend codes is incomparable and has undermined the true potential of the console. Get rid of codes and add actual accounts, and you'll win us back Nintendo.
Several reports have claimed the new technology will become graphics king. I highly doubt this for two reasons. First, for Nintendo to have developed technology to overshadow the PS3 in power, that would be costly. Nintendo has an impressive history of releasing consoles cheaply, and tech like that would go against that ideal. Second, I don't think Nintendo's ambition is to make a graphical powerhouse. Further information is needed before we can see what their plans are, but their priority will surely be continuing the massive success of motion control. The casual audience's response will have a huge impact on sales and Nintendo's last wish is to alienate that audience. Finding the right balance between graphics and motion control is essential for the project's success, but it's Nintendo so they know what they are doing.
If this console truly is a successor to the Wii, it has one hell of a reputation to live up to. The Wii changed the way the world sees our beloved hobby, but I have faith in the leading gaming company to innovate. The console is expected to ship in late 2012. June has gotten fun already.
The project, now questionably known as Project Cafe, has piqued my interest. But I do have my concerns. We don't even know what this thing is yet, and there's reports everywhere saying different things. "Project Cafe" is quite uncreative; the GameCube was known as "Project Dolphin" and the Wii was known as the "Revolution". Maybe Nintendo is just flipping through the dictionary and picking random names. At least I hope they are. If not they need to take lessons (if such classes exist) in the study of unannounced project code names.
Over the next couple weeks every website will be spitting out articles titled "What We Want to See!" and most will say the same things (mainly those not included on the Wii). High definition capability, blu-ray, a significant increase graphically, a proper controller, and an awesome games lineup. A dream wish list; we realize Nintendo won't be able to fulfill every wish we have, but the prospect is still there to conceive a dream console.
Some details have already leaked: the controller will have a six-inch screen, and everything shown on the TV can stream on the controller. Could this mean a portable controller? One that can save data on it, and can be accessed at any point, from any console? Or one we could actually watch TV on? That last part would be undoubtedly awesome, and would seemingly act like a smartphone. Maybe an app store is in the works?
The possibilities really don't matter unless Nintendo can embrace the online revolution. Competitive multiplayer has become the norm these days, and for the leading gaming company to not have a workable online system is irresponsible. The casual audience can't carry a company forever. I pray Nintendo can get things in gear, bring back motion control and make it tolerable for both audiences, and get rid of the damn friend codes. A ridiculousness of friend codes is incomparable and has undermined the true potential of the console. Get rid of codes and add actual accounts, and you'll win us back Nintendo.
Several reports have claimed the new technology will become graphics king. I highly doubt this for two reasons. First, for Nintendo to have developed technology to overshadow the PS3 in power, that would be costly. Nintendo has an impressive history of releasing consoles cheaply, and tech like that would go against that ideal. Second, I don't think Nintendo's ambition is to make a graphical powerhouse. Further information is needed before we can see what their plans are, but their priority will surely be continuing the massive success of motion control. The casual audience's response will have a huge impact on sales and Nintendo's last wish is to alienate that audience. Finding the right balance between graphics and motion control is essential for the project's success, but it's Nintendo so they know what they are doing.
If this console truly is a successor to the Wii, it has one hell of a reputation to live up to. The Wii changed the way the world sees our beloved hobby, but I have faith in the leading gaming company to innovate. The console is expected to ship in late 2012. June has gotten fun already.
April 13, 2011
Concerns About Video Game Journalism
Video game journalism is a relatively new industry, only existing for about 15 years. Two decades (I round up) does seem like a long time, or maybe my brain has been fried from playing video games for almost that long. Gaming journalism has only existed for as long as the Internet has, to put things into perspective. And I hate the way things are right now.
I can understand that gaming is a niche market. The specificity of focusing on video games makes reporting on major news difficult, and often video game outlets have to get creative. The creativity is great because it allows us to interview developers and publishers (who mostly are obliged), and get talking about the serious issues affecting the industry. And that is what readers want to read. Developers are at the heart of what we love to do, they man the battle trenches if you will, and their perspective is most important. While developers are more about making games for the love of making games, publishers are unwilling to talk to media because they are all about business. Companies like Activision care about profitability, examples being the termination of Guitar Hero and the yearly release of Call of Duty. Their perspective might not be as important, but I wish publishers would be more willing to talk to us. Gaming is a massive industry and as journalists it's our responsibility to explore every corner. That includes sales, budgets, loss of jobs; the boring stuff, but albeit necessary for the industry to survive.
Seemingly, there are studios started up every day. The rise of social gaming has created a platform for small studios (five people or less) to put out cheap, enjoyable games for a hungry audience. Every one of these studios is aiming to be the next Roxio - have the next Angry Birds - and make millions of dollars. And, unfortunately, this new wave of studios isn't talked about much in the mainstream gaming media. Instead we hear about screenshots and corporate bosses ripping competitors apart. Corporate banter and pictures of games aren't news, and why outlets think its necessary to make articles about these topics is just a waste of time. A great example would be the facial animation of L.A. Noire. I'd rather see a video demonstrating how Rockstar went about creating the ingenious technology, seeing it in action; not measly pictures which show nothing. If I had the resources, I would talk to as many reputable studios as possible. Get their invaluable insight on the daunting process of making indie games, and how to improve that process. And it would be fun to learn all that. I know little about social gaming, and the best way to learn is go directly to the source.
For online outlets this isn't a major issue, but could present an issue in a future. The issue concerns magazines, especially those claimed to be "official". Every platform has its own magazine which previews and reviews its own games, and obviously there's a question of bias. Sometimes, though now a rarer practice, publishers would withhold advertising from these magazines unless the reviews are positive. Regulating this is extremely difficult and ultimately lowers the credibility of both publisher and publication.
Another major concern is the amount of time reviewers spend with a game. Gaming sites only have two/three days between receiving a game and when the review is meant to go live, and games with long playthroughs (RPGs, MMOs) don't get the care necessary to properly grade the game. You can't beat a fifty hour game in less than half a week and then write a comprehensive review for it. That's just not possible. Film reviewers have it easier. Lucky bastards.
We'll probably never find solutions to all these predicaments, and I really do wish I had some answers. But gaming journalism is stuck in a flux where all the attention is on the big-name, "triple-A" titles and little is given to smaller studios. News outlets are the best source of exposure for these small studios, and if a great game comes out that's cheap, I want to be acquainted. It's nice because smartphone games are easy to review. Most have a simple but extremely addictive gimmick and are easy to tailor an opinion for. Therefore, more news on social gaming please. :D
I can understand that gaming is a niche market. The specificity of focusing on video games makes reporting on major news difficult, and often video game outlets have to get creative. The creativity is great because it allows us to interview developers and publishers (who mostly are obliged), and get talking about the serious issues affecting the industry. And that is what readers want to read. Developers are at the heart of what we love to do, they man the battle trenches if you will, and their perspective is most important. While developers are more about making games for the love of making games, publishers are unwilling to talk to media because they are all about business. Companies like Activision care about profitability, examples being the termination of Guitar Hero and the yearly release of Call of Duty. Their perspective might not be as important, but I wish publishers would be more willing to talk to us. Gaming is a massive industry and as journalists it's our responsibility to explore every corner. That includes sales, budgets, loss of jobs; the boring stuff, but albeit necessary for the industry to survive.
