It's been a few weeks since we saw Larry the Discount Ninja and Pete Peterson.
Tonight's episode has our hapless heroes discussing the need to collect random crap in otherwise serious, deadly missions.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Friday Night Fail: Crime Scene Edition
The potential is there to make a good game based off of CSI, or another such crime scene investigation show. You've got clever mysteries, a cast of suspicious characters, tiny clues that can make the difference between breaking the case or letting a killer get away, and plenty of suspense.
Unfortunately, CSI: Hard Evidence for the Xbox 360 doesn't quite hit the mark. Instead of a tight, dramatic mystery unfolding as the story progresses, we get a by-the-book adventure that ends up being boring and simply mediocre.
The game is made up of five stories, each one able to be solved within about an hour, so the game itself is pretty short from beginning to end. Each story is unrelated to the next, connected only by the cast of characters from the TV show. At the end of each one, an achievement is unlocked, and there are only those five achievements for the 1000 gamerscore total. Meaning that, if nothing else, CSI: Hard Evidence is a fairly low-stress afternoon of score boosting.
The game actually starts out promising. The mysteries are decent, and the M rating allows for some pretty realistic graphics. Also, it means that they don't dumb down the stories, making them more like what you'd see in the TV show, so you get things like a guy torched in his car and a lesbian couple investigated for murder. While they won't exactly keep you gripped from beginning to end, and sometimes seem more like rejected script ideas from the show, they could be considerably worse.
Ultimately, though, the game becomes a very cookie-cutter example of an adventure game. Talk to a suspect, who leads you to a piece of evidence, which you'll examine with a machine in a lab, and this will continue until you have enough to reach a conclusion. The problem is, though, that it's very straight forward. Every conversation leads in one direction, there's no real way to get anything wrong. You really can't get much further until you find what you're supposed to find, and each device in the lab is only intended for one specific use. There's no way to completely misread the evidence and send the wrong person to prison.
Then there's the fact that you can turn to your partner at any time and ask for her advice. While this affects your overall ranking for the case, it does nothing to affect the solution or the achievement you get at the end. This means that, if you just want to skate through the game, you can keep asking your partner where to go next and then follow her advice without actually putting the pieces together yourself.
The game does feature voices from the TV cast, and has creepy doll-like representations of them as well. So it's just like watching the show, after all the soul and intelligence has been sucked out of it.
I honestly think that this type of game, a genre that was all but dead until a few years ago, is better served on the Nintendo DS. With a touch screen, you have the ability to pick up evidence with the stylus and turn it around, rather than have to scroll around with a controller waiting for the cursor to change and indicate that you can look at or pick up something.
The ultimate failure of CSI: Hard Evidence is that it has a strong pedigree that it never lives up to. I played through, mostly for the easy achievements, but it was really hard to care about much more than the points.
Unfortunately, CSI: Hard Evidence for the Xbox 360 doesn't quite hit the mark. Instead of a tight, dramatic mystery unfolding as the story progresses, we get a by-the-book adventure that ends up being boring and simply mediocre.
The game is made up of five stories, each one able to be solved within about an hour, so the game itself is pretty short from beginning to end. Each story is unrelated to the next, connected only by the cast of characters from the TV show. At the end of each one, an achievement is unlocked, and there are only those five achievements for the 1000 gamerscore total. Meaning that, if nothing else, CSI: Hard Evidence is a fairly low-stress afternoon of score boosting.
The game actually starts out promising. The mysteries are decent, and the M rating allows for some pretty realistic graphics. Also, it means that they don't dumb down the stories, making them more like what you'd see in the TV show, so you get things like a guy torched in his car and a lesbian couple investigated for murder. While they won't exactly keep you gripped from beginning to end, and sometimes seem more like rejected script ideas from the show, they could be considerably worse.
Ultimately, though, the game becomes a very cookie-cutter example of an adventure game. Talk to a suspect, who leads you to a piece of evidence, which you'll examine with a machine in a lab, and this will continue until you have enough to reach a conclusion. The problem is, though, that it's very straight forward. Every conversation leads in one direction, there's no real way to get anything wrong. You really can't get much further until you find what you're supposed to find, and each device in the lab is only intended for one specific use. There's no way to completely misread the evidence and send the wrong person to prison.
Then there's the fact that you can turn to your partner at any time and ask for her advice. While this affects your overall ranking for the case, it does nothing to affect the solution or the achievement you get at the end. This means that, if you just want to skate through the game, you can keep asking your partner where to go next and then follow her advice without actually putting the pieces together yourself.
The game does feature voices from the TV cast, and has creepy doll-like representations of them as well. So it's just like watching the show, after all the soul and intelligence has been sucked out of it.
I honestly think that this type of game, a genre that was all but dead until a few years ago, is better served on the Nintendo DS. With a touch screen, you have the ability to pick up evidence with the stylus and turn it around, rather than have to scroll around with a controller waiting for the cursor to change and indicate that you can look at or pick up something.
The ultimate failure of CSI: Hard Evidence is that it has a strong pedigree that it never lives up to. I played through, mostly for the easy achievements, but it was really hard to care about much more than the points.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Games as a Political Platform
The folks over at Gamepolitics.com reported this today, and I find the entire affair pretty bizarre and interesting.
Boston mayor Thomas Menino has, in the past, been no friend to the video game industry. In 2006 he fought to have ads for Grand Theft Auto removed from public transit vehicles, and the following year he attempted to pass video game legislation with a bill co-authored by (your friend and mine) Jack Thompson. The bill was submitted in 2008, killed in committee, and Menino really didn't say much on the subject after that.
Now, though, the mayor seems to have had a change of heart when it comes to games. Instead of just touting them as evil and such, and trying to censor them under the guise of "protecting the children", he is partnering with the ESRB to educate parents about the rating system. From the press release:
Parents want control of the media that comes into their homes, and the entertainment that their children enjoy. That’s why it’s so imperative that we educate parents about useful and informative tools like the ESRB ratings and rating summaries, so they’ll be empowered to make informed choices about which games they deem appropriate. I’m proud to be educating parents in our city about the tools at their disposal.
Menino isn't the first politician to ally with the ESRB, but it does show a pretty big 180 from his previous assaults on the industry.
Actually, his press release sounds intelligent. If he keeps this stance, he and the ESRB could really do some good work in educating otherwise clueless parents about the rating system.
Menino had previously announced Boston as a "game industry friendly city". He pointed out that such high-profile studios as 2K Boston and Harmonix are in and around the city, in addition to others (Blue Fang, Demiurge, etc), all of which employ people and pay their taxes and bring some recognition to the area. He has been actively promoting Boston as a place for studios to come set up shop, and has even suggested tax breaks for developers looking to build a home here. He and his posse have even gone to big names (like Microsoft) attempting to court them into putting a studio in the city.
All of this is awesome from a gamer's perspective (especially one that lives near Boston), but why the sudden change in view? Did Menino finally sit down and get some hands-on time with Grand Theft Auto IV and realize that paying a prostitute and then running her over when she's done is just some good clean fun?
More likely, he is using games as a political platform. He is running for a fifth term as mayor, and as such is looking to leverage any possible way to attract voters. Of course, usually politicians take the "games are evil" stance, so this represents a pretty serious departure from the norm. He, or someone close to him, has realized that gamers make up a pretty large chunk of the voting public. They've realized that game studios are a good thing to have in your city for a variety of reasons. Someone, at some point, suggested that working with the industry will be far more effective than fighting against it.
Games as a political platform. Whether choosing to attack them or work with them, taking a stance on the game industry is now a valuable part of a politician's campaign. Of course, as the number of gamers grows and the digital generation matures into voters, a game friendly stance may very quickly become the one to take, and Menino (as well as a few others) seems to understand that.
Plus, he's not wrong: bringing game studios into the city will bring in more jobs, more exposure from this massive industry, and ultimately more money. Hell, I'm all for it. I'm looking for a job in the industry (community liaison type thing, if an potential recruiters are reading this), and live in the Boston area, so the more studios he courts the better chance I have of finding something in my chosen career path.
Of course, regardless of the reasons, the end result is that the ESRB ratings will be getting some press in the city, and that can only be a good thing. If otherwise clueless parents are educated on the ratings and actually use them, then this can maybe prove that the ratings do work. The more that message gets out (Menino isn't the first politico to work with the ESRB), maybe the less others will try to step in and make up pointless laws to legislate gaming.
Long way from a bunch of sweaty nerds in their parents' basements, huddled in the dark over some game. Now we're sweaty nerds in our parents' basements, huddled in the dark over some game, that get noticed by politicians!
Yay for progress!
Boston mayor Thomas Menino has, in the past, been no friend to the video game industry. In 2006 he fought to have ads for Grand Theft Auto removed from public transit vehicles, and the following year he attempted to pass video game legislation with a bill co-authored by (your friend and mine) Jack Thompson. The bill was submitted in 2008, killed in committee, and Menino really didn't say much on the subject after that.
Now, though, the mayor seems to have had a change of heart when it comes to games. Instead of just touting them as evil and such, and trying to censor them under the guise of "protecting the children", he is partnering with the ESRB to educate parents about the rating system. From the press release:
Parents want control of the media that comes into their homes, and the entertainment that their children enjoy. That’s why it’s so imperative that we educate parents about useful and informative tools like the ESRB ratings and rating summaries, so they’ll be empowered to make informed choices about which games they deem appropriate. I’m proud to be educating parents in our city about the tools at their disposal.
Menino isn't the first politician to ally with the ESRB, but it does show a pretty big 180 from his previous assaults on the industry.
Actually, his press release sounds intelligent. If he keeps this stance, he and the ESRB could really do some good work in educating otherwise clueless parents about the rating system.
Menino had previously announced Boston as a "game industry friendly city". He pointed out that such high-profile studios as 2K Boston and Harmonix are in and around the city, in addition to others (Blue Fang, Demiurge, etc), all of which employ people and pay their taxes and bring some recognition to the area. He has been actively promoting Boston as a place for studios to come set up shop, and has even suggested tax breaks for developers looking to build a home here. He and his posse have even gone to big names (like Microsoft) attempting to court them into putting a studio in the city.
All of this is awesome from a gamer's perspective (especially one that lives near Boston), but why the sudden change in view? Did Menino finally sit down and get some hands-on time with Grand Theft Auto IV and realize that paying a prostitute and then running her over when she's done is just some good clean fun?
More likely, he is using games as a political platform. He is running for a fifth term as mayor, and as such is looking to leverage any possible way to attract voters. Of course, usually politicians take the "games are evil" stance, so this represents a pretty serious departure from the norm. He, or someone close to him, has realized that gamers make up a pretty large chunk of the voting public. They've realized that game studios are a good thing to have in your city for a variety of reasons. Someone, at some point, suggested that working with the industry will be far more effective than fighting against it.
Games as a political platform. Whether choosing to attack them or work with them, taking a stance on the game industry is now a valuable part of a politician's campaign. Of course, as the number of gamers grows and the digital generation matures into voters, a game friendly stance may very quickly become the one to take, and Menino (as well as a few others) seems to understand that.
Plus, he's not wrong: bringing game studios into the city will bring in more jobs, more exposure from this massive industry, and ultimately more money. Hell, I'm all for it. I'm looking for a job in the industry (community liaison type thing, if an potential recruiters are reading this), and live in the Boston area, so the more studios he courts the better chance I have of finding something in my chosen career path.
Of course, regardless of the reasons, the end result is that the ESRB ratings will be getting some press in the city, and that can only be a good thing. If otherwise clueless parents are educated on the ratings and actually use them, then this can maybe prove that the ratings do work. The more that message gets out (Menino isn't the first politico to work with the ESRB), maybe the less others will try to step in and make up pointless laws to legislate gaming.
Long way from a bunch of sweaty nerds in their parents' basements, huddled in the dark over some game. Now we're sweaty nerds in our parents' basements, huddled in the dark over some game, that get noticed by politicians!
Yay for progress!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Anime Boston Pics
As promised, some pics from Anime Boston 2009, featuring some friends and some strangers dressed up in various game costumes.
Here's me as a Team Rocket Grunt from Pokemon. Not to sound too egotistical (well, no more than I normally do, anyway), I was the best of the Team Rocket outfits there, at least of the ones I saw.
My dear Yummy Gamorah as Ulala from Space Channel 5. As usual, an absolutely amazing costume. Here she is interviewing me. You can't see me, though, because this is in first-person mode.
Hannah as Talim from Soul Calibur.
Some person rocking an awesome Umbreon from Pokemon. I considered throwing my pokeball and trying to catch it, but there was already a Gengar in there.
Kay as the best Silent Hill nurse at the con. Creepy, but weirdly sexy at the same time. Most people just gave her a wide berth.
I don't know who this person is, but he is dressed like a guy from Typing of the Dead. Therefore, he is awesome and deserving of our respect.
Travis Touchdown from No More Heroes. His beam saber was a modified Force FX Lightsaber, so it lit up and was extra cool. Plus, he just looked the part. There were a few Travis' there, but this one was by far the best.
This group dressed up as all of the possible evolutions of Eevee, from Pokemon.
Sorry, kiddo. Great costume, but the cake is a lie.
Here's me as a Team Rocket Grunt from Pokemon. Not to sound too egotistical (well, no more than I normally do, anyway), I was the best of the Team Rocket outfits there, at least of the ones I saw.
My dear Yummy Gamorah as Ulala from Space Channel 5. As usual, an absolutely amazing costume. Here she is interviewing me. You can't see me, though, because this is in first-person mode.
Hannah as Talim from Soul Calibur.
Some person rocking an awesome Umbreon from Pokemon. I considered throwing my pokeball and trying to catch it, but there was already a Gengar in there.
Kay as the best Silent Hill nurse at the con. Creepy, but weirdly sexy at the same time. Most people just gave her a wide berth.
I don't know who this person is, but he is dressed like a guy from Typing of the Dead. Therefore, he is awesome and deserving of our respect.
Travis Touchdown from No More Heroes. His beam saber was a modified Force FX Lightsaber, so it lit up and was extra cool. Plus, he just looked the part. There were a few Travis' there, but this one was by far the best.
This group dressed up as all of the possible evolutions of Eevee, from Pokemon.
Sorry, kiddo. Great costume, but the cake is a lie.
Stranger in a Strange Con
I spent this past weekend at Anime Boston, noteworthy because it was my first anime convention. I had been to video game conferences in the past, and attended one Star Trek convention shortly after graduating high school (so, like, seventeen years ago), but really wasn't too sure what I was getting myself into with this.
