Pwning Noobs: How to Fix PSN and LIVE

Yes, I think they're both broken. Just in very different ways. I'm not going to address Nintendo's online system for the Wii because it is so far beyond broken I don't have the time or the energy to describe all the issues, much less how to fix them. So, let's get on to my issues with the applicable services, shall we?

First, LIVE and PSN are very different beasts and take very different approaches to online console gaming. LIVE is Microsoft's house. They hold the reins, they call the shots, every company that wants their game on LIVE has to report to the big M and dance however they are told. This has a lot of benefits for the gamers. Performance has a universal standard it must live up to and all games have to support a certain feature set. This kind of uniformity makes navigating all of LIVE and using it's features from a games familiar and intuitive regardless of the game you're playing.

PSN, on the other hand, is a free-for-all. With the exception of certain quality standards, game developers are free to make their online setup work however they see fit. Trophy support wasn't even required for generous span of time after it was first implemented. This "anything goes" type of system does mean freedom for developers to make things work however they want, but it also means a lot less stability for gamers when compared to LIVE. But then, being an open platform is also the reason that PS3 is the only system on which you will be able to access Steamworks and play Portal 2 Co-op alongside PC players. (Side question for Gabe Newell: How's that crow tasting?)

However, both of these systems have serious errors. The PSN issues mostly come down to performance such as instability, slow download speeds as well as lacking some of the popular features of LIVE like the oft-mentioned cross-game voice chat and game-agnostic parties (not needing to be playing the same game to be in a party with someone). While the main issue with LIVE is that you are charged for the basic functionality of being able to play your games online. This is much more insulting when one considers the fact that games on 360 and PS3 cost the same, but on 360 you can only play the single player half of the game unless you hand over another $60 a year to Microsoft. This looks especially bad when PS3, PC and even the Wii offer players the ability to play online without any charge whatsoever. The features advantage that LIVE holds are relatively minimal and certainly don't equate to a $60 price tag. Even worse, this was recently increased from $50 without the addition of any new features in an attempt to justify the increase.

That seems to be the way of things with Microsoft's products though. Whether it's the PC world with the absurdly inflated price of a Windows OS or Office bundle or the cost of a new hard drive for your 360. Let's look at that hard drive example a little closer, to really drive the point home. A 250GB HD for the Xbox 360 costs $130, I kid you not. For that money, I could buy a 1 TERABYTE drive (that's 4x as big) for my PS3 and still have enough left over to buy a game. Microsoft customers are far too willing to simply smile and say "Thank you sir, may I have another?" so there's no reason for the big M to stop screwing consumers on the price.

What Microsoft should be doing, in a world where Microsoft is fair to its customers, is have the ability to play games online included in the free LIVE membership, but save all the other perks for paid, Gold members. Keep all the exclusive demos, and parties and cross-game voice chat, and even premium download bandwidth for Gold members, but don't rob your customers of some of the basic functionality included in a game that they already paid full price for. Especially when the online component comprises such a large part of some of your biggest titles. Where would Halo, Call of Duty or Gears of War be without their online multiplayer? Charging customers $60 for a game and then telling them they can only play half of it until they fork over another $60 is the type of fine print switcharoo that normally gets companies in trouble. So why do gamers keep letting LIVE not only get away with it, but convince themselves that it is a superior service for doing so?

PSN, in a somewhat similar fashion, needs to change up how their paid vs. free services are structured. While the paid service, PSN+, is still more or less in its infancy and as such has some excuse, why not get things going in the right direction early on? As it stands, unless you buy a lot of downloadable titles or the free game offered that month (if there is one) is something you really want to play, there's just not enough to the service to warrant paying for it. Sony is starting in the right direction with the background updates, where your PS3 will check for software updates, download and install them all by itself, and the upcoming cloud game saves, allowing you to save your game to a server instead of your system so that you never have to worry about losing them and can access them from any PlayStation 3 you sign in on. There needs to be more though, and that means addressing the issues PSN has had from the beginning. Download speeds for everything from PlayStation Store games and movies to title updates are horrendous. A file that may take a few minutes on my PC can take more than half an hour on my PS3. That's pretty damn unacceptable. There's also the features people have been asking for since launch. Mainly features that have been available to LIVE users since their service launched. Features like cross-game voice chat, so you can talk to your friend and ask him if he wants to play something without have to A) be in the same game already or B) be willing to type out your message for 20 minutes using the onscreen keyboard and being able to create and join a party with friends that might be playing a different game. Personally, I've only run into a handful of occasions when I thought those features would be useful, but I'm only one man and the masses see them as a necessity. And again, like LIVE, PSN+ should allocate some extra bandwidth to it's customers so that those paying for the service don't spend the same 30 minutes waiting for Uncharted 2 to update that the free members do. In the same way that a LIVE Gold membership doesn't have enough features to justify charging for what PSN (mostly) does for free, PSN+ doesn't have enough features to warrant paying for little "extras."