Seemingly, there are studios started up every day. The rise of social gaming has created a platform for small studios (five people or less) to put out cheap, enjoyable games for a hungry audience. Every one of these studios is aiming to be the next Roxio - have the next Angry Birds - and make millions of dollars. And, unfortunately, this new wave of studios isn't talked about much in the mainstream gaming media. Instead we hear about screenshots and corporate bosses ripping competitors apart. Corporate banter and pictures of games aren't news, and why outlets think its necessary to make articles about these topics is just a waste of time. A great example would be the facial animation of L.A. Noire. I'd rather see a video demonstrating how Rockstar went about creating the ingenious technology, seeing it in action; not measly pictures which show nothing. If I had the resources, I would talk to as many reputable studios as possible. Get their invaluable insight on the daunting process of making indie games, and how to improve that process. And it would be fun to learn all that. I know little about social gaming, and the best way to learn is go directly to the source.
For online outlets this isn't a major issue, but could present an issue in a future. The issue concerns magazines, especially those claimed to be "official". Every platform has its own magazine which previews and reviews its own games, and obviously there's a question of bias. Sometimes, though now a rarer practice, publishers would withhold advertising from these magazines unless the reviews are positive. Regulating this is extremely difficult and ultimately lowers the credibility of both publisher and publication.
Another major concern is the amount of time reviewers spend with a game. Gaming sites only have two/three days between receiving a game and when the review is meant to go live, and games with long playthroughs (RPGs, MMOs) don't get the care necessary to properly grade the game. You can't beat a fifty hour game in less than half a week and then write a comprehensive review for it. That's just not possible. Film reviewers have it easier. Lucky bastards.
We'll probably never find solutions to all these predicaments, and I really do wish I had some answers. But gaming journalism is stuck in a flux where all the attention is on the big-name, "triple-A" titles and little is given to smaller studios. News outlets are the best source of exposure for these small studios, and if a great game comes out that's cheap, I want to be acquainted. It's nice because smartphone games are easy to review. Most have a simple but extremely addictive gimmick and are easy to tailor an opinion for. Therefore, more news on social gaming please. :D
April 12, 2011
A Little Update About Me!
Today has been a great day! First I get 1000 page views on this blog, and now I am going to be writing for theGamerbuzz.com! Please check out the site out. The guys are cool.
I'll be writing news articles frequently but also social commentary on the industry twice a week. Sort of what I do on the blog here but in a more limited fashion. Anything I won't post on the site will be going on here, so please check both if you like my stuff. Check out thegamerbuzz.com anyway. The head honchos are in the process of redesigning some stuff about the site, they just started posting a podcast, and I hope they consider posting BelowRadar (belowradarpodcast.podbean.com) as well!
Again, I'd like to thank everyone for viewing my blog. Whether on a whim or anxiously rechecking for a new post, I really do appreciate the support.
I'll be writing news articles frequently but also social commentary on the industry twice a week. Sort of what I do on the blog here but in a more limited fashion. Anything I won't post on the site will be going on here, so please check both if you like my stuff. Check out thegamerbuzz.com anyway. The head honchos are in the process of redesigning some stuff about the site, they just started posting a podcast, and I hope they consider posting BelowRadar (belowradarpodcast.podbean.com) as well!
Again, I'd like to thank everyone for viewing my blog. Whether on a whim or anxiously rechecking for a new post, I really do appreciate the support.
April 11, 2011
A Mass Effect MMO?
When I read the headline, I got a tingling down my spine. Does this mean there is life for the franchise after Mass Effect 3? Bioware would be mad not to capitalize on its wild popular space-faring franchise, and the universe is the perfect setting for a massive online game. There's hundreds of worlds to explore, dozens of races to play, and already six classes established. It actually makes me suspicious of Bioware for gearing up for an MMO anyway, maximizing on the success and reputation of a trilogy.
The scenario for an MMO has already been set up. The Reaper threat is done, and post-Reaper life is a time of rebuilding, redeveloping relationships among the Citadel races, and tackling bandits hellbent on demoralizing helpless citizens. It's the perfect time for heroics, and antagonism, and I'd like to see how the citizens live everyday life without a looming threat. Most races are portrayed as both Citadel citizens and space pirates, so there won't be any faction restrictions. It'd be easy - in typical Mass Effect fashion, a series of questions are asked and depending on your answers, you are sifted off to one or the other.
The most inviting aspect is the sci-fi setting. The huge, unrivaled success of World of Warcraft and the fantasy genre has fitted the MMO genre with the image of humans versus orcs, battling with swords and spells. An effective but tiresome setting for a game. A sci-fi universe would be a welcome change, and the viability of EVE Online proves such a game can be successful. Given the reputation of the franchise and of Bioware, and Bioware gaining experience currently on the The Old Republic, an MMO is bound to prosper.
Role-players would orgasm galore over the library of information shown in the Mass Effect games. Bioware took the careful time to craft a believable universe with an extensively complex history. Exploring that would be fun and engaging, and a wealthy source of potential quests and storylines. Not to let us discover our way through this would be a crime.
Mass Effect 3 won't have multiplayer, thankfully, and I don't want that to be the end of the franchise. Space as a setting in the genre hasn't been a triumph lately (Star Trek Online, Star Wars Galaxies) and Bioware getting their hands in there could solve things. The Old Republic is expected this year and I'll be using that as a gauge. Bioware, make it happen. Please.
The scenario for an MMO has already been set up. The Reaper threat is done, and post-Reaper life is a time of rebuilding, redeveloping relationships among the Citadel races, and tackling bandits hellbent on demoralizing helpless citizens. It's the perfect time for heroics, and antagonism, and I'd like to see how the citizens live everyday life without a looming threat. Most races are portrayed as both Citadel citizens and space pirates, so there won't be any faction restrictions. It'd be easy - in typical Mass Effect fashion, a series of questions are asked and depending on your answers, you are sifted off to one or the other.
The most inviting aspect is the sci-fi setting. The huge, unrivaled success of World of Warcraft and the fantasy genre has fitted the MMO genre with the image of humans versus orcs, battling with swords and spells. An effective but tiresome setting for a game. A sci-fi universe would be a welcome change, and the viability of EVE Online proves such a game can be successful. Given the reputation of the franchise and of Bioware, and Bioware gaining experience currently on the The Old Republic, an MMO is bound to prosper.
Role-players would orgasm galore over the library of information shown in the Mass Effect games. Bioware took the careful time to craft a believable universe with an extensively complex history. Exploring that would be fun and engaging, and a wealthy source of potential quests and storylines. Not to let us discover our way through this would be a crime.
Mass Effect 3 won't have multiplayer, thankfully, and I don't want that to be the end of the franchise. Space as a setting in the genre hasn't been a triumph lately (Star Trek Online, Star Wars Galaxies) and Bioware getting their hands in there could solve things. The Old Republic is expected this year and I'll be using that as a gauge. Bioware, make it happen. Please.
