I am finally back from vacation! A couple hours of driving, losing myself in Pokemon White again, and seeing distant relatives is always fun in the midst of summer. I never realized how relaxing sitting on a porch watching the rain is! In doing so, I even thought of some interesting gaming ideas and concepts for all of you to enjoy which will be posted later in the week. Silverblade Sunday entry three, away!
The creative diversity of an artful industry like gaming permits anyone with a unique idea to be successful. Every project ever to exist started with a root idea, a core thought expanded and built upon until the developers or movie studios or music producers are satisfied. That's the driving mentality behind the 'indie' movement, aspiring media-makers with a fruitful idea and little to no funding. Games like Minecraft, Bejeweled and Plants vs. Zombies are considered indie hits, from independent studios (at the time of release) and through word-of-mouth (or in the case of Minecraft, video sharing websites), popularity boomed and the cash rolled in. Entry three is going to examine the role of indie studios currently, the possibility of future success, and how mainstream developers and the publishers are helping or hurting the movement.
The purchase of Popcap by Electronic Arts is pure evidence of how powerful independent studios have grown. EA was the last major publisher to buy a prominent studio, previously having virtually no presence in the field. Last is certainly not least however, as EA bought the crown jewel of the social gaming revolution. Popcap has witnessed extraordinary success with rather simple titles (two aforementioned), especially its Bejeweled franchise, selling fifty million units. And as the company expands its platforms to include Android-enabled smartphones as well, the success is endless.
That success has forced the publishers restless, scrambling to buy any notable developer with a marquee game. Moreover, the popularity of smartphones has given these unknown studios a collective voice - almost like a mainstream company - the ability to choose whose funding to accept and establish a working relationship.
Indie titles have also served as inspiration for the successes of today. Prevailing games of years past, the trend has brought marvelous games without many fans realizing it. Valve's creative puzzler Portal was originally named Narbacular Drop and made by some students at the DigiPen Institute of Technology, a school specializing in game design. Valve went on to hire the creator, securing Portal as a leading franchise.
Given all that knowledge, where does the industry see itself in the future? Well many experts have claimed smartphone sales will jump to one billion units sold by 2016. A realistic guess considering sales were up 72% last year. Indie developers better be smiling right now.
Personally, I think the future of gaming as a successful medium depends on the growth of the indie scene. The industry right now is too focused on sequel progression, name recognition and sales numbers, forgetting what makes gaming great - truly interactive creativity. Angry Birds at 100 million; Bejeweled at 50 million; Minecraft at 2.3 million; all these projects started with vastly different ideas and have turned regular people into millionaires. But these ideas were ideally simple: throwing an object, matching coloured jewels, and to survive. Easy, accessible, and most importantly, fun.
Sometime in the future, there will be a clash of ideals within the gaming community to determine which platforms will lead the charge. Consoles reign supreme currently, but as smartphone sales rapidly increase, the battle must be waged. Whatever the outcome, one cannot exist without the other.
July 31, 2011
July 25, 2011
You Guys Like the Newest Layout?
Hey guys, I did some soul searching and found the black layout was too harsh. Too much black, some people thought I was emotional or something. Not true. Anyway, I'll be sticking with this theme for the time being. It's game appropriate and a bit more colourful than themes previous, so I'll see how the reception works and go from there.
Please give feedback in the comment section below or by shooting me an email here. Toodles!
Please give feedback in the comment section below or by shooting me an email here. Toodles!
My Experiences in Horde Mode
After a caffeinated run playing Gears of War 2 once, I had the weirdest dream. I dreamt of a destructive battlefield, the ultimate conflict for survival, two sides dueling with chainsaws and mortars and makeshift weapons, engaged in total war. The fresh scent of smoke leaked onto the battlefield as grenades soared through the air to close emergence holes. The Gears, devout defenders of the surface of Sera, were vastly outnumbered but fought valiantly. Overcoming great odds, the impervious Locust were slowly pushed back and forced to retreat before the COGs' might. Then Billy Mays grabbed a Snuggie, grew wings, and flew away.
As I said, coffee-induced dreams. They can get quite hectic.
Any fan of the Gears of War franchise will know getting max rank in Gears 2 is extremely difficult. Accumulating enough experience through one hundred levels is not just labouring but time-consuming as well. And Epic purposely made the trek a grind, promising dedicated players something rather special come September 20. They haven't specified what exactly this something is, but players who've committed hundreds of hours to get their wings deserve a hefty reward.
The reference above actually did occur, as ridiculous as it sounds, and many COGs and coffee beans were rightfully sacrificed through the endless strain to achieve the wings. ('Wings' is a slang term for the logo representing max rank.) Practically all my experience earned was through the famed Horde, now a standard in shooters today, and the mode keeping millions of players addicted through ingenious tactics. The version in Gears 2 began the trend now spreading to others in the genre and even other genres. Some prominent examples include Call of Duty with its Spec Ops mode, Bulletstorm and its Anarchy mode, and Halo: Reach with the new Firefight option.
My most satisfying moment is going wave one through fifty on Insane difficulty. What took a good six hours, we battled through the night, popping headshots and conserving ammo at every turn. I specifically remember glitching out and having a massive lag spike for a couple seconds, which was dangerous because things can turn hairy in a split second.
Through my time playing Gears 2, too much time many will tout, I have e-met some incredible people and hopefully these friendships will continue beyond our Gears days. And once Gears of War 3 rolls around, I encourage you all to partake in the magic known as Horde mode, and take the other side as well in the newly introduced Beast mode.
I'll be playing a lot more trying to get Seriously 2.0 and in preparation for the third installment, so shoot me an email or leave a comment and tell me about your experiences. Also, tell me if you want to play. I'd be more than willing to give you guys my gamertag.
Just an update: After coming back from vacation, I am leaving again tonight for a few days to the family cottage. We are eager to get the roof done, spend some time with relatives and take full advantage of the summer. Later!
As I said, coffee-induced dreams. They can get quite hectic.
Any fan of the Gears of War franchise will know getting max rank in Gears 2 is extremely difficult. Accumulating enough experience through one hundred levels is not just labouring but time-consuming as well. And Epic purposely made the trek a grind, promising dedicated players something rather special come September 20. They haven't specified what exactly this something is, but players who've committed hundreds of hours to get their wings deserve a hefty reward.
The reference above actually did occur, as ridiculous as it sounds, and many COGs and coffee beans were rightfully sacrificed through the endless strain to achieve the wings. ('Wings' is a slang term for the logo representing max rank.) Practically all my experience earned was through the famed Horde, now a standard in shooters today, and the mode keeping millions of players addicted through ingenious tactics. The version in Gears 2 began the trend now spreading to others in the genre and even other genres. Some prominent examples include Call of Duty with its Spec Ops mode, Bulletstorm and its Anarchy mode, and Halo: Reach with the new Firefight option.
My most satisfying moment is going wave one through fifty on Insane difficulty. What took a good six hours, we battled through the night, popping headshots and conserving ammo at every turn. I specifically remember glitching out and having a massive lag spike for a couple seconds, which was dangerous because things can turn hairy in a split second.
Through my time playing Gears 2, too much time many will tout, I have e-met some incredible people and hopefully these friendships will continue beyond our Gears days. And once Gears of War 3 rolls around, I encourage you all to partake in the magic known as Horde mode, and take the other side as well in the newly introduced Beast mode.
I'll be playing a lot more trying to get Seriously 2.0 and in preparation for the third installment, so shoot me an email or leave a comment and tell me about your experiences. Also, tell me if you want to play. I'd be more than willing to give you guys my gamertag.
Just an update: After coming back from vacation, I am leaving again tonight for a few days to the family cottage. We are eager to get the roof done, spend some time with relatives and take full advantage of the summer. Later!
July 24, 2011
Silverblade Sunday #2 - Mainstream Developers in A Conundrum
This post is actually going up when I'm on vacation! It's weird writing my second weekly feature so soon after the first, but a vacation is calling my name loud-and-clear. Last week, we discussed the role the large publishers play in the industry and the struggle of business vs. creative control. In the batter's cage now are the mainstream developers, often in cahoots with a monstrous publisher and maintain a decent working relationship.
Successful developers are the bread-and-butter of the industry, spitting out annual or biennial products for the general audience to enjoy. These studios work closely with their publisher on releases but retain creative control through extensive contracts, lasting possibly a decade or longer. For example, Bungie, famously known for the Halo franchise, signed a 10-year exclusive deal with Activision to finance a new IP. In an industry that deals with contracts, a decade is a hell of a long time. But Bungie's unmatched reputation and the loyalty of its fans is enough for the publisher to take a massive risk.
