Call of Battlefield: Modern Bore

With the release of Battlefield 3 already upon us and having time to settle, I am not filled with feelings of excitement, nor hatred. I cant really identify with any kind of feeling in particular aside from exasperation. Not at the fact that I've gotten military shooter this year as a part of this 2011 FPS gauntlet we've been running but at the fact that man, does it look a lot like Call of Duty campaign wise.

I'm not the only one who thinks so.

In fact, it's such a strange shift in focus for a game that has stuck to its guns as long as Battlefield, the reactions are almost unanimous: in stark contrast to the multiplayer portion, it doesn't feel or play anything like a Battlefield game.

Eurogamer reports that "EA has constructed a package that echoes its rival in so many ways it's downright eerie."

IGN describes the gulf in quality between the single and multiplayer modes as the game suffering an "identity crisis"

Destructoid says "If you're a fan of single-player games, there's nothing for you here."

I hope it's starting to sink in. The race for every military shooter to capture that Call of Duty "magic" is a fruitless one that continues to ensure that all our military FPS stories will have the same interchangeable, hollow campaigns lacking in substance.



Call of Duty hasn't been an action packed history lesson for years, but they wisely ditched the format when WW2 was thoroughly mined. Changing the scope of the series from that to one more loosely based in our current events was a wise move on a creative and gameplay front, and gave them legs for something new. That something new worked in the original Modern Warfare But their success has literally become a blueprint for the modern FPS. If they are the trailblazers, people will start following their cues for a taste of their success, and oh are they.


(If you can't tell which game this is at first glance, something's wrong)

Wait for NPC B to kick in door A, terrorists pop up like cardboard cutouts, shoot, repeat until set-piece activates. While I appreciate EA going for Infinity Ward's throat, they may have gone about it the wrong way by following what has become the lowest common denominator blueprint of FPS design. Since Modern Warfare 2, short, linear military rollercoaster rides with a heavy focus on multiplayer has been the consensus. The difference however between every other game adopting these bullet points and Call of Duty embracing them, is the fact that their multiplayer is so popular and nuanced that they can AFFORD to let the campaign deteriorate into this.

EVERYONE ELSE DOES NOT HAVE THAT CUSHION. While I don't mind CoD jumping a multiplayer shark, everyone is attempting similar leaps now, and unsuccessfully at that. This means we have a bevy of failed attempts at this same slanted, rigid campaign/multiplayer focus instead of memorable, lasting experiences from franchises old and new. It means new creative ideas are being ditched, or compromised, or outright rejected for what works, like their method. It means a loss of identity. It means becoming a statistic.



It also means being forgotten while the major players who did get it right burn the genre to shreds by trying to reproduce their apex until they no longer can. The ones getting it wrong drive the nails further into the coffin.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is, I'd rather watch Call of Duty topple under its own weight, with it's own flaws, without dragging an entire genre down with it.

There's still an opportunity to craft a story in a military shooter that can resonate viscerally because unlike shooting candy colored aliens, the threat of what's presented here is more personally identifiable, if not always completely plausible. There's a chance to create an exciting, tactical gauntlet that can test more than a player's ability to aim down the sights. Elements like visuals, score, and an intensity of events that simply can't be matched anywhere but in first-person because without an avatar to view constantly, immersion increases exponentially. Imagine all of this paced with intent, having a clear start and finish. Having the ability to stir and evoke emotions in players, and knowing they have been challenged by development team clever enough to do so is a power they are forgetting they have. Regardless of the success of their individual approaches, at least that's exactly what they are, individual, and not yet another attempt to recreate another badass soldiering montage.



More Saving Private Ryan, less Pearl Harbor, moving forward please.

I'm speaking not just to DICE, but the rest of the developers on that one. If CoD has given up on campaign, that's the competition's space to make it better, and innovate. Not follow them mercilessly into the increasingly bleak and derivative popcorn hot-dog-on-a-string campaigns awash in brown hues, foreign countries and explosions. The time for distinction is now, while Battlefield 3 paints a by-the-numbers approach to this as a noticeable problem. I understand the nature of business first, but this is how you beat the competition.

Otherwise, soon you all won't have a genre to compete in.
Continue Reading..

Reverse Psychology

I think I hated this last year. Couldn't accept it for the world. Now, I'm seeing things.

I see a very twisted, mcabre visual style. I see some inspired enemy design. I see dynamically morphing environments and an impressive sense of scale. I see a battle system that looks, surprisingly like DMC1, but with an added level of flourish. It looks cool, it looks sharp...it does look like Devil May Cry.

Honestly, it looks a lot like Devil May Cry 2 visually, but without the suck.

I'm inclined...to turn an eye to this. Not a blind eye, but one wide open, and accepting of change. I still don't like the way he looks, but it isn't nearly as distracting as it was last year.

I do like this video. It's making me smile.