PSN certainly has a laundry list of issues to work out, but its customers put up with them because they can still play games online for free. And while being able to play your games online is certainly a justifiable purchase to most gamers (why else do you think we pay for internet?) there's something to be said about the fact that LIVE is the only platform anywhere to charge an additional fee for access to features in a game that was already bought and paid for once. I enjoyed playing Halo: Reach online during the free trial offered on LIVE this past weekend, but with only a handful of exclusive titles on 360 there's not enough reason to purchase a LIVE membership when that money could buy me Dead Space 2 or Killzone 3 on my PS3, where I can play the multiplayer for free. And while I'm playing it over PSN, I'm still going to complain about the various issues and lacking features that everyone else has been complaining about for nearly 4 years now.

With an online component essentially being mandatory in modern games and replacing splitscreen play, both of these companies need to work on perfecting their online platform because they both need it in equal amounts. As for Nintendo...well they still don't think people want to play games online. And with the Wii and various DS iterations continuing to print money, there's really no reason for them to stop living in that fantasy world.

Bulletstorm: Everything Old is New Again...Maybe

Ahhh Bulletstorm, from unknown, to potential sleeper hit to regular guest star on Cliffy B's Twitter feed, the game's momentum just seems to keep growing. My enthusiasm, on the other hand, maxes out at "curious" at best. While the game does seem to have the potential for some serious fun, I have some issues with the "kill with skill" combat system at the core of most of the hype that ranges from serious potential for fun-killing repetitiveness to the fact that it's not as original as the parties involved would like you to think.

The main bullet point amidst this storm is that the game isn't just about killing enemies and moving on, it's about killing them with creative and potentially hilarious combos in order to be awarded the maximum number of points for that kill. More points lead to more power-ups lead to more ways to kill enemies.

In order to do this your character is equipped with an energy whip and a time-slowing kick in addition to it's more traditional FPS arsenal. Have a look at this summarizing video, courtesy of IGN, to see what I mean.

More Bulletstorm Videos

Where I start having issues is that I have yet to ready about anything besides the energy whip and boot appearing in your combo-making arsenal. How many times/ways can you pull an enemy towards you, kick it away then shoot it? Or kick an enemy away then pull it towards you and THEN shoot it? Or...erm just eliminate one of those steps and do that. See my problem? I can see the gameplay being really fun...for an hour or two. After that they better have something in store to shake things up a little or the average player is going to get bored long before the end credits roll.

This actually brings me to my other point, MadWorld. "What? That crazy, over-the-top-violence Wii game?" Yup. For those that missed this one, MadWorld is about killing your enemies with the most violent combos possible. You still get points for just chopping a guy in half, but you get a lot more if you jam a tire down over his head, ram a street sign through his skull and THEN chop him in half. Sound familiar? Have a look. (Warning, don't let the cartoony black-and-white graphics fool you, this game is VERY violent)

More MadWorld Videos

It almost seems like someone at People Can Fly (the people behind the game) played MadWorld and said "Hey, we should do this with guns!" After all, Bulletstorm was originally a 3rd person game. The additional problem here is that MadWorld seemed to run out of ideas for combos by the end, and the game was only about 4 hours long. When such a short play time will never fly (see what I did there?) with gamers on the "hardcore" consoles (360 and PS3) can Bulletstorm avoid running into the same, potentially disastrous shortcoming? It's still pretty early to tell, but without some really creative weapons, lots of environmental kills or something besides the whip and boot I can't honestly say that I'm holding out much hope. Their latest PR stunt was pretty entertaining though...

Beyond Good & Evil HD. It's Not a 2, But I'll Take It.

The good folks over at Joystiq have posted a trailer for the forthcoming LIVE and PSN HD re-release of (sorely underappreciated) cult hit Beyond Good & Evil. Since I played the original on PC, the addition of HD resolutions means little to me, but I can get excited about anything that encourages new gamers to discover this little gem and possibly renew interest in a sequel. Now if only someone could post a release date...