April 9, 2011
The First Mass Effect 3 Details
Before I give my thoughts on the first details of the highly, highly anticipated Mass Effect 3, I just gotta say two things. First, I never played through Crysis 2 substantially enough to fairly give the game a review. Second, I pre-ordered Gears of War 3 today so I'll be taking full advantage of the beta. Expect a lot of information on it - how it plays, my thoughts on the new characters and maps, and other cool stuff. :D
Mass Effect 3 can't come soon enough. The developers at Bioware are the masters of giving us great games, and are equally as good at starting the hype train for their games. With the first unveiling, however, they needed to be careful as what to divulge. Many fans have criticized the developer in the past for giving away too many spoilers before the game's release. The tidbits shown yesterday find that perfect balance. And make me want the game even more.
As shown in the first trailer, Mass Effect 3 will tackle the Reaper invasion of Earth; the wasteland of London is seen. The game will open with Shepherd on trial for the events that occur in the last DLC, Arrival. During the trial, the Reaper invasion will begin. Then, Shepherd escapes to the Normandy and goes off on another quest to recruit previous teammates. Liara, Ashley (with her hair down, interestingly enough)/Kaidan, Garrus and another man have been confirmed as characters. Could this new character, James Sanders, be the sniper seen in the trailer? Numerous endings have been confirmed, dependent on your squad mates and who you recruit as allies. The Illusive Man will play a big role, and Cerberus is out to kill Shepherd for some reason. Beefier RPG elements and unrestricted weapon choices for classes are a welcome change, and a comic precedes the events for those who haven't played the series.
The third iteration already sounds solid. The citizens of Earth haven't played a major role in the series yet, and I can't wait to see what Bioware envisions our planet looks like in the distant future. In Mass Effect, Earth is described as a decaying place with polluted metropolises and an urgent need to expand. London is confirmed, so what other places should be expected? New York, Tokyo, maybe my beloved Toronto? The possibilities are endless.
Now I have to start replaying both Mass Effects. I sense a gaming marathon!!!
Mass Effect 3 can't come soon enough. The developers at Bioware are the masters of giving us great games, and are equally as good at starting the hype train for their games. With the first unveiling, however, they needed to be careful as what to divulge. Many fans have criticized the developer in the past for giving away too many spoilers before the game's release. The tidbits shown yesterday find that perfect balance. And make me want the game even more.
As shown in the first trailer, Mass Effect 3 will tackle the Reaper invasion of Earth; the wasteland of London is seen. The game will open with Shepherd on trial for the events that occur in the last DLC, Arrival. During the trial, the Reaper invasion will begin. Then, Shepherd escapes to the Normandy and goes off on another quest to recruit previous teammates. Liara, Ashley (with her hair down, interestingly enough)/Kaidan, Garrus and another man have been confirmed as characters. Could this new character, James Sanders, be the sniper seen in the trailer? Numerous endings have been confirmed, dependent on your squad mates and who you recruit as allies. The Illusive Man will play a big role, and Cerberus is out to kill Shepherd for some reason. Beefier RPG elements and unrestricted weapon choices for classes are a welcome change, and a comic precedes the events for those who haven't played the series.
The third iteration already sounds solid. The citizens of Earth haven't played a major role in the series yet, and I can't wait to see what Bioware envisions our planet looks like in the distant future. In Mass Effect, Earth is described as a decaying place with polluted metropolises and an urgent need to expand. London is confirmed, so what other places should be expected? New York, Tokyo, maybe my beloved Toronto? The possibilities are endless.
Now I have to start replaying both Mass Effects. I sense a gaming marathon!!!
Free-to-play on The 360?
Within the hour, I read a rather interesting article on IGN detailing what a "trusted source" said. The source claims that free-to-play games will be hitting the Xbox Live marketplace early next year. This is a welcome change, given how protective Microsoft is of their gaming service. Square Enix tried to bring their MMOs to the service, but retracted their offer when Microsoft wanted a huge chunk of the profits. So why the sudden change in attitude?
This is actually a smart move from Microsoft. There has been a lot of industry chatter regarding what Microsoft has planned this year, and this is a major indication. While Sony is going after the hardcore with stellar titles, Microsoft is transforming its gaming box into an outlet for the casual gamer. In doing so, the console faces a mob of disdainful gamers. Or, maybe this is Microsoft's way of making up for the awesomeness of 1 vs. 100 Live. If the number of players of 1 vs. 100 Live is any indication, I believe this service could be massively successful.
Silver members will be shafted of course, but it's a nice alternative for those gold members who don't like the current catalog of games. On the contrary, however, I hope the lineup of "free" games coming out isn't incredibly hindered by the in-game store. And also, I don't want to get littered with fucking invites from FarmVille or any other stupid Facebook games.
Have we been given an incline into the future of Xbox Live? Like everything, this idea has its benefits and downfalls. Microsoft is hugely banking on the casual audience to push through, but hopefully they give us hardcore gamers like games that were immensely enjoyable. I'd play Jeopardy Live.
This is actually a smart move from Microsoft. There has been a lot of industry chatter regarding what Microsoft has planned this year, and this is a major indication. While Sony is going after the hardcore with stellar titles, Microsoft is transforming its gaming box into an outlet for the casual gamer. In doing so, the console faces a mob of disdainful gamers. Or, maybe this is Microsoft's way of making up for the awesomeness of 1 vs. 100 Live. If the number of players of 1 vs. 100 Live is any indication, I believe this service could be massively successful.
Silver members will be shafted of course, but it's a nice alternative for those gold members who don't like the current catalog of games. On the contrary, however, I hope the lineup of "free" games coming out isn't incredibly hindered by the in-game store. And also, I don't want to get littered with fucking invites from FarmVille or any other stupid Facebook games.
Have we been given an incline into the future of Xbox Live? Like everything, this idea has its benefits and downfalls. Microsoft is hugely banking on the casual audience to push through, but hopefully they give us hardcore gamers like games that were immensely enjoyable. I'd play Jeopardy Live.
April 8, 2011
Can Kinect Grow Up Already?
Last year we learned about Rise of Nightmares, a mysterious game coming out for Kinect. Beyond that, nothing else was revealed. Simply, a name. But the name was all we needed - it gave us insight into what Microsoft had planned for its new peripheral. Once this game came around, we learned Microsoft was ready to rid Kinect of its innocent reputation to embrace the hardcore audience. That being said, is Rise of Nightmares the turnaround gamers are looking for so we can blow off the dust on our Kinects?
E3 is quickly approaching and the Xbox is in dire straits. Everyone I've talked to, and many sites out there, predict the PS3 will win in 2011 and eventually overtake Microsoft's console. In the current era I previously thought Microsoft's slim lead would stay for the rest of this generation, but the bleak exclusive lineup may jeopardize that lead. E3 will be a defining moment in the console war, making motion control relevant for the first time. If Microsoft can capitalize on the ten million units sold and give gamers incentive to actually buy the damn thing, they would be sitting pretty.
With Kinect finally maturing (in a sense), I am excited to see what Microsoft has up their sleeve. I don't own a Kinect, but I would be inclined to buy one. As a big Gears fan, the speculated Kinect spin-off intrigues me. And the potential for other major franchises is there as well, as long as Microsoft can find a good balance between the hardcore and casual audiences. I believe the companies think those two audiences are melding - I hate to inform them but that's far from true!
I really do hate the waiting. We can talk about announcements all day, but June will be here before we know it.
E3 is quickly approaching and the Xbox is in dire straits. Everyone I've talked to, and many sites out there, predict the PS3 will win in 2011 and eventually overtake Microsoft's console. In the current era I previously thought Microsoft's slim lead would stay for the rest of this generation, but the bleak exclusive lineup may jeopardize that lead. E3 will be a defining moment in the console war, making motion control relevant for the first time. If Microsoft can capitalize on the ten million units sold and give gamers incentive to actually buy the damn thing, they would be sitting pretty.