Once again proving that really, gamers have no conviction, and that if it looks cool enough, eventually, despite our dissent, we will crack in the name of the game.



Cool artwork, too.



Damnit.
Continue Reading..

Ninjas hiding from the truth.

Ninja Gaiden 3 is in development, and it's no secret to avid followers that this will be the first NG title to be an completely original development not based on a previous work. Though the action looked serviceable enough, and violent enough to satisfy, something seemed to be missing. Specifically, an over-the-top amount of violent payoff to match the on-screen action. When asked about whether they would be returning to the all too famous decapitations and dismemberment characteristic to the Ninja Gaiden series since its reboot back in 2004, This is what Team Ninja had to say about the matter:

"We don't think people want to see that anymore," they were reported as saying at Gamescom last week. "They've already seen it."

Yeah right.

More like "We aren't talented enough to have a full dismemberment system in place on both consoles."



I'm seeing a pattern here. To this writer, it seems like excuses wrapped not in good intent, but in their own shortcomings as a developer, especially with their notoriously abrasive, yet perfectionistic leader gone. Let me explain.

Tech savvy gamers know for a fact that the 360 has a higher fill rate than the PS3. In terms everyone can understand, this means it has an ability to display more polygons on screen at any given time. In terms of Ninja Gaiden, specifically it's sequel, it meant they were able to have a fantastic gore/dismemberment system in place that even occasionally compromised the game's otherwise rock solid framerate, slowing things down when there were simply too many bits and pieces flying about.



It's my theory that this system, one that bogged down the 360 at times, was just about impossible to port over to the PS3. While it's a trial indeed to port over (and in some cases, upgrade) the vast majority of the game's assets intact, that wasn't the difficult part. The most difficult part would be getting that gore under control on the PS3...and they couldn't. They dropped the ball, and gave an excuse.

“Each game has its own concept and with Ninja Gaiden 2, the focus was on extreme violence. But with Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2, we really questioned whether violence is a necessity for a game, so we decided to move away from that trend. So the violence ‘approach’ is not the way we approached the development of Ninja Gaiden Sigma 2. Being able to unlock higher levels of gore would be out of kilter with the concept of the game.”


Motion controlled breasts were not, however.

Remarkably similar, no? The quality of Team Ninja's games have been in decline ever since Itagaki left, and Yuusuke Hayashi keeps proving time and time again that he cannot uphold that standard since his departure, instead masking his shortcomings in tired excuses like this. I heard nothing of this in the original Ninja Gaiden port, which had the decapitations intact and took the time to improve visually...but the source material was from the last generation of hardware. The second game takes advantage of a specific next gen hardware advantage and has that specific feature cut. The third game is multiplatform out of the gate and has every aspect cut. That can't be coincidence.

The funny thing is, while he may be fooling anyone else blind enough to accept that tripe, this was all to familiar to the MGS2 debacle on the Xbox, one that is all too familiar.

Last generation, a perfect example of this was Metal Gear Solid 2: Substance on the original Xbox. Being a port of the original MGS2: Sons of Liberty on the PS2, the game was specifically designed to take advantage of the system's strengths, most notably the console's fill rate to create the still amazing to this day rainstorm in the tanker chapter. When this game was ported to the Xbox, the textures were better, the sound was better, and overall the game had a much cleaner look. However, the rainstorm was a bit too much for the system's architecture (particles, natch), and what was a perfectly smooth experience on the PS2 turned into a slow motion spectacle worthy of Zack Snyder on the Xbox, turning every scene outside the ship into a slideshow. Was it the Xbox's fault? No, it was more Kojima Productions' doing by not optimizing the game on different hardware, deciding that it would be easier to just dump it on the Xbox intact and let the chips fall where they may.

This is exactly what I feel is going on here, except instead of leaving the original game concept intact come hell or high water, they're instead omitting aspects of the game, leaving the fans to stare and shake their heads in bewilderment every time a new statement like that comes out. Yes, Ninja Gaiden is a great action game, but part of that enoyment comes from the visceral action, and yes, later on, the absurd amount of gore that came as a result. Omitting those aspects (using us as an excuse no less) is only going to hurt them in the long run, because as far as I can see, the God of War series is still going pretty strong, and Kratos has never run into an enemy face unworthy of evisceration. Imagine if Sony Santa Monica said they were cutting the gore from the PSP version of God of War, stating that it was time to tell a more "mature" tale for a different audience unfamiliar with Kratos. You'd think they were full of shit, right?

Exactly.

Continue Reading..

Annoyances of the Mainstream - Trials and Tribulations

I generally don't pay attention to mainstream (IGN, Gamespot, et al) game reviews anymore, as I've noticed a disturbing trend in gaming; mainstream reviewers seem to be downscoring games based on increasingly frivolous things. I'm not even talking about a game having strange mechanics, something being off story wise, or something simultaneously loved and feared because of its insurmountable odds akin to a Ninja Gaiden, I'm just talking about complaints about things like challenge that seem to be getting worse as gaming moves into a more casual forum.