Return of the Western: Red Dead Redemption

The promise of the western making a cinematic comeback following the strong showing that was 3:10 to Yuma may have fizzled out, but the long-dormant genre may find new life in video games. That is if Red Dead Redemption, and Rockstar games, have anything to say about it.

The game is receiving absolutely universal acclaim thus far. Game informer recently awarded Redemption a stellar score of 9.75/10. To add some perspective to that, in this same issue Super Mario Galaxy 2 received a 9.25/10. To "perspectify" even further, Galaxy 2 managed a perfect 10/10 from Edge Magazine. Allow me to use this information to blow your mind mathematically: Red Dead Redemption > Super Mario Galaxy 2 > nearly everything else. Cue Keanu: "Whoa."

Yes, the accolades are quite astounding and may be in danger of creating unreachable expectations. Before wallowing in premature disappointment however, one should consider the pedigree behind the game however. This is the company - even if not the exact studio (Rockstar San Diego rather than Rockstar North) - that brought us Grand Theft Auto IV; which is still one of the best reviewed games of all time. For those that fear this means Red Dead Redemption is simply GTA IV: Wild West, all the reviewers seem quick to assure everyone that this is a wholly unique and fully realized game that simply builds off a very basic framework. It is not Grand Theft Cowboys in the same way that Assassin's Creed II is not Grand Theft Renaissance.

This particular parallel is especially interesting when one considers Redemption's predecessor: Red Dead Revolver. A game that, much like the original Assassin's Creed, was largely considered a "good try" and was eventually followed by a jaw-droppingly improved sequel. But I digress...

Red Dead Redemption ships today, May 17th, and should be available at retail tomorrow. In the meantime, check out a video review, courtesy of IGN, and try to ignore the "I'm really bored and reading this off a sheet of paper" tone of the narrator. (NOTE: the video is age restricted, but then you should be old enough to watch it if you're planning to get the game)

More Red Dead Redemption Info

Now if you'll excuse me, GameFly just informed me that Red Dead Redemption is on it's way, so I'll be sitting by my mailbox until further notice...

We Need More Giant Robot Games. Also: Yes Kojima, You Really Should Retire Snake.

First I'd like to say, if you already know exactly what giant robot game I'm going to talk about, congratulations on your acceptance into my personal "You're Cool" club.

Close your eyes and just think to yourself, "When was the last time a good giant robot game came out?" Depressing, isn't it? Considering the we're closing in on what would normally be the twilight of a console generation, having to look to the previous generation for any worthwhile entries into the genre leaves any gamer that grew up on Voltron,Transformers or Power Rangers quite blue.

The Armored Core series has been pretty downhill since the second game; and Chromehounds did not help From Software, who developed both series, to reclaim any credibility within the genre. Applying the Dynasty Warriors formula to the Gundam Universe also disappointed quite thoroughly. There have been a few other attempts this generation...but all of them failed to impress. Some hope still exists for Activision's Transformers:War For Cybertron, but I'm not going to hold my breath. Especially with the average pedigree of developer High Moon Studios. Fingers crossed though...

Sure, we occasionally get some decent giant robot action thrown into our other games. Lost Planet, FEAR 2, Red Faction: Guerrilla and Killzone 2 (you know, that one part). In the end though, a giant robot game is just not the same as a game with giant robots. Porting Virtual-On to LIVE Arcade doesn't count either.

So what happened? I don't believe there's anything noteworthy, if anything at all, on the horizon for some giant robot-on-robot, city-smashing, love. We came from Armored Core, MechAssault, Zone of the Enders, Steel Batallion (assuming you could afford it and find a place for the controller) to a complete vacuum. I'm not even picky! Give me the slow, plodding T-A-N-K-! style play of Mechassault or the fast-paced, anime-flavored combat of a Z.O.E. game and I'll be thrilled.

The technology currently on the table, or rather entertainment center, is particularly good at rendering metal armor, stones, and the accompanying lighting effects (according to Cliff "not Cliffy B" Bleszinski anyway). Hmm, good at rendering metal, stone, lighting ef-GIANT ROBOTS! You know how they say some formulas just scream out the answer? Like graham crackers, marshmallows and chocolate screams...? Exactly. Well that's one of them.

Am I to believe that Activision, Transformers, and whatever re-skinned Armored Core From Software decides to poop out are all I have to choose from? What happened to all the people making these games? Will people abandon their WWII soldiers, modern day soldiers, and futuristic soldiers to shoot bad guys with a giant robot instead? I think they just might, especially if it's pretty.

Which brings me to Kojima. Leave Snake alone. you've said you were going to do it every game for nearly a decade, just do it. The story of Solid Snake has been as neatly tied up as once could expect from the trip through "WTF"-land that was the Metal Gear Solid series. The stealth genre is changing drastically to accommodate a market that, by and large, wants to shoot things, not hide from them. You're halfway there with letting another team take Metal Gear: Rising in another direction (assuming he stays "hands-off" as a producer). A huge "thank you" for that, by the way because, as I've mentioned twice before, I have to see how Raiden went from whiny wanna-be to kick-ass cybernetic ninja. Then, however, you cheated by creating the Naked Snake storyline to continue on with an almost identical character to Solid Snake acting out almost identical gameplay.

Just leave them all alone. You've go other series to work on. Give us another Zone of the Enders, because the world needs giant robot games. Kojima's name on a giant robot game could bring out quite the audience with the accolades MGS4 managed to capture. With one successful giant robot game comes others. With other giant robot games comes competition. With competition comes awesome giant robot games. And that's what we're working for here, folks.

Just let Snake die, he's old. Move on to some other series, or even give us a whole new one. Let the stealth genre settle down a little bit, not even Sam Fisher just sneaks around guys anymore. If technology evolves or you come up with an entirely new, truly revolutionary game mechanic feel free to do a reboot. In chronological order would be nice, since MGS3 managed to take place before MG, MG2, MGS, and MGS2. For the uninitiated, that means the 5th game (called the 3rd) in the series took place, chronologically, before the first game, which was made over 20 years ago. A modern take on the earliest games in the series (Metal Gear and Metal Gear 2) would be quite the moment for long-time fans too.

In the meantime, give us back our giant robot games. Oh, and Kojima-san? While we're talking about reboots and reviving franchises and what-not, remember Snatcher...?

Bungie Running New Marathon?

(click to Master-size)

According to IGN, themselves through superannuation, Bungie has filed a trademark for Marathon. For those that weren't Mac gamers in the '90's Marathon was the series that put Bungie on the map long before Halo or Xbox. In fact, you can find references to the classic series in Halo, if you're paying attention anyway.

With no further details on Marathon, it's unsure if Bungie is looking to revive the series, or simply keeping a hold on the name. Given the nature of the last story Bungie appeared here in, reviving the series could potentially be good for all kinds of people.

Vanquish = Gears on (Japanese) Speed?

Well if this is the direction shooters are going to start taking, I may need to get my design molded into something playable real soon. (Come on Activision, where are those details? Help me out here.)

Shinji Mikami and his Platinum Games studio are ready to tweak yet another genre with their upcoming title, Vanquish, which has its very own preview over at 1up.com. Despite early comparisons to Gamecube dud P.N.03, likely due to the main characters suit more than anything, the game seems to have more in common with Epic's Gears of War games. Vanquish mostly sticks to the "stop 'n pop" style that Gears birthed, with a few uniquely Japanese additions.

What Zone of the Enders is to Armored Core, Vanquish looks to be to Gears of War. Namely: very Japanese in art direction and a a few notches up in terms of combat speed, notches that include the number of projectiles on-screen at once. Making the transfer from Gears is the cover system, icons to signigy environmental interaction, rolling between cover points, and reviving fallen allies. New, QTE's for runnign up giant spider's arms before taking out their kneecaps, assorted melee attacks such as uppercuts, acrobatic flips, bullet time and (ironically after the last one) the aforementioned boost to overall combat speed. Although, no matter what, it will still be a step down in speed from Platinum Games' frenetic last title: Bayonetta.

Comparisons aside, there are a few juicy tidbits of information found within 1up's preview. As with most of Mikami's games, Vanquish will focus entirely on single-player. The game apparently takes place mostly on a space station where a battle rages on between US and Russian military forces. Main character, Sam, is a DARPA employee that owes most of his ability (including combat-powerslide, I kid you not) to the "Augmented Reality Suit" that is of his own design, at least in part, as well as his transforming gun. (No, not that one.) The overall speed was elaborated on by breaking the game down to the player taking cover, firing a few shots, then moving to new cover as quickly as possible. By comparison, most cover-based shooters reward the player for staying behind cover and taking out each enemy from that position, rarely requiring the player to move before that. Players that master the new speed and over-the-top moves will be rewarded by the "Mission Stats" screen at the conclusion of each...mission, duh.

Aside from the fact that there will be weapon upgrades, such as a "+10 Damage," there was little else detailing Vanquish. Given the games pedigree, however, it looks like one to watch. Check out the full 1up.com article to see the subdued enthusiasm yourself.