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.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
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.
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)
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...
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
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...
Monday, May 17, 2010
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)
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...
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)
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...
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
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...?
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...?
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
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.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
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.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Some Cheers, Some Tears, Mostly Huh?'s
Those of you interested in the status of your favorite "is it ever actually coming out!?" game can check out the latest "Life Support" article over at IGN.
This lists the general status of several titles whose development status has remained amazingly questionable, for years in some cases. (Yes, Duke Nukem Forever is still on there, 13 years and counting!)
There is one interesting tidbit for readers of Higher Tech, Beyond Good and Evil 2 has had it's status bumped up to stable. However, no new details have emerged since HT last covered the game, so I'm not sure what caused the slight status promotion. But feel free to check everything out at the link above.
This lists the general status of several titles whose development status has remained amazingly questionable, for years in some cases. (Yes, Duke Nukem Forever is still on there, 13 years and counting!)
There is one interesting tidbit for readers of Higher Tech, Beyond Good and Evil 2 has had it's status bumped up to stable. However, no new details have emerged since HT last covered the game, so I'm not sure what caused the slight status promotion. But feel free to check everything out at the link above.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Reach for this new trailer
There's a new trailer up at IGN for Bungie's latest (and supposedly last) entry in the Halo series, Halo: Reach. The trailer details some of the new play modes and features (did I see jetpacks!?) of Reach and seems to hint that players will get a taste of all of it during the open Beta that starts this May. You bought Halo: ODST, right? Of course you did, you're reading this. You can check IGN's impressions and conclusions at the link above and watch the trailer below. Enjoy!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Xbox has the DVD blu's or: Lost (content) Planet 2.
Since the start of this console generation, Sony fans have touted the merits of Playstation 3's Blu-ray format while those loyal to Microsoft have insisted the extra storage capacity of Blu-ray is insubstantial. If this article from CVG is any indication, however, that argument may very well be lost for 360 fans everywhere.While it isn't exactly news anymore that Lost Planet 2 had to have a significant chunk of content cut in order to fit on the 360's chosen media format, DVD, the fallout continues to...well...fall. It was only this February that Lost Planet 2 producer Jun Takeuchi had this to say when asked about progress on the title:
"...the edited content was way too much and dealing with that was more difficult than anything.
This time, truly, the content that was cut was significant and at the end, we had to wrestle with disc space."
It was this particular event that led to the article on CVG , which shows how this detriment the DVD format imposed on Lost Planet 2 has shaken the faith of a die-hard Xbox 360 loyalist and may even force Microsoft fanboys everywhere to pull their fingers out of their ears on the issue of BD vs DVD. And who knows how much worse this will make the Sony fanboys...
While comparing the storage formats of the two mediums (a maximum of 50 gigabytes on blu-ray and 8 gigabytes on DVD) would seem to give the obvious advantage to BD, the fact that modern, and more or less identical, multiplatform games continue to be possible via DVD seemed to make the point moot. With more and more studios claiming that their games were only made possible due to the space afforded by the BD format, however, the relevance of a larger storage media seemed to be rising. No doubt affected by their failed backing of HD-DVD against Blu-Ray, Microsoft still refused to adopt the new storage format in the face of this, insisting just as adamantly as its fans that DVD was more than sufficient for today's games.
In fact, were one to look backwards to consoles past, he or she could even compare DVD vs Blu-ray to the cartridge vs CD-ROM debate that took place during the Playstation vs Nintendo 64 era. The oft-mentioned killing blow of that debate was when Square (now Square Enix for all you "noobs" out there. :-P) jumped ship from Nintendo to Sony based solely on the extra storage space the CD-ROM format provided over its cartridge-based competitor. Could Lost Planet 2 have that same effect? No, at least not yet. The fact that Capcom decided to cut content on the game (and possibly add it later as DLC) rather than move the project to PS3 exclusivity remains a strong indication of how much the company wishes to continue showing support for the system. While the reality is that modern games, with their high-definition visuals and audio, demand a larger storage space than DVD can provide the question remains in the hands of the consumers, and how happy they will be with missing out on content originally intended for the retail disc. Especially if Capcom decides to charge for the cut content.