I should mention that I'm not really a huge anime fan. I enjoy a few: Cowboy Bebop, Trigun, a handful of others, but I'm hardly what I'd consider very knowledgeable about most of what's out there. However, I like dressing up in costumes and seeing other people do so. I like being surrounded by the ambience, the cameraderie amongst geeks. Plus, I just really like convention atmosphere.
So I chose a costume, a Team Rocket grunt from Pokemon (pics to follow tomorrow), assembled it, and on Friday suited up and hit the convention. I had a group of friends with which to hang out with, and we were all planning a hell of a weekend.
So what's an anime convention like to a gamer who isn't that into anime? Well, it's certainly an interesting experience. You've got panels and anime showings throughout the days, voice actors and such talking and signing autographs, a dealer room with all sorts of products to buy, and an "artist alley" where people can sell their own game related crafts and such. There are thousands of people, many in costume, and the whole thing is just overwhelming and exhausting and amazing.
I will say that I think I would have gotten more out of it had I known more about anime. During one presentation, the "Anime Dating Game", I knew only two of the characters involved (because they were both game characters), so most of the jokes that were anime or character related went over my head.
I was glad to see the large number of game-related costumes on hand. There were multiple versions of Altair from Assassin's Creed, a couple of Halo Spartans and a pair of armored soldiers from Gears of War. My friends went as Ulala from Space Channel 5, a creepy nurse from Silent Hill, Talim from Soul Calibur, and Cloud from Final Fantasy 7. So while they generally encourage people to dress as someone from an anime, people will generally go as their favorite character regardless of its source. There were stormtroopers, more than one Doctor Who, a cake (from Portal), and all sorts of other ones that really have nothing to do with Japanese animation. In many cases, the creativity and work that went into the costumes was pretty impressive. In many other cases, it was really bad. There were some pretty terrible outfits, but there were also some really impressive ones, so I suppose it balanced in the end. Really, the cosplay is one of the big reasons I went, and I had a lot of fun dressing up and seeing other people do so, so in that respect the weekend was a blast. I did think, at times, that some of the costumes were about as far away from anything anime-related as they could have gotten (two Star Trek uniforms, one Klingon, the aforementioned stormtroopers, etc), and wondered about the thought process that brought someone to wear such an outfit at an anime convention, but in the end I just appreciate really good cosplay so quickly got over it.
I don't think I was prepared for the level of nerdiness involved in the convention. I mean, I'm a hardcore geek, and have attended conferences and conventions in the past, but the level sometimes crossed from "fun" into "get the fuck away from me" levels of dorkiness. Like I said, I went as a Team Rocket grunt from the Pokemon games and cartoons. While the grey outfits of Jesse and James may be more recognizable, the black outfit I wore is still a perfectly valid example from the source material. While hanging out in the artist alley, some kids (and I mean that literally, as they were probably young enough to be my spawn) accosted me and accused me of being a "Team Rocket poser", and that Jesse/ James were the "true" Team Rocket. I played along, thinking they were kidding, but it became pretty clear soon that this kid was pretty serious in his defense of these fictional characters. So, I shot him down with words, ran verbal circles around his arguments until even his friends were laughing at him, and moved on.
Another example involves a panel featuring Veronica Taylor, the actress who voiced Ash and Misty (among other characters) from the Pokemon TV show, April from the TMNT cartoon, and a slew of other characters across anime and cartoons. She talked a bit about her craft and her experiences, but then opened up the floor to questions. Now, to me, a valid question for someone like that would be "How did you get your start", or "Do you have a favorite character that you've voiced". I could see asking if she has a certain type of character she likes to play, like prefering heroes or villains, or maybe asking what her future projects may be. Instead, we got questions about specific moments on episodes of Pokemon (bear in mind she's a voice actress, not a writer), crazy queries like "If Ash didn't get Pikachu, which of the original starter pokemon would he have gone with?", and frequent requests to say things in Ash's voice. I can see asking her once to do a certain voice, but she must have gotten asked six times or so to do Ash, despite that everybody who asked was in the room for every freaking other time she did it. It was really weird, to the point where I didn't want to ask my intelligent questions because all of the stupid questions made me feel like mine were dumb, so I just sat there in silence.
I did like when someone asked her which characters on Pokemon would make the best couples, who she thought should pair up, and she reminded the person asking that Ash is ten years old in the show, and definitely should not be "pairing up" with anybody. To her credit, it was the only time she even momentarily lost her composure while answering this unending barrage of super nerdy questions.
There's a lot to do, and it's really open to the individual to decide what they want to get out of the con. There are panels and such happening, everyone is given a schedule when they register, so it's really up to you to see what you want to see. If you just want to walk around all day, that's cool. If you want to hit as many panels and such as you can, go for it. There are big events like the masquerade, small panels and workshops (like voice acting, prop building, etc), and even late night fare like a mixer and formal ball (plus the really late night hentai showings). It's really open, though the lack of real structure is a blessing and a curse. The whole convention smacked of disorganization, and even my companions who had been to several of these in the past claimed that this year was assembled very poorly.
Overall, it was a good time. Would I do it again? Yes, as long as I have friends with me like I did this year (though we kept losing each other and randomly catching up with each other throughout the days), and again I really like cosplay. Do I prefer game conferences? Yes, because at least there I have a better idea of what the hell is going on.
Like I said, pics to come in the next post.
I should mention that I'm not really a huge anime fan. I enjoy a few: Cowboy Bebop, Trigun, a handful of others, but I'm hardly what I'd consider very knowledgeable about most of what's out there. However, I like dressing up in costumes and seeing other people do so. I like being surrounded by the ambience, the cameraderie amongst geeks. Plus, I just really like convention atmosphere.
So I chose a costume, a Team Rocket grunt from Pokemon (pics to follow tomorrow), assembled it, and on Friday suited up and hit the convention. I had a group of friends with which to hang out with, and we were all planning a hell of a weekend.
So what's an anime convention like to a gamer who isn't that into anime? Well, it's certainly an interesting experience. You've got panels and anime showings throughout the days, voice actors and such talking and signing autographs, a dealer room with all sorts of products to buy, and an "artist alley" where people can sell their own game related crafts and such. There are thousands of people, many in costume, and the whole thing is just overwhelming and exhausting and amazing.
I will say that I think I would have gotten more out of it had I known more about anime. During one presentation, the "Anime Dating Game", I knew only two of the characters involved (because they were both game characters), so most of the jokes that were anime or character related went over my head.
I was glad to see the large number of game-related costumes on hand. There were multiple versions of Altair from Assassin's Creed, a couple of Halo Spartans and a pair of armored soldiers from Gears of War. My friends went as Ulala from Space Channel 5, a creepy nurse from Silent Hill, Talim from Soul Calibur, and Cloud from Final Fantasy 7. So while they generally encourage people to dress as someone from an anime, people will generally go as their favorite character regardless of its source. There were stormtroopers, more than one Doctor Who, a cake (from Portal), and all sorts of other ones that really have nothing to do with Japanese animation. In many cases, the creativity and work that went into the costumes was pretty impressive. In many other cases, it was really bad. There were some pretty terrible outfits, but there were also some really impressive ones, so I suppose it balanced in the end. Really, the cosplay is one of the big reasons I went, and I had a lot of fun dressing up and seeing other people do so, so in that respect the weekend was a blast. I did think, at times, that some of the costumes were about as far away from anything anime-related as they could have gotten (two Star Trek uniforms, one Klingon, the aforementioned stormtroopers, etc), and wondered about the thought process that brought someone to wear such an outfit at an anime convention, but in the end I just appreciate really good cosplay so quickly got over it.
I don't think I was prepared for the level of nerdiness involved in the convention. I mean, I'm a hardcore geek, and have attended conferences and conventions in the past, but the level sometimes crossed from "fun" into "get the fuck away from me" levels of dorkiness. Like I said, I went as a Team Rocket grunt from the Pokemon games and cartoons. While the grey outfits of Jesse and James may be more recognizable, the black outfit I wore is still a perfectly valid example from the source material. While hanging out in the artist alley, some kids (and I mean that literally, as they were probably young enough to be my spawn) accosted me and accused me of being a "Team Rocket poser", and that Jesse/ James were the "true" Team Rocket. I played along, thinking they were kidding, but it became pretty clear soon that this kid was pretty serious in his defense of these fictional characters. So, I shot him down with words, ran verbal circles around his arguments until even his friends were laughing at him, and moved on.
Another example involves a panel featuring Veronica Taylor, the actress who voiced Ash and Misty (among other characters) from the Pokemon TV show, April from the TMNT cartoon, and a slew of other characters across anime and cartoons. She talked a bit about her craft and her experiences, but then opened up the floor to questions. Now, to me, a valid question for someone like that would be "How did you get your start", or "Do you have a favorite character that you've voiced". I could see asking if she has a certain type of character she likes to play, like prefering heroes or villains, or maybe asking what her future projects may be. Instead, we got questions about specific moments on episodes of Pokemon (bear in mind she's a voice actress, not a writer), crazy queries like "If Ash didn't get Pikachu, which of the original starter pokemon would he have gone with?", and frequent requests to say things in Ash's voice. I can see asking her once to do a certain voice, but she must have gotten asked six times or so to do Ash, despite that everybody who asked was in the room for every freaking other time she did it. It was really weird, to the point where I didn't want to ask my intelligent questions because all of the stupid questions made me feel like mine were dumb, so I just sat there in silence.
I did like when someone asked her which characters on Pokemon would make the best couples, who she thought should pair up, and she reminded the person asking that Ash is ten years old in the show, and definitely should not be "pairing up" with anybody. To her credit, it was the only time she even momentarily lost her composure while answering this unending barrage of super nerdy questions.
There's a lot to do, and it's really open to the individual to decide what they want to get out of the con. There are panels and such happening, everyone is given a schedule when they register, so it's really up to you to see what you want to see. If you just want to walk around all day, that's cool. If you want to hit as many panels and such as you can, go for it. There are big events like the masquerade, small panels and workshops (like voice acting, prop building, etc), and even late night fare like a mixer and formal ball (plus the really late night hentai showings). It's really open, though the lack of real structure is a blessing and a curse. The whole convention smacked of disorganization, and even my companions who had been to several of these in the past claimed that this year was assembled very poorly.
Overall, it was a good time. Would I do it again? Yes, as long as I have friends with me like I did this year (though we kept losing each other and randomly catching up with each other throughout the days), and again I really like cosplay. Do I prefer game conferences? Yes, because at least there I have a better idea of what the hell is going on.
Like I said, pics to come in the next post.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Anime Boston
I just wanted to give all my loyal readers a heads-up: I will be gone this weekend for Anime Boston, and therefore won't be posting.
I'm commuting into the city from home, leaving early in the morning and getting back late at night. After experiencing the amazing exhaustion I'm feeling after day one, I'm pretty sure that I'll be incapable of forming coherent thoughts throughout the weekend.
I'll be back on Monday.
I'm commuting into the city from home, leaving early in the morning and getting back late at night. After experiencing the amazing exhaustion I'm feeling after day one, I'm pretty sure that I'll be incapable of forming coherent thoughts throughout the weekend.
I'll be back on Monday.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Used and Fail
Wal-Mart, that evil corporate empire, has recently thrown their white trash hats into the world of used video games.
Now, this may be cause for consternation to developers and publishers. For the most part, they're not big fans of the used business to begin with, citing that if people are buying games used then the studios don't see any money from the sale. Plus, with Wal-Mart being as big as it is (it commands about the same percentage of the video game market as specialty retailer Gamestop), this could be seen as not only a real threat to the competition but also to developers who are already grumpy about Gamestop's success in this area.
As I mentioned a while back, both Toys R Us and Amazon are testing used games programs, but nobody really batted much of an eye over it, but Wal-Mart is considerably bigger and stronger than they are, so theoretically would have greater success.
Fortunately for Gamestop, and the anti-used developers and publishers, Wal-Mart went ahead and fucked up the entire thing with one of the dumbest ideas I've seen in a while.
Rather than train their mostly brain-dead employees to take trades, or help the job market by hiring some people for the job, they went ahead and installed machines to handle the used game trades and sales. Yes, Wal-Mart's entry into the used game market is a... vending machine.
The program is currently in its test phase, and unfortunately none of my area Wally World stores have one installed yet, so I turned to the magical world of the interweb to gather intel on these machines. Kotaku actually had an article in which someone got to test one of the machines. Apparently you scan the barcode from the game box, and the machine finds the game and tells you its value. You then put the disc and box into the machine. The machine takes PS2, PS3, Wii, and Xbox 360 titles, but reports from around the 'net indicate that the database isn't that large. The Kotaku report stated that the device wouldn't scan a lot of the barcodes, and while it did scan Mirror's Edge it didn't recognize the game, meaning that it would not take that game in trade at all.
The disc is inserted separately from the box, presumably so the disc can be scanned for damage, though it's unclear as to what the machine considers to be damaged. Money for the traded games is then charged to the user's debit card, a process which takes a few days. Right now the machines are only set up to offer that option, though Wal-Mart claims that if the program is successful they may consider offering store credit slips for traded games.
According to E-Play, the company that makes the kiosks, the machines are designed to update the trade prices daily. They also have safeguards in place to insure that the disc a person enters is the actual game, and not an old copy of Neil Diamond's Greatest Hits.
It's amazing how much everyone involved has completely missed the point of the entire process. Aside from the fact that, according to the reports, the machines suck at determining what you can actually trade, the entire concept just seems idiotic. I'm no fan of Gamestop, but there's something to be said for walking in and trading your games in with a person, and getting credit right there to grab another game. Say what you will about the company (and believe me, I do, and usually with quite a few naughty words), they've nailed the process of buying and selling used games, which is why no other company has really been able to come close to their success in this area.
What person thought that the process would be improved by a kiosk?
Then again, if the machines get improved to the point where they actually can accept a broad selection of titles, and the trade prices are better than Gamestop's, then I could see people giving it a shot. I mean, Gamestop takes a 20 percent deduction from your trade if you want cash, so if Wal-Mart's machines can do better, then there's a real possibility for some success. That three day waiting period is a little off-putting, of course, but at the end of the day money is money and the more of it you can get the better.
Realistically, though, most of the people who take their used games into Gamestop do so for store credit, with which to purchase games, and this seems to be something that a vending machine won't be able to offer, and does your average Wal-Mart customer even know how to operate a technological device?
Here's another thought: at Gamestop, we had a number of "customers" who would hit up local Wal-Marts and Targets for the discount games they put out on the open shelves, steal them, and come to us and sell them for quick cash. Does this just mean that the thieves can do it all in one spot?
The entire idea just seems too weird from so many angles.