With Kinect finally maturing (in a sense), I am excited to see what Microsoft has up their sleeve. I don't own a Kinect, but I would be inclined to buy one. As a big Gears fan, the speculated Kinect spin-off intrigues me. And the potential for other major franchises is there as well, as long as Microsoft can find a good balance between the hardcore and casual audiences. I believe the companies think those two audiences are melding - I hate to inform them but that's far from true!
I really do hate the waiting. We can talk about announcements all day, but June will be here before we know it.
April 7, 2011
Another Sonic Game? C'mon Sega...
A question - can the idiom "beating a dead horse" apply to other animals as well? How horses got stuck with a bad wrap is beyond me, but in the video gaming realm, we need to change the saying. I have the perfect candidate too. "Beating a dead blue hedgehog," anyone?
Today we got the splendid announcement a new Sonic game will land on consoles later this year. Now I'm a huge fan of mascots for game companies (take your pick regarding Nintendo), but the one requirement for continually pumping out games is to actually make the games good. Through Mario Galaxy, Nintendo has pushed the boundaries of its beloved Italian plumber, sending him through space and making him magically good at every sport out there, but the games are still great. When there's an expectation a game in a franchise is to be good, then that studio knows what they are doing.
Being a young kid I loved playing the original Sonic the Hedgehog; I still wish we had our Sega Genesis. The same deal with the sequel. And even the threequel! For the first ten years, the franchise gave us stellar game after stellar game. Then Sonic Heroes was released, crapping on my childhood dreams. It fared well, but below the averages of other games, yet sales still persisted. Many say Heroes was a turning point, criticizing Sega's ability to cater to three-dimensional audiences without losing the nostalgic factor of the Genesis days.
The next showing really didn't help their cause. Sonic's first foray onto the current generation was a complete disaster. When a game dives into the messy world of bestiality, you know there's a problem. The most outrageous part of Sonic 2006 was the blossoming relationship between Sonic and Princess Elise, which lead to one of the most awkward romance scenes in gaming history. Even awkwarder than Dragon Age. The game got several awards (not the good kind), acquiring the mischievous title "Worst Game of the Decade" from several publications. Needless to say I was disappointed. The latest from Sega, Sonic Colors, was too pretty for its own good. Vibrant visuals and excellent music were overshadowed by terrible gameplay, and yet the game still sold well. Two million copies in two months is some serious dough.
The main thing I'm bewildered by is with a degrading reputation and consistent low scores, how do these games still sell? The fan base must be extremely stubborn, or the allure to the little gamer is still out there. Regardless, can the series sustain success given lower scores and the elevated role of Metacritic? The sales numbers will drop from game-to-game, and eventually Sega will give it the axe. Recently Sega has embarked on a more passive role with developing, and focusing on the publishing side of things - the professional relationship with Platinum Games certainly helped.
Shall we expect more of the same or will Sega answer our calls for a good game? We'll find out later this year.
Today we got the splendid announcement a new Sonic game will land on consoles later this year. Now I'm a huge fan of mascots for game companies (take your pick regarding Nintendo), but the one requirement for continually pumping out games is to actually make the games good. Through Mario Galaxy, Nintendo has pushed the boundaries of its beloved Italian plumber, sending him through space and making him magically good at every sport out there, but the games are still great. When there's an expectation a game in a franchise is to be good, then that studio knows what they are doing.
Being a young kid I loved playing the original Sonic the Hedgehog; I still wish we had our Sega Genesis. The same deal with the sequel. And even the threequel! For the first ten years, the franchise gave us stellar game after stellar game. Then Sonic Heroes was released, crapping on my childhood dreams. It fared well, but below the averages of other games, yet sales still persisted. Many say Heroes was a turning point, criticizing Sega's ability to cater to three-dimensional audiences without losing the nostalgic factor of the Genesis days.
The next showing really didn't help their cause. Sonic's first foray onto the current generation was a complete disaster. When a game dives into the messy world of bestiality, you know there's a problem. The most outrageous part of Sonic 2006 was the blossoming relationship between Sonic and Princess Elise, which lead to one of the most awkward romance scenes in gaming history. Even awkwarder than Dragon Age. The game got several awards (not the good kind), acquiring the mischievous title "Worst Game of the Decade" from several publications. Needless to say I was disappointed. The latest from Sega, Sonic Colors, was too pretty for its own good. Vibrant visuals and excellent music were overshadowed by terrible gameplay, and yet the game still sold well. Two million copies in two months is some serious dough.
The main thing I'm bewildered by is with a degrading reputation and consistent low scores, how do these games still sell? The fan base must be extremely stubborn, or the allure to the little gamer is still out there. Regardless, can the series sustain success given lower scores and the elevated role of Metacritic? The sales numbers will drop from game-to-game, and eventually Sega will give it the axe. Recently Sega has embarked on a more passive role with developing, and focusing on the publishing side of things - the professional relationship with Platinum Games certainly helped.
Shall we expect more of the same or will Sega answer our calls for a good game? We'll find out later this year.
April 6, 2011
Is Buying Pre-Owned Bad for The Industry?
One of the largest game retailers in the UK, GAME, has now implemented a rather intriguing service on their website - pre-ordering used games. The concept will surely catch on among the big retailers, although GAME is still seeing if the venture will actually be economically successful. It will, no doubt, because I know several people who instinctively purchase games for the better part of a week and trade them in again for full credit. It's the cheapskate's way of renting a game with no consequence. They were meticulous about it - one had a laundry list of retailers in and around the area.
As the title suggests, is buying games pre-owned harming the industry? Frankly, yes. As of right now, retailers don't have the legal responsibility of paying back developers or publishers on used games. The development side of gaming only makes their money on the first four months of a game's shelf life, then usually retailers will maniacally ease you toward the used section. It's economically sensible to buy games cheaper, given the economic conditions and the high prices of games. But for the industry to not collapse, that formula has to change. It will start and end with the retailers, and there has to be some major discussion on changing the process.
GameStop reported in their quarterly earnings that more than half of the company's profit was made off used game sales. Obviously that's a huge total, and the company depends on those sales to stay afloat. For someone buying a game brand new, the retailer only retains about 20% of the $60, while the rest goes to the developer/publisher, shipping costs, and to cover international fees if necessary. If GameStop were to implement the same service as GAME, their profits would spike. The company retains all the profits made on used games, and would probably charge some sort of premium fee for use of the service.
The urgency to deal with this issue is even more apparent given the rise of digital sales, which are projected to take over sales of hard copies in due time. In the music industry this has already happened. Retailers like GameStop have picked up on this, offering sales of DLC in store. The sharp increase in digital distribution will give developers the ability to charge what they want for games, and hopefully a dramatic decrease in the sales price. I'd buy a lot more games if standard pricing was at $40, not $60, and more copies sold over the long term will mean more profits for the developer. The question is, what can a retailer do about this? Well, their options are limited. A business like Blockbuster hasn't fully capitalized on the digital trend, and is getting killed by services like Netflix and Redbox. Redbox has recently launched a gaming service, and GameStop made two corporate acquisitions aspiring to launch their own digital service. Companies are clearly scrambling to appease the growing digital audience.