The publishers might fully control the industry, but the developers can hold their own. Studios like Bioware and DICE have a global fanbase, and disastrous actions from a publisher could be met with backlash. That means a drop in sales, pre-orders and a lowered reputation among consumers. Players are fiercely passionate about their beloved franchises, and often the publishers undermine the player base so heavily that a developer gets the flack.
The aforementioned studio DICE, a subsidiary of Electronic Arts, stunned fans earlier this year by having exclusive pre-order content. GAME, a retailer from the UK, offered players the "Physical Awareness" pack, giving buyers a heightened advantage with more weapons, ammo types and locations. EA previously attempted this with the first console series for Battlefield, Bad Company, but fan outrage caused the publisher to retract the offering. A whole slew of numbers were tossed around in the media, but between 10,000 to 100,000 pre-orders were canceled in Europe alone. In Europe, the Battlefield franchise is serious business.
According to the original Reddit posting, EA hadn't told DICE about the package until after it was announced, blindsiding the developer. Understandably, DICE was forced to follow along because EA owns the studio, and no one can blame EA for wanting to completely monetize their biggest release of the year, but the publisher committed a cardinal sin. Among the popular military simulators of today, Battlefield is consistently known for being balanced, and DICE carefully monitors the stats and adjusts each weapon when necessary. That balance is the most important expectation of the players, and it's shameful EA didn't do more research before offering pre-order exclusive content. Consumers have been waiting anxiously for years for the next numbered iteration of the famed franchise, so there was guaranteed buyers. EA got greedy and it reflected poorly on both DICE and the series.
Greed is good, according to Gordon Gecko, but a publisher must abide by the developer's needs and also what the consumer base wants from a game. And that's the internal struggle of this complicated relationship between companies and consumers. A developer will know its audience best, not a publisher who only works with numbers.
Another issue is creative control, but I'll make another blog post about that. As this post goes up while I drive an ATV (all-terrain vehicle) recklessly, I wish you all the best. Enjoy the rest of the blog.
May the (blog) Post be with you.
Just an update: Can I ask you guys a big favour? Can you guys click the ads to support the blog? Any extra cash would be extremely helpful and hopefully I could be inspired to do more blog posts. Thanks. :)
Successful developers are the bread-and-butter of the industry, spitting out annual or biennial products for the general audience to enjoy. These studios work closely with their publisher on releases but retain creative control through extensive contracts, lasting possibly a decade or longer. For example, Bungie, famously known for the Halo franchise, signed a 10-year exclusive deal with Activision to finance a new IP. In an industry that deals with contracts, a decade is a hell of a long time. But Bungie's unmatched reputation and the loyalty of its fans is enough for the publisher to take a massive risk.
The publishers might fully control the industry, but the developers can hold their own. Studios like Bioware and DICE have a global fanbase, and disastrous actions from a publisher could be met with backlash. That means a drop in sales, pre-orders and a lowered reputation among consumers. Players are fiercely passionate about their beloved franchises, and often the publishers undermine the player base so heavily that a developer gets the flack.
The aforementioned studio DICE, a subsidiary of Electronic Arts, stunned fans earlier this year by having exclusive pre-order content. GAME, a retailer from the UK, offered players the "Physical Awareness" pack, giving buyers a heightened advantage with more weapons, ammo types and locations. EA previously attempted this with the first console series for Battlefield, Bad Company, but fan outrage caused the publisher to retract the offering. A whole slew of numbers were tossed around in the media, but between 10,000 to 100,000 pre-orders were canceled in Europe alone. In Europe, the Battlefield franchise is serious business.
According to the original Reddit posting, EA hadn't told DICE about the package until after it was announced, blindsiding the developer. Understandably, DICE was forced to follow along because EA owns the studio, and no one can blame EA for wanting to completely monetize their biggest release of the year, but the publisher committed a cardinal sin. Among the popular military simulators of today, Battlefield is consistently known for being balanced, and DICE carefully monitors the stats and adjusts each weapon when necessary. That balance is the most important expectation of the players, and it's shameful EA didn't do more research before offering pre-order exclusive content. Consumers have been waiting anxiously for years for the next numbered iteration of the famed franchise, so there was guaranteed buyers. EA got greedy and it reflected poorly on both DICE and the series.
Greed is good, according to Gordon Gecko, but a publisher must abide by the developer's needs and also what the consumer base wants from a game. And that's the internal struggle of this complicated relationship between companies and consumers. A developer will know its audience best, not a publisher who only works with numbers.
Another issue is creative control, but I'll make another blog post about that. As this post goes up while I drive an ATV (all-terrain vehicle) recklessly, I wish you all the best. Enjoy the rest of the blog.
May the (blog) Post be with you.
Just an update: Can I ask you guys a big favour? Can you guys click the ads to support the blog? Any extra cash would be extremely helpful and hopefully I could be inspired to do more blog posts. Thanks. :)
July 20, 2011
A Used Game Seller's Guide to Success
All of us have treasures lying around, maybe in the attic or storage compartments, and tough economic times force many resourceful people to sell off prized possessions. Elsewhere, in the amidst of a major heat wave, driveways become littered with dusty collectibles while families soak in some rays. Whatever the motivation, antique gaming is a huge business and collectors globally scope out the classics to make moolah.
This topic is all the more relevant given the onslaught on the used game industry by publishers lately. Retailers like GameStop, where a majority of profits are made from selling used games, are in a tough spot if every publisher implements an online code for multiplayer access. So where does that leave you? Is it possible to compete with the masters and still make a profit? Yes, if you handle yourself accordingly.
The common mistake consumers make is not doing any research. A simple Google search can bring up an overbearing list of options, and knowing the trustworthiness of these sites should be a concern. Immediately, links to major department stores and game specialty stores are staring you in the face. These establishments seem like viable options, and depending on the game they might be, but more research is necessary to get the most bang for your buck.
Generally, the working rule is if a game was released more than two years prior, you'll barely get anything for it. But someone unfamiliar to the industry will probably not know what franchises are considered popular. A game like The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion could possibly fetch $30, while Mass Effect could fetch as much as $40. A few factors to determine pricing include: the original release date, a sudden increase in demand, the timeliness of its sequel, or some great/terrible controversy with either the publisher or developer. Surprisingly, scandal can lead to game sales.
With previous generations (a la the Nintendo 64, Sega Genesis), game collectors have wet dreams from finding the rare gem sought by others. Racketboy did an exceptional guide for each individual generation so go have a glance. Some cartridges for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) have produced auction bids as high as $16,000, and the more generations released, the more expensive these games will get. As I said, antique gaming is a huge business. Society just refuses to acknowledge the mainstream success.
Enough explanation; now to the resources.
Several sites serve the main purpose of matching sellers and buyers. eBay, the most popular online auction house, is a great resource for finding potential buyers, but be wary of a user's reputation before pulling the trigger. Craigslist, or for my Canadian friends Kijiji, isn't as reliable as other sites, but these sites offer regional posts to make searching easier.
A great site I have considered using on the off-chance I couldn't find a game I wanted is Goozex. The community is all about game trading though selling occurs also. But the community is massive and I highly suggest going there and taken a gaze. The service you must pay for, but it's only $2 per trade, and they handle postage.
If you have any other sources, add them in the comments and I'll update this guide. :D
This topic is all the more relevant given the onslaught on the used game industry by publishers lately. Retailers like GameStop, where a majority of profits are made from selling used games, are in a tough spot if every publisher implements an online code for multiplayer access. So where does that leave you? Is it possible to compete with the masters and still make a profit? Yes, if you handle yourself accordingly.
The common mistake consumers make is not doing any research. A simple Google search can bring up an overbearing list of options, and knowing the trustworthiness of these sites should be a concern. Immediately, links to major department stores and game specialty stores are staring you in the face. These establishments seem like viable options, and depending on the game they might be, but more research is necessary to get the most bang for your buck.
Generally, the working rule is if a game was released more than two years prior, you'll barely get anything for it. But someone unfamiliar to the industry will probably not know what franchises are considered popular. A game like The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion could possibly fetch $30, while Mass Effect could fetch as much as $40. A few factors to determine pricing include: the original release date, a sudden increase in demand, the timeliness of its sequel, or some great/terrible controversy with either the publisher or developer. Surprisingly, scandal can lead to game sales.
With previous generations (a la the Nintendo 64, Sega Genesis), game collectors have wet dreams from finding the rare gem sought by others. Racketboy did an exceptional guide for each individual generation so go have a glance. Some cartridges for the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) have produced auction bids as high as $16,000, and the more generations released, the more expensive these games will get. As I said, antique gaming is a huge business. Society just refuses to acknowledge the mainstream success.