In the end, it's a game of wait-and-see. Should Lost Planet 3 turn in to a Playstation 3 exclusive everything about the storage format war could take a definite turn for the blue.
Bungie is developing for Playstation 3...maybe. Also, an interview with the team behind Halo:Reach
In a brief, but potentially important, article from our brothers across the pond at CVG, some new light may have been shed on Bungie's post-Microsoft plans.
Having severed ties with Microsoft in 2007, the rumor factories immediately started spitting out stories of new titles in development for Sony's system. With the hugely successful Halo series as well as gaming classic Marathon games, Sony fans (who may very well have been claiming that "Halo sux0rz!" mere moments before the announcement) have good reason to be excited about the possibility. So it's good news that, while Bungie hasn't confirmed any rumors of creating a new IP for Playstation 3, they haven't denied it either.
In fact, when CVG fired the question point-blank at Bungie community boss Brian Jarrard he had this to say:
"I mean, I think our whole future's kind of undefined right now and it's definitely not something we're going to be comfortable getting into too much detail about.
We've had another team internally [other than those making Reach] for quite a while now they've been working on the genesis of what will become our next big thing.
It's a little premature to get into specifics, but you know I think we have a really good mix of old blood and new blood in the studio."
Let's hope that if Bungie does bring something new to the PS3 it will bring the goodness (story, characters...well most of them, frantic gameplay, even more frantic multiplayer) and the innovative (the Forge) but leave the wackness behind (poor, repetitive level design).
Speaking of Halo, if you want to check out an interview between CVG and certain members of the Halo:Reach team (creative director Marcus Lehto and the previously mentioned Brian Jarrard) you can head right over here.
Having severed ties with Microsoft in 2007, the rumor factories immediately started spitting out stories of new titles in development for Sony's system. With the hugely successful Halo series as well as gaming classic Marathon games, Sony fans (who may very well have been claiming that "Halo sux0rz!" mere moments before the announcement) have good reason to be excited about the possibility. So it's good news that, while Bungie hasn't confirmed any rumors of creating a new IP for Playstation 3, they haven't denied it either.
In fact, when CVG fired the question point-blank at Bungie community boss Brian Jarrard he had this to say:
"I mean, I think our whole future's kind of undefined right now and it's definitely not something we're going to be comfortable getting into too much detail about.
We've had another team internally [other than those making Reach] for quite a while now they've been working on the genesis of what will become our next big thing.
It's a little premature to get into specifics, but you know I think we have a really good mix of old blood and new blood in the studio."
Let's hope that if Bungie does bring something new to the PS3 it will bring the goodness (story, characters...well most of them, frantic gameplay, even more frantic multiplayer) and the innovative (the Forge) but leave the wackness behind (poor, repetitive level design).
Speaking of Halo, if you want to check out an interview between CVG and certain members of the Halo:Reach team (creative director Marcus Lehto and the previously mentioned Brian Jarrard) you can head right over here.
Friday, January 15, 2010
All Beyond Good & Evil fans: join me in saying "Hip-hip-huh?"
So apparently Beyond Good & Evil 2 is still in development, according to IGN and Ubisoft. This is stark contrast to comments made by Ubisoft president, Laurent Detoc, last July which gave the feeling BG&E2 had been put on indefinite hold or scrapped altogether.
At the time, Detoc said: "Whether or not it comes out remains to be seen anyway, but we didn't want to abandon that IP because it has a cache and authenticity about it," Detoc said at the time. "There's something very pure about that game and it's too bad that we were not able to build it as an IP at the time."
Wait...you're telling me that you're company is continuing to spend time and money on developing a game that you're not even sure will be released. Yeah, sure, that makes sense...to a crazy person. Although it's better than the alternative of the game being scrapped altogether.
So I'm not sure who these sources at Ubisoft are, but I wish they'd been a little more detailed. Anyways, enjoy the original teaser video (confirmed as being in-game by Ubisoft) as well as leaked footage that is, for some reason, still debated as to whether or not it's in-game, actually BG&E2, or even real at all. Courtesy of those crazy bastards at IGN.