Now the success of a game's launch depends on a few factors, but pricing is the primary one. Angry Birds is only $1 and Roxio has sold 100 million units. That's A LOT of buck for a simple mobile game. The addictiveness and word-of-mouth certainly help, but the pricing is the first thing that jumps out at people. That's why mobile gaming has seen such a rapid rise in popularity in the last half-decade. So, would the top hardcore titles with massive budgets make more money by dropping the selling price? Probably. Common sense dictates consumers are more likely to purchase something that is cheaper. Budgets are tight these days and a $60 price tag is not taking full advantage of society's natural intention to save. Slashing the price by 33% will mean more sales, but depending on the range of advertising and popularity of the franchise, publishers have to find that delicate equilibrium to maximize profits. Dropping the initial price will lead to less people buying used.
It's a two-way street. Both sides will have to come up with a comprehensive business plan. In the art of business, having to rely on another industry is difficult, but responding to the call of gamers is necessary to get the most green stuff. And what we want are cheaper games. I want to do more reviews on this blog and buy games new if they come with special pre-order bonuses. Having to rent games is a pain in the ass. And who knows, in the near future, my calls for change could be answered, and there would be no more need to rent games. Let's hope that happens.
Originally, I planned on having Crysis 2 as my century post, but I saw this and couldn't refrain from ranting. The second adventure in the Nanosuit is a blast; I'll have my review up later tomorrow. Ciao!
As the title suggests, is buying games pre-owned harming the industry? Frankly, yes. As of right now, retailers don't have the legal responsibility of paying back developers or publishers on used games. The development side of gaming only makes their money on the first four months of a game's shelf life, then usually retailers will maniacally ease you toward the used section. It's economically sensible to buy games cheaper, given the economic conditions and the high prices of games. But for the industry to not collapse, that formula has to change. It will start and end with the retailers, and there has to be some major discussion on changing the process.
GameStop reported in their quarterly earnings that more than half of the company's profit was made off used game sales. Obviously that's a huge total, and the company depends on those sales to stay afloat. For someone buying a game brand new, the retailer only retains about 20% of the $60, while the rest goes to the developer/publisher, shipping costs, and to cover international fees if necessary. If GameStop were to implement the same service as GAME, their profits would spike. The company retains all the profits made on used games, and would probably charge some sort of premium fee for use of the service.
The urgency to deal with this issue is even more apparent given the rise of digital sales, which are projected to take over sales of hard copies in due time. In the music industry this has already happened. Retailers like GameStop have picked up on this, offering sales of DLC in store. The sharp increase in digital distribution will give developers the ability to charge what they want for games, and hopefully a dramatic decrease in the sales price. I'd buy a lot more games if standard pricing was at $40, not $60, and more copies sold over the long term will mean more profits for the developer. The question is, what can a retailer do about this? Well, their options are limited. A business like Blockbuster hasn't fully capitalized on the digital trend, and is getting killed by services like Netflix and Redbox. Redbox has recently launched a gaming service, and GameStop made two corporate acquisitions aspiring to launch their own digital service. Companies are clearly scrambling to appease the growing digital audience.
Now the success of a game's launch depends on a few factors, but pricing is the primary one. Angry Birds is only $1 and Roxio has sold 100 million units. That's A LOT of buck for a simple mobile game. The addictiveness and word-of-mouth certainly help, but the pricing is the first thing that jumps out at people. That's why mobile gaming has seen such a rapid rise in popularity in the last half-decade. So, would the top hardcore titles with massive budgets make more money by dropping the selling price? Probably. Common sense dictates consumers are more likely to purchase something that is cheaper. Budgets are tight these days and a $60 price tag is not taking full advantage of society's natural intention to save. Slashing the price by 33% will mean more sales, but depending on the range of advertising and popularity of the franchise, publishers have to find that delicate equilibrium to maximize profits. Dropping the initial price will lead to less people buying used.
It's a two-way street. Both sides will have to come up with a comprehensive business plan. In the art of business, having to rely on another industry is difficult, but responding to the call of gamers is necessary to get the most green stuff. And what we want are cheaper games. I want to do more reviews on this blog and buy games new if they come with special pre-order bonuses. Having to rent games is a pain in the ass. And who knows, in the near future, my calls for change could be answered, and there would be no more need to rent games. Let's hope that happens.
Originally, I planned on having Crysis 2 as my century post, but I saw this and couldn't refrain from ranting. The second adventure in the Nanosuit is a blast; I'll have my review up later tomorrow. Ciao!
April 5, 2011
What's Next for Gears? (Spoilers Ahead, Obviously)
The ninety-ninth post. This is big, you guys. Huge. Awesome.
Warfare has swept the inner and outer surfaces of Sera, and drastic measures have been taken to see the path of victory. The last haven for humanity, Jacinto, now lays a pile of rubble. We have a few months to see if the gamble paid off. So beyond the events of the third game, what is next for the franchise? Epic has said today that Gears of War 3 will not see the planet of Sera get blown to pieces and that life will continue. Somehow. The forums have been invaded with every opinion in existence, from Marcus being the lovechild of Adam Fenix and the Locust Queen to Marcus being declared the ruler of what is left of humanity. The latter is more plausible - in the books his mother dies.
Given the massive sales of previous games and the amount of buzz about the upcoming beta, Epic would be CRAZY not to continue their iconic franchise. I've written that the Gears franchise has achieved something other shooters haven't - forcing me to give a damn about the story. Most of the time it's about mindless slaughtering, but Gears does something exceptionally well. I can actually feel the anguish of these characters in their struggle of survival, having to make sacrifice after sacrifice all in the name of survival. For example, the death of Maria is a moment I had trouble understanding. To be put in a situation like that would break anyone else, and in the Ashes to Ashes trailer dated 28 months after the fall of Jacinto, Dom has a moment where he could accept death. We'll find out at that moment whether Dom has finally accepted her death or not, but it's clear he would be satisfied with perishing.
I'm glad we have some confirmation the current trilogy will have a definite ending. From the perspective the Locust and Lambent are murderous creatures, I hope humanity survives and thrives. The tone of the games would dictate humanity will survive somehow, regardless of the continuing existence of the Locust. But a definite ending won't leave for anything regarding the future of Sera. There was a mysterious title leaked called Gears of War: Exile which has been long rumoured to be one of the first hardcore titles for Kinect. Could this be an exploration of the Pendulum Wars? The inclusion of the Pendulum Lancer in Gears 3 is far from confirmation but it could give us some insight on future plans for the franchise. Embracing life on Sera before Emergence Day would be fascinating. Honestly, I would prefer to see a game in the series set during the Pendulum Wars that wasn't a shooter. That doesn't necessarily mean go the Halo Wars route. Imagine a simulation game where you play as the leader of a city, and you must calculatedly handle a Locust invasion. The geniuses at Epic have something up their sleeves and I can't wait to find out.
Warfare has swept the inner and outer surfaces of Sera, and drastic measures have been taken to see the path of victory. The last haven for humanity, Jacinto, now lays a pile of rubble. We have a few months to see if the gamble paid off. So beyond the events of the third game, what is next for the franchise? Epic has said today that Gears of War 3 will not see the planet of Sera get blown to pieces and that life will continue. Somehow. The forums have been invaded with every opinion in existence, from Marcus being the lovechild of Adam Fenix and the Locust Queen to Marcus being declared the ruler of what is left of humanity. The latter is more plausible - in the books his mother dies.