Enough explanation; now to the resources.
Several sites serve the main purpose of matching sellers and buyers. eBay, the most popular online auction house, is a great resource for finding potential buyers, but be wary of a user's reputation before pulling the trigger. Craigslist, or for my Canadian friends Kijiji, isn't as reliable as other sites, but these sites offer regional posts to make searching easier.
A great site I have considered using on the off-chance I couldn't find a game I wanted is Goozex. The community is all about game trading though selling occurs also. But the community is massive and I highly suggest going there and taken a gaze. The service you must pay for, but it's only $2 per trade, and they handle postage.
If you have any other sources, add them in the comments and I'll update this guide. :D
July 19, 2011
The Audience of This Blog
This is a post not contributing to the regular schedule. I'll do a post later tonight so look out for that.
This little observation I had was while peeking into the 'Stats' page Blogger offers. The page gives a comprehensive breakdown on regional viewings, and the readership of each individual post. Quite the useful tool for any lethargic blogger.
I wouldn't dare call this revelation an epiphany (portrays too strong of a thought), but the idea did call into question my duty to bring you guys the most detailed, styled and high-quality content I have been over the last seven months. Tomorrow actually marks my seventh month doing this.
As the community perusing the gaming blogosphere, what type of content do you prefer to see more? More about the games we play, like guides and tips on improving skill, or posts about the industry? I've relied on industry news for the last two months because no games have come out, and I don't have the money to afford every game that hits shelves. If a website were to hire me and use my writing abilities, that could change (enter :P emoticon here). But for right now, I am a lonely blogger canoeing through the mightiest lakes and rivers patiently waiting for the perfect storm.
So, the question I leave to you guys. Do you wish to see more about gaming itself, or more about the industry? If no one responds (the likely occurrence), I'll try and even up the posts so everyone gets their fix. Thanks a bunch and check out my other posts.
Just an update: I am actually going on vacation Thursday morning until next week so nothing will be posted. In the meantime, Episode 26 of BelowRadar will go up on Monday. Follow me on twitter as well.
This little observation I had was while peeking into the 'Stats' page Blogger offers. The page gives a comprehensive breakdown on regional viewings, and the readership of each individual post. Quite the useful tool for any lethargic blogger.
I wouldn't dare call this revelation an epiphany (portrays too strong of a thought), but the idea did call into question my duty to bring you guys the most detailed, styled and high-quality content I have been over the last seven months. Tomorrow actually marks my seventh month doing this.
As the community perusing the gaming blogosphere, what type of content do you prefer to see more? More about the games we play, like guides and tips on improving skill, or posts about the industry? I've relied on industry news for the last two months because no games have come out, and I don't have the money to afford every game that hits shelves. If a website were to hire me and use my writing abilities, that could change (enter :P emoticon here). But for right now, I am a lonely blogger canoeing through the mightiest lakes and rivers patiently waiting for the perfect storm.
So, the question I leave to you guys. Do you wish to see more about gaming itself, or more about the industry? If no one responds (the likely occurrence), I'll try and even up the posts so everyone gets their fix. Thanks a bunch and check out my other posts.
Just an update: I am actually going on vacation Thursday morning until next week so nothing will be posted. In the meantime, Episode 26 of BelowRadar will go up on Monday. Follow me on twitter as well.
July 17, 2011
Anyone Tired of Assassin's Creed?
Hammering home this topic will rile up the Ubisoft-heads and Creed fans everywhere, and this blog post is dedicated to them. I just want to address these groups personally and question their excitement regarding the franchise being annualized, the future of Ezio and his fellow assassins, and in essence, the business practices of Ubisoft.
Revelations brings a welcoming end to Ezio's journey as a freedom fighter against the demonic Templars. Ezio finds himself travelling to Constantinople, now known as Istanbul, to retrace his ancestor's footsteps in tracking down a powerful artifact said to bring a culmination to the conflict. An interesting story and nothing short of expectations regarding this franchise, but is anyone becoming tiresome from all the intrigue?
The idea sounds ludicrous, even when I was thinking of how to portray this thought, but it is most certainly true. The wonder and fascination surrounding the Assassin's Creed series of games is awe-inspiring, pitting friends and fellow gamers in passionate debate about the proper storyline. That might be part of the fun, but my voice still hurts from belting opinions about Brotherhood and its cinematic ending. I'm hoping that talking about Revelations in great detail doesn't make me go mute.
The success of this franchise is troubling. Ubisoft had given inclinations to the gaming press of their intention to release games annually depending on the success. Following Activision, they saw the moneybags in their eyes sparkling and made an opportunistic decision. But Ubisoft's choice is what will kill the franchise in the eyes of the fanbase.
Assassin's Creed is a special case among the hugely popular franchises of today. The gorgeous landscapes, the realistic flow of society and a debate-worthy plot puts the franchise ahead of the times. Being able to realistically animate an entire society is truly a feat of gaming, and Creed has done so with great ease. Moreover, adding the potential for manipulation of said society and the ability to tread anywhere the player sees fit is a spectacle. Ubisoft has set a new standard for the open world genre, and no game (except maybe Mass Effect) has surpassed it thus far.
As glorious as the franchise is, the characters are even more remarkable. When it was unveiled that a new protagonist would be used in Assassin's Creed II, everyone questioned Ubisoft's intent. Eventually, however, Ezio was beloved as a idealistic young man who would go on to be the venerable leader of the Assassin's Guild. However, by having annual releases, the fanbase is tired of Ezio and almost glad to see a new character for the upcoming Assassin's Creed III. If Mass Effect was annual, the fans would surely tire of Commander Shepard, so what makes Ezio different?
Ubisoft has manufactured a franchise that encapsulates the imagination of everyone who has played. Undoubtedly, Creed has made players question the foundation of society, and whether a hidden group of people, or gods, gave humanity its existence. That's the power gaming can have, and I'd rather see that power extend a couple years longer.
Do you guys agree with me? Post angrily in the comments below or send me an email!
Revelations brings a welcoming end to Ezio's journey as a freedom fighter against the demonic Templars. Ezio finds himself travelling to Constantinople, now known as Istanbul, to retrace his ancestor's footsteps in tracking down a powerful artifact said to bring a culmination to the conflict. An interesting story and nothing short of expectations regarding this franchise, but is anyone becoming tiresome from all the intrigue?
The idea sounds ludicrous, even when I was thinking of how to portray this thought, but it is most certainly true. The wonder and fascination surrounding the Assassin's Creed series of games is awe-inspiring, pitting friends and fellow gamers in passionate debate about the proper storyline. That might be part of the fun, but my voice still hurts from belting opinions about Brotherhood and its cinematic ending. I'm hoping that talking about Revelations in great detail doesn't make me go mute.
The success of this franchise is troubling. Ubisoft had given inclinations to the gaming press of their intention to release games annually depending on the success. Following Activision, they saw the moneybags in their eyes sparkling and made an opportunistic decision. But Ubisoft's choice is what will kill the franchise in the eyes of the fanbase.
Assassin's Creed is a special case among the hugely popular franchises of today. The gorgeous landscapes, the realistic flow of society and a debate-worthy plot puts the franchise ahead of the times. Being able to realistically animate an entire society is truly a feat of gaming, and Creed has done so with great ease. Moreover, adding the potential for manipulation of said society and the ability to tread anywhere the player sees fit is a spectacle. Ubisoft has set a new standard for the open world genre, and no game (except maybe Mass Effect) has surpassed it thus far.
As glorious as the franchise is, the characters are even more remarkable. When it was unveiled that a new protagonist would be used in Assassin's Creed II, everyone questioned Ubisoft's intent. Eventually, however, Ezio was beloved as a idealistic young man who would go on to be the venerable leader of the Assassin's Guild. However, by having annual releases, the fanbase is tired of Ezio and almost glad to see a new character for the upcoming Assassin's Creed III. If Mass Effect was annual, the fans would surely tire of Commander Shepard, so what makes Ezio different?
Ubisoft has manufactured a franchise that encapsulates the imagination of everyone who has played. Undoubtedly, Creed has made players question the foundation of society, and whether a hidden group of people, or gods, gave humanity its existence. That's the power gaming can have, and I'd rather see that power extend a couple years longer.
Do you guys agree with me? Post angrily in the comments below or send me an email!
Silverblade Sunday #1 - Explaining the Large Publishers
Dear readers: I want to hear your thoughts on this topic and others, so please leave a comment below or shoot an email my way at filthcardia@gmail.com!