Now, this may be cause for consternation to developers and publishers. For the most part, they're not big fans of the used business to begin with, citing that if people are buying games used then the studios don't see any money from the sale. Plus, with Wal-Mart being as big as it is (it commands about the same percentage of the video game market as specialty retailer Gamestop), this could be seen as not only a real threat to the competition but also to developers who are already grumpy about Gamestop's success in this area.
As I mentioned a while back, both Toys R Us and Amazon are testing used games programs, but nobody really batted much of an eye over it, but Wal-Mart is considerably bigger and stronger than they are, so theoretically would have greater success.
Fortunately for Gamestop, and the anti-used developers and publishers, Wal-Mart went ahead and fucked up the entire thing with one of the dumbest ideas I've seen in a while.
Rather than train their mostly brain-dead employees to take trades, or help the job market by hiring some people for the job, they went ahead and installed machines to handle the used game trades and sales. Yes, Wal-Mart's entry into the used game market is a... vending machine.
The program is currently in its test phase, and unfortunately none of my area Wally World stores have one installed yet, so I turned to the magical world of the interweb to gather intel on these machines. Kotaku actually had an article in which someone got to test one of the machines. Apparently you scan the barcode from the game box, and the machine finds the game and tells you its value. You then put the disc and box into the machine. The machine takes PS2, PS3, Wii, and Xbox 360 titles, but reports from around the 'net indicate that the database isn't that large. The Kotaku report stated that the device wouldn't scan a lot of the barcodes, and while it did scan Mirror's Edge it didn't recognize the game, meaning that it would not take that game in trade at all.
The disc is inserted separately from the box, presumably so the disc can be scanned for damage, though it's unclear as to what the machine considers to be damaged. Money for the traded games is then charged to the user's debit card, a process which takes a few days. Right now the machines are only set up to offer that option, though Wal-Mart claims that if the program is successful they may consider offering store credit slips for traded games.
According to E-Play, the company that makes the kiosks, the machines are designed to update the trade prices daily. They also have safeguards in place to insure that the disc a person enters is the actual game, and not an old copy of Neil Diamond's Greatest Hits.
It's amazing how much everyone involved has completely missed the point of the entire process. Aside from the fact that, according to the reports, the machines suck at determining what you can actually trade, the entire concept just seems idiotic. I'm no fan of Gamestop, but there's something to be said for walking in and trading your games in with a person, and getting credit right there to grab another game. Say what you will about the company (and believe me, I do, and usually with quite a few naughty words), they've nailed the process of buying and selling used games, which is why no other company has really been able to come close to their success in this area.
What person thought that the process would be improved by a kiosk?
Then again, if the machines get improved to the point where they actually can accept a broad selection of titles, and the trade prices are better than Gamestop's, then I could see people giving it a shot. I mean, Gamestop takes a 20 percent deduction from your trade if you want cash, so if Wal-Mart's machines can do better, then there's a real possibility for some success. That three day waiting period is a little off-putting, of course, but at the end of the day money is money and the more of it you can get the better.
Realistically, though, most of the people who take their used games into Gamestop do so for store credit, with which to purchase games, and this seems to be something that a vending machine won't be able to offer, and does your average Wal-Mart customer even know how to operate a technological device?
Here's another thought: at Gamestop, we had a number of "customers" who would hit up local Wal-Marts and Targets for the discount games they put out on the open shelves, steal them, and come to us and sell them for quick cash. Does this just mean that the thieves can do it all in one spot?
The entire idea just seems too weird from so many angles.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
What Wii Mature Market?
The Wii, overall, is a pretty neat device. Cool interactivity, new ideas, it helps old ladies across the street, eats all its vegetables, so on and so forth.
Despite all of its strengths, though, it has some glaring weaknesses, not the least of which is its library. While there are some really cool titles available, there's also an inordinate amount of shovelware in the form of minigame collections and licensed crap. As a result, it's gotten a pretty poor reputation amongst hardcore gamers as being a casual kiddy system that's not worth playing when put next to an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3.
One of the biggest complaints is that the Wii seems to have no M-rated games, and those that do get released don't see very good sales. This only furthers the belief that these games don't belong on the system. Cool, original titles like No More Heroes and MadWorld are ignored and therefore developers are scared to release any similar games on the console.
It's a pretty vicious cycle, and one that just seems to be feeding itself.
Where did it start? Is the Wii really strictly a casual family console, and therefore the mature titles just don't sell to the child and senior citizen crowd, or is it because a few early M-rated games failed that the system became what it is?
So, recently, Bethesda Softworks (Fallout 3, Oblivion) announced a plan to start working on M-rated titles for the Wii. They actually intend to "corner" the mature Wii game market, which is interesting, since nobody really ever realized there was one.
The idea, though, has merit. Bethesda certainly knows their stuff, and could potentially create something really cool for the Wii. Nintendo's machine isn't the most powerful out there, so we probably won't see anything on par with some of their offerings on other consoles, but that doesn't mean we can't see something cool from the studio. The Wii is probably on par with the original Xbox in terms of power, give or take a bit, and we had Morrowind on that machine, so the potential is definitely there.
Of course, the big question is whether or not these games will sell. If Bethesda can release a quality M-rated Wii title, maybe something from one of their major franchises, it could definitely draw in a new crowd. Then again, if the system really is supported by casual titles and kid's games and not much else, then the studio could be setting themselves up for a failure.
As long as we don't see some minigame compilation starring characters from Oblivion, or a kart racer set in the Fallout world, we should be good.
Despite all of its strengths, though, it has some glaring weaknesses, not the least of which is its library. While there are some really cool titles available, there's also an inordinate amount of shovelware in the form of minigame collections and licensed crap. As a result, it's gotten a pretty poor reputation amongst hardcore gamers as being a casual kiddy system that's not worth playing when put next to an Xbox 360 or Playstation 3.
One of the biggest complaints is that the Wii seems to have no M-rated games, and those that do get released don't see very good sales. This only furthers the belief that these games don't belong on the system. Cool, original titles like No More Heroes and MadWorld are ignored and therefore developers are scared to release any similar games on the console.
It's a pretty vicious cycle, and one that just seems to be feeding itself.
Where did it start? Is the Wii really strictly a casual family console, and therefore the mature titles just don't sell to the child and senior citizen crowd, or is it because a few early M-rated games failed that the system became what it is?
So, recently, Bethesda Softworks (Fallout 3, Oblivion) announced a plan to start working on M-rated titles for the Wii. They actually intend to "corner" the mature Wii game market, which is interesting, since nobody really ever realized there was one.
The idea, though, has merit. Bethesda certainly knows their stuff, and could potentially create something really cool for the Wii. Nintendo's machine isn't the most powerful out there, so we probably won't see anything on par with some of their offerings on other consoles, but that doesn't mean we can't see something cool from the studio. The Wii is probably on par with the original Xbox in terms of power, give or take a bit, and we had Morrowind on that machine, so the potential is definitely there.
Of course, the big question is whether or not these games will sell. If Bethesda can release a quality M-rated Wii title, maybe something from one of their major franchises, it could definitely draw in a new crowd. Then again, if the system really is supported by casual titles and kid's games and not much else, then the studio could be setting themselves up for a failure.
As long as we don't see some minigame compilation starring characters from Oblivion, or a kart racer set in the Fallout world, we should be good.
This Blog Requires A Special Controller
Right now, in and around my gaming area, I have several random gaming peripherals. All are designed to enhance the experience of a particular game (or games).
I have a guitar, the wireless one from Guitar Hero 3 that is now used for Rock Band 2. I have the drums from Rock Band, as well as the microphone. With Scene It I got the special "big button pads", and of course I have multiple controllers that all have rechargeable battery packs and the charger to keep them juiced. That's just the Xbox 360. For the Wii there are Wii Remotes, Nunchucks, and a Classic Controller as well as a Balance Board.
There are plenty of other accessories out there, for example the Vision camera for the 360, which I'll buy once I can justify a real purpose in having one. I keep drooling over the new Saitek flight stick, but until I have more games than just Ace Combat 6 to use it on it seems like a silly purchase.
Now, they announced that the new Tony Hawk title is going to have some weird skateboard controller thing. There's going to be a new device called the Freedom something-or-other by PDP that is in essence a Wii remote for the 360 which you use to play specific motion-controlled games. Of course, every music game has its own pile of instruments which, while compatible with one another for the most part, each offers something slightly different.
My question here is: when did gaming become a hobby that takes up so much space?
It's pretty dizzying, really. I've got a plastic bin filled with peripherals and accessories, many of which only work on one or two games in my collection. In addition to storage, there's of course the need to have the room needed to play with these toys. Honestly, most of the reason I don't use Wii Fit as much as I'd like is because I'd need to move furniture to set it up (a coffee table would have to be moved and a couch pushed back). Not only is this amazingly inconvenient, but I'm not sure where the furniture would actually go while I played. I simply don't have the room in my current living situation to make use of the balance board. The same issue arises with the Rock Band drum set. I don't have the space to keep it assembled, so it's in pieces, so if I want to get my drumming on I need to assemble the accessory and move the aforementioned offending coffee table to have room needed. I'm not even sure where the receiver for my Scene It controllers ended up, though you can play that one with the regular pad.
Do we really need all this stuff? At which point are we going to need a different controller for every game? Is getting up to change discs also going to require hooking up some completely different peripheral?
To be fair, these accessories do serve a purpose, and are valuable to the experience to a lot of people. Rock Band and Guitar Hero are all about those instruments, and the experience really isn't the same without them. Same goes for something like Dance Dance Revolution. While technically yes, you can play the game with a basic controller, there's a high degree of "why bother" associated with that. The idea of a dance game is to dance, and the enjoyment of a music game comes from banging those drums or holding that toy guitar like a rock star. I'm sure that there will be plenty of skateboard aficionados who are really going to get into using that new Tony Hawk device to simulate real skateboarding without the fear of serious injury (though I know plenty of people who would manage to seriously injure themselves either way).
The history of gaming is actually littered with random peripherals. Nintendo had Rob the Robot and the Power Pad, the Power Glove and the U-Force motion controller. The NES, SNES, Genesis, and others all had light guns. The Genesis had some crazy octagon doohicky you put on the floor and stood within, and it was supposed to translate your uncoordinated flailing into fighting game moves. The Gamecube had bongo drums, the PS2 had the Eye Toy.
With a few exceptions, though, most of the add-ons to come down the pike have been met with failure. These days, however, having a special control method for your game is actually the norm, and people rush out and spend extra money to get another input device. Funny how something like the Power Pad pretty much tanked, but its spiritual successors (the dance pads or Wii Balance Board) sell like crazy. A sign of the industry's advance, maybe, or more likely a result of gaming becoming much more mainstream than it was during the dark basement-dwelling days.
So, on the one hand, you have cool peripherals that enhance the experience, allowing you to feel more like a rock star when you hold the guitar or feel like Tony Hawk when you stand on the plastic skateboard. A flight stick can really add to a flying game, and of course a dance pad is pretty much the reason to get into dancing games. Obviously, with the success of the Wii and Wii remote, the idea of motion sensing 360 controllers for specially designed games makes sense from a marketing standpoint.
On the other, though, you've got a bunch of random extra parts floating around. They take up space, they often need extra room to use. If you're like me, and a gaming session can often mean jumping between a few different games, it could mean hooking up and disconnecting something else every time you want to play something else. It's an annoyance, especially when you spend extra money for a peripheral that's only really used for one or two games. Plus, the adding of motion controllers and such looks a lot more like jumping on a bandwagon than having any real need for the device.
With the failures of the past all but forgotten to everyone but the hardcore, it looks like having a special input device is the new in thing. Whether it be the result of the Wii's incredible success, or the deisre to offer a more realistic experience to gamers, companies are churning out new toys like crazy.
The real question is, how many of them are going to get real use once the initial interest has worn off? A year from now, will people be using their cool Tony Hawk skateboards? Will anybody even buy the 360 motion control thing? If there can be games that offer an extention of the interest, like every skateboard game now being compatible with the device, than maybe it can achieve a success like the music game instruments, but if not then it'll quickly be left in the bottom of a closet like light guns.
Really, give me a controller and a solid game to play it with, and I'm happy.
I have a guitar, the wireless one from Guitar Hero 3 that is now used for Rock Band 2. I have the drums from Rock Band, as well as the microphone. With Scene It I got the special "big button pads", and of course I have multiple controllers that all have rechargeable battery packs and the charger to keep them juiced. That's just the Xbox 360. For the Wii there are Wii Remotes, Nunchucks, and a Classic Controller as well as a Balance Board.
There are plenty of other accessories out there, for example the Vision camera for the 360, which I'll buy once I can justify a real purpose in having one. I keep drooling over the new Saitek flight stick, but until I have more games than just Ace Combat 6 to use it on it seems like a silly purchase.
Now, they announced that the new Tony Hawk title is going to have some weird skateboard controller thing. There's going to be a new device called the Freedom something-or-other by PDP that is in essence a Wii remote for the 360 which you use to play specific motion-controlled games. Of course, every music game has its own pile of instruments which, while compatible with one another for the most part, each offers something slightly different.
My question here is: when did gaming become a hobby that takes up so much space?
It's pretty dizzying, really. I've got a plastic bin filled with peripherals and accessories, many of which only work on one or two games in my collection. In addition to storage, there's of course the need to have the room needed to play with these toys. Honestly, most of the reason I don't use Wii Fit as much as I'd like is because I'd need to move furniture to set it up (a coffee table would have to be moved and a couch pushed back). Not only is this amazingly inconvenient, but I'm not sure where the furniture would actually go while I played. I simply don't have the room in my current living situation to make use of the balance board. The same issue arises with the Rock Band drum set. I don't have the space to keep it assembled, so it's in pieces, so if I want to get my drumming on I need to assemble the accessory and move the aforementioned offending coffee table to have room needed. I'm not even sure where the receiver for my Scene It controllers ended up, though you can play that one with the regular pad.
Do we really need all this stuff? At which point are we going to need a different controller for every game? Is getting up to change discs also going to require hooking up some completely different peripheral?
To be fair, these accessories do serve a purpose, and are valuable to the experience to a lot of people. Rock Band and Guitar Hero are all about those instruments, and the experience really isn't the same without them. Same goes for something like Dance Dance Revolution. While technically yes, you can play the game with a basic controller, there's a high degree of "why bother" associated with that. The idea of a dance game is to dance, and the enjoyment of a music game comes from banging those drums or holding that toy guitar like a rock star. I'm sure that there will be plenty of skateboard aficionados who are really going to get into using that new Tony Hawk device to simulate real skateboarding without the fear of serious injury (though I know plenty of people who would manage to seriously injure themselves either way).