Given the massive sales of previous games and the amount of buzz about the upcoming beta, Epic would be CRAZY not to continue their iconic franchise. I've written that the Gears franchise has achieved something other shooters haven't - forcing me to give a damn about the story. Most of the time it's about mindless slaughtering, but Gears does something exceptionally well. I can actually feel the anguish of these characters in their struggle of survival, having to make sacrifice after sacrifice all in the name of survival. For example, the death of Maria is a moment I had trouble understanding. To be put in a situation like that would break anyone else, and in the Ashes to Ashes trailer dated 28 months after the fall of Jacinto, Dom has a moment where he could accept death. We'll find out at that moment whether Dom has finally accepted her death or not, but it's clear he would be satisfied with perishing.
I'm glad we have some confirmation the current trilogy will have a definite ending. From the perspective the Locust and Lambent are murderous creatures, I hope humanity survives and thrives. The tone of the games would dictate humanity will survive somehow, regardless of the continuing existence of the Locust. But a definite ending won't leave for anything regarding the future of Sera. There was a mysterious title leaked called Gears of War: Exile which has been long rumoured to be one of the first hardcore titles for Kinect. Could this be an exploration of the Pendulum Wars? The inclusion of the Pendulum Lancer in Gears 3 is far from confirmation but it could give us some insight on future plans for the franchise. Embracing life on Sera before Emergence Day would be fascinating. Honestly, I would prefer to see a game in the series set during the Pendulum Wars that wasn't a shooter. That doesn't necessarily mean go the Halo Wars route. Imagine a simulation game where you play as the leader of a city, and you must calculatedly handle a Locust invasion. The geniuses at Epic have something up their sleeves and I can't wait to find out.
Hackers vs. Sony - Setting Precedent of A Prominent Issue
The vendetta between Sony and the hacker nation has turned personal. Being a wildly popular subject on N4G, I felt I should give my two cents on what is happening, whether it is morally justified, and some recommendations on an end to the conflict.
To those familiar with the video games industry, mention the name George Hotz and you'll get a mixed response. His actions were the catalyst to a digital battle that has taken the industry by storm. Every site I follow has posted extensively on the topic and it's been the subject of wide speculation. For those that don't know, George Hotz successfully hacked Sony's PSN service through the "OtherOS" option. Sony then sued, causing Hotz reportedly to flee to South America to avoid persecution. Fellow hackers then attacked various websites through DDoS (denial-of-service attack) affiliated with Sony, including playstation.com and the site of the legal firm representing Sony. A break-off sect of the notorious hacker group Anonymous, calling themselves "SonyRecon", has now gone after the company in question. The group has distributed personal information of the upper executives, including marital status and family members, but for what purpose? I'm sure the businesspeople side of these individuals is separate from their personal lives, so why attack them personally? What is that supposed to achieve?
Maybe the hacker group is toying with reality, or see themselves as godlike figures hiding behind the insecurity of the Internet, but they are only wasting the time of everyone. For the loyal PS3 owners being forced to download multiple security updates, it's both disparaging and degrading. Gamers are the only ones who lose in this unlawful quest to destabilize the corporatism of the industry, so why can't this group of bandits use their skills productively? There's a reason it took so long to break the PS3 in the first place, so instead of waging a needless war against Sony, why can't the hackers work with Sony to improve the security of its console?
Sony has the law-abiding right to go after those who stole their products. Whether people agree or disagree on the act itself, or the manner of which Sony is going after these individuals, piracy is still illegal last time I checked. Piracy has been a massive issue for the industry and will most likely affect its survivability in the future. This court battle will set precedent on dealing with hackers, and the conduct necessary to negotiate with unlawful people. Stealing is stealing, and there is no way to justify it otherwise. These companies have enormous budgets to give us endless hours of entertainment and to steal honest, hard-working peoples' work is unethical and immoral. Those guilty of stealing should feel ashamed.
In reading Hotz's blog (http://geohotgotsued.blogspot.com/), he clearly has a god complex. He claims that "we" (being the people responsible I assume) built the PS3, and justifies it by saying it is their right to do this. That mentality leaves me with one question - why destroy your own creation? Why force yourself into such a precarious position when in fact you could use your extreme talent to help better Sony's system, earning money and a reputation in the process? It sounds like a win-win situation. He also explicitly states that Sony has turned this into the grandiose scandal it is to send a message; that other companies would want to keep something like this quiet. If Sony doesn't bring attention to the subject, he can't work in secrecy.
As you can see, I am sort of peeved as to how this has played out. I don't even own a PS3 and to know that a beloved gaming box has been subjected to piracy makes the blood boil. This time next year no one will be talking about this. Actually, maybe only those who plan on or who are currently studying law, or video game design. I want you all to take a good look at the group who deliberately pirates games and shun them. That's all we can do because most of them blatantly hide their identities in fear of getting sued out the ass by corporate Japan. And rightfully so.
What a hate-filled ninety-eighth post! I tried to ignore the scandal here, but a court case that questions the very ethics of an industry rarely comes around. Couldn't pass up this opportunity. Gotta love a good rant in the morning alongside my coffee. Anyway, I'll be posting my Crysis 2 review once I actually beat the game. Been preoccupied with other things lately, but I do have the game for a week, and I'll try and break my comprehensive review into two parts. Thanks for reading and I wish you all a happy Tuesday. Ciao!
To those familiar with the video games industry, mention the name George Hotz and you'll get a mixed response. His actions were the catalyst to a digital battle that has taken the industry by storm. Every site I follow has posted extensively on the topic and it's been the subject of wide speculation. For those that don't know, George Hotz successfully hacked Sony's PSN service through the "OtherOS" option. Sony then sued, causing Hotz reportedly to flee to South America to avoid persecution. Fellow hackers then attacked various websites through DDoS (denial-of-service attack) affiliated with Sony, including playstation.com and the site of the legal firm representing Sony. A break-off sect of the notorious hacker group Anonymous, calling themselves "SonyRecon", has now gone after the company in question. The group has distributed personal information of the upper executives, including marital status and family members, but for what purpose? I'm sure the businesspeople side of these individuals is separate from their personal lives, so why attack them personally? What is that supposed to achieve?
Maybe the hacker group is toying with reality, or see themselves as godlike figures hiding behind the insecurity of the Internet, but they are only wasting the time of everyone. For the loyal PS3 owners being forced to download multiple security updates, it's both disparaging and degrading. Gamers are the only ones who lose in this unlawful quest to destabilize the corporatism of the industry, so why can't this group of bandits use their skills productively? There's a reason it took so long to break the PS3 in the first place, so instead of waging a needless war against Sony, why can't the hackers work with Sony to improve the security of its console?
Sony has the law-abiding right to go after those who stole their products. Whether people agree or disagree on the act itself, or the manner of which Sony is going after these individuals, piracy is still illegal last time I checked. Piracy has been a massive issue for the industry and will most likely affect its survivability in the future. This court battle will set precedent on dealing with hackers, and the conduct necessary to negotiate with unlawful people. Stealing is stealing, and there is no way to justify it otherwise. These companies have enormous budgets to give us endless hours of entertainment and to steal honest, hard-working peoples' work is unethical and immoral. Those guilty of stealing should feel ashamed.