Three pillars exist in the gaming industry today: the well-known development studios; the indie developers with little cash or influence; and the publishers who control the green. For the next three weeks, I'll be going into detail on each group's role in the business cycle, and how that role affects their business counterparts and the consumer base. Starting us off, the domineering publishers who scout the waters to expand the evilest of empires.
Don't be silly. The publishers don't actually go around each studio with a successful franchise looking to buy. They fund an idea they see as a potential moneymaker, pitched by either type of studio (established or independent) and guide that studio on how to adjust ideas for the audience. Or, they take creative control and shove an idea so far down a developer's throat, giving up their creative rights in exchange for funds.
But that's putting it lightly. In essence, the publishers control the industry. As any business should, these behemoth corporations only look at profit margins and not the art of gaming. For a great example, the music industry operates in a similar fashion. The gigantic record companies get about 80% of all the profits, therefore controlling popular music. The advantageous motherly role of the publishers dictates which games become developed and which don't, only ideas the publisher thinks will sell millions of copies. Arguably, this thought process means brilliant ideas (that could sell millions) never come to fruition.
Leading an industry is extremely difficult and actions with dire consequences must be made to move the industry forward. This is the flawed idealism many publishers grasp onto with cold hands. Closing down studios, unnecessary firings (albeit after a successful project), ruining once great franchises; it's almost become daily rhetoric for the gaming news publications. How these companies operate themselves could be turned into a soap opera.
THQ, the lovely publisher bringing us such classics like Saints Row, made a business move that boggled everyone. Kaos Studios, who previously developed the mildly successful Frontlines: Fuel of War, proposed a new idea: a North Korean invasion of the American homeland. That lead to this year's Homefront, which became THQ's most pre-ordered game and helped established its reputation of banking on new franchises. Homefront, with an aggressive ad campaign, shipped 2.6 million copies. A very successful debut of a brand-spankin' new IP. Two months later, THQ closed Kaos Studios. No particular reason was given except the typical corporate banter that relocating the developers to the main Montreal studio was cheaper.
Relocation isn't uncommon in this industry, especially when money is the motivator. And that leads to another behavioural trait of all business, not specific to the gaming industry. Why does big business feel it necessary to treat workers like pieces of meat? Did THQ consider these people had built lives in New York (where Kaos was headquartered)? Probably not.
The most disturbing aspect of having large publishers rule the industry is the issue of creative control. Publishers want brand establishment whereas developers prefer more creative content for the player. Having more diverse gameplay means a longer development time and that's something the publishers feel is unnecessary when the game is bound to sell anyway. Some publishers are more lenient, thereby giving developers full control of the creative process, though this is extremely rare. It boils down to the reputation of the developer, like Bungie with Activision or Bioware with EA. It's imperative because developers know their audience best, and it's the audience who will be driving in leagues on release day to buy the game. A small indie studio will not get the same treatment.
Sorry if I strayed off topic a tad. The skill of separating straight discussion and not forecasting personal thought is something I am still learning. Next week, the mainstream developers are up.
Just an update: Make sure to check out Episode 25 of BelowRadar, my podcast, right here. Also follow me on twitter!
Three pillars exist in the gaming industry today: the well-known development studios; the indie developers with little cash or influence; and the publishers who control the green. For the next three weeks, I'll be going into detail on each group's role in the business cycle, and how that role affects their business counterparts and the consumer base. Starting us off, the domineering publishers who scout the waters to expand the evilest of empires.
Don't be silly. The publishers don't actually go around each studio with a successful franchise looking to buy. They fund an idea they see as a potential moneymaker, pitched by either type of studio (established or independent) and guide that studio on how to adjust ideas for the audience. Or, they take creative control and shove an idea so far down a developer's throat, giving up their creative rights in exchange for funds.
But that's putting it lightly. In essence, the publishers control the industry. As any business should, these behemoth corporations only look at profit margins and not the art of gaming. For a great example, the music industry operates in a similar fashion. The gigantic record companies get about 80% of all the profits, therefore controlling popular music. The advantageous motherly role of the publishers dictates which games become developed and which don't, only ideas the publisher thinks will sell millions of copies. Arguably, this thought process means brilliant ideas (that could sell millions) never come to fruition.
Leading an industry is extremely difficult and actions with dire consequences must be made to move the industry forward. This is the flawed idealism many publishers grasp onto with cold hands. Closing down studios, unnecessary firings (albeit after a successful project), ruining once great franchises; it's almost become daily rhetoric for the gaming news publications. How these companies operate themselves could be turned into a soap opera.
THQ, the lovely publisher bringing us such classics like Saints Row, made a business move that boggled everyone. Kaos Studios, who previously developed the mildly successful Frontlines: Fuel of War, proposed a new idea: a North Korean invasion of the American homeland. That lead to this year's Homefront, which became THQ's most pre-ordered game and helped established its reputation of banking on new franchises. Homefront, with an aggressive ad campaign, shipped 2.6 million copies. A very successful debut of a brand-spankin' new IP. Two months later, THQ closed Kaos Studios. No particular reason was given except the typical corporate banter that relocating the developers to the main Montreal studio was cheaper.
Relocation isn't uncommon in this industry, especially when money is the motivator. And that leads to another behavioural trait of all business, not specific to the gaming industry. Why does big business feel it necessary to treat workers like pieces of meat? Did THQ consider these people had built lives in New York (where Kaos was headquartered)? Probably not.
The most disturbing aspect of having large publishers rule the industry is the issue of creative control. Publishers want brand establishment whereas developers prefer more creative content for the player. Having more diverse gameplay means a longer development time and that's something the publishers feel is unnecessary when the game is bound to sell anyway. Some publishers are more lenient, thereby giving developers full control of the creative process, though this is extremely rare. It boils down to the reputation of the developer, like Bungie with Activision or Bioware with EA. It's imperative because developers know their audience best, and it's the audience who will be driving in leagues on release day to buy the game. A small indie studio will not get the same treatment.
Sorry if I strayed off topic a tad. The skill of separating straight discussion and not forecasting personal thought is something I am still learning. Next week, the mainstream developers are up.
Just an update: Make sure to check out Episode 25 of BelowRadar, my podcast, right here. Also follow me on twitter!
Introducing my Silverblade Sunday Series!
The summer is slow. Very slow. Almost painfully slow. Gamers everywhere march through massive backlogs to complete the rare gems and strenuous experiences sitting there gawking on cabinet shelves. And, from what I've seen on many gaming forums, more threads question the industry from an intellectual and moralistic perspective. Therefore, what better time then now to start a weekly series examining the industry from an intellectual viewpoint. Instead of just ranting as usual, each Sunday I'll find a topic of interest and discuss it in-depth.
While my trusty book has its comfortable place beside me full of potential ideas, coming up with a name of this weekly article was the difficult part. It actually comes from a dream I had when I first got The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. To my knowledge, an encounter with werewolves in Cyrodiil was impossible, though it is said the creatures exist in all the provinces of Tamriel. Around the same time, I heavily invested my time in a Worgen character on World of Warcraft (the wolf-people). In my dream, universes clashed and I slaughtered dozens of wolves with a silver dagger to save myself. And the name just seemed fitting.
Over the coming Sundays I'll be discussing many topics. If you, the reader, are itching to learn more about something and are too lazy to do the legwork, shoot me an email at filthcardia@gmail.com and I will gladly do the grunt work for you. Look for my first entry later today.
While my trusty book has its comfortable place beside me full of potential ideas, coming up with a name of this weekly article was the difficult part. It actually comes from a dream I had when I first got The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. To my knowledge, an encounter with werewolves in Cyrodiil was impossible, though it is said the creatures exist in all the provinces of Tamriel. Around the same time, I heavily invested my time in a Worgen character on World of Warcraft (the wolf-people). In my dream, universes clashed and I slaughtered dozens of wolves with a silver dagger to save myself. And the name just seemed fitting.
Over the coming Sundays I'll be discussing many topics. If you, the reader, are itching to learn more about something and are too lazy to do the legwork, shoot me an email at filthcardia@gmail.com and I will gladly do the grunt work for you. Look for my first entry later today.
July 14, 2011
After The Popcorn – Transformers 3: Dark of the Moon
This is a review written by a good friend of mine and his twitter can be found here. Not gaming related, and I have tried to convince him to contribute to the blog, but he refuses. Enjoy the late review!
Arguably the most anticipated film of the year, the final installment of Transformers, intriguingly titled Dark of the Moon, finally hit theatres last Wednesday. The questions lingering: Did the franchise redeem itself from Revenge of the Fallen? Did Rosie-Huntington Whitely trump Megan Fox as an actress? And why the heck is McSteamy in the movie?