The history of gaming is actually littered with random peripherals. Nintendo had Rob the Robot and the Power Pad, the Power Glove and the U-Force motion controller. The NES, SNES, Genesis, and others all had light guns. The Genesis had some crazy octagon doohicky you put on the floor and stood within, and it was supposed to translate your uncoordinated flailing into fighting game moves. The Gamecube had bongo drums, the PS2 had the Eye Toy.
With a few exceptions, though, most of the add-ons to come down the pike have been met with failure. These days, however, having a special control method for your game is actually the norm, and people rush out and spend extra money to get another input device. Funny how something like the Power Pad pretty much tanked, but its spiritual successors (the dance pads or Wii Balance Board) sell like crazy. A sign of the industry's advance, maybe, or more likely a result of gaming becoming much more mainstream than it was during the dark basement-dwelling days.
So, on the one hand, you have cool peripherals that enhance the experience, allowing you to feel more like a rock star when you hold the guitar or feel like Tony Hawk when you stand on the plastic skateboard. A flight stick can really add to a flying game, and of course a dance pad is pretty much the reason to get into dancing games. Obviously, with the success of the Wii and Wii remote, the idea of motion sensing 360 controllers for specially designed games makes sense from a marketing standpoint.
On the other, though, you've got a bunch of random extra parts floating around. They take up space, they often need extra room to use. If you're like me, and a gaming session can often mean jumping between a few different games, it could mean hooking up and disconnecting something else every time you want to play something else. It's an annoyance, especially when you spend extra money for a peripheral that's only really used for one or two games. Plus, the adding of motion controllers and such looks a lot more like jumping on a bandwagon than having any real need for the device.
With the failures of the past all but forgotten to everyone but the hardcore, it looks like having a special input device is the new in thing. Whether it be the result of the Wii's incredible success, or the deisre to offer a more realistic experience to gamers, companies are churning out new toys like crazy.
The real question is, how many of them are going to get real use once the initial interest has worn off? A year from now, will people be using their cool Tony Hawk skateboards? Will anybody even buy the 360 motion control thing? If there can be games that offer an extention of the interest, like every skateboard game now being compatible with the device, than maybe it can achieve a success like the music game instruments, but if not then it'll quickly be left in the bottom of a closet like light guns.
Really, give me a controller and a solid game to play it with, and I'm happy.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Friday Night Fail: Hey Baby Edition
Have you ever run into an old school mate, someone you haven't seen in years, and find that they're a shadow of the person they once was? Maybe it's the really hot girl that's now busted trailer trash surrounded by eight kids, or the clever class clown who has had all his humor sucked out by a corporation.
Regardless of who they were in school, when you run into them all you see is what they could have been, and they just look broken and reek of failed potential.
When I was much younger, I played a series of PC games called Leisure Suit Larry. They were rather simple affairs: the early ones had a simple text entry interface, and the later ones evolved into more point-and-click type adventures. The games starred Larry Laffer, a rather pathetic schlub whose only goal throughout the series was to get laid as many times as humanly possible. There were light story elements that served mostly to get him from one potential conquest to another, but the concept was pretty simple.
The games were filled with silly humor, intentionally cheesy dialogue, and a mostly PG-13 level of crude sexual overtones and slapstick.
The series dropped off the face of the earth for a while, but came back as Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude for the PC, Xbox, and PS2. The game was entertaining in a stupid way, and was mostly a series of mini-games that served to advance the new Larry (Lovage, Laffer's nephew) through his quest to bed as many girls on his college campus as he could.
Now, we have Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust for the Xbox 360. Again starring Larry Lovage, the game is like that old high school friend you're seeing again after several years. Sad, pathetic, and a shadow of their former self.
The new LSL has you working at your uncle's movie studio. He's afraid that his rival, Big Anus Studios, has paid off someone on staff to sabotage his movies, so he sends you undercover to seek out the truth. Undercover, of course, means "take on stupid fetch quests for everyone". That's about it for the gameplay, actually. Go to point A, talk to someone who sends you to point B, and then go back to A to get another mission. There's not much challenge in finding anyone, since your target is plainly indicated on your minimap (so all you have to do is move from one green dot to the next), and there's no real gameplay outside of hitting B to talk to people.
That's perhaps the biggest sin: the almost complete lack of actual gameplay. The previous game wasn't exactly high art, but it did have some fun mini-games. Want to get one girl drunk? Play a game of quarters. The bartending job led to a Root Beer Tapper style sequence, donating sperm for spending money involved a game of Pong, and even the conversations were done in a short dodging game that was almost as entertaining to fail just to hear what Larry was going to say when things started going awry.
The new game, though, takes all of that away and has you pretty much hitting one button. Need to wipe graffiti off of a wall? Go up to the offending art and press B. Need to talk to someone? B. Even when they attempt something involved, like a button-pressing quick-time style thing, it's dumbed down to the point of ludicrous. Rather than offer any sort of challenge, it just asks you to follow along as it slowly displays like three commands before moving on.
Then we have the serious departure from the theme of the franchise. The goal has always been pretty simple: meet pretty girls and do what you need to do in order to have sex with them. Now we have some attempt at a real story, and this admirable goal takes back burner to running around the movie studio delivering mail for people.
Graphically, the game is actually a step down from the previous title. You know, the one on an older system? It tries to be colorful, but just ends up looking weird. The people are hideously deformed, the shadows look terrible, and everything is blocky and poorly textured.
Controls are pretty bad, typical for a shoddy 3D game. The camera gets spastic at times, making it hard to see where to go and often leading to cheap falls. Sometimes it allows you to look around, other times (like when you need control to navigate roof tops) it suddenly decides to deny you control and just does whatever it wants. We have bad collision detection, meaning that in the absolutely terrible combat scenes there's no contact or anything between you and your opponents. When jumping to grab onto a ledge, it's more chance than contact that you'll actually connect and not fall to your death.
Even little details are full of failure. The spoken words, for example, often don't match up with the subtitles. A minor gripe, obviously, but indicative of the project as a whole. Everything just seems poorly put together, and in many cases unfinished.
It's not 100% failure. The voice acting is actually decent (it has Patrick Warburton, who makes any voice project better), and the writing has its moments provided that you have the humor sense of a twelve-year-old boy. Which, incidentally, I do. Lines such as "Maybe if I stroke faster, I'll be done sooner" (in reference to scrubbing graffiti, of course) elicit a chuckle, and the one playing Larry occasionally breaks the fourth wall with some entertaining results. They get a giggle from time to time, but that hardly saves this train wreck.
Like running into that old friend, I saw Leisure Suit Larry hoping for something that I remembered from the past. What I got, though, was the pale shadow of its former self.
Regardless of who they were in school, when you run into them all you see is what they could have been, and they just look broken and reek of failed potential.
When I was much younger, I played a series of PC games called Leisure Suit Larry. They were rather simple affairs: the early ones had a simple text entry interface, and the later ones evolved into more point-and-click type adventures. The games starred Larry Laffer, a rather pathetic schlub whose only goal throughout the series was to get laid as many times as humanly possible. There were light story elements that served mostly to get him from one potential conquest to another, but the concept was pretty simple.
The games were filled with silly humor, intentionally cheesy dialogue, and a mostly PG-13 level of crude sexual overtones and slapstick.
The series dropped off the face of the earth for a while, but came back as Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude for the PC, Xbox, and PS2. The game was entertaining in a stupid way, and was mostly a series of mini-games that served to advance the new Larry (Lovage, Laffer's nephew) through his quest to bed as many girls on his college campus as he could.
Now, we have Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust for the Xbox 360. Again starring Larry Lovage, the game is like that old high school friend you're seeing again after several years. Sad, pathetic, and a shadow of their former self.
The new LSL has you working at your uncle's movie studio. He's afraid that his rival, Big Anus Studios, has paid off someone on staff to sabotage his movies, so he sends you undercover to seek out the truth. Undercover, of course, means "take on stupid fetch quests for everyone". That's about it for the gameplay, actually. Go to point A, talk to someone who sends you to point B, and then go back to A to get another mission. There's not much challenge in finding anyone, since your target is plainly indicated on your minimap (so all you have to do is move from one green dot to the next), and there's no real gameplay outside of hitting B to talk to people.
That's perhaps the biggest sin: the almost complete lack of actual gameplay. The previous game wasn't exactly high art, but it did have some fun mini-games. Want to get one girl drunk? Play a game of quarters. The bartending job led to a Root Beer Tapper style sequence, donating sperm for spending money involved a game of Pong, and even the conversations were done in a short dodging game that was almost as entertaining to fail just to hear what Larry was going to say when things started going awry.
The new game, though, takes all of that away and has you pretty much hitting one button. Need to wipe graffiti off of a wall? Go up to the offending art and press B. Need to talk to someone? B. Even when they attempt something involved, like a button-pressing quick-time style thing, it's dumbed down to the point of ludicrous. Rather than offer any sort of challenge, it just asks you to follow along as it slowly displays like three commands before moving on.
Then we have the serious departure from the theme of the franchise. The goal has always been pretty simple: meet pretty girls and do what you need to do in order to have sex with them. Now we have some attempt at a real story, and this admirable goal takes back burner to running around the movie studio delivering mail for people.
Graphically, the game is actually a step down from the previous title. You know, the one on an older system? It tries to be colorful, but just ends up looking weird. The people are hideously deformed, the shadows look terrible, and everything is blocky and poorly textured.
Controls are pretty bad, typical for a shoddy 3D game. The camera gets spastic at times, making it hard to see where to go and often leading to cheap falls. Sometimes it allows you to look around, other times (like when you need control to navigate roof tops) it suddenly decides to deny you control and just does whatever it wants. We have bad collision detection, meaning that in the absolutely terrible combat scenes there's no contact or anything between you and your opponents. When jumping to grab onto a ledge, it's more chance than contact that you'll actually connect and not fall to your death.
Even little details are full of failure. The spoken words, for example, often don't match up with the subtitles. A minor gripe, obviously, but indicative of the project as a whole. Everything just seems poorly put together, and in many cases unfinished.
It's not 100% failure. The voice acting is actually decent (it has Patrick Warburton, who makes any voice project better), and the writing has its moments provided that you have the humor sense of a twelve-year-old boy. Which, incidentally, I do. Lines such as "Maybe if I stroke faster, I'll be done sooner" (in reference to scrubbing graffiti, of course) elicit a chuckle, and the one playing Larry occasionally breaks the fourth wall with some entertaining results. They get a giggle from time to time, but that hardly saves this train wreck.
Like running into that old friend, I saw Leisure Suit Larry hoping for something that I remembered from the past. What I got, though, was the pale shadow of its former self.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Save the Animals!
Before we begin today, let me say that I am a huge fan of animal advocacy, helping animals, and pretty much anything that values the lives of animals. In fact, it's very safe to say that I would rather help out an animal than a human. I support the ASPCA and World Wildlife groups, do that "save the rainforest" game thing on Facebook, and have currently live with nine cats and a dog that were all strays or adoptions of some sort. In my last apartment, I couldn't tell you the names of any people in my building, but I knew the name of every pet.
Animals good. People bad. Go Earth.
I point all of this out because today's post deals with PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and my sarcasm will be aimed squarely at them. I do this not because I don't like them or don't think they're doing a bang-up job, but because this was just REALLY silly.
So, Take-Two Interactive is putting out a circus game for the Wii. This in itself isn't noteworthy, or terribly original, since I believe there are already a couple of those on the system. However, what sets this one (slightly) apart is that it's an "official" Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey circus game. So, it's probably going to be exactly like the other circus games, but this time with a license.
The fun folks over at PETA, however, are pretty peeved about the game. More accurately, they really really (really) hate Ringling, and are taking it out on T2.
On some level, I agree with PETA on their stance against the circus. These clowns (pun very intended) do often abuse and torture the animals involved in this entertainment, the living conditions are horrific, and it's just a bad scene all around. I am not arguing that the people who torment elephants so they'll perform shouldn't be dragged out into the desert and beaten. I'm all for that. Hell, I'll drive.
My issue here, though, is that IT'S A GAME! It's a game meant for kids, no less. It's probably going to be bright and colorful and have happy clowns that walk you through whatever gimmicky movements you need to do with the Wii remote.
So PETA has called out Ben Feder, CEO of Take-Two, and is trying to get development of the game halted. They have started up a web site with a pre-written letter to Mr. Feder, and all one has to do is sign it and hit send. An exerpt from the letter (which can be edited before sending):
I was shocked to hear that Take-Two is partnering with Ringling Bros. to create a circus-themed video game. Video games might be a fun way to pass the time, but circuses are no fun for animals. Ringling has a long history of animal abuse and neglect. To get elephants to "perform," Ringling Bros. rips babies away from their mothers and stuffs them into poorly ventilated boxcars, forcing them to travel and perform for up to 50 weeks out of every year. Elephants are beaten and gouged in the most sensitive parts of their bodies with metal-tipped bullhooks.
I seriously doubt that any of those practices will actually be present in the game. I do not see the Wii remote being used as an elephant beater/ gouger. I also doubt that the five-year-old kid that plays with this game is going to grow up to abuse elephants. All these circus games do is cause children to grow into adults that are petrified of clowns.
I actually understand where PETA is coming from here, to a point. It's a "friend of my enemy is my enemy" sort of thing. They're against Ringling for their practices, and therefore are trying to not only discourage someone licensing with them but the additional press a video game will bring the circus. I get it, I really do. My problem is that in making so much noise, nobody is really hearing. The organization has gone so crazy over so many things over the years that it's become a joke when they make a statement, so instead of people seeing what they're actually trying to accomplish they just see a bunch of loonies currently trying to ban a video game. Whatever the groups intentions were when it started, whatever goal they once sought to achieve, now just seems to be buried under all the weird.
Would it help to point out to them that it's probably going to be a cheesy mini-game compilation on a system that already has too many? Like, maybe eight people are going to play it. It'll get some buys around the holidays when clueless grannies pick it up, but most likely will be forgotten or traded in shortly after the new year. Now, I'm just guessing here, having no actual knowledge of the title itself, but given the track records involved I'm pretty confident in my theories.
As a side thought: what is PETA's stance on zombie dogs?
Seriously, though, all this has served to do is put an otherwise obscure game into the spotlight. PETA's points may be valid, but they'd be better served defending wildlife in other ways instead of wasting their time trying to deal with a circus video game for kids.
Oh, another bit from that letter:
If you want to create a circus-themed game, please choose a circus partner that uses only willing human participants. Thank you.