In reading Hotz's blog (http://geohotgotsued.blogspot.com/), he clearly has a god complex. He claims that "we" (being the people responsible I assume) built the PS3, and justifies it by saying it is their right to do this. That mentality leaves me with one question - why destroy your own creation? Why force yourself into such a precarious position when in fact you could use your extreme talent to help better Sony's system, earning money and a reputation in the process? It sounds like a win-win situation. He also explicitly states that Sony has turned this into the grandiose scandal it is to send a message; that other companies would want to keep something like this quiet. If Sony doesn't bring attention to the subject, he can't work in secrecy.
As you can see, I am sort of peeved as to how this has played out. I don't even own a PS3 and to know that a beloved gaming box has been subjected to piracy makes the blood boil. This time next year no one will be talking about this. Actually, maybe only those who plan on or who are currently studying law, or video game design. I want you all to take a good look at the group who deliberately pirates games and shun them. That's all we can do because most of them blatantly hide their identities in fear of getting sued out the ass by corporate Japan. And rightfully so.
What a hate-filled ninety-eighth post! I tried to ignore the scandal here, but a court case that questions the very ethics of an industry rarely comes around. Couldn't pass up this opportunity. Gotta love a good rant in the morning alongside my coffee. Anyway, I'll be posting my Crysis 2 review once I actually beat the game. Been preoccupied with other things lately, but I do have the game for a week, and I'll try and break my comprehensive review into two parts. Thanks for reading and I wish you all a happy Tuesday. Ciao!
April 4, 2011
Can The Mainstream Media Report On Video Games Properly?
I am concerned. Not gravely concerned, but still concerned. I check CNN and other news organizations to get the latest updates on the various conflicts happening in our world. Curiosity got the better of me and I typed in video games in the search bar. Not that I would expect them to have a comprehensive video games page with reviews and industry talk, but their page was limited. Only six posts for the entire month of March. That small number is disconcerting. Therefore, why is it the largest news organizations refuse to report on video game news?
I get that the world of video game journalism is a niche market and won't generate the huge traffic to websites like the crisis in Libya or the Japanese earthquake will. But my interpretation of a news organization's role in society is to report on everything, not the news that generates the most money. It's sad to see the green stuff dictate what gets covered and what doesn't. This may be the only time I give Fox News any credit, but at least the channel reports on video games. Creating needless controversy is great to mock, and the Mass Effect debate has become folklore.
On CNN, you'll never see a report in the technology section on a game review or sales. It's all about the damned smartphone and useless apps nobody will ever use. I have never even seen a report on the massive success Angry Birds, a smartphone game that everyone in the tech field acknowledges. Fox News will create a controversy when there is no controversy - a sad and trivial attempt to create shock value. Mass Effect never had full-frontal nudity, which is what the channel falsely claimed, and yet they still went on the talking point without doing research. Fox News also accused Modern Warfare 2 of placing you in the role of a terrorist without doing proper research. Fox led the story with the idea of playing as a terrorist, which given the environment with the wars in the Middle East, people were bound to pay attention. And get pissed off. Again though, wrongly reported. In fact, you play as a CIA operate infiltrating the terrorist cell, and conflicting decisions are part of the job. Failure to keep up the disguise means certain death.
It's the nature of reporting today. Sadly, whatever will create the most buzz is chosen over the most heartwarming, gut-wrenching stories out there, and big business is to blame. News organizations struggle daily for viewership and it will only increase drastically when a tragedy happens. NATO's involvement in Libya and global response to the Japanese earthquake get massive coverage on CNN, and rightfully so. But we also see the upcoming royal wedding get a lot of coverage as well when there is nothing to talk about. The only people more excited for the wedding than the networks are British royal subjects. The general public couldn't give a fuck.
Sorry for the terribly long rant. I love journalism and I hate to see where the current state the industry finds itself in. Regardless, video game news should be reported on more. Or a proper news network should be created to fill the niche. G4 tried but failed miserably. Give us a 24-hour technology-oriented news network. It would be successful - all the Apple nerds would follow it religiously and us video game nerds would catch a sneak peek once in a while.
That's all for today. Ciao!
I get that the world of video game journalism is a niche market and won't generate the huge traffic to websites like the crisis in Libya or the Japanese earthquake will. But my interpretation of a news organization's role in society is to report on everything, not the news that generates the most money. It's sad to see the green stuff dictate what gets covered and what doesn't. This may be the only time I give Fox News any credit, but at least the channel reports on video games. Creating needless controversy is great to mock, and the Mass Effect debate has become folklore.
On CNN, you'll never see a report in the technology section on a game review or sales. It's all about the damned smartphone and useless apps nobody will ever use. I have never even seen a report on the massive success Angry Birds, a smartphone game that everyone in the tech field acknowledges. Fox News will create a controversy when there is no controversy - a sad and trivial attempt to create shock value. Mass Effect never had full-frontal nudity, which is what the channel falsely claimed, and yet they still went on the talking point without doing research. Fox News also accused Modern Warfare 2 of placing you in the role of a terrorist without doing proper research. Fox led the story with the idea of playing as a terrorist, which given the environment with the wars in the Middle East, people were bound to pay attention. And get pissed off. Again though, wrongly reported. In fact, you play as a CIA operate infiltrating the terrorist cell, and conflicting decisions are part of the job. Failure to keep up the disguise means certain death.
It's the nature of reporting today. Sadly, whatever will create the most buzz is chosen over the most heartwarming, gut-wrenching stories out there, and big business is to blame. News organizations struggle daily for viewership and it will only increase drastically when a tragedy happens. NATO's involvement in Libya and global response to the Japanese earthquake get massive coverage on CNN, and rightfully so. But we also see the upcoming royal wedding get a lot of coverage as well when there is nothing to talk about. The only people more excited for the wedding than the networks are British royal subjects. The general public couldn't give a fuck.
Sorry for the terribly long rant. I love journalism and I hate to see where the current state the industry finds itself in. Regardless, video game news should be reported on more. Or a proper news network should be created to fill the niche. G4 tried but failed miserably. Give us a 24-hour technology-oriented news network. It would be successful - all the Apple nerds would follow it religiously and us video game nerds would catch a sneak peek once in a while.
That's all for today. Ciao!
Yes, Skyrim Has A Game Preceding It
A slow news day. The worst, worst, ABSOLUTE worst thing to occur for someone caffeine-filled and eager to start typing about something. Blogging has become part of my routine in the morning, and if I don't get the satisfaction of inching closer to one hundred posts, my day feels off. Relating to that, once I will hit a hundred posts eventually this week, I will keep working hard to two hundred, then three hundred posts and even more if I am still into this whole blogging thing. So this post is an update on what I've been playing. Nothing original, nothing spectacular. Let us get to it, shall we?
Since Bethesda is masterful at releasing a continuous stream of information that makes us gleeful, I have picked up Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for the second time. Before I played a thief and got rich quick. This time I wanted to take a more realistic route - instead of stealing everything in sight, I'd earn my way properly. The Fighters Guild was my best bet. After taking out some mountain lions and saving a store from numerous nighttime robberies, I advanced in rank. But that is not the real adventure. A vast open world cannot explore itself. There's over 200 locations to discover and thoroughly explore, and the reward greatly outweighs the risk.
Playing as a warrior, I fought and killed anything and everything in sight. Frequently I had to make treks back to the Imperial City to sell my loot. After a few hours of bashing heads and beating imps senseless, I bought a shack on the Imperial City Waterfront. The poorest neighbourhood in town, but with good people, so I fit right in. Sprucing up the place a bit with furnishings, I embarked again to further explore Cyrodiil. I'll post more later.
I rented Crysis 2 and I'll break the review into two parts. The single player and multiplayer are drastically different, and it's appropriate to grade them differently. The game is still great though.
Since Bethesda is masterful at releasing a continuous stream of information that makes us gleeful, I have picked up Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion for the second time. Before I played a thief and got rich quick. This time I wanted to take a more realistic route - instead of stealing everything in sight, I'd earn my way properly. The Fighters Guild was my best bet. After taking out some mountain lions and saving a store from numerous nighttime robberies, I advanced in rank. But that is not the real adventure. A vast open world cannot explore itself. There's over 200 locations to discover and thoroughly explore, and the reward greatly outweighs the risk.
Playing as a warrior, I fought and killed anything and everything in sight. Frequently I had to make treks back to the Imperial City to sell my loot. After a few hours of bashing heads and beating imps senseless, I bought a shack on the Imperial City Waterfront. The poorest neighbourhood in town, but with good people, so I fit right in. Sprucing up the place a bit with furnishings, I embarked again to further explore Cyrodiil. I'll post more later.
I rented Crysis 2 and I'll break the review into two parts. The single player and multiplayer are drastically different, and it's appropriate to grade them differently. The game is still great though.
April 2, 2011
The Next Generation of Consoles?
Yesterday is evil. For the lonely blogger with a lack of resources and the Internet as the main source for information, April Fool's is the worst day of the year. Evil day. Evil. One of the better "announcements" I saw was Total War: Dinosaur because that sounds so awesome. Commanding armies of dinosaurs to massacre other dinosaurs. And Turok makes a special cameo as one of the ringleaders. Anyway, I refused to post yesterday because really anything announced we can't believe, and the last thing I want to be is fooled. The topic of this blog post is something we've seen a lot of speculation about, and I don't think it's time just yet.
In the middle of the last decade, we saw the launch of the seventh generation of consoles. The lucky number seven brought several things that revolutionized gaming - online multiplayer, high definition, 3D, the revamping of gems from previous generations, motion control and the reign of the first-person shooter. The average generation lifespan is five years, and we are nearing that mark. But as a gamer I feel the current generation hasn't reached its full potential. For example, Microsoft has claimed the current lineup for Kinect is only using 10% of the peripheral's capabilities, and we have yet to fully see the Move's potential use for the hardcore titles. A console's lifespan is usually determined by its usefulness, or huge advances in technology. The updated version of Unreal Engine 4 was incredibly cool, but we are still several years before console graphics could be so impeccable.
Is it wrong to think the seventh generation could last five more years? The Wii may be the only exception. An updated version of Nintendo's console I wouldn't count as part of a new wave, and we will probably hear some tidbit of a HD version this June. This generation saw the reinvention of the traditional console from a gaming box to an essential part of any entertainment center. The implementation of successful services like Netflix has changed the perception of non-gamers significantly, and consoles are still finding customers. Companies have capitalized greatly on that new audience, so economically it wouldn't make any sense to release a new console. They'd still see their shiny current console as sufficient enough and no need for an upgrade. Unless Microsoft and Sony cut off online access entirely from their current consoles once the next generation is launched, or unless they further enhance the movie-watching experience, the new consoles won't sell well initially.
From the gamer's perspective, it doesn't make any sense either. Microsoft's lineup might not be the greatest this year, judging from what has been announced already, but to think the current generation is faltering is a silly thought. As I said before, I'm interested to see where the melding of motion control and hardcore games will leave us. Forza Motorsport 4, in gameplay showed yesterday morning, looks solid, and reception from the SOCOM 4 beta using Move has been positive. It's still a work in progress, obviously, but the sky is the limit.
The technological advancements for an eight generation will be the most interesting tale. The adaptation of motion control will have some effect on the console race, but graphics will dictate who comes out the victor. Graphical enhancements will be most beneficial to Nintendo; quality developers have shied away from the Wii because of the graphical limitations. The debate of gameplay-over-graphics may be answered in the eight generation. Solid gameplay is a necessity for any game, but in the future graphics will increasingly become a prime focus for the gaming audience. Not measuring up in the graphics department will mean a massive loss in sales guaranteed.
Lucky number seven has given us some of the coolest innovations, but also the most questionable console design in history. May us forget the days of old and prepare for days anew, where gimmicky and cheap plastic peripherals are forgotten, graphics make way for new classics, and an eight generation of consoles is born.
In the middle of the last decade, we saw the launch of the seventh generation of consoles. The lucky number seven brought several things that revolutionized gaming - online multiplayer, high definition, 3D, the revamping of gems from previous generations, motion control and the reign of the first-person shooter. The average generation lifespan is five years, and we are nearing that mark. But as a gamer I feel the current generation hasn't reached its full potential. For example, Microsoft has claimed the current lineup for Kinect is only using 10% of the peripheral's capabilities, and we have yet to fully see the Move's potential use for the hardcore titles. A console's lifespan is usually determined by its usefulness, or huge advances in technology. The updated version of Unreal Engine 4 was incredibly cool, but we are still several years before console graphics could be so impeccable.
Is it wrong to think the seventh generation could last five more years? The Wii may be the only exception. An updated version of Nintendo's console I wouldn't count as part of a new wave, and we will probably hear some tidbit of a HD version this June. This generation saw the reinvention of the traditional console from a gaming box to an essential part of any entertainment center. The implementation of successful services like Netflix has changed the perception of non-gamers significantly, and consoles are still finding customers. Companies have capitalized greatly on that new audience, so economically it wouldn't make any sense to release a new console. They'd still see their shiny current console as sufficient enough and no need for an upgrade. Unless Microsoft and Sony cut off online access entirely from their current consoles once the next generation is launched, or unless they further enhance the movie-watching experience, the new consoles won't sell well initially.
From the gamer's perspective, it doesn't make any sense either. Microsoft's lineup might not be the greatest this year, judging from what has been announced already, but to think the current generation is faltering is a silly thought. As I said before, I'm interested to see where the melding of motion control and hardcore games will leave us. Forza Motorsport 4, in gameplay showed yesterday morning, looks solid, and reception from the SOCOM 4 beta using Move has been positive. It's still a work in progress, obviously, but the sky is the limit.
The technological advancements for an eight generation will be the most interesting tale. The adaptation of motion control will have some effect on the console race, but graphics will dictate who comes out the victor. Graphical enhancements will be most beneficial to Nintendo; quality developers have shied away from the Wii because of the graphical limitations. The debate of gameplay-over-graphics may be answered in the eight generation. Solid gameplay is a necessity for any game, but in the future graphics will increasingly become a prime focus for the gaming audience. Not measuring up in the graphics department will mean a massive loss in sales guaranteed.
Lucky number seven has given us some of the coolest innovations, but also the most questionable console design in history. May us forget the days of old and prepare for days anew, where gimmicky and cheap plastic peripherals are forgotten, graphics make way for new classics, and an eight generation of consoles is born.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)