Let’s get this out of the way. Yes, she’s freaking hot. Rosie-Huntington Whitely was plucked straight off the Victoria’s Secret runway by director Michael Bay and thrown into the middle of the mainstream media after being announced as Megan Fox’s successor. Even before the movie even begun filming, Whitely was already being compared by men around the world to Megan Fox. Who’s hotter? Who’s a better actress?
Surprising to some, Whitely had no prior acting experience. So the debate between her and Fox simply became a matter of who’s hotter. No matter what your preference, it’s undeniable that Whitely is the better actress. And that’s very impressive considering Fox had an acting career prior to Transformers. Whitely brings a personality and charisma to the screen, something that Megan Fox lacks on-screen and sadly in real life.
Since the very first teaser trailer for Dark of the Moon, this mysterious Transformer appeared before us. Many names were thrown around, including Alpha Trion. But the dominant theory was Unicron, based on the design. It also made perfect sense to include Unicron for a conclusion of a trilogy. Unicron being the ultimate threat to Decepticons and Auto-Bots alike. The idea was strengthened by the city-scape invasion scenes in later trailers; Unicron would be capable of that kind of fire power.
But apparently not. This Transformer surprisingly turned out to be Sentinel Prime - a rather lesser character in the Transformers franchise that never even made an appearance in the 80s cartoon. Sentinel Prime was mentioned in the Marvel Comic The Transformers as Optimus Prime’s predecessor as holder of the Matrix of Leadership. Interestingly enough, also in the Marvel Comic, Alpha Trion, the other possible candidate for this character, was the temporary keeper of the Matrix of Leadership between Sentinel Prime and Optimus Prime.
As for Dark of the Moon itself, the film had high expectations to redeem the considered failure of Revenge of the Fallen. Michael Bay even apologized to USA Today for the whole movie and promised a better sequel. Shia LaBeouf also admitted he thought his performance was weak in the previous film and thought the Dark of the Moon script would give him a chance to shine. Sadly, the final film of the trilogy doesn’t live up to promises of the cast and crew.
Dark of the Moon essentially keeps the franchise style of intense action eye-candy, with a more intriguing plot than its predecessor. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t improve enough from the weaknesses of the first two films and fails in the exact same categories. This time around though, Bay seems to have done away with his editors. The film wastes time introducing new but rather unnecessary characters (cough…Patrick Dempsey) and suffers from such a drawn-out and lengthy climax that after a while you just want the movie to end. This isn’t Lord of the Rings, Bay.
Don’t get the review wrong though. This is a Transformers movie directed by Michael Bay. So the action is obviously fantastic. This is also one of the best 3D action movies to date. It’s almost worth seeing just for the experience. The encounters aren’t just mobs of random Transformers fighting either, like Revenge of the Fallen. The film does a good job setting up five nasty Decepticons that you know are going down but might just take an Auto-Bot with them, including Shockwave.
Walk into Dark of the Moon with neutral expectations and you’ll enjoy your time spent. If you’re a Star Trek fan, you’ll get some Spock easter eggs here and there as Sentinel Prime is voiced by Leonard Nemoy. If you’re a Transformers fan, then you’ll have to suffer through the loserness (a fake world is necessary) of Drifter Megaton. It’s a non-satisfying end to the trilogy, but it’s a decent summer flick.
EPIC-O-METRE : 60%
Arguably the most anticipated film of the year, the final installment of Transformers, intriguingly titled Dark of the Moon, finally hit theatres last Wednesday. The questions lingering: Did the franchise redeem itself from Revenge of the Fallen? Did Rosie-Huntington Whitely trump Megan Fox as an actress? And why the heck is McSteamy in the movie?
Let’s get this out of the way. Yes, she’s freaking hot. Rosie-Huntington Whitely was plucked straight off the Victoria’s Secret runway by director Michael Bay and thrown into the middle of the mainstream media after being announced as Megan Fox’s successor. Even before the movie even begun filming, Whitely was already being compared by men around the world to Megan Fox. Who’s hotter? Who’s a better actress?
Surprising to some, Whitely had no prior acting experience. So the debate between her and Fox simply became a matter of who’s hotter. No matter what your preference, it’s undeniable that Whitely is the better actress. And that’s very impressive considering Fox had an acting career prior to Transformers. Whitely brings a personality and charisma to the screen, something that Megan Fox lacks on-screen and sadly in real life.
Since the very first teaser trailer for Dark of the Moon, this mysterious Transformer appeared before us. Many names were thrown around, including Alpha Trion. But the dominant theory was Unicron, based on the design. It also made perfect sense to include Unicron for a conclusion of a trilogy. Unicron being the ultimate threat to Decepticons and Auto-Bots alike. The idea was strengthened by the city-scape invasion scenes in later trailers; Unicron would be capable of that kind of fire power.
But apparently not. This Transformer surprisingly turned out to be Sentinel Prime - a rather lesser character in the Transformers franchise that never even made an appearance in the 80s cartoon. Sentinel Prime was mentioned in the Marvel Comic The Transformers as Optimus Prime’s predecessor as holder of the Matrix of Leadership. Interestingly enough, also in the Marvel Comic, Alpha Trion, the other possible candidate for this character, was the temporary keeper of the Matrix of Leadership between Sentinel Prime and Optimus Prime.
As for Dark of the Moon itself, the film had high expectations to redeem the considered failure of Revenge of the Fallen. Michael Bay even apologized to USA Today for the whole movie and promised a better sequel. Shia LaBeouf also admitted he thought his performance was weak in the previous film and thought the Dark of the Moon script would give him a chance to shine. Sadly, the final film of the trilogy doesn’t live up to promises of the cast and crew.
Dark of the Moon essentially keeps the franchise style of intense action eye-candy, with a more intriguing plot than its predecessor. Unfortunately, the movie doesn’t improve enough from the weaknesses of the first two films and fails in the exact same categories. This time around though, Bay seems to have done away with his editors. The film wastes time introducing new but rather unnecessary characters (cough…Patrick Dempsey) and suffers from such a drawn-out and lengthy climax that after a while you just want the movie to end. This isn’t Lord of the Rings, Bay.
Don’t get the review wrong though. This is a Transformers movie directed by Michael Bay. So the action is obviously fantastic. This is also one of the best 3D action movies to date. It’s almost worth seeing just for the experience. The encounters aren’t just mobs of random Transformers fighting either, like Revenge of the Fallen. The film does a good job setting up five nasty Decepticons that you know are going down but might just take an Auto-Bot with them, including Shockwave.
Walk into Dark of the Moon with neutral expectations and you’ll enjoy your time spent. If you’re a Star Trek fan, you’ll get some Spock easter eggs here and there as Sentinel Prime is voiced by Leonard Nemoy. If you’re a Transformers fan, then you’ll have to suffer through the loserness (a fake world is necessary) of Drifter Megaton. It’s a non-satisfying end to the trilogy, but it’s a decent summer flick.
EPIC-O-METRE : 60%
July 12, 2011
World of Warcraft and the Free-to-Play Trend
Quite the glorious week so far. Some new Twitter and Google followers (welcome to you all) and the blog slowly grows. This summer has been uncharacteristically hectic with my driving course and college, therefore forcing gaming far down on the priorities list. And then near the end of July, this blog will close up shop for a week as the vacation gods come and praise me again. I didn't anticipate this much chaos, and I was hoping to make good use of the summer to rapidly increase the blog's presence online. But while I am temporarily occupied in the heart of the wilderness, may I politely ask my followers to spread the word? Just a Facebook status update or re-tweeting one of my posts would be great! Thanks all.
Anywho, my beloved World of Warcraft is being scrutinized from every angle about entrapping itself in this free-to-play fad currently sweeping the MMO genre. While exceptional for recruiting new players, the bureaucracy surrounding the program is questionable. The program says any player can try the game free up until level 20, which any WoW player knows is bullhonky (great word). The first few levels of any character is a grind, a continuous grind, and doesn't give the player an adequate representation of what the game can offer except player vs. player (PvP) combat.
Where the magic happens is the endgame, raiding to vanquish foes that threaten the very existence of Azeroth, and the contagious satisfaction of finally acquiring that desired piece of gear. With friends, or even complete strangers, the excitement is palpable has the fight progresses down to the final seconds. The heart starts beating as raid member after raid member fall in the heat of battle and only a tank and healer are left. Anxious people shout passionately over Ventrilo giving advice on mechanics or additional enemies. Then boom. No hit points left. Boss falls, members rejoice, and Azeroth is saved once again.