Willing human participants? Do they have those in a circus? I mean, what other employment is the bearded lady possibly going to get? She may not be abused, but I hardly think she's that willing to be at the one job she's remotely capable of getting.
Animals good. People bad. Go Earth.
I point all of this out because today's post deals with PETA, the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and my sarcasm will be aimed squarely at them. I do this not because I don't like them or don't think they're doing a bang-up job, but because this was just REALLY silly.
So, Take-Two Interactive is putting out a circus game for the Wii. This in itself isn't noteworthy, or terribly original, since I believe there are already a couple of those on the system. However, what sets this one (slightly) apart is that it's an "official" Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey circus game. So, it's probably going to be exactly like the other circus games, but this time with a license.
The fun folks over at PETA, however, are pretty peeved about the game. More accurately, they really really (really) hate Ringling, and are taking it out on T2.
On some level, I agree with PETA on their stance against the circus. These clowns (pun very intended) do often abuse and torture the animals involved in this entertainment, the living conditions are horrific, and it's just a bad scene all around. I am not arguing that the people who torment elephants so they'll perform shouldn't be dragged out into the desert and beaten. I'm all for that. Hell, I'll drive.
My issue here, though, is that IT'S A GAME! It's a game meant for kids, no less. It's probably going to be bright and colorful and have happy clowns that walk you through whatever gimmicky movements you need to do with the Wii remote.
So PETA has called out Ben Feder, CEO of Take-Two, and is trying to get development of the game halted. They have started up a web site with a pre-written letter to Mr. Feder, and all one has to do is sign it and hit send. An exerpt from the letter (which can be edited before sending):
I was shocked to hear that Take-Two is partnering with Ringling Bros. to create a circus-themed video game. Video games might be a fun way to pass the time, but circuses are no fun for animals. Ringling has a long history of animal abuse and neglect. To get elephants to "perform," Ringling Bros. rips babies away from their mothers and stuffs them into poorly ventilated boxcars, forcing them to travel and perform for up to 50 weeks out of every year. Elephants are beaten and gouged in the most sensitive parts of their bodies with metal-tipped bullhooks.
I seriously doubt that any of those practices will actually be present in the game. I do not see the Wii remote being used as an elephant beater/ gouger. I also doubt that the five-year-old kid that plays with this game is going to grow up to abuse elephants. All these circus games do is cause children to grow into adults that are petrified of clowns.
I actually understand where PETA is coming from here, to a point. It's a "friend of my enemy is my enemy" sort of thing. They're against Ringling for their practices, and therefore are trying to not only discourage someone licensing with them but the additional press a video game will bring the circus. I get it, I really do. My problem is that in making so much noise, nobody is really hearing. The organization has gone so crazy over so many things over the years that it's become a joke when they make a statement, so instead of people seeing what they're actually trying to accomplish they just see a bunch of loonies currently trying to ban a video game. Whatever the groups intentions were when it started, whatever goal they once sought to achieve, now just seems to be buried under all the weird.
Would it help to point out to them that it's probably going to be a cheesy mini-game compilation on a system that already has too many? Like, maybe eight people are going to play it. It'll get some buys around the holidays when clueless grannies pick it up, but most likely will be forgotten or traded in shortly after the new year. Now, I'm just guessing here, having no actual knowledge of the title itself, but given the track records involved I'm pretty confident in my theories.
As a side thought: what is PETA's stance on zombie dogs?
Seriously, though, all this has served to do is put an otherwise obscure game into the spotlight. PETA's points may be valid, but they'd be better served defending wildlife in other ways instead of wasting their time trying to deal with a circus video game for kids.
Oh, another bit from that letter:
If you want to create a circus-themed game, please choose a circus partner that uses only willing human participants. Thank you.
Willing human participants? Do they have those in a circus? I mean, what other employment is the bearded lady possibly going to get? She may not be abused, but I hardly think she's that willing to be at the one job she's remotely capable of getting.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Sigh... Here We Go Again...
A couple of stories today, serving to point out how narrow minded and uninformed some people really are.
The first comes all the way from merry old England, or more accurately the merry old people who pretend to run the country. In a recent debate at the House of Lords, the various noble folks were discussing online purchasing of goods and services. The focus seemed to center on age verification of items they deem inappropriate for younger people. In the course of the various people saying various things, some opinions against gaming came to light.
The first came from a Baroness Walmsley, who states that "knives, guns, certain games and DVDs, alcohol, solvents, and gambling are all very harmful and can destroy young minds and young lives."
I will agree with at least some of that statement. Kids buying guns and knives over the interweb is probably a poor idea. Same with alcohol. Not so sure on the solvents thing. Do British kids paint a lot and need to buy that, and why can't they just go to Home Depot or whatever the British equivalent of the home repair superstore is?
My big issue, though, is that "certain games" are being lumped in with deadly weapons. I'm sure that she is refering to the ones that always come up: Grand Theft Auto IV, Halo 3, and whatever other game is in the news at any given time. So a copy of GTA has the same potential destructive power as a firearm?
The madness continued in a statement by Lord de Mauley, who says "I understand that there are about 20 categories of item that are restricted, among them alcohol, tobacco, knives, solvents, and certain DVDs and video games, all of which are restricted for very good reasons to protect children from their various harmful effects."
Again, we're lumping games in with lethal weapons and alcohol. Also, he mentions "very good reasons", but fails to actually offer up any reason as to why a video game should be considered as harmful as a knife.
He also, like the one before, mentions solvents. Seems like a real issue. I think I'm going to go to England and open up a home good store. Should do really well.
The next example of lose and fail comes from a couple of German researchers who published a very long and very boring report on the web site Current Concerns. Really, I tried to read the entire thing, but it went on for a while and at some point my eyes glazed over and my brain started to shut down. So, to help my reader(s) avoid such a fate, I'll give you the relevant Cliff's Notes.
Essentially, the authors, Renate and Rudi Hansel (no mention of Gretel, by the way) call for a ban on violent video games. This is nothing new, of course. They do, however, claim that violent video games are a creation of the US military.
Basically, the authors claim that "killing simulators", which they say were used by the army and police for training purposes, were released by the Pentagon in the nineties. They say that these sims were sold to the public for private usage, and that the video game industry had been cooperating with the Pentagon from the very beginning. Once they had access to these simulators, the game business boomed, and since then these "killer games" have wreaked havoc on the children of the world.
Umm... conspiracy theories much? The game industry is in secret cahoots with the Us government to sell military killing simulators to kids as entertainment.
Wait, let me get my tin foil hat before we go any further. My Xbox 360 might be transmitting alien radio waves into my brain. Which would be pretty cool, if there's an achievement for that...
They go on, as these types always do, to say that the US military needs to take back their "training programs". They state that these need to disappear from "civil society", and that they can be used for national defense or crime fighting, but that they have no use in our living rooms.
I agree! That's why my 360 is in my bedroom.
Seriously, though, the authors mention correlations between violent games and school shooting, pointing out recent German and Swiss tragedies. They also reference a post-World War II ban on war toys.
It's just two more examples of clueless people taking a stand on something they know very little about. Rather than not comment at all, or take the time to educate themselves on games and gaming before choosing a side, it's easier to jump on a bandwagon and try to get some press by trying to say that games are evil.
The first comes all the way from merry old England, or more accurately the merry old people who pretend to run the country. In a recent debate at the House of Lords, the various noble folks were discussing online purchasing of goods and services. The focus seemed to center on age verification of items they deem inappropriate for younger people. In the course of the various people saying various things, some opinions against gaming came to light.
The first came from a Baroness Walmsley, who states that "knives, guns, certain games and DVDs, alcohol, solvents, and gambling are all very harmful and can destroy young minds and young lives."
I will agree with at least some of that statement. Kids buying guns and knives over the interweb is probably a poor idea. Same with alcohol. Not so sure on the solvents thing. Do British kids paint a lot and need to buy that, and why can't they just go to Home Depot or whatever the British equivalent of the home repair superstore is?
My big issue, though, is that "certain games" are being lumped in with deadly weapons. I'm sure that she is refering to the ones that always come up: Grand Theft Auto IV, Halo 3, and whatever other game is in the news at any given time. So a copy of GTA has the same potential destructive power as a firearm?
The madness continued in a statement by Lord de Mauley, who says "I understand that there are about 20 categories of item that are restricted, among them alcohol, tobacco, knives, solvents, and certain DVDs and video games, all of which are restricted for very good reasons to protect children from their various harmful effects."
Again, we're lumping games in with lethal weapons and alcohol. Also, he mentions "very good reasons", but fails to actually offer up any reason as to why a video game should be considered as harmful as a knife.
He also, like the one before, mentions solvents. Seems like a real issue. I think I'm going to go to England and open up a home good store. Should do really well.
The next example of lose and fail comes from a couple of German researchers who published a very long and very boring report on the web site Current Concerns. Really, I tried to read the entire thing, but it went on for a while and at some point my eyes glazed over and my brain started to shut down. So, to help my reader(s) avoid such a fate, I'll give you the relevant Cliff's Notes.
Essentially, the authors, Renate and Rudi Hansel (no mention of Gretel, by the way) call for a ban on violent video games. This is nothing new, of course. They do, however, claim that violent video games are a creation of the US military.
Basically, the authors claim that "killing simulators", which they say were used by the army and police for training purposes, were released by the Pentagon in the nineties. They say that these sims were sold to the public for private usage, and that the video game industry had been cooperating with the Pentagon from the very beginning. Once they had access to these simulators, the game business boomed, and since then these "killer games" have wreaked havoc on the children of the world.
Umm... conspiracy theories much? The game industry is in secret cahoots with the Us government to sell military killing simulators to kids as entertainment.
Wait, let me get my tin foil hat before we go any further. My Xbox 360 might be transmitting alien radio waves into my brain. Which would be pretty cool, if there's an achievement for that...
They go on, as these types always do, to say that the US military needs to take back their "training programs". They state that these need to disappear from "civil society", and that they can be used for national defense or crime fighting, but that they have no use in our living rooms.
I agree! That's why my 360 is in my bedroom.
Seriously, though, the authors mention correlations between violent games and school shooting, pointing out recent German and Swiss tragedies. They also reference a post-World War II ban on war toys.
It's just two more examples of clueless people taking a stand on something they know very little about. Rather than not comment at all, or take the time to educate themselves on games and gaming before choosing a side, it's easier to jump on a bandwagon and try to get some press by trying to say that games are evil.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Points With No Point
Nintendo, every Monday, drops some new downloads across their various networks (DSiWare, WiiWare, and Virtual Console).
Since the launch of the DSi a little over a month ago, I've been sitting on those free 1000 points waiting for something worth spending them on. When I first went online with the system, and got the free points, I figured that I'd just buy whatever struck my fancy with them, since it's not like I paid for them or anything, so it didn't really matter too much what I bought (return on investment and all that). Even with the realization that the download would be free, though, I can't find a damn thing I want to play.
There are some cool looking titles on the horizon. Mighty Flip Champs looks like a purchase, and Phantasy Star Mini provided it's not just a cheesy demo-type thing for the upcoming Phantasy Star Zero. I've also heard that the launch download Art Style: Aquia isn't too shabby. It's a puzzle game, though, and after downloading Puzzle Quest: Galactrix on XBLA and buying Henry Hatsworth for DS, I'm a little puzzled out. Other than that there just isn't much outside of tech demos and cheese. Really, they should have launched with some strong titles to really show off the service and get people spending points immediately instead of waiting for things to get better.
The WiiWare and Virtual Console entries for this week weren't much better. WiiWare had an original title called Family Pirate Party, a board game on a system that has no shortage of board games. Of course, this one has pirates, which makes it immediately cool, but it's not exactly a big deal. VC brings Galaxy Force II, an obscure and reasonably generic Sega Genesis shooter.
Point being, there's just not much to get excited about when it comes to downloads this week in Nintendo world. Sure, you can't hit a high note every Monday, but it seems like the last several have been unimpressive. Like I said, there's nothing on the DSiWare front that interested me enough to even spend free points, and the last few weeks of downloads on the Wii (in particular the Virtual Console) have been met with a resounding "meh".
My real issue with this is that they seem to have it backwards.
Spring and summer are traditionally the "slow" seasons for the video game industry. Sure, we get a few big releases, but for the most part the heavy hitters are unleashed around the holiday season. Honestly, once the flood of AAA retail titles starts flowing into stores, downloads are going to be the furthest thing from my mind. I may check now and again, but I'll be too busy with the big games (mmm... Assassin's Creed 2...) and spending so much money on discs that I think points and downloads are just going to be put off.
So, by my thinking, the slow seasons are when Nintendo should be putting out their high profile downloads. Keep people playing, keep those consoles and handhelds switched on, give them something to hold their interest while waiting for the sea of gaming that the fourth quarter of the year will bring.
So, on a quiet Monday in a quiet week in May, instead of getting some obscure Genesis shooter we should be downloading something bigger. We should be getting something that justifies upgrading from a DS Lite to a DSi now, before we start seeing DSi exclusive cartridges on the shelves.
XBLA isn't as bad. Whether they get it or whether they've just got a better lineup, they're keeping people engaged with their service and their console during the springtime drought. Games like Space Invaders Extreme are pretty hot, and of course they have game specific add-ons (like See the Future, the latest expansion for Fable 2) to help insure that people keep playing their games in their existing collections before the big rush overtakes us and we forget about what we already own and buy more stuff.
I also acknowledge that there is a decent back library to go through. If I don't see anything that strikes my fancy on a given week, I can always go back and download a title I may have missed (like Penny Arcade Adventures: Episode 2, that I keep meaning to get). Still, if I were more on the ball (and less broke) I would have done that when it launched and would now be annoyed by the lack of quality downloads.
Nintendo's lack of focus on their download services is actually a small part of a bigger issue: the manufacturers not taking the downloads seriously. I don't think they really see them as a major deal, but more of a neat little gimmicky thing their machines can do. They don't really hype up any of the releases, and even the dates don't really seem to be something they nail down more than a week in advance.
These guys have something big with their respective services, but it doesn't really seem like they're aware of that. I've downloaded nearly forty games on XBLA, plus around ten Virtual Console games, and once we see some halfway decent titles I figure I'll start in with DSiWare. That's a considerable amount of money spent on downloads. I think I've spent more on downloads so far this year than I have on retail games. To be honest, most of the downloads recently are better games than the stuff they're putting out on the shelves. So why aren't they taking these more seriously? Toss up some advance ads, garner some excitement, make it more of a deal than just tossing whatever up each week.
So once I've finished last year's holiday titles, and I'm awaiting the next crop of autumn AAA's, I should be getting entertained with some hot downloads.
I should want to turn on my system every day because there's some amazing original arcade game or some cool classic. When there's no disc worth buying, the slack should be picked up by the downloads.
Since the launch of the DSi a little over a month ago, I've been sitting on those free 1000 points waiting for something worth spending them on. When I first went online with the system, and got the free points, I figured that I'd just buy whatever struck my fancy with them, since it's not like I paid for them or anything, so it didn't really matter too much what I bought (return on investment and all that). Even with the realization that the download would be free, though, I can't find a damn thing I want to play.
There are some cool looking titles on the horizon. Mighty Flip Champs looks like a purchase, and Phantasy Star Mini provided it's not just a cheesy demo-type thing for the upcoming Phantasy Star Zero. I've also heard that the launch download Art Style: Aquia isn't too shabby. It's a puzzle game, though, and after downloading Puzzle Quest: Galactrix on XBLA and buying Henry Hatsworth for DS, I'm a little puzzled out. Other than that there just isn't much outside of tech demos and cheese. Really, they should have launched with some strong titles to really show off the service and get people spending points immediately instead of waiting for things to get better.
The WiiWare and Virtual Console entries for this week weren't much better. WiiWare had an original title called Family Pirate Party, a board game on a system that has no shortage of board games. Of course, this one has pirates, which makes it immediately cool, but it's not exactly a big deal. VC brings Galaxy Force II, an obscure and reasonably generic Sega Genesis shooter.
Point being, there's just not much to get excited about when it comes to downloads this week in Nintendo world. Sure, you can't hit a high note every Monday, but it seems like the last several have been unimpressive. Like I said, there's nothing on the DSiWare front that interested me enough to even spend free points, and the last few weeks of downloads on the Wii (in particular the Virtual Console) have been met with a resounding "meh".
My real issue with this is that they seem to have it backwards.
Spring and summer are traditionally the "slow" seasons for the video game industry. Sure, we get a few big releases, but for the most part the heavy hitters are unleashed around the holiday season. Honestly, once the flood of AAA retail titles starts flowing into stores, downloads are going to be the furthest thing from my mind. I may check now and again, but I'll be too busy with the big games (mmm... Assassin's Creed 2...) and spending so much money on discs that I think points and downloads are just going to be put off.
So, by my thinking, the slow seasons are when Nintendo should be putting out their high profile downloads. Keep people playing, keep those consoles and handhelds switched on, give them something to hold their interest while waiting for the sea of gaming that the fourth quarter of the year will bring.
So, on a quiet Monday in a quiet week in May, instead of getting some obscure Genesis shooter we should be downloading something bigger. We should be getting something that justifies upgrading from a DS Lite to a DSi now, before we start seeing DSi exclusive cartridges on the shelves.
XBLA isn't as bad. Whether they get it or whether they've just got a better lineup, they're keeping people engaged with their service and their console during the springtime drought. Games like Space Invaders Extreme are pretty hot, and of course they have game specific add-ons (like See the Future, the latest expansion for Fable 2) to help insure that people keep playing their games in their existing collections before the big rush overtakes us and we forget about what we already own and buy more stuff.
I also acknowledge that there is a decent back library to go through. If I don't see anything that strikes my fancy on a given week, I can always go back and download a title I may have missed (like Penny Arcade Adventures: Episode 2, that I keep meaning to get). Still, if I were more on the ball (and less broke) I would have done that when it launched and would now be annoyed by the lack of quality downloads.
Nintendo's lack of focus on their download services is actually a small part of a bigger issue: the manufacturers not taking the downloads seriously. I don't think they really see them as a major deal, but more of a neat little gimmicky thing their machines can do. They don't really hype up any of the releases, and even the dates don't really seem to be something they nail down more than a week in advance.
These guys have something big with their respective services, but it doesn't really seem like they're aware of that. I've downloaded nearly forty games on XBLA, plus around ten Virtual Console games, and once we see some halfway decent titles I figure I'll start in with DSiWare. That's a considerable amount of money spent on downloads. I think I've spent more on downloads so far this year than I have on retail games. To be honest, most of the downloads recently are better games than the stuff they're putting out on the shelves. So why aren't they taking these more seriously? Toss up some advance ads, garner some excitement, make it more of a deal than just tossing whatever up each week.
So once I've finished last year's holiday titles, and I'm awaiting the next crop of autumn AAA's, I should be getting entertained with some hot downloads.
I should want to turn on my system every day because there's some amazing original arcade game or some cool classic. When there's no disc worth buying, the slack should be picked up by the downloads.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Friday Night Fail: My Own WTF Edition
Tonight's Friday Night Fail has nothing to do with games. It has to do with a game blog.
It actually has to do with this particular game blog, at least the last week of it.
When I started the Grumbly Gamer, it was with the intention of bringing a sarcastic spin to daily video game news. There's a lot of absurdity out there, and I wanted to go ahead and laugh at it and hopefully get a few readers to laugh along with me. For the most part, I think I've been doing OK with that.
This past week, though, really sucked. It was, dare I suggest, lamesauce.
I mean, debating the pros and cons of the consoles? Who does that these days? That was relevant, like, two years ago.
Basically, nothing really jumped out at me news wise. I've been tired, stressed out over the lack of anything developing on the job front, and just generally out of sorts. Still, I feel the need to post just about daily, so in lieu of anything meaningful I turned to fluff. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
The writing was weak, the storyline silly, and the graphics looked like an old text adventure. The controls were questionable, and it really had no distinct progression or climax.
So, next week, I will make every attempt to get back on track with whatever it is I do here.
Oh, also, GO SEE STAR TREK. Don't argue. Stop reading this right now and go to your nearest cinema and buy a ticket. If you've got some time before the next show, sit and play DS until it's time to go see this amazing franchise reboot.
Sorry. Off topic.
Anyway: less sucking, more sarcasm.
It actually has to do with this particular game blog, at least the last week of it.
When I started the Grumbly Gamer, it was with the intention of bringing a sarcastic spin to daily video game news. There's a lot of absurdity out there, and I wanted to go ahead and laugh at it and hopefully get a few readers to laugh along with me. For the most part, I think I've been doing OK with that.
This past week, though, really sucked. It was, dare I suggest, lamesauce.
I mean, debating the pros and cons of the consoles? Who does that these days? That was relevant, like, two years ago.
Basically, nothing really jumped out at me news wise. I've been tired, stressed out over the lack of anything developing on the job front, and just generally out of sorts. Still, I feel the need to post just about daily, so in lieu of anything meaningful I turned to fluff. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
The writing was weak, the storyline silly, and the graphics looked like an old text adventure. The controls were questionable, and it really had no distinct progression or climax.
So, next week, I will make every attempt to get back on track with whatever it is I do here.
Oh, also, GO SEE STAR TREK. Don't argue. Stop reading this right now and go to your nearest cinema and buy a ticket. If you've got some time before the next show, sit and play DS until it's time to go see this amazing franchise reboot.
Sorry. Off topic.
Anyway: less sucking, more sarcasm.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Pro/ Con Report: Sony
Over the next couple of days, I'm going to take a hard look at the "big three": Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony. I'm going to examine where they are now, their success and failure, and what they could stand to do to in order to improve their standing.
Rounding out my look at the three consoles available today, I examine the strengths and faults of Sony's entry. As with Nintendo, I'm only going to look at their home console, the Playstation 3, and not the handheld PSP system.
Sony's got, on paper, the most powerful hardware available. It also has Blu-Ray player capabilities, and quite possibly helped the format gain visibility during its battle with HD-DVD. They bring a huge Playstation fan base, some exclusive franchises as well as some cool new IPs. The machine itself has on-board wi-fi, internet browsing capabilities, compatibility with the PSP, online play, and a download service for add-ons, games, and videos.
As I have with the previous two reports, the good comes first.
Sony's machine, at least according to the specs, is the most powerful of the three. It has all sorts of bells and whistles, the biggest being the ability to play Blu-Ray movies. Especially when the system debuted, and dedicated Blu-Ray players were ridiculously expensive, it offered a cheaper way to get into high definition movies. It has wireless controllers that don't require batteries or additional recharge packs, and the wireless adapter is built right in.
There are some great games available for the system, including some really unique original titles. Games like Folklore, and Uncharted can't be found anywhere else, and there are continuations of popular Sony franchises like Ratchet and Clank and the upcoming God of War III. They have some innovative games like the card and camera based Eye of Judgement, and the build-your-own experience Little Big Planet.
Sony offers free online play with its Playstation Network, as well as a download service. Add-ons to existing games, as well as some great downloadable titles, are available. They're also the only ones that sell these downloads for real money, instead of points like the other two.
Now, here's the bad:
Sony's hardware, while supposedly the most powerful, hasn't really been able to show this prowess. Many ports have actually suffered in the translation, and despite all of their wild claims they still haven't really shown what they say the system is capable of. In fact, the entire console is surrounded by a lot of promises and not a lot of follow-through on Sony's part. They keep telling people to look towards the future, wait for the system to hit its stride, but while they sit back and wait their competitors are running circles around them.
Yes, they've got some cool games, but they also have substantially less than their closest rival, Microsoft's Xbox 360. Sony has taken a stance of "not paying for exclusives", which is all well and good, but since Microsoft is more than willing to do so that means they're getting all the cool titles first (and sometimes only). They're missing out on games entirely, or losing time on limited exclusives like Bioshock, and also don't have the downloadable content for games like Fallout 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV.
Their console is big and imposing, especially when compared to the small, white, friendly Wii and the sleek Xbox 360. It's also more expensive than the others, and Sony really hasn't done much to justify spending the extra money to get their console.
In fact, that's perhaps Sony's biggest issue: their seeming lack of focus. They don't have Microsoft's connection to gamers or Nintendo's family focus. Their library isn't as strong as Microsoft, they attempted motion control but didn't pull it off as well as Nintendo. They show off a console that does all sorts of things, but almost seem to have spread themselves too thin with features and haven't catered to one demographic or another.
Pros:
*) Powerful hardware.
*) Blu-Ray movie capabilities.
*) Cool original games.
Cons:
*) Expensive.
*) Not as strong a library as Microsoft.
*) Not as focused, from a business standpoint, as their competitors.
There. All three consoles examined, their strengths and weaknesses pointed out and plainly listed. This has, if nothing else, managed to fill a few days' worth of posts. Yay for filler.
Rounding out my look at the three consoles available today, I examine the strengths and faults of Sony's entry. As with Nintendo, I'm only going to look at their home console, the Playstation 3, and not the handheld PSP system.
Sony's got, on paper, the most powerful hardware available. It also has Blu-Ray player capabilities, and quite possibly helped the format gain visibility during its battle with HD-DVD. They bring a huge Playstation fan base, some exclusive franchises as well as some cool new IPs. The machine itself has on-board wi-fi, internet browsing capabilities, compatibility with the PSP, online play, and a download service for add-ons, games, and videos.
As I have with the previous two reports, the good comes first.
Sony's machine, at least according to the specs, is the most powerful of the three. It has all sorts of bells and whistles, the biggest being the ability to play Blu-Ray movies. Especially when the system debuted, and dedicated Blu-Ray players were ridiculously expensive, it offered a cheaper way to get into high definition movies. It has wireless controllers that don't require batteries or additional recharge packs, and the wireless adapter is built right in.
There are some great games available for the system, including some really unique original titles. Games like Folklore, and Uncharted can't be found anywhere else, and there are continuations of popular Sony franchises like Ratchet and Clank and the upcoming God of War III. They have some innovative games like the card and camera based Eye of Judgement, and the build-your-own experience Little Big Planet.
Sony offers free online play with its Playstation Network, as well as a download service. Add-ons to existing games, as well as some great downloadable titles, are available. They're also the only ones that sell these downloads for real money, instead of points like the other two.
Now, here's the bad:
Sony's hardware, while supposedly the most powerful, hasn't really been able to show this prowess. Many ports have actually suffered in the translation, and despite all of their wild claims they still haven't really shown what they say the system is capable of. In fact, the entire console is surrounded by a lot of promises and not a lot of follow-through on Sony's part. They keep telling people to look towards the future, wait for the system to hit its stride, but while they sit back and wait their competitors are running circles around them.
Yes, they've got some cool games, but they also have substantially less than their closest rival, Microsoft's Xbox 360. Sony has taken a stance of "not paying for exclusives", which is all well and good, but since Microsoft is more than willing to do so that means they're getting all the cool titles first (and sometimes only). They're missing out on games entirely, or losing time on limited exclusives like Bioshock, and also don't have the downloadable content for games like Fallout 3 and Grand Theft Auto IV.
Their console is big and imposing, especially when compared to the small, white, friendly Wii and the sleek Xbox 360. It's also more expensive than the others, and Sony really hasn't done much to justify spending the extra money to get their console.
In fact, that's perhaps Sony's biggest issue: their seeming lack of focus. They don't have Microsoft's connection to gamers or Nintendo's family focus. Their library isn't as strong as Microsoft, they attempted motion control but didn't pull it off as well as Nintendo. They show off a console that does all sorts of things, but almost seem to have spread themselves too thin with features and haven't catered to one demographic or another.
Pros:
*) Powerful hardware.
*) Blu-Ray movie capabilities.
*) Cool original games.
Cons:
*) Expensive.
*) Not as strong a library as Microsoft.
*) Not as focused, from a business standpoint, as their competitors.
There. All three consoles examined, their strengths and weaknesses pointed out and plainly listed. This has, if nothing else, managed to fill a few days' worth of posts. Yay for filler.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Pro/ Con Report: Nintendo
Over the next couple of days, I'm going to take a hard look at the "big three": Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony. I'm going to examine where they are now, their success and failure, and what they could stand to do to in order to improve their standing.
I'm going to point out, right at the beginning, that I am focusing on consoles, not handhelds. So this list of pros and cons deals squarely with the Nintendo Wii and not the DS/ DSi.
Just like with Microsoft yesterday, I'm going to start by looking at the positive features of the machine, before moving on to the bad stuff.
Nintendo has really gone in a completely different direction than the other manufacturers this time around, offering a much cheaper and more casual/ family oriented system. Anybody can pick up and play a Wii game, from a small child to an eighty year old woman, and the system offers a range of experiences from hardcore violent action (Madworld) to exercise (Wii Fit). All of Nintendo's flagship franchises have made an appearance: Zelda, Mario, and Pokemon have all shown up in some fashion, and the wide range of classics on the Virtual Console download service allows people to play older entries in these series plus a whole lot more.