For those of you that don't care because you didn't play the first game (which was the majority of you or the sequel wouldn't be on such shaky ground): the biggest, fattest "Shame on you" I can muster. Because you missed out on an absolutely FANTASTIC game. And since it came out on Gamecube, Playstation 2, Xbox AND PC I recommend you go pick it up right now and play it. Chances are you have one of those systems around, or a backwards compatible successor, if you're even at this site in the first place. Go. No, don't waste time watching these videos, GO! NOW!
Teaser
Leaked Footage
At the time, Detoc said: "Whether or not it comes out remains to be seen anyway, but we didn't want to abandon that IP because it has a cache and authenticity about it," Detoc said at the time. "There's something very pure about that game and it's too bad that we were not able to build it as an IP at the time."
Wait...you're telling me that you're company is continuing to spend time and money on developing a game that you're not even sure will be released. Yeah, sure, that makes sense...to a crazy person. Although it's better than the alternative of the game being scrapped altogether.
So I'm not sure who these sources at Ubisoft are, but I wish they'd been a little more detailed. Anyways, enjoy the original teaser video (confirmed as being in-game by Ubisoft) as well as leaked footage that is, for some reason, still debated as to whether or not it's in-game, actually BG&E2, or even real at all. Courtesy of those crazy bastards at IGN.
For those of you that don't care because you didn't play the first game (which was the majority of you or the sequel wouldn't be on such shaky ground): the biggest, fattest "Shame on you" I can muster. Because you missed out on an absolutely FANTASTIC game. And since it came out on Gamecube, Playstation 2, Xbox AND PC I recommend you go pick it up right now and play it. Chances are you have one of those systems around, or a backwards compatible successor, if you're even at this site in the first place. Go. No, don't waste time watching these videos, GO! NOW!
Teaser
Leaked Footage
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Dark Void, Murky Combat.
click to biggerize
Since I've mentioned the air combat already, let's get into that first. The demo tasks you with learning the basics of flight, shooting some stationary targets and taking down 3 Watcher flying saucers before moving on to some ground combat..and is quite short. Flying around and shooting at stationary targets works just fine, it's when you've got moving targets that combat gets a bit uncooperative. At all times while flying you have jetpack mounted machine guns and a crosshair to aim them with. You can press L2 to face the nearest enemy, however that only points the camera in that direction, not your character or your crosshairs. What this means is that, if your enemy's behind you, your view will be of the opposite side that your character, and thus your crosshair, is facing and you must maneuver that crosshair into view WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SEE IT. As you've probably guessed, this can be quite disorienting. If you're not going to have a lock-on system (which I think could speed up the relatively slow pace of aerial combat, personally, but that's beside the point) your character should at least swing around to the direction the camera is facing so that the player can see what he's aiming at.
Questionable control decisions aside, the air combat looks like it could get old quite fast. Getting in close, although still far enough away to make me say "WTF?" allows the player to press Circle and latch on to the enemy flying saucer, triggering a minigame to hijack control of the vehicle. This minigame consists of the following pattern: wait for gun to charge, dodge left/right, hold circle, dodge left/right, and repeat. Occasionally the pilot will put the saucer into a corkscrew to try and shake you off, but if you manage to press Square or Triangle (whichever the onscreen prompt calls for) at least 2 or 3 times, you're not going to fall off. Since flying around and shooting down the enemy flying saucers is nowhere near as fast as hijacking and then abandoning the vehicle, this could get old fast. Which brings up another point, piloting a flying saucer is nowhere near as fun, or effective as sticking to your jetpack. But this is a demo, so I'll save my final judgment for the full game in case there's some other gameplay in store to spice up these sections.
On the ground combat is...serviceable. Those of you familiar with Nathan Drake's adventures will find a control scheme that is identical save for the reversal of the take cover and melee buttons. Speaking of melee, you can only use a melee attack if there's an enemy near enough to use it on. An interesting design choice that is nonetheless effective. I theorize that this is to prevent players from accidentally entering a melee animation that would leave them open to getting shot, but I can't say for sure. That said, I found that, in the demo at least, you could just run up to any enemy and melee them to death. They don't seem to have any type of defense against it and weren't very good at preventing me from getting close enough -- even on the "Hardcore" difficulty setting -- to use it either. As far as weapons, you can carry any two, plus grenades, (although your default weapon in the demo seemed to be the most effective overall) and switch between them by pressing any direction on the D-pad. Lastly, although I've made a few comparisons to the Uncharted games, the ground combat in Dark Void just wasn't as fast, fluid, or fun. But again, this is just a demo and I didn't get to try out the "vertical" variation.