Though, to graciously accompany new players, Blizzard increased the Recruit-a-Friend system to level 80 from 60, letting players shoot to the maximum level in a night or two at 300% experience. The developer is indeed trying to let all players see the content, but leveling quickly has its immediate drawbacks. The player, probably unfamiliar with the class, won't know the true capabilities of the class, putting him or her at a massive disadvantage come raid time. Understanding a class' role is imperative to being a successful raid contributor, and spending only a fortnight playing a character won't justify any errors. World of Warcraft is serious business.
Reportedly Blizzard has considered the option for years, even before the three months after Cataclysm saw the game lose a million accounts. Fellow bloggers have pitched the idea if this is Blizzard's push for World of Warcraft to finally go free-to-play. As the game ages, the likelihood increases, but the fanbase is still mighty strong. Being the behemoth of the genre, going free-to-play would be daring from a company very comfortable generating a billion dollars in revenue each year from one project. Making the game completely free would obviously see an uptick of curious players, so emphasizing micro-transactions is a successful business model as evidenced by Lord of the Rings Online. But with a population still willing to gorge $15 a month, Blizzard will be smiling all the way to the bank for years to come.
Then again, I could be wrong. My interpretation could be entirely backwards, and maybe Blizzard has other plans. I pitch this question to you: do you think Blizzard could possibly dive into the pool of free-ness (my word now!)? And, if you play the game, would you continue to if World of Warcraft did go free-to-play? Answer in the comments section below.
Just an update: Short update today. Episode 25, the silver anniversary show, of BelowRadar (my podcast) is up finally. We'll be doing a bonuscast of our thoughts on Portal 2 this weekend. You can listen to the latest episode here. Thanks for listening!
Anywho, my beloved World of Warcraft is being scrutinized from every angle about entrapping itself in this free-to-play fad currently sweeping the MMO genre. While exceptional for recruiting new players, the bureaucracy surrounding the program is questionable. The program says any player can try the game free up until level 20, which any WoW player knows is bullhonky (great word). The first few levels of any character is a grind, a continuous grind, and doesn't give the player an adequate representation of what the game can offer except player vs. player (PvP) combat.
Where the magic happens is the endgame, raiding to vanquish foes that threaten the very existence of Azeroth, and the contagious satisfaction of finally acquiring that desired piece of gear. With friends, or even complete strangers, the excitement is palpable has the fight progresses down to the final seconds. The heart starts beating as raid member after raid member fall in the heat of battle and only a tank and healer are left. Anxious people shout passionately over Ventrilo giving advice on mechanics or additional enemies. Then boom. No hit points left. Boss falls, members rejoice, and Azeroth is saved once again.
Though, to graciously accompany new players, Blizzard increased the Recruit-a-Friend system to level 80 from 60, letting players shoot to the maximum level in a night or two at 300% experience. The developer is indeed trying to let all players see the content, but leveling quickly has its immediate drawbacks. The player, probably unfamiliar with the class, won't know the true capabilities of the class, putting him or her at a massive disadvantage come raid time. Understanding a class' role is imperative to being a successful raid contributor, and spending only a fortnight playing a character won't justify any errors. World of Warcraft is serious business.
Reportedly Blizzard has considered the option for years, even before the three months after Cataclysm saw the game lose a million accounts. Fellow bloggers have pitched the idea if this is Blizzard's push for World of Warcraft to finally go free-to-play. As the game ages, the likelihood increases, but the fanbase is still mighty strong. Being the behemoth of the genre, going free-to-play would be daring from a company very comfortable generating a billion dollars in revenue each year from one project. Making the game completely free would obviously see an uptick of curious players, so emphasizing micro-transactions is a successful business model as evidenced by Lord of the Rings Online. But with a population still willing to gorge $15 a month, Blizzard will be smiling all the way to the bank for years to come.
Then again, I could be wrong. My interpretation could be entirely backwards, and maybe Blizzard has other plans. I pitch this question to you: do you think Blizzard could possibly dive into the pool of free-ness (my word now!)? And, if you play the game, would you continue to if World of Warcraft did go free-to-play? Answer in the comments section below.
Just an update: Short update today. Episode 25, the silver anniversary show, of BelowRadar (my podcast) is up finally. We'll be doing a bonuscast of our thoughts on Portal 2 this weekend. You can listen to the latest episode here. Thanks for listening!
July 11, 2011
The Troubles of A Gaming Blog
The summer. Revered by everyone in society except for gaming bloggers and journalists. The summer drought is the true test of a writer's ability to come up with interesting and creative content out of nothing. Though the middle months do give gamers the opportunity to backtrack into the shelves and feel ashamed for not completing classics. I plan to do so with Final Fantasy XIII, Burnout Paradise and Mercenaries 2.
This blog is still a newborn in the blogging world, therefore lasting as long as my blogging career, and finding meaty content during the summer months was something I feared. The trouble of maintaining a gaming blog without reliable access to the industry is somewhat difficult. Luckily, I have a book beside me full of ideas regarding current problems, the future of many genres and the industry, and random thoughts I have on the state of journalism.
Through the content, I am still trying to find my voice and what people prefer to read. The question usually boils down to critiquing what a website has posted, posting about a game, or speculation. And what content will generate the most traffic. I am not trying to sound greedy or businesslike, but producing content for a blog isn't always just about enjoying said content. While thoroughly enjoying the process of building each separate post, learning things and carefully manufacturing a collection of ideas fluently, as bloggers, the number of readers is always a concern.
Over the next two months, mainly until the release morning of Gears of War 3, expect more posts focusing on the ideological side of the industry. For example, examining the free-to-play trend or life of a genre after a behemoth dies. Posts not only attention-grabbing, but test my skills as a writer and a producer of content for all of you to read.
Please check back often!
This blog is still a newborn in the blogging world, therefore lasting as long as my blogging career, and finding meaty content during the summer months was something I feared. The trouble of maintaining a gaming blog without reliable access to the industry is somewhat difficult. Luckily, I have a book beside me full of ideas regarding current problems, the future of many genres and the industry, and random thoughts I have on the state of journalism.
Through the content, I am still trying to find my voice and what people prefer to read. The question usually boils down to critiquing what a website has posted, posting about a game, or speculation. And what content will generate the most traffic. I am not trying to sound greedy or businesslike, but producing content for a blog isn't always just about enjoying said content. While thoroughly enjoying the process of building each separate post, learning things and carefully manufacturing a collection of ideas fluently, as bloggers, the number of readers is always a concern.
Over the next two months, mainly until the release morning of Gears of War 3, expect more posts focusing on the ideological side of the industry. For example, examining the free-to-play trend or life of a genre after a behemoth dies. Posts not only attention-grabbing, but test my skills as a writer and a producer of content for all of you to read.
Please check back often!
July 7, 2011
Why Are PC Gamers So Defensive?
Through my endless search for blog topics and information, I find the odd article gracing my computer screen about how much better PC gaming is compared to consoles. And a majority of these "articles" (more like unnecessary, unequivocally true rants) are from computer gaming centric sites. These sites have the undying right to boast their platform and bash consoles as much as they please, but why do they feel obligated to do so constantly?
Among the gaming community, it's a universally accepted truth that PC is the elite platform. All console gamers (except a few idiots here and there) understand this fact, and some even applaud the platform. Without computers, games like The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Battlefield and certain MMOs wouldn't exist on consoles and console gamers are truly thankful. The limitations barring us from enjoying the full experience are obvious -- no modding, for one -- but that's something console gamers have learned to cope with being associated with the platform.
While boasting within an article about a different topic is acceptable, dedicating an entire article as to why PC gaming is better not only shows laziness, but a lack of creative thought among the writer or publication. Readers of the article likely think along the same lines, or are curious (but aware) of the capabilities of the platform, so reiterating what is already the general consensus is needless and a cheap way of generating traffic. For these sites, instead of childishly assaulting console gaming, why not create a forum of discussion on how to further improve PC gaming, like the implementation of 3D technology or enhancing the multiplayer experience.
The PC audience viewing this post will think I am some console crybaby which couldn't be further from the truth. Right now, I am loving my time on World of Warcraft, and previously I dabbled in the constructive world of Minecraft (make sure to read about my adventures in earlier posts). Having a console is just easier for my financial situation. I only buy about three new games a year, and everyone I know uses the console as their main form of entertainment. Given the opportunity, if I had the cash and people willing to play, I'd totally transfer my focus from console to PC gaming.
Not that I am calling console gaming the 'ghetto' version of gaming overall, but it is certainly the cheaper alternative. And we get what we pay for. The PlayStation Network is a free service, but penetrable to online attacks. Xbox Live is $50 a year, giving gamers a secure network operated and maintained by the corporate behemoth Microsoft. And Nintendo's network is suitable for the family full of gamers. PC gaming is fit for the hardest of the hardcore, and well that is something to be prideful of, it doesn't make it appropriate to bash consoles without understanding an individual's financial standing and gaming habits. So knock it off.
Speaking of PC gaming, I'd love to do more posts on why the platform continues to be a massive success, even with the rapid rise of mobile, social and console gaming. Post your ideas in the comment section below. Also, do you agree with what I am saying or do you think I am being ridiculous? Please, be as angry as possible! Constructive criticism is always nice.
Among the gaming community, it's a universally accepted truth that PC is the elite platform. All console gamers (except a few idiots here and there) understand this fact, and some even applaud the platform. Without computers, games like The Elder Scrolls, Fallout, Battlefield and certain MMOs wouldn't exist on consoles and console gamers are truly thankful. The limitations barring us from enjoying the full experience are obvious -- no modding, for one -- but that's something console gamers have learned to cope with being associated with the platform.
While boasting within an article about a different topic is acceptable, dedicating an entire article as to why PC gaming is better not only shows laziness, but a lack of creative thought among the writer or publication. Readers of the article likely think along the same lines, or are curious (but aware) of the capabilities of the platform, so reiterating what is already the general consensus is needless and a cheap way of generating traffic. For these sites, instead of childishly assaulting console gaming, why not create a forum of discussion on how to further improve PC gaming, like the implementation of 3D technology or enhancing the multiplayer experience.
The PC audience viewing this post will think I am some console crybaby which couldn't be further from the truth. Right now, I am loving my time on World of Warcraft, and previously I dabbled in the constructive world of Minecraft (make sure to read about my adventures in earlier posts). Having a console is just easier for my financial situation. I only buy about three new games a year, and everyone I know uses the console as their main form of entertainment. Given the opportunity, if I had the cash and people willing to play, I'd totally transfer my focus from console to PC gaming.
Not that I am calling console gaming the 'ghetto' version of gaming overall, but it is certainly the cheaper alternative. And we get what we pay for. The PlayStation Network is a free service, but penetrable to online attacks. Xbox Live is $50 a year, giving gamers a secure network operated and maintained by the corporate behemoth Microsoft. And Nintendo's network is suitable for the family full of gamers. PC gaming is fit for the hardest of the hardcore, and well that is something to be prideful of, it doesn't make it appropriate to bash consoles without understanding an individual's financial standing and gaming habits. So knock it off.
Speaking of PC gaming, I'd love to do more posts on why the platform continues to be a massive success, even with the rapid rise of mobile, social and console gaming. Post your ideas in the comment section below. Also, do you agree with what I am saying or do you think I am being ridiculous? Please, be as angry as possible! Constructive criticism is always nice.
Release Mirror's Edge 2 Already
Before I rant about EA yanking our chains on the existence of Mirror's Edge 2, I just want to apologize for the long period between posts. Four days isn't a long time, but when it becomes part of my routine, it feels weird man.
There are many reasons to hate Electronic Arts, as everyone would agree, and the most recent example is enough to make a post about. I am still a huge fan of Electronic Arts' high-flying parkour adventure Mirror's Edge, even three years after its release, and like much of the gaming world, I wish to see Faith in action once again. The publisher has been toying with fans for years regarding the impending sequel, whether the project was delayed or outright canceled, and the rhetoric hasn't given any clarification.
Three years. Three long years. Recent comments say the game isn't dead and even making a significant upgrade: being built on the gorgeous Frostbite 2.0 engine. The original game was exceptionally pretty, though the unnamed city was extremely white, with little to no colour. While I understand that was to emphasize the correct path for the player (the right way would be marked in red), some colour would go a long way. Especially on the Frostbite 2.0 engine!
Become one with the Mirror's Edge, EA.
Just an update: The schedule for updating this blog during the summer will get iffy in the coming weeks. Vacations come-and-go, and my priorities are still to get prepared for college. However, come September, I'll be updating this blog as much as I can (hopefully seven days a week!) so stay tuned.
Also, I could ask you guys nicely to click the ads? I am college-bound and any extra money could do me wonders. Thank you!
There are many reasons to hate Electronic Arts, as everyone would agree, and the most recent example is enough to make a post about. I am still a huge fan of Electronic Arts' high-flying parkour adventure Mirror's Edge, even three years after its release, and like much of the gaming world, I wish to see Faith in action once again. The publisher has been toying with fans for years regarding the impending sequel, whether the project was delayed or outright canceled, and the rhetoric hasn't given any clarification.
Three years. Three long years. Recent comments say the game isn't dead and even making a significant upgrade: being built on the gorgeous Frostbite 2.0 engine. The original game was exceptionally pretty, though the unnamed city was extremely white, with little to no colour. While I understand that was to emphasize the correct path for the player (the right way would be marked in red), some colour would go a long way. Especially on the Frostbite 2.0 engine!
Become one with the Mirror's Edge, EA.
Just an update: The schedule for updating this blog during the summer will get iffy in the coming weeks. Vacations come-and-go, and my priorities are still to get prepared for college. However, come September, I'll be updating this blog as much as I can (hopefully seven days a week!) so stay tuned.
Also, I could ask you guys nicely to click the ads? I am college-bound and any extra money could do me wonders. Thank you!
July 3, 2011
Should BioShock Have Gone Airborne?
The strangest decisions have the most adverse effects. That statement, while sounding impressive, just popped into my head when I thought of doing this topic. With word that BioShock Infinite cleaned up during the many E3 award presentations, the change of landscape from underwater to among the clouds seems fitting. And since this is the true sequel to BioShock (Irrational Games had no part in developing BioShock 2), is the world of Rapture dead-and-buried? Speculation on the ending ahead, so don't read on if you wish to be completely surprised.
The initial response to the teaser trailer for Infinite caught many off-guard. People living on a floating metropolis swinging on transport lines, a mysterious woman with powers grabbed by an archaic prototype of the Big Daddy, and huge advertisements detailing a revolution and selective breeding. While nonsensical, the premise was certainly intriguing. The fruitful collective imagination at Irrational came up with the magical world of Rapture, therefore making the sky-city of Columbia even more captivating. And the idea of a prequel to the original BioShock made the new project that much more fascinating. But the change in scenery left much to be desired from the fans. Questions about Rapture, the future of the franchise and speculation of the next numbered game arose quickly.
The underwater city of Rapture is a mysterious and beautiful place where the possibilities for adventure and discovery are endless. Many anticipated the then-unknown sequel would be set in the underwater city, which could still be followed through, given Infinite is a prequel. How the two settings are related is still not known right now, but many speculated, somehow, Columbia crashes amidst the ongoing chaos and the wreckage is used to construct Rapture. Quite the ludicrous theory at first thought, but given the ridiculousness of this franchise, the thought is not that outlandish.
The introduction of Columbia took many by surprise, mostly because Rapture is so memorable. An underwater city completely self-sustainable engulfed in a civil war? Sign me up! The argument could be made, however, that Rapture was growing tiresome and fans were desperate for a change. The storyline of the franchise is very grim, a city gripped by war, and the surrounding landscape of Rapture - the dark and murky floor of the Atlantic Ocean - is metaphorical to how desolate and isolated the city truly is. Fans grew attached to this mysterious metropolis, like a child to lollipop, and these passionate fans felt heartbroken when Irrational stomped on their favourite candy.
Personally, I am extremely excited for the potential of this aerial paradise. Though Bioshock was an experience unlike anything else, the emptiness of Rapture didn't affect me like everyone else. I'm glad Irrational is taking such a drastic measure and actually making this franchise lively. Very colourful, very pretty, and some clear insight into how the disturbed minds at Irrational pictured the early happenings of last century. A flying city is exaggeration at its finest.
The initial response to the teaser trailer for Infinite caught many off-guard. People living on a floating metropolis swinging on transport lines, a mysterious woman with powers grabbed by an archaic prototype of the Big Daddy, and huge advertisements detailing a revolution and selective breeding. While nonsensical, the premise was certainly intriguing. The fruitful collective imagination at Irrational came up with the magical world of Rapture, therefore making the sky-city of Columbia even more captivating. And the idea of a prequel to the original BioShock made the new project that much more fascinating. But the change in scenery left much to be desired from the fans. Questions about Rapture, the future of the franchise and speculation of the next numbered game arose quickly.
The underwater city of Rapture is a mysterious and beautiful place where the possibilities for adventure and discovery are endless. Many anticipated the then-unknown sequel would be set in the underwater city, which could still be followed through, given Infinite is a prequel. How the two settings are related is still not known right now, but many speculated, somehow, Columbia crashes amidst the ongoing chaos and the wreckage is used to construct Rapture. Quite the ludicrous theory at first thought, but given the ridiculousness of this franchise, the thought is not that outlandish.
The introduction of Columbia took many by surprise, mostly because Rapture is so memorable. An underwater city completely self-sustainable engulfed in a civil war? Sign me up! The argument could be made, however, that Rapture was growing tiresome and fans were desperate for a change. The storyline of the franchise is very grim, a city gripped by war, and the surrounding landscape of Rapture - the dark and murky floor of the Atlantic Ocean - is metaphorical to how desolate and isolated the city truly is. Fans grew attached to this mysterious metropolis, like a child to lollipop, and these passionate fans felt heartbroken when Irrational stomped on their favourite candy.
Personally, I am extremely excited for the potential of this aerial paradise. Though Bioshock was an experience unlike anything else, the emptiness of Rapture didn't affect me like everyone else. I'm glad Irrational is taking such a drastic measure and actually making this franchise lively. Very colourful, very pretty, and some clear insight into how the disturbed minds at Irrational pictured the early happenings of last century. A flying city is exaggeration at its finest.
IGN's Top 100 Modern Games: My Critique
I am back from vacation! After a tiresome weekend of gazing upon the blue waters and bikini babes of paradise, I am back in full force. One update before I rant on: I am looking for guest-bloggers to contribute to my lovely piece of e-paradise. Click the "Guest-blog" tap if you want to contribute!
The start of summer, the most dreaded period for us gaming outlets. Primarily because no prominent releases are scheduled, so the reviews department (the meat-and-potatoes for readership) stays dusty until September. Microsoft has blessed us with the Summer of Arcade promotion, and you can read my preview here. All five games look like solid titles, especially From Dust.
Since the drought of summer is upon us and the long wait between gaming conferences commences, sites look to their writers to magically imagine a stream of controversial content. And IGN has kicked off the summer with their (very opinionated) list of the top games from this generation. Even before the games are listed, the topic is disconcerting because the current generation is not over yet. The console-makers aren't slated to release the next generation until 2013 at the earliest (except Nintendo), so the timing of this list is premature.
When IGN does these lists, they only include one game per franchise. While fair, that mentality defeats the purpose of grading an entire generation, because in the case of Super Mario Galaxy 2, its predecessor doesn't get the same recognition. The second game vastly improved on the first, which many deemed impossible, therefore giving the second one more brand recognition. But that's just a small consequence from making a list with such magnitude.
Moving on, this list is purely the opinion of IGN, and the site deserves credit for releasing this list. It takes a certain level of audacity to release a list like this before the generation is over. Although the backlash would be tremendous, IGN and the gaming community have always been at odds anyway. Now, the choices. (I won't go through the entire list, only the most eye-catching choices.)
Covering a wide range of platforms, many of the choices are questionable. From 100-71: Frankly, scoring Demon's Souls so low is plainly irresponsible. Especially under Resistance 2, another PS3 exclusive. Demon's Souls was praised joyously by many for its extreme difficulty and unforgiving gameplay in an age where both are rare. Angry Birds is a strong representation for the mobile crowd, though Infinity Blade would have been a stronger choice. Brain Age is the most surprising inclusion on this list, faring very high at 76. Lastly, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings should be in the thirties, not in the seventies.
From 70-41: Not many extraordinary games listed here, though one questionable choice was Fable II. I would consider Dragon Age: Origins (listed at 89) a better game, but the two are very different. I wonder if Peter Molyneux had anything to do with that decision. It's nice to see Castle Crashers and Braid, two influential (and fun as hell) arcade titles get some much-deserved recognition. I wonder how many PS3 fanboys are crying right now seeing God of War 3 ranked 46.
From 40-11: More arcade love with Plants vs. Zombies and Peggle, two outstanding games from Popcap, and the highest-selling Summer of Arcade title Limbo is mentioned as well. Many recognizable franchises are credited here, and this is the strongest section of this list. Gears, Halo and Borderlands all deserve this high, though I would put Gearbox's co-op bonanza in the top ten. My favourite listing must be Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and I'm very pleased IGN picked the one that started the monster success of the franchise.
From 10-1: The cream of the crop. The best games of this generation. The two surprises are Assassin's Creed II and BioShock. While I thoroughly adored both, Creed could be lowered into the last bracket while Uncharted 2 switches places with BioShock. Although IGN isn't known for giving love to PS3 exclusives, it would have been nice to drop MGS: Peace Walker from 37 and slip MGS4 into the top ten.
While I am inspired to create my own list, there's just too much hassle involved. Plus I'm the only creative mind here while IGN has dozens. Maybe someday, but certainly not right now. Many viewing IGN's list will have differing opinions, but I think they present a solid case. Obviously some are questionable, maybe downright absurd (Demon's Souls), though they do hit the high-points.
Here is the link to the overall list: http://www.ign.com/top/modern-games
To the readers: If you have your own list, post a link in the comment section. Do you agree with my choices? Do you agree with IGN's choices? What games do/don't deserve to be recognized? Start the debate below!
The start of summer, the most dreaded period for us gaming outlets. Primarily because no prominent releases are scheduled, so the reviews department (the meat-and-potatoes for readership) stays dusty until September. Microsoft has blessed us with the Summer of Arcade promotion, and you can read my preview here. All five games look like solid titles, especially From Dust.
Since the drought of summer is upon us and the long wait between gaming conferences commences, sites look to their writers to magically imagine a stream of controversial content. And IGN has kicked off the summer with their (very opinionated) list of the top games from this generation. Even before the games are listed, the topic is disconcerting because the current generation is not over yet. The console-makers aren't slated to release the next generation until 2013 at the earliest (except Nintendo), so the timing of this list is premature.
When IGN does these lists, they only include one game per franchise. While fair, that mentality defeats the purpose of grading an entire generation, because in the case of Super Mario Galaxy 2, its predecessor doesn't get the same recognition. The second game vastly improved on the first, which many deemed impossible, therefore giving the second one more brand recognition. But that's just a small consequence from making a list with such magnitude.
Moving on, this list is purely the opinion of IGN, and the site deserves credit for releasing this list. It takes a certain level of audacity to release a list like this before the generation is over. Although the backlash would be tremendous, IGN and the gaming community have always been at odds anyway. Now, the choices. (I won't go through the entire list, only the most eye-catching choices.)
Covering a wide range of platforms, many of the choices are questionable. From 100-71: Frankly, scoring Demon's Souls so low is plainly irresponsible. Especially under Resistance 2, another PS3 exclusive. Demon's Souls was praised joyously by many for its extreme difficulty and unforgiving gameplay in an age where both are rare. Angry Birds is a strong representation for the mobile crowd, though Infinity Blade would have been a stronger choice. Brain Age is the most surprising inclusion on this list, faring very high at 76. Lastly, The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings should be in the thirties, not in the seventies.
From 70-41: Not many extraordinary games listed here, though one questionable choice was Fable II. I would consider Dragon Age: Origins (listed at 89) a better game, but the two are very different. I wonder if Peter Molyneux had anything to do with that decision. It's nice to see Castle Crashers and Braid, two influential (and fun as hell) arcade titles get some much-deserved recognition. I wonder how many PS3 fanboys are crying right now seeing God of War 3 ranked 46.
From 40-11: More arcade love with Plants vs. Zombies and Peggle, two outstanding games from Popcap, and the highest-selling Summer of Arcade title Limbo is mentioned as well. Many recognizable franchises are credited here, and this is the strongest section of this list. Gears, Halo and Borderlands all deserve this high, though I would put Gearbox's co-op bonanza in the top ten. My favourite listing must be Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, and I'm very pleased IGN picked the one that started the monster success of the franchise.
From 10-1: The cream of the crop. The best games of this generation. The two surprises are Assassin's Creed II and BioShock. While I thoroughly adored both, Creed could be lowered into the last bracket while Uncharted 2 switches places with BioShock. Although IGN isn't known for giving love to PS3 exclusives, it would have been nice to drop MGS: Peace Walker from 37 and slip MGS4 into the top ten.
While I am inspired to create my own list, there's just too much hassle involved. Plus I'm the only creative mind here while IGN has dozens. Maybe someday, but certainly not right now. Many viewing IGN's list will have differing opinions, but I think they present a solid case. Obviously some are questionable, maybe downright absurd (Demon's Souls), though they do hit the high-points.
Here is the link to the overall list: http://www.ign.com/top/modern-games
To the readers: If you have your own list, post a link in the comment section. Do you agree with my choices? Do you agree with IGN's choices? What games do/don't deserve to be recognized? Start the debate below!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)