It's odd, as I notice reviews from back in the day heavily focused on an overall aura, a combination of graphics, sound, gameplay and overall value. Now, since graphics are at such a high as to be homogenous, it takes truly reprehensible (read: mostly last-gen) visuals to have some sort of visual discrepancy. Since every console practically defaults to multidirectional sound, a game has to have a really questionable score to be noticed outside of our increasingly orchestral norms. But gameplay is more heavily scrutinized than before, with what I feel is a misplaced focus.


Annoying Scrutiny #1 - "Trial-and-Error" in Games

One of the chief complaints of the mainstream reviewer is this, criticizing what is a fundamental aspect of design. Trial-and-error is an aspect of games that is much maligned, and in some cases, with good reason, but it's not something that needs to be eliminated.

Death in games comes often, and sometimes swiftly, but this was something we've always dealt with as gamers. The entire institution of even having "extra lives" was the notion that you would fail, and if you weren't completely up to snuff, there was always a secret code to help out in case of emergency.



These days, our games are littered with savefiles to record progress, checkpoints to cover what the savefiles don't get, and autosaves just in case you manually forgot to save. The challenging aspect has endured to a point, but now there's a ton of concessions to ensure you aren't taxed too hard. Why then does even a game like Limbo, which is literally littered with checkpoints and death spots, get criticized for its difficulty, being called a "trial and error" game with this as a negative aspect?

Trial-and-error in its purest form is a fudamental part of design. Gamers love to be punished (when we aren't, we complain MORE), and part of the discovery element of ANY game is figuring out the limits developers have assigned us. You can't find out if a bed of spikes is dangerous to your avatar without first propelling them onto it, and reacting accordingly, can you? When did this fall by the wayside? Short of putting massive signs everywhere that says "Don't try to do x, or you'll die", there will always be a bit of a trial-and-error aspect to games.

But what happens when a game (unintentionally) parodies a reviewer's desire to eliminate the frustrating aspects of trial-and-error?



You get the 2008 Prince of Persia, which was met with a massive negative backlash, due to its refusal to let a player stare at a "Game Over" screen.

I never saw the difference when people started to complain though. Elika physically pulling you from a ditch is no different to me than appearing a few feet in front of a trap that just killed you in Limbo, or mashing F5 before a particularly difficult part in Half-Life so your life is secure. It's no different than Gears of War constantly covering your ass with autosaves, and it's an amusing point of contention that when a game is lacking some sort of system similar to this, it gets pulled apart. So why complain at all? It sets in motion a needless effort by the developer to accomodate with easier modes that see no use, or a overly simplified design that, as criticisms would label it , "Suffer from a lack of challenge or sense of danger."



So which is it guys? Are the games supposed to be so straightforward that we coast through them without being challenged, or is it only acceptable if the game doesn't make it obvious that their hand is being held? I don't know if there is a right answer. I believe a game's accomodations should only reach as far as the developer allows, but to compromise their vision in some way by removing what has been a cornerstone of design is silly. A game in which you're unable to die is little more than an interactive movie (leading to complaints of unimagination and linearity), and without some sort of risk-reward system to propel a player forward, there's little reason to continue once you've started (or even revisit). My notion is, people looking for the former need to simply watch movies, people looking for the absence of the latter need to question why they're engaged in an interactive challenge in the first place if they aren't expecting to be challenged.



Some of my favorite experiences in gaming were earned after much repetition of seemingly insurmountable odds, and I can't see that changing as long as our minds continue to favor being told we can't accomplish something initially with a robust set of obstacles.

The wide world of the internet takes a reviewer's opinion as gospel at times like this, and while it's nice, I realize we have to be careful. It's easy to forget, but readers are always on top of what we say as soon as we say it. They also take what we say to heart, faux-quoting us like parrots in an effort to sound "professional". Developers pay close attention as well, and shape their next title's aspects in line with our criticisms. If reviewers like the ones I'm mentioning don't watch out, it'll be exactly the predestination paradox their complaints are trying to avoid, and a slew of linear, hand-holding games will be the future. I remember Call of Duty's campaigns being somewhat tactical and open before it became akin to a treadmill with an explosive-filled hot dog on the end.

With a slew of ill-informed criticism favoring easier, more straightforward games, they just may be undercutting the most fun aspect of our medium. Which leads to a better question for the next segment:

Why are they complaining about visuals too?


Continue Reading..

Seriously, Nintendo?

Now, I'm all for padding out the sales numbers and all, it makes for good quarterlies and impressive press releases, but really, what's the point of this? The $19.99 price tag doesn't do much to soften the blow of the ludicrous, either.