Let's look at the hardware first: The Wii is little and friendly-looking. It's less expensive than the other consoles, and is the only one to offer full backwards compatibility with the previous generation. Of course, the big draw is the motion control, and an ease of use that allows people of any age to have a good time. It's also packed in with a great game, Wii Sports, which offers a lot of fun right out of the box.
The Wii does have a pretty decent selection of games, and the unique control scheme has offered developers the chance to try some new ideas. For mature audiences, games like the aforementioned Madworld, and the wonderfully bizarre No More Heroes, offer blood and adult themes. Of course, the Nintendo flagships are there with spectacular offerings in Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Super Mario Galaxy. There are some cool original games like Zack & Wiki, and of course versions of many popular titles like Dead Space and Call of Duty.
Nintendo has gone forward with their own vision, taken a drastically different path than Sony and Microsoft. They're embracing casual and family gaming to a whole new level, to the point that many gamers wonder if they've turned their backs on the hardcore fans. They've sold about a gajillion units to people you'd never expect to buy a video game console, and have brought some unexpected new experiences to gamers.
And the bad?
The fact is, the Wii is seriously underpowered when compared to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. While some impressive graphics can be squeezed out of it, they really don't compare to the other consoles of this generation. With the other players pushing forward into HD, Blu-Ray, and other technologies, Nintendo seems content to play things a few years behind the curve. Of course, this means a more accessible and affordable console, which translates into the amazing success they've enjoyed, but in theory they'll hit a ceiling long before the others.
The game selection, while certainly interesting, falls short. Many of the ports (Dead Rising, Brothers in Arms) are pale shadows of their bigger brothers, and the system is home to a rather dizzying amount of "shovelware", games that are made more to hop on the bandwagon than actually offer any sort of entertainment. There are tons of cheesy, kiddy, mini-game compilations, too many games that shoehorn bad motion controls in just because they can, and just a sea of really bad titles. For every good, unique game that hits the shelves, there are ten titles that aren't worth even using as coasters. Nintendo needs to get third parties on board, doing more than just pushing out mini-game compilations like some shovelware octomom. Maybe they need to have training classes or something, teach developers how to really get a handle on the console. Nobody can rely on first party releases alone, so they need to really help outsiders build quality experiences on their console.
The Virtual Console is really cool, offering original titles as well as classic games for download, but overall Nintendo's online strategy is far behind the curve. Only a handful of games are online, many require complex codes to be entered in order to do anything, and there is no real voice chat outside of the speaker used in Animal Crossing. They have community style applications, such as one where people can vote on random questions and another where custom Mii characters can be made and put on display, and while these are amusing for a little while the service just doesn't compare to something like Xbox Live or PSN.
I applaud Nintendo's decision to go in their own direction, and cater to people that previously have been ignored by the gaming industry. I've watched my grandmother play Wii Sports, something I never thought I'd see, and lots of people who have never played or haven't played in years are getting back into the game. More gamers is definitely not a bad thing, but there is a lot of concern that in embracing this market Nintendo has pretty much turned their back on the hardcore fans that got them here. They've forged their own path in the industry, and based on their success thus far there could be on the right one, but time will tell if they can maintain this direction.
Pros:
*) Inexpensive, easy to use hardware.
*) Backwards compatible with Gamecube games and accessories.
*) Lots of unique experiences, cool games that aren't possible anywhere else, and of course the Nintendo flagship franchises.
*) Opens the gaming doors to people who may have never thought about gaming before.
Cons:
*) Less powerful than its direct competitors.
*) Weak online presence.
*) Lots of shovelware, bad ports, and bandwagon titles.
*) The impression that Nintendo has embraced the casual to the exclusion of the hardcore.
Next up, it's time to take aim at Sony.
I'm going to point out, right at the beginning, that I am focusing on consoles, not handhelds. So this list of pros and cons deals squarely with the Nintendo Wii and not the DS/ DSi.
Just like with Microsoft yesterday, I'm going to start by looking at the positive features of the machine, before moving on to the bad stuff.
Nintendo has really gone in a completely different direction than the other manufacturers this time around, offering a much cheaper and more casual/ family oriented system. Anybody can pick up and play a Wii game, from a small child to an eighty year old woman, and the system offers a range of experiences from hardcore violent action (Madworld) to exercise (Wii Fit). All of Nintendo's flagship franchises have made an appearance: Zelda, Mario, and Pokemon have all shown up in some fashion, and the wide range of classics on the Virtual Console download service allows people to play older entries in these series plus a whole lot more.
Let's look at the hardware first: The Wii is little and friendly-looking. It's less expensive than the other consoles, and is the only one to offer full backwards compatibility with the previous generation. Of course, the big draw is the motion control, and an ease of use that allows people of any age to have a good time. It's also packed in with a great game, Wii Sports, which offers a lot of fun right out of the box.
The Wii does have a pretty decent selection of games, and the unique control scheme has offered developers the chance to try some new ideas. For mature audiences, games like the aforementioned Madworld, and the wonderfully bizarre No More Heroes, offer blood and adult themes. Of course, the Nintendo flagships are there with spectacular offerings in Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Super Mario Galaxy. There are some cool original games like Zack & Wiki, and of course versions of many popular titles like Dead Space and Call of Duty.
Nintendo has gone forward with their own vision, taken a drastically different path than Sony and Microsoft. They're embracing casual and family gaming to a whole new level, to the point that many gamers wonder if they've turned their backs on the hardcore fans. They've sold about a gajillion units to people you'd never expect to buy a video game console, and have brought some unexpected new experiences to gamers.
And the bad?
The fact is, the Wii is seriously underpowered when compared to the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. While some impressive graphics can be squeezed out of it, they really don't compare to the other consoles of this generation. With the other players pushing forward into HD, Blu-Ray, and other technologies, Nintendo seems content to play things a few years behind the curve. Of course, this means a more accessible and affordable console, which translates into the amazing success they've enjoyed, but in theory they'll hit a ceiling long before the others.
The game selection, while certainly interesting, falls short. Many of the ports (Dead Rising, Brothers in Arms) are pale shadows of their bigger brothers, and the system is home to a rather dizzying amount of "shovelware", games that are made more to hop on the bandwagon than actually offer any sort of entertainment. There are tons of cheesy, kiddy, mini-game compilations, too many games that shoehorn bad motion controls in just because they can, and just a sea of really bad titles. For every good, unique game that hits the shelves, there are ten titles that aren't worth even using as coasters. Nintendo needs to get third parties on board, doing more than just pushing out mini-game compilations like some shovelware octomom. Maybe they need to have training classes or something, teach developers how to really get a handle on the console. Nobody can rely on first party releases alone, so they need to really help outsiders build quality experiences on their console.
The Virtual Console is really cool, offering original titles as well as classic games for download, but overall Nintendo's online strategy is far behind the curve. Only a handful of games are online, many require complex codes to be entered in order to do anything, and there is no real voice chat outside of the speaker used in Animal Crossing. They have community style applications, such as one where people can vote on random questions and another where custom Mii characters can be made and put on display, and while these are amusing for a little while the service just doesn't compare to something like Xbox Live or PSN.
I applaud Nintendo's decision to go in their own direction, and cater to people that previously have been ignored by the gaming industry. I've watched my grandmother play Wii Sports, something I never thought I'd see, and lots of people who have never played or haven't played in years are getting back into the game. More gamers is definitely not a bad thing, but there is a lot of concern that in embracing this market Nintendo has pretty much turned their back on the hardcore fans that got them here. They've forged their own path in the industry, and based on their success thus far there could be on the right one, but time will tell if they can maintain this direction.
Pros:
*) Inexpensive, easy to use hardware.
*) Backwards compatible with Gamecube games and accessories.
*) Lots of unique experiences, cool games that aren't possible anywhere else, and of course the Nintendo flagship franchises.
*) Opens the gaming doors to people who may have never thought about gaming before.
Cons:
*) Less powerful than its direct competitors.
*) Weak online presence.
*) Lots of shovelware, bad ports, and bandwagon titles.
*) The impression that Nintendo has embraced the casual to the exclusion of the hardcore.
Next up, it's time to take aim at Sony.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Pro/ Con Report: Microsoft
Over the next couple of days, I'm going to take a hard look at the "big three": Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony. I'm going to examine where they are now, their success and failure, and what they could stand to do to in order to improve their standing.
I'm going to start with Microsoft, and their Xbox 360 console. It's my favorite of the three, but that doesn't mean that it's not without some serious issues.
First, though, the positives. Microsoft really learned a lot from their inaugural console, the Xbox. They really listen to fans, and their business model and hardware really reflect their commitment to gamers. They came out of the game committed to bringing a strong library and an excellent online service, and they succeeded admirably.
Others can criticize the company for throwing money around on exclusives and such, but it really has given the Xbox 360 a pretty big leg up. Bioshock and Eternal Sonata had long head starts on Microsoft's machine. Grand Theft Auto IV sold circles around other versions due in no small part to the exclusive downloads, as did Fallout 3. Through whatever deals they've made, hits like Mass Effect, Left 4 Dead, and Ace Combat 6 were exclusive to the Xbox 360 (I'm not including PC versions, obviously). That's not to mention first and second party hits like Viva Pinata and Fable 2. There is no question that the Xbox 360 not only has the largest library, but the most varied and arguably the best across the board. They may not all be winners, but it's a safe bet that every type of gamer will find some quality gaming experience on the machine.
Then, of course, we have Xbox Live, which really sets the console well apart from its peers. Despite the small amount of whiners who complain about the fee (really, people, it's $50 a year. That's $4.17 per month. Shut the hell up), what you get is pretty spectacular. It really is an amazing service, whether you want to play games with a friend, simply chat, or download a dizzying amount of Arcade titles. Classic games like Frogger and the (newer classic) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Originals like Geometry Wars, ports like Puzzle Quest, and so many others from card games to shooters, even the RPG genre gets some love with the excellent Penny Arcade Adventures. I've purchased well over thirty arcade games, and often find myself more engrossed in them than anything I've bought recently at retail.
Of course, the Xbox 360 plays DVD's, and plays music by popping in a CD or hooking up your Zune. They also have the exclusive partnership with Netflix, allowing subscribers to the movie service and Xbox Live to watch movies directly from their console. The service isn't without its flaws: there still aren't a ton of "watch instantly" titles available on Netflix, and the quality sometimes wavers, but it's still pretty cool.
A special mention to achievements, those virtual high-fives for accomplishing milestones in games. They offer nothing outside of bragging rights and an addition to a score, but the acquisition of these points has become a meta-game in itself. Many people claim that when offered a choice of the same game on different platforms, they're more likely to choose the Xbox 360 version simply due to achievements. It's a brilliant idea that not only tapped into a gamer's basic need to get a high score, but increases replay value and may even make people try games they ordinarily would never have played.
That's enough raving. Now time for the ranting.
Microsoft's biggest issue, quite simply, is that their hardware is built like crap. I've personally gone through no less than six Xbox 360 units, for a variety of reasons, and even my latest one (which is less than a year old) is having some weird issues. I bought my first one right on launch day, and have been loyal to the brand since then, but sometimes they make it really hard. When my systems keep breaking down, and dealing with their customer service is making me want to stab myself in the eye, it's sometimes hard to keep that level of loyalty up. What saves them is the games, and Xbox Live, but there's really only so far that can carry them. I'm dedicated (or just stupid), but I know a lot of people who have pretty much abandoned the system because it kept breaking. I've had my original Nintendo system for over twenty years now, and it still works just fine, and you're telling me that my Xbox 360 Elite can't make it six months? What makes it worse is that they don't seem to be really fixing anything, or when they do there's another machine-killing glitch waiting in the wings. They finally get the red ring of death issue under control, and then the E74 issue rears its ugly head. It's disheartening to have to deal with these issues when all you want to do is sit down and play a game.
When your system breaks, you send it in, they send you a brand new one, and a week later that one breaks, it makes you really rethink your purchase.
A minor sore spot is the fact that if you want to go online wirelessly, it's another $100 for the adapter, something that both the Playstation 3 and Wii have on board right out of the box. Microsoft maintains that they want to give people options, that it would drive the cost of the system up and if people don't want to go online then they'd be paying extra for something they don't want. That's an admirable sentiment, but I can't believe it really adds that much in the long run. Then again, maybe they should figure out how to keep the console running for more than two months before they start adding more features into it.
Also, quite honestly, I think their decision to make the console available without a hard drive (the Core package, later upgraded to the Arcade) was amazingly dumb. They can spin it all they want, say that they want to appeal to budget-conscious casual gamers who would be fine with a memory card or whatever they tell people to justify the decision, but they really have hobbled their options. Because they can't guarantee that every Xbox 360 owner has a hard drive, they really can't make games that absolutely need the hard drive to function, which effectively cuts down on what developers can do in a lot of cases. If they make a game that requires the hard drive, then they alienate any gamer who doesn't have one, who then might go out and buy one and spend more than they would have if they had just bought the next package up to begin with. It was a silly decision from the start, and eventually they're going to be faced with hitting a plateau game-wise or forcing their customers to need the hard drive, something they've prided themselves on not doing. I applaud their desire to cater to every type of gamer on a variety of budgets, but it was still a questionable move from the beginning.
Pros:
*) Arguably the best library of this generation, with some amazing games not found on any other console.
*) Xbox Live, from the multiplayer to the Arcade, really defines the machine.
*) Microsoft seems more in touch with gamers than their competitors.
Cons:
*) A twenty year old system is more reliable than the Xbox 360 hardware.
*) Lacks some of the standard features found on other machines.
*) The option of no hard drive may hobble game design, or gamers, down the line.
Tomorrow, it's Nintendo's turn.
I'm going to start with Microsoft, and their Xbox 360 console. It's my favorite of the three, but that doesn't mean that it's not without some serious issues.
First, though, the positives. Microsoft really learned a lot from their inaugural console, the Xbox. They really listen to fans, and their business model and hardware really reflect their commitment to gamers. They came out of the game committed to bringing a strong library and an excellent online service, and they succeeded admirably.
Others can criticize the company for throwing money around on exclusives and such, but it really has given the Xbox 360 a pretty big leg up. Bioshock and Eternal Sonata had long head starts on Microsoft's machine. Grand Theft Auto IV sold circles around other versions due in no small part to the exclusive downloads, as did Fallout 3. Through whatever deals they've made, hits like Mass Effect, Left 4 Dead, and Ace Combat 6 were exclusive to the Xbox 360 (I'm not including PC versions, obviously). That's not to mention first and second party hits like Viva Pinata and Fable 2. There is no question that the Xbox 360 not only has the largest library, but the most varied and arguably the best across the board. They may not all be winners, but it's a safe bet that every type of gamer will find some quality gaming experience on the machine.