All in all, I wasn't too impressed with the Dark Void demo, but here's to hoping the rest of the game will prove to be worthy of Geek God, Nikola Tesla.
Check out the Super new combatants of Street Fighter IV.
Anxious to see the fighting styles of the three new pugilistic superstars of the forthcoming Super Street Fighter IV? Well GameTrailers.com has you covered.
With the new videos (which can be found for the rest of the cast here.) you can not only see the new characters in action, but get tips on the best strategies for using them...or defeating them.
Now if we could only get a video detailing why Capcom still chooses to release multiple versions of the same Street Fighter in the age of downloadable content (and with progressively longer titles) we would understand everything.
Cody
Adon
Friday, January 8, 2010
For just pennies a day, you too can adopt poor CliffyB
Apparently the Gears of War franchise is broken and needs to be fixed FAST before the franchise is abandoned by gamers everywhere, according to IGN anyway. Anyone who has ever witnessed a Playstation vs Xbox fanboy squabble, or been involved in one (for shame) might find this hard to believe, but apparently IGN writer Ryan Geddes, in his second appearance on the blog today (and somewhat in keeping with the same theme) disagrees.
Mr. Geddes writes up an in-depth article on what's wrong with the Gears franchise and how to fix it. Whether or not you agree with the article it's still an interesting read and makes several valid points. You can check out the full article at the IGN link above.
Mr. Geddes writes up an in-depth article on what's wrong with the Gears franchise and how to fix it. Whether or not you agree with the article it's still an interesting read and makes several valid points. You can check out the full article at the IGN link above.
Supreme Commander 2 details.
Fans of science fiction RTS rejoice! No, StarCraft II hasnt' been released early, sorry. Didn't mean to get your hopes up. However, IGN has details on Supreme Commander II and that's almost as good...kinda.
On a related note however, those unimpressed by SupComm 1's lacking story and those worried about the newly forged partnership with Square Enix can both find some solace in the knowledge that Square Enix's hand in the project will be to beef up the story. Or not, depending on your reasons for trepidation regarding the Square Enix partnership. The rest of you, however will likely be glad to hear about SupComm 2 being treated to "an involved story that features fractured relationships between a core cast of characters will be told, chiefly through brief in-engine cutscenes at the beginning of missions and, refreshingly, during the gameplay itself, with plot and character development coming over the radios as the plot-specific units chat to each other. " Sounds somewhat like that other big SciFi RTS of years past don't it? Emphasis on the "SciFi." This is still Supreme Commander so some of those characters are going to be robots, insectoid aliens, talking brains in jars and dinsoaurs wearing powered armor.
Besides the storyline focus, SupComm 2 will be making some changes to its multiplayer. Namely that GDG net is no longer a part of the game. Instead the game will be completely integrated into Valve's Steam software and utilize it's powerful, and popular, features.
Other things to get some simplification include the game's economy system. Gone is the complex web of SupComm1 and returned is the more traditional system of gathering, and saving, resources used to buy structures and technology upgrades. Much like the simplification that took place in Final Fantasy 7 (see what I did there?) the developers are hoping a simplification of the game's trickier mechanics will attract more players.
Even the code of the game itself has been simplified, allowing SupComm 2 to be played on PC's with lower specifications than the minimum requirements of SupComm 1. For those that missed out on the first game due to lack of a "serious" gaming rig or Xbox 360, this is fantastic news indeed. However, this did cost the game it's ability to support custom maps; though general modding is still possible.
Of course, this being a sequel and all, expect the requisite upgrades to graphics, maps and units. Did I mention that the game will have a canon that fires TANKS!? All in all, there's plenty of reason to get excited when the game releases sometime this March.