It's not like they didn't already default their way to the title of one of the best selling games of all time simply by including one for FREE with each Wii sold, or anything.

I mean, I'm all for Nintendo finally giving games like Twilight Princess a sorely needed price drop (5 years in the making?) while they work to release a real "next-gen" console not being held back by its own gimmicks, but isn't there a subtle admission of failure being made when you try to sell me a free pack in game? The one that started the irreversible trend of effortless minigame-games that became a staple of your console's (mostly) shovelware library?

For the same price as a legit (yet criminally undersold) game like Madworld, even?



Y'know, part of the reason "hardcore" software failed on the Wii was due to the fact that it had to compete with the casual offerings at the same price, and the new audience Nintendo spawned couldn't tell the difference in quality, but went with the fluff because it seemed much safer from a new buyer's prospective. Way to exemplify why you scared off your core audience with this console, Nintendo.

..and why you're replacing it so soon.



Continue Reading..

Iwata should look around a little.

With Nintendo's president biting back at Apple for all their oversaturation "tactics", it's more than a bit funny that they should tout the fact that they have more software on their console as a positive thing. Quality over quantity, the oblivious president parrots to an audience surely scratching their heads in confusion. He implies the innovations in social gaming are going to kill the industry if we aren't careful. He says Apple is mostly to blame with their implementation of the app store encouraging "garage" developers to produce cheaper content, and mobile games are dragging the quality bar down even further by lacking the value and personal satisfaction that a $40 game carries with its purchase.

You know. Like Nintendo's $40 games.

This sounds less like a concerned parent of the industry and more like the lamentations of one unable to keep up with it's baby's development.

The Wii may have more software from its competitors, but how much of that is quality Software? Anyone even keeping up with the industry a little, or even owning a Wii knows that the system has become a dumping ground for shovelware and garbage titles, and outside of some select third party offerings and Nintendo's own First Party lineup, there isn't anything on the console worth picking up. Is that really a better alternative?

So they're effectively the App store, just in a physical form. Just ask their "Seal of Quality", which went from being the beacon of light that saved the industry in the 80's to having it's meaning removed entirely. Hardly coincidence.



The seal speaks louder than words.


It's interesting seeing Nintendo react to competition for once, but this is just childish. While they were able to sit and casually laugh at Sony's bid for power over content in the portable gaming space, Apple's iOS and social platforms like Facebook are starting to cut into the big N's market share in a huge way. With cellphones getting more advanced by the day and digital distribution not having the same costly hangups as retail (including piracy), they are going to have to work harder than they ever have to maintain their position as number one.

Perhaps, moving forward, Nintendo should focus on avenues of profit that will benefit them, and make them seem less like a pigheaded company who's been profiting off the misinformed indifference of the casual consumer. If cellphones and mobile gaming platforms are making your premium priced offerings seem overpriced and stale, the solution is to make better games, and a consistent string of quality across titles. Not try and insist that such games shouldn't exist.

Even though I have no doubt that the 3DS will be successful, its version of Super Street Fighter 4 costs more than even its console incarnation at $39.99, boasting little over the original incarnation. Aside from that game which is admittedly well done, it's sharing the shelf with half-baked ports of Rayman, Madden, Pilotwings, Asphalt, and a who-asked-for-this new version of Nintendogs, all for $39.99 as well.

This is going to be a bit of an uphill battle for them, especially with so many options for the consumer as far as platform is concerned. While ports like this are fine in the beginning, I hope that they're ready to outdo their competitors in terms of content, or they're just going to end up with another Wii situation, where lazy developers will turn out gimmicky piece of software after software, charging the same high prices that will drive their audience into the arms of their competitors. It's easy to purchase the racing game Asphalt on an iPhone for $3, and lament the loss if it's terrible. It's a much bigger pill to swallow when the game is $40.

Hell, I bought the (234237th) port or Rayman 2 on my phone for $1 over a year ago. There's no way I'm buying it for the 3DS. 3D butterflies aren't worth that much, I'm sorry.

Like it or not, this is the exact kind of social gaming and open environment Nintendo helped initiate, culminating the minute they decided to involve the world by making their console's name a euphemism for it. So now we're playing Farmville, Angry Birds, and portable versions of games like Dead Space that are of such a quality that they could've existed on a DS or PSP for large sum. Instead, they're available for six dollars, confortably in a climate that allows them to be so.

No point in trying to turn back now.


Continue Reading..

Dance Zero.

Go Kotick!

After the success of games like Just Dance, which placed dancing back on the map after years of DDR struggling to maintain relevance, and Dance Central, which took it to another technical level, it's no surprise that in their wake, a slew of other dancing titles have been released, trying to get a piece of the new best thing. Interchangeable, and of questionable quality, they're all out to get our dollars now via the medium of booty shaking.



Know what that means? Of course you do!