Then, of course, we have Xbox Live, which really sets the console well apart from its peers. Despite the small amount of whiners who complain about the fee (really, people, it's $50 a year. That's $4.17 per month. Shut the hell up), what you get is pretty spectacular. It really is an amazing service, whether you want to play games with a friend, simply chat, or download a dizzying amount of Arcade titles. Classic games like Frogger and the (newer classic) Castlevania: Symphony of the Night. Originals like Geometry Wars, ports like Puzzle Quest, and so many others from card games to shooters, even the RPG genre gets some love with the excellent Penny Arcade Adventures. I've purchased well over thirty arcade games, and often find myself more engrossed in them than anything I've bought recently at retail.
Of course, the Xbox 360 plays DVD's, and plays music by popping in a CD or hooking up your Zune. They also have the exclusive partnership with Netflix, allowing subscribers to the movie service and Xbox Live to watch movies directly from their console. The service isn't without its flaws: there still aren't a ton of "watch instantly" titles available on Netflix, and the quality sometimes wavers, but it's still pretty cool.
A special mention to achievements, those virtual high-fives for accomplishing milestones in games. They offer nothing outside of bragging rights and an addition to a score, but the acquisition of these points has become a meta-game in itself. Many people claim that when offered a choice of the same game on different platforms, they're more likely to choose the Xbox 360 version simply due to achievements. It's a brilliant idea that not only tapped into a gamer's basic need to get a high score, but increases replay value and may even make people try games they ordinarily would never have played.
That's enough raving. Now time for the ranting.
Microsoft's biggest issue, quite simply, is that their hardware is built like crap. I've personally gone through no less than six Xbox 360 units, for a variety of reasons, and even my latest one (which is less than a year old) is having some weird issues. I bought my first one right on launch day, and have been loyal to the brand since then, but sometimes they make it really hard. When my systems keep breaking down, and dealing with their customer service is making me want to stab myself in the eye, it's sometimes hard to keep that level of loyalty up. What saves them is the games, and Xbox Live, but there's really only so far that can carry them. I'm dedicated (or just stupid), but I know a lot of people who have pretty much abandoned the system because it kept breaking. I've had my original Nintendo system for over twenty years now, and it still works just fine, and you're telling me that my Xbox 360 Elite can't make it six months? What makes it worse is that they don't seem to be really fixing anything, or when they do there's another machine-killing glitch waiting in the wings. They finally get the red ring of death issue under control, and then the E74 issue rears its ugly head. It's disheartening to have to deal with these issues when all you want to do is sit down and play a game.
When your system breaks, you send it in, they send you a brand new one, and a week later that one breaks, it makes you really rethink your purchase.
A minor sore spot is the fact that if you want to go online wirelessly, it's another $100 for the adapter, something that both the Playstation 3 and Wii have on board right out of the box. Microsoft maintains that they want to give people options, that it would drive the cost of the system up and if people don't want to go online then they'd be paying extra for something they don't want. That's an admirable sentiment, but I can't believe it really adds that much in the long run. Then again, maybe they should figure out how to keep the console running for more than two months before they start adding more features into it.
Also, quite honestly, I think their decision to make the console available without a hard drive (the Core package, later upgraded to the Arcade) was amazingly dumb. They can spin it all they want, say that they want to appeal to budget-conscious casual gamers who would be fine with a memory card or whatever they tell people to justify the decision, but they really have hobbled their options. Because they can't guarantee that every Xbox 360 owner has a hard drive, they really can't make games that absolutely need the hard drive to function, which effectively cuts down on what developers can do in a lot of cases. If they make a game that requires the hard drive, then they alienate any gamer who doesn't have one, who then might go out and buy one and spend more than they would have if they had just bought the next package up to begin with. It was a silly decision from the start, and eventually they're going to be faced with hitting a plateau game-wise or forcing their customers to need the hard drive, something they've prided themselves on not doing. I applaud their desire to cater to every type of gamer on a variety of budgets, but it was still a questionable move from the beginning.
Pros:
*) Arguably the best library of this generation, with some amazing games not found on any other console.
*) Xbox Live, from the multiplayer to the Arcade, really defines the machine.
*) Microsoft seems more in touch with gamers than their competitors.
Cons:
*) A twenty year old system is more reliable than the Xbox 360 hardware.
*) Lacks some of the standard features found on other machines.
*) The option of no hard drive may hobble game design, or gamers, down the line.
Tomorrow, it's Nintendo's turn.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Friday Night Fail: I'm Too Tired to be Clever Edition
Yes, I'm aware that it is actually Sunday morning, and not Friday night. However, there was much adventuring and hijinks on New York City yesterday (and an epic fail moment that led it into today), so I am just getting the post up now. I think my four loyal readers will find a way to forgive.
So this weekend's fail is The Last Remnant, by Square Enix for the Xbox 360. What starts out as a promising adventure soon derails into pointlessness, loses any semblance of fun, and... well, I'll explain it all in more detail.
When it starts, we're treated to an opening cinematic that bears that "Square" look: pretty and detailed, with smooth skinned people all looking and talking like their world is going to end at any second. The basic premise is that there are these ancient relics. Remnants, throughout the world. Some are small enough to be worn as a pendant, others are gigantic cannon sword things, and another that I saw was a loose collection of floating asteroids. People use the Remnants to fight each other, to protect themselves, yet nobody really knows a damn thing about them.
We have a young man, not a warrior but thrust into an epic conflict as he searches for his sister, who was kidnapped. Seems the siblings have some crazy power they're not aware of, and the big bad guy is trying to exploit that. The boy hooks up with a group of stereotypical warriors, goes on an epic journey, gets wrapped up in political intrigue between nations, and follows the course of just about every Square Enix RPG in recent memory. While there were a few interesting hooks here and there, at no point did the story suck me into the experience. If the narrative is good, I'm willing to look past a lot of gameplay flaws to see how everything plays out, but with The Last Remnant I just didn't care enough to press on.
The graphics would be better if they weren't in a constant state of being drawn in while things were happening. During cinematics, and through regular gameplay, the textures are often blank slates and detail is drawn in while you're playing. It's extremely distracting, especially during cinemas, to be trying to watch the story unfold while the game tries to catch up. When things are working they look good, but again look like just about every Square Enix game. The main character, Rush Sykes, could be easily swapped for Capell in Infinite Undiscovery and nobody would notice, and if you change the hair color to blonde I'm pretty sure you'll get Edge Maverick from Star Ocean: The Last Hope. At some point the look, while distinctively Square, just gets a little old.
Where the madness really comes to a boil is in the combat. Your enemies are visible on the field, which I appreciate (because invisible random battles are the work of the devil), but there's a complex system to "draw" them to you in order to battle them. Just touch them, and they automatically get the upper hand. You have to wait until a bubble over their head displays the right symbol and press the trigger at the right time. It's sort of cool at first, but after losing intiative more than once because the enemy moved faster than I could hit the trigger, it got old. Still, once you get the hang of the symbols it's not bad, and hardly the worst offense. That comes when combat begins.
The battle system is really hard to describe, mostly because it seems to be designed to be incoherent. It really is unnecessarily complex. You don't control individual characters, but instead groups that are made up of multiple people. How many of these groups you can control, and how many characters in each, are determined by your current experience level. A group shares hit points and action points, so if one falls the entire group is done. You first choose the typical choices: fight, magic, combat arts, and then you pretty much sit back and let the computer play the game for a bit. There are all sorts of battlefield positions, like a deadlock which pits the combatants face to face, flank attack where you attack or get attacked from the side, and so forth. Unfortunately none of this is really up to you, and you'll attack from wherever the game decides. There is no skill, no activity involved. Once engaged in battle, you simply watch your warriors and the enemies hit each other, with almost no control from the player. Once in a while there will be a quick button press for bonus damage or a counter-attack, but overall the battle is a sit and watch affair. At the start of the next round you choose your actions again, but there's no guarantee that they'll be the same choices. The list of options randomly changes, and aren't always clear as to their purpose. Does "back them up" mean that a group is going to heal another, or hang back and see what happens, or fight alongside them? The game doesn't really explain it, so you'll pretty much need to have an instruction manual or strategy guide open in front of you any time you want to understand what your choices are. Which, again, only sort of matters, since once you choose you're back to sitting back (often for several minutes) and watching the action unfold instead of taking a more active role. It's actually quite boring, and there seems to be remarkably little strategy or skill involved in the process.
The frame rate in battles is also horrific, some of the worst I've seen in a while. Characters chug along when drawing weapons, often freezing for a second while attacking. It really is a mess.
Supposedly, if you download the game onto the hard drive, it eliminates a lot of the frame rate issues, and some of the graphic draw in, but I didn't do this. I generally like to play a game from the point of "lowest common denominator", meaning that if I didn't have a 120gb hard drive on my console, how would it play? Point being, I shouldn't have to do anything special in order to make the game work on a basic level, and people who bought an Arcade system shouldn't be expected to go purchase a hard drive just to make the game run smoother. This particular game definitely is not worth that.
If a game has a hook, it is possible to overlook flaws. In Enchanted Arms, the cool combat kept me playing through the atrocious writing. Blue Dragon just had a fun classic RPG feel to it that made me allow for some issues here and there. The problem with The Last Remnant, though, is that just about every facet of the experience fails in some way or another. The story is uninspiring, the graphics can't keep up with the game, and the combat is a mess.
Of course, I didn't even get to the second disc (there are two), so maybe the story suddenly takes off and gets crazy and cool and interesting later in the game. I'm willing to accept that there is a lot more to the tale than what they're showing early on. The problem is, there isn't enough to hook me from the start, and the disaster that is the actual gameplay means that I'll probably never find out if the story gets any better.
So this weekend's fail is The Last Remnant, by Square Enix for the Xbox 360. What starts out as a promising adventure soon derails into pointlessness, loses any semblance of fun, and... well, I'll explain it all in more detail.
When it starts, we're treated to an opening cinematic that bears that "Square" look: pretty and detailed, with smooth skinned people all looking and talking like their world is going to end at any second. The basic premise is that there are these ancient relics. Remnants, throughout the world. Some are small enough to be worn as a pendant, others are gigantic cannon sword things, and another that I saw was a loose collection of floating asteroids. People use the Remnants to fight each other, to protect themselves, yet nobody really knows a damn thing about them.
We have a young man, not a warrior but thrust into an epic conflict as he searches for his sister, who was kidnapped. Seems the siblings have some crazy power they're not aware of, and the big bad guy is trying to exploit that. The boy hooks up with a group of stereotypical warriors, goes on an epic journey, gets wrapped up in political intrigue between nations, and follows the course of just about every Square Enix RPG in recent memory. While there were a few interesting hooks here and there, at no point did the story suck me into the experience. If the narrative is good, I'm willing to look past a lot of gameplay flaws to see how everything plays out, but with The Last Remnant I just didn't care enough to press on.
The graphics would be better if they weren't in a constant state of being drawn in while things were happening. During cinematics, and through regular gameplay, the textures are often blank slates and detail is drawn in while you're playing. It's extremely distracting, especially during cinemas, to be trying to watch the story unfold while the game tries to catch up. When things are working they look good, but again look like just about every Square Enix game. The main character, Rush Sykes, could be easily swapped for Capell in Infinite Undiscovery and nobody would notice, and if you change the hair color to blonde I'm pretty sure you'll get Edge Maverick from Star Ocean: The Last Hope. At some point the look, while distinctively Square, just gets a little old.
Where the madness really comes to a boil is in the combat. Your enemies are visible on the field, which I appreciate (because invisible random battles are the work of the devil), but there's a complex system to "draw" them to you in order to battle them. Just touch them, and they automatically get the upper hand. You have to wait until a bubble over their head displays the right symbol and press the trigger at the right time. It's sort of cool at first, but after losing intiative more than once because the enemy moved faster than I could hit the trigger, it got old. Still, once you get the hang of the symbols it's not bad, and hardly the worst offense. That comes when combat begins.
The battle system is really hard to describe, mostly because it seems to be designed to be incoherent. It really is unnecessarily complex. You don't control individual characters, but instead groups that are made up of multiple people. How many of these groups you can control, and how many characters in each, are determined by your current experience level. A group shares hit points and action points, so if one falls the entire group is done. You first choose the typical choices: fight, magic, combat arts, and then you pretty much sit back and let the computer play the game for a bit. There are all sorts of battlefield positions, like a deadlock which pits the combatants face to face, flank attack where you attack or get attacked from the side, and so forth. Unfortunately none of this is really up to you, and you'll attack from wherever the game decides. There is no skill, no activity involved. Once engaged in battle, you simply watch your warriors and the enemies hit each other, with almost no control from the player. Once in a while there will be a quick button press for bonus damage or a counter-attack, but overall the battle is a sit and watch affair. At the start of the next round you choose your actions again, but there's no guarantee that they'll be the same choices. The list of options randomly changes, and aren't always clear as to their purpose. Does "back them up" mean that a group is going to heal another, or hang back and see what happens, or fight alongside them? The game doesn't really explain it, so you'll pretty much need to have an instruction manual or strategy guide open in front of you any time you want to understand what your choices are. Which, again, only sort of matters, since once you choose you're back to sitting back (often for several minutes) and watching the action unfold instead of taking a more active role. It's actually quite boring, and there seems to be remarkably little strategy or skill involved in the process.
The frame rate in battles is also horrific, some of the worst I've seen in a while. Characters chug along when drawing weapons, often freezing for a second while attacking. It really is a mess.
Supposedly, if you download the game onto the hard drive, it eliminates a lot of the frame rate issues, and some of the graphic draw in, but I didn't do this. I generally like to play a game from the point of "lowest common denominator", meaning that if I didn't have a 120gb hard drive on my console, how would it play? Point being, I shouldn't have to do anything special in order to make the game work on a basic level, and people who bought an Arcade system shouldn't be expected to go purchase a hard drive just to make the game run smoother. This particular game definitely is not worth that.
If a game has a hook, it is possible to overlook flaws. In Enchanted Arms, the cool combat kept me playing through the atrocious writing. Blue Dragon just had a fun classic RPG feel to it that made me allow for some issues here and there. The problem with The Last Remnant, though, is that just about every facet of the experience fails in some way or another. The story is uninspiring, the graphics can't keep up with the game, and the combat is a mess.
Of course, I didn't even get to the second disc (there are two), so maybe the story suddenly takes off and gets crazy and cool and interesting later in the game. I'm willing to accept that there is a lot more to the tale than what they're showing early on. The problem is, there isn't enough to hook me from the start, and the disaster that is the actual gameplay means that I'll probably never find out if the story gets any better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