On a related note however, those unimpressed by SupComm 1's lacking story and those worried about the newly forged partnership with Square Enix can both find some solace in the knowledge that Square Enix's hand in the project will be to beef up the story. Or not, depending on your reasons for trepidation regarding the Square Enix partnership. The rest of you, however will likely be glad to hear about SupComm 2 being treated to "an involved story that features fractured relationships between a core cast of characters will be told, chiefly through brief in-engine cutscenes at the beginning of missions and, refreshingly, during the gameplay itself, with plot and character development coming over the radios as the plot-specific units chat to each other. " Sounds somewhat like that other big SciFi RTS of years past don't it? Emphasis on the "SciFi." This is still Supreme Commander so some of those characters are going to be robots, insectoid aliens, talking brains in jars and dinsoaurs wearing powered armor.
Besides the storyline focus, SupComm 2 will be making some changes to its multiplayer. Namely that GDG net is no longer a part of the game. Instead the game will be completely integrated into Valve's Steam software and utilize it's powerful, and popular, features.
Other things to get some simplification include the game's economy system. Gone is the complex web of SupComm1 and returned is the more traditional system of gathering, and saving, resources used to buy structures and technology upgrades. Much like the simplification that took place in Final Fantasy 7 (see what I did there?) the developers are hoping a simplification of the game's trickier mechanics will attract more players.
Even the code of the game itself has been simplified, allowing SupComm 2 to be played on PC's with lower specifications than the minimum requirements of SupComm 1. For those that missed out on the first game due to lack of a "serious" gaming rig or Xbox 360, this is fantastic news indeed. However, this did cost the game it's ability to support custom maps; though general modding is still possible.
Of course, this being a sequel and all, expect the requisite upgrades to graphics, maps and units. Did I mention that the game will have a canon that fires TANKS!? All in all, there's plenty of reason to get excited when the game releases sometime this March.
Reach for it...
Well if the good people of Joystiq are to be believed, and they usually are, February's issue of Game Informer is going to have a 10 page cover story on Halo:Reach. The magazine's website will also leave a bread crumb trail of details for the rest of January throughout it's Halo:Reach section leading up to the issue's publication. These smaller articles will include details on the new game (obviously) as well as a look at the history of the franchise and profiles on employees of both Bungie and 343 Industries, the heir to the Halo mantle.
You can check out images of the February Issue of Game Informer's cover right here and pore over them for every detail you can squeeze out.
You can check out images of the February Issue of Game Informer's cover right here and pore over them for every detail you can squeeze out.
More Optimus, Les Shia.
Whether or not that's a good thing in the movies is up for debate. In a game, however, that victory belongs entirely to Optimus.
Case and point; Transformers: War for Cybertron. Since the timeline of this game predates Cybtertronian (thems the Autobots and Decepticons for all you "newbs") contact with Earth so it's all hot, robot-on-robot action. Now please kindly remove any dirty thoughts about Arcee from your mind, you twisted, old-school perv you. Not a whole lot is known about the game so far, but IGN apparently has some juicy footage coming our way. While you're there you can tide yourself over by watching the current trailer on repeat until the new one comes out. I mean that kiddingly of course, it's not like I've got that running in the background while I'm writing this...
Case and point; Transformers: War for Cybertron. Since the timeline of this game predates Cybtertronian (thems the Autobots and Decepticons for all you "newbs") contact with Earth so it's all hot, robot-on-robot action. Now please kindly remove any dirty thoughts about Arcee from your mind, you twisted, old-school perv you. Not a whole lot is known about the game so far, but IGN apparently has some juicy footage coming our way. While you're there you can tide yourself over by watching the current trailer on repeat until the new one comes out. I mean that kiddingly of course, it's not like I've got that running in the background while I'm writing this...
Monday, December 21, 2009
Psh! Nailed it! Dead Space
You know, I liked the original Dead Space, but I felt like it didn't quite live up to one of its promises: the weapons.
The weapons, for the most part were definitely cool, but what happened to the ideology that your main man, Isaac Clarke, is an engineer/repairman, not a soldier? What happened to not finding your standard 3rd-person-shooter weapons and having to make do with workbench tools? I'll give credit on trying to give story context to things like having a full-on flamethrower instead of, say, a welding torch, or for the massive "boss fight/large enemy" gun but some of the stuff...just no. I mean, I'll give you the Line Gun for cutting ore or whatever, these are miners, but when is a miner going to need timed mines (ooo, I get it) that shoot out spinning lasers and dismember everything within range? So with a sequel coming out that has such cool new features as multiplayer, how about fulfilling some of that "not your standard weapons" promise? Maybe something like a nail gun? I know Extraction had the rivet gun but that doesn't quite count since A) Extraction was a side story and B) it nailed things to the wall, not enemies.
Come on guys, plenty of other games have had such weapons, even if they didn't quite make sense when you stopped to think about it, why can't Dead Space? You could even make a specific battle out of it. Have a Necromorph with body parts that make their way back to the main body and rejoin it once dismembered. That way you've gotta nail those damn pesky...appendages to the wall/floor to stop the beast. Imagine the multiplayer smack talk applications!
"OOOhhh I just cut of yo arm bitch! And now it's nailed to the wall! What now, one-armed man?"
My vision's going all slotted just thinking about it!
Of course with news on the sequel slowly trickling out, it looks like the Javelin Gun coming in DS2 may fulfill my wishes. I guess we'll see when it releases in...when it releases.
The weapons, for the most part were definitely cool, but what happened to the ideology that your main man, Isaac Clarke, is an engineer/repairman, not a soldier? What happened to not finding your standard 3rd-person-shooter weapons and having to make do with workbench tools? I'll give credit on trying to give story context to things like having a full-on flamethrower instead of, say, a welding torch, or for the massive "boss fight/large enemy" gun but some of the stuff...just no. I mean, I'll give you the Line Gun for cutting ore or whatever, these are miners, but when is a miner going to need timed mines (ooo, I get it) that shoot out spinning lasers and dismember everything within range? So with a sequel coming out that has such cool new features as multiplayer, how about fulfilling some of that "not your standard weapons" promise? Maybe something like a nail gun? I know Extraction had the rivet gun but that doesn't quite count since A) Extraction was a side story and B) it nailed things to the wall, not enemies.
Come on guys, plenty of other games have had such weapons, even if they didn't quite make sense when you stopped to think about it, why can't Dead Space? You could even make a specific battle out of it. Have a Necromorph with body parts that make their way back to the main body and rejoin it once dismembered. That way you've gotta nail those damn pesky...appendages to the wall/floor to stop the beast. Imagine the multiplayer smack talk applications!
"OOOhhh I just cut of yo arm bitch! And now it's nailed to the wall! What now, one-armed man?"
My vision's going all slotted just thinking about it!
Of course with news on the sequel slowly trickling out, it looks like the Javelin Gun coming in DS2 may fulfill my wishes. I guess we'll see when it releases in...when it releases.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Gamez rulez commercialz!
So Adweek recently held a voting on the best commercial of the decade (I know, I wasn't told either) and, in a move that will probably have your grandparents shaking their heads if/when you tell them, two gaming commercials actually managed to make it into the top spots.
One of these was Sony's "Mountain" commercial from the heyday of the Playstation 2 which...well I thought was kind of lame. But that's probably due to my unexplainable dislike for anything involving Shirley Temple. Check it out and make your own decision.
The second of these commercials was from the Halo 3 "Believe" campaign (although this particular ad is apparently called "Diorama") and is pretty rad. I can't ever watch this commercial without thinking to myself "Man! I want all of those things and the time to set up that exact scene!"
Feel free to check out the other, non-gaming commercials as well. From serious political statements to commercials that make you say "Wait...what?" to the ones that just make you say "WTF!?" Enjoy.
One of these was Sony's "Mountain" commercial from the heyday of the Playstation 2 which...well I thought was kind of lame. But that's probably due to my unexplainable dislike for anything involving Shirley Temple. Check it out and make your own decision.
The second of these commercials was from the Halo 3 "Believe" campaign (although this particular ad is apparently called "Diorama") and is pretty rad. I can't ever watch this commercial without thinking to myself "Man! I want all of those things and the time to set up that exact scene!"
Feel free to check out the other, non-gaming commercials as well. From serious political statements to commercials that make you say "Wait...what?" to the ones that just make you say "WTF!?" Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)