Rumor has it, Activision is working on their own competitor in the dancing space, predictably titled Dance Hero. Now before anyone gets inflamed with rage, know that shortly after purchasing the Guitar Hero brand, Activision went patent crazy, trademarking every possible permutation of Hero they could think of, running amok with expected Guitar, Drum, Rock titles affixed to the brand for prospective games , to more ridiculous sounding ones like Guitar Villain.Dance Hero was among the crazier of those patents, and three years ago, it sounded a lot more ridiculous than it does now.

...Yeah. Don't compete too hard with the crickets.

My question is: Didn't they learn from the last time they tried to go up against an innovator with their ingenuous, exploitative ways? I can't see this going anywhere good. Dance games in general are a questionable medium, so concerned with accessibility that none actually gauge performance accurately aside from Dance Central. Even monolith vet DDR doesn't capture the actual act of dancing in the way DC does. So WHAT exactly is Activision going to bring to the table aside from something blatantly bandwagon riding and devoid of effort like Michael Jackson: The Experience?



The more information I recieve for a rumor, the more I flinch, but apparently these are the songs allegedly in the works so far:

"2012" by Jay Sean (feat Nicki Minaj)
"Out Of Space" by The Prodigy.
"The Way I Are" by Timbaland (feat Keri Hilson and D.O.E.)
"Take Over Control" by Afrojack (feat Evan Simon)

Kotaku, you'd better be lying to me. I can't see any good coming of this.

Source: Kotaku
Continue Reading..

Of Heroes and Bands

First Rock Band, now this?

I can't say I'm surprised, Activision's merciless exploitation of the music genre in the height of its popularity may have something large to do with this, but as of right now, the Guitar Hero franchise is dead. Much to this writer's chagrin, this means DJ Hero is gone as well.

Sigh.


Losing the former isn't much of a concern to me. The series descended into self-parody and a caricature of it's former self the minute Harmonix jumped ship and chose to innovate elsewhere with Rock Band. Activision spent an unusual amount of time trying to play catchup, in turn choosing to oversaturate the market with titles and costly controllers instead of innovate on a fundamental level, and consumers responded by closing their wallets. For me at least, the Guitar Hero series died in late 2007 when the Neversoft developed Legends of Rock came out.


Even Slash can't completely cover up mediocrity. See what I did there?

I digress though. Losing the latter franchise? Hurts a bit. I saw the DJ Hero series as a fresh new start for the music genre, and one that was sorely needed after overall music sales began to decline. It was innovative, fun, and most of all, it had a boundless sort of creative potential that could've lasted. This didn't change the fact that it suffered an expensive controller of its own, and even I felt something was amiss when despite how excellent I felt DJ Hero 2 was, none of my friends or even customers I've spoken to shared my enthusiasm. Overstocked game/turntable bundles selling for $59.99 at my local Best Buy didn't soothe my nerves any better, though I saw it as an opportunity for the game to reach a wider install base. Baseless optimism.

Regardless, with these cuts come statements of intent from the mega-publisher, and they're already making me laugh:

"..In 2011, the company will allocate the majority of its resources and focus toward opportunities which we expect will afford us the greatest competitive advantages and the greatest potential for best-in-class quality, high-margin digital growth, and long-term success.."

Loosely translated? Continue collecting revenue from World of Warcraft and continue to exploit the Call of Duty franchise. It's funny watching this happen repeatedly. At the start of this generation, Activision was busy wringing the once-untouchable Tony Hawk franchise for every last drop. This was a process that doomed the series with consistent mediocrity leading up to the ill fated Tony Hawk: Ride and its plastic skateboard. Guitar Hero was a revolution, but after Harmonix's departure and success with Rock Band, Activision elected to release so many Guitar Hero titles that consumers wouldn't know which one to buy, and now the series has been killed following the story based rhythm "quest" Warriors of Rock. Men made mice. Gods made mortals.

The success of a franchise is not a go-ahead to beat us around the head with it in various untelligible shades until we're sick of your chicanery, Activision.


"Hey man, I don't know what they were thinking either."

Get ready, Call of Duty, with your $15 map packs and annual releases. You're about to be killed too.

I know I'm already sick of military shooters because of this franchise. How about you?

Sources: Neoseeker,Eurogamer

Continue Reading..

Does it stand for No Game Plan?

So the NGP has been announced, finally. The rumors of its power, of its capabilities, how far off, etc. can be finally put to rest. All the original concerns seem to have been addressed, and even augmented with even better features. Quad core CPU and GPU, twin analog sticks, Touchscreen on the front, touchpad on the back, new flash storage media, and a new online store promising a focus on more digital content has been promised, and even demoed before the excited press. This thing isn’t looking to merely compete in the portable space, it feels like it’s designed to take over, providing a PS3 experience like for like, but in the palm of your hand, a claim that no other handheld device can make.

So why am I not excited?

I don't see anything promising in the announcement of a NGP, because all I see is a PSP 2. The original name is quite apropos, because I don’t see a new device. I see an amalgam of what’s popular right now. Touchscreen. Motion Control. Application store. ANOTHER proprietary format. The promise of the Playstation experience outside the home. Sound familiar?



I see the same empty promises, I see the same quest to be technologically superior, I see nothing other than the draw of taking my home console out of the house with me. I don't want to do that. While the allure of playing something akin to an Uncharted or Killzone is an excellent one indeed, those are PS3 experiences. This means a few things to me in this world of high definition displays and complementary home-theater-in-a-box setups. It means I don’t want it condensed. I want it every bit as grandiose and epic as the developer intended, because high definition assets are at a premium these days.

Killzone is a satisfying sci-fi epic that blew me away with its exceptional graphics and sound, a cushion that made its merely average gameplay a bit easier to swallow. Uncharted 2 is a blockbuster movie-like experience that took full advantage of my PS3’s ability to pump 720p visuals and 5.1 DTS into my brain. Why would I want to shrink that down to a small screen? Have my thumbs obscure screen real estate? Listen to it in stereo? It’s a waste of tech.

It's like James Cameron said, Watching Avatar on an iPhone is dumb.

This is Sony’s problem. They just keep rapidfiring portables at us, iteration after iteration of a Portable Playstation, trying to best everyone, with absolutely no idea why others continue to be above them in the portable space. No idea why all this graphical horsepower doesn't translate into instant success. It’s missing the realization that a portable gaming experience doesn’t need to replicate the experience of playing on console. It should, for all intents and purposes provide a different experience than what you can get in your home. Ports will be inevitable, but they’re a welcome convenience for a system that ISN’T trying to be the exact same one I have hooked up to my LCD. A 3DS is an interesting prospect because a 3D capable, dual screen, touchscreen device with internal and external cameras opens the door to all kinds of exciting prospects as far as game design. Even something older like Super Street Fighter 4 in 3D is an interesting revisit due to the 3D feature and its persistent challenge mode that utilizes the 3DS’ network capability.

What expierience does a NGP offer up that I can’t already do on my PS3? Take it out of my house?

I already said I don’t want to.

It’s a misappropriation of power as well.


Why couldn't this have been a PSN download as well?..


How many people have played MGS: Peace Walker, or either God of War game, or Grand Theft Auto on their PSP and wished it was on a console instead after the novelty of having a PS2 caliber game in your hands wears off? There’s always a bittersweet taste that comes with playing a high fidelity portable game, and it’s the fact that it would be better served on a console instead. Cost is yet another issue. If I’m going to pay a high cost, why not just shell out the extra dollars and get it fully uncompromised? Yet another boon of portable gaming has been trounced by the fact that my portable wants to be my console, and it's called being cost effective. DS games are affordable, very rarely touching the $40 range. Console competitive iOS games range from $5-10 dollars. Just how much are these PS3 caliber games going to cost on the NGP? The thought makes me flinch, along with the thought of how much the unit itself will cost.

Quick question: What happens when people are forced to pay premium prices for a digital experience they feel isn’t? Piracy.

The abominable situation surrounding the original PSP is proof of this.

It’s a situation I see being replicated in this one, if they aren’t careful. The NGP will come out, and when the novelty wears off, it will hard if they don’t have anything compelling lined up besides “Lol MGS4 portable”. When it gets jailbroken, and it most certainly will, I see this thing being used for more evil than those quad core processors were meant for. I see homebrew, hacks, and exploits aplenty as people push the boundaries that Sony themselves put in place, just because they can. I don’t see this being an NGP. I see it being a PSP2, being hacked, exploited, and ultimately used for the opposite reason Sony released it in the first place, just like the last one. The worst part is, there is legroom to carve out a unique portable experience yet. I just have a feeling it won't happen due to this endless chasing of a technological peak on their end.

It's frustrating to watch. Sony seems so out of touch with what its customers want at this point that it’s maddening. We just keep taking each new thing they throw at us, each time becoming more alienated in the process. Cool gadgets though?



I just hope I’m wrong in the end.
Continue Reading..

Screw off. LittleBigGyp.

So….let me get this straight. You have a nice little game prepared for your peripheral of questionable success, and to you guys, the logical thing to do is to make it Playstation Plus exclusive? A subscription fee for a “Free” download that could’ve easily been a $5-10 downloadable release?

WHO has Playstation Plus? Last I checked, it was a resounding failure on par with Home’s limited audience, and with questionable features like “early demos”, or “PS store discounts”, what did you expect? It was a attempt to stab at what made Xbox Live successful without actually knowing what made it successful (see PSPgo and the iPod Touch), and since they decided to keep giving away the online multiplayer for free, it further invalidated the $50 a year fee to all but the most dedicated of Sony blind followers.

If I can thank Sony for anything, it was giving me a choice NOT to have it, because it really is a worthless service. Pay…to get discounts? Some of which are usually only a savings of 2-3 dollars? Early demo access? I can wait a week. Free PSone download of THEIR choice every month? I’ll pass. Automatic game/system updates? How is that even a PAID feature?

By offering the entire infrastructure with negligible contrast between paid and free, they shot themselves in the foot right out of the gate. Also, their constant parroting that it’s “free” to play and communicate online with your friends (potshots at XBL) locked them into this position. They couldn’t have started charging for it even if they wanted to. It’d be a harsh betrayal of their fanbase. Kind of like the Qore subscribers that were screwed over because of PS Plus’ similar feature set.

Same thing going on here.

I understand that they REALLY need subscribers for the fledgling premiums. But this is stupid. They did it with High Velocity Bowling around launch time to a resounding backlash, and here we are again. Instead of making it available to the millions of PS3 owners, ESPECIALLY the ones who have bought the Move, they’ve bottlenecked the userbase to what I’m sure is a few hundred thousand (if that). The lot of early adopters who bought the Move this year and are still really wondering what the HELL to do with it are screwed as well. Good job.

The worst part of it all is, really. I like the Move. I think it’s forward thinking technology in the vein of the Wii remote’s physical input, and is in some ways better. I also like the way it’s marketed as a controller I can play real games with despite the inevitable presence of shovelware. That’s definitely something that appeals to me. But I don’t think Sony wants me to like the Move. Not like this they don’t.

I don’t want an EyePet. I want a Kinectimal. Echochrome II isn’t out until the end of the month. Despite the extra legroom the motion sensor gives me, I literally played the hell out of RE5 on my 360 and Heavy Rain is only worth going through another time BECAUSE of the Move integration. Sports Champions is tangibly pleasing but aesthetically dry, and really, The Shoot is the only game keeping me from shoving the controller up my nose in a WoW cancellation style freakout. They’ve got me shooting, ducking, spinning and all sorts of tomfoolery, making it easily one of the most tactile lightgun games I’ve ever played.

I can still remember the look on my face yesterday morning:

“A LittleBigPlanet Move game?! I didn’t see this coming..”

*clicks*

(Playstation Plus Exclusive)

“Surely they mean the ‘free’ price tag…eh, whatever. Good for them.
(Nope. No “Buy” link to be found.)

*incredulous stare*



Good job, guys. Minimum $17.99 just to play?

I’m good.

Continue Reading..

Shut up long enough to make a good game.

My god, they've been running a smear campaign on the power of the 360 since the damn hardware was revealed (Xbox 1.5, anyone?), and 5 years later, against all odds (measured by Sony), the system has been able to hold its own, in many ways matching and even besting the PS3's lineup technically as well as artistically.

So why am I still reading lines like this?

"Well, yeah. Yeah. I mean we're still a way away from launching so we're probably going to throw more stuff on that Cell processor. So yeah... Do you think [Xbox 360] could pull off Uncharted 2? Everyone's comparing us to Uncharted 2, so if you think you can make Uncharted 2 on Xbox then OK maybe you can make Infamous 2 on Xbox."

--Darren Bridges, Sucker Punch

Nevermind the fact that inFamous wasn't a technical marvel to begin with and its sequel is really less than groundbreaking in the visuals department (compared to Uncharted 2? WHERE?)It's always the same thing. Somehow, some way, if you're making a PS3 game, it's absolutely imperative that you annouce it isn't possible on any other console at some point during its development.

I realize that mudslinging is a favorable part of any console makers strategy, but when does it stop being clever and start being shortsighted? I keep seeing this trend exemplified in first-party titles like Ratchet and Clank, God of War 3, Killzone 2, and most infamously in Assassin's Creed 5 years ago, with an all-too-catty Sony ready to declare that the game's advanced animation system and physics were too detailed for the 360 to handle. (The game later released with negligible differences.)



Anyone ever hear of Nintendo constantly defending the Wii's honor, touting its motion control like some kind of safety net? How about Microsoft? As far as I can see, they or Nintendo don't care, because at the end of the day, people either buy the games or they don't. Sony devs however, feel it necessary to prove themselves through statements and graphical or hardware specs instead of gameplay. Does PS3 have more raw power? Yes. However, all the potential in the world means nothing if no one's tapping it, and so far very few developers outside of their vaunted first party on PS3 has used it in a unique or compelling way.

Haven't I seen this before?
What WOULD be appreciated, are statements rooted in fact about actual limitations, and how they relate to a game's direction. Not some mini seminar about the PS3's SPUs, or the Cell processor, or the blu-ray disc, and how it adds up to some unassailable miracle formula. There are a ton of factors that go into a game's development on console, from how their CPUs delegate tasks, to their GPU and the amount of redering techniques possible (zzz), but at the end of the day, they are JUST SPECS. They aren't physical, or legal reasons a game can't be multiplatform, they are numbers, and numbers were invalidated the minute consoles became so complex we couldn't define them by bits anymore.


64-bit game. Seriously.

It's really unfortunate, but Media Molecule (LittleBigPlanet) has been the only exclusive Sony developer I can think of to buck the trend, citing that the game was not possible on another console not because of a technical reason, but because of the unique way they were using the PS3 hardware in regards to user-file sharing and other factors unrealated to the RELATIVE power of the console. In fact, they said it was very possible on a rival platform, given enough time and leniency of Microsoft's policies.

And that game is gorgeous.



I can't put my finger on it, but I think the thing that irks me the most is the fact that these baseless comments are being made from a limited, marketing perspective. If you are only using one kind of hardware, how exactly can you be absolutely sure that it's impossible anywhere else? It's cowardly, prattling on about how your game can't be done elsewhere when you have no plans to attempt bringing it aywhere else. It's akin to zealots declaring their religion the one true following, while turning a blind eye to even the slightest opposing idea. Any developer using both systems has stated that the systems both have their strengths and weaknesses (NOT that one is explicitly 'better'), and when a like-for-like game releases on both consoles and looks simply amazing, it only makes those who spoke up seem less talented than they actually are.


Post-Castlevania, No one has any excuse now.

"You'll look at it and see that there's no way we could have done this game on 360."

Really, Sucker Punch. I know Sony needs to market their first party titles and this tradition is a huge part of it. I know there's a need get the fanboy fires raging and the tin hats in play, but I really don't think I'm alone in saying that maybe they should focus less on how their game compares to Uncharted 2 (read:it doesn't), and more on just making a good enough game to be noticed in the glut of highly anticipated releases next year. Because I must say. inFamous barely held itself up when being relentlessly (unfairly?) compared to Prototype, and that was a new IP. In fact, I'd go as far to say that if it weren't for Prototype, it probably wouldn't have sold that well, relative quality be damned.

Many things in 2011 are sequels and reimaginings of some -very- strong titles.

With that in mind, and the prerequisite PS3 dev braggart quota filed, I hope it's back to work.
Continue Reading..

Annoyances of the Mainstream - Visual-Tactual Discrepancy

And thus, the maligning of the mainstream continues, with this passage focused on the sticking point of sticking point: Graphics. More and more, I'm seeing games come under fire for their visual prowess, but is it warranted? I don't think so. I've changed much from my youth, where visuals simply didn't matter as much as the game at hand (ah, to be young), but this was largely due in part to the fact that games didn't HAVE technical issues of this sort when I was younger. Take slowdown for example. Every game had a perfect framerate, and if it didn't, you were simply in awe of just how much a developer was willing to push the console in order to get the look achieved on screen. These days, a game slows down, and it's something to be ridiculed--how could a developer let such a thing come to pass? What was once regarded as the pinnacle of technical merit (pushing a console over the edge) now has the worst reputation imaginable.



So the times have changed, and what was once revered is now bottom of the barrel, as is the nature of technology. But why? The building blocks of what consititute good visuals hasn't changed. While we're leagues away from the 2D ideals I just described (in 3D, slowdown is bad, bad, bad), the difference between a game looking bad and simply good or adequate really hasn't changed. I think our way of looking at them has, and once more reviewers, I'm looking at you. Yes, I realize that everything's in HD and that saying "This game looks great!" may start to feel a bit redundant for the 'Graphics' portion of a review, but things are getting off track. So in trying not to get lost in a redundant sea of praise, I think a bit too much information is getting out there as an awkward placeholder and it's warping people's perception of what makes something look good.


(someone actually told me this looked bad)

I'm still of the belief that if a game can pull off its visual accent well, then it is a game of good graphical quality. But these reviewers have morphed somewhat into tech analysts, dissecting everything from techniques used to even resolution as a sticking point. They'll go on and on like a DigitalFoundry article, throwing around programming jargon until you have less of an assessment about a game's visuals and more of a spec sheet. This misdirection of information goes straight past their reader's brains, and into their subconscious. Then, they too prattle endlessly about effects like depth-of-field and ambient occlusion. They start throwing around engine names like Unreal Engine 3 or Frostbite without an understanding of what they're capable of. Some cases will start complaining about gaffes they don't understand like LoD (level of detail) glitches and v-sync tearing.


(a split second of this is not going to condemn this game to the depths of graphical hell)

Suddenly, it's become less about the combination of these techniques and how they contribute to making a great game, but more about how many there are. I explained to a friend absolutely hailing the new Kingdom Hearts that I felt FFVII: Crisis Core was a better looking game than Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep because it has a more detailed look, as opposed to a starkly cartoonish one.



Now, I am not saying Kingdom Hearts looks bad. I am also not implying that it looks worse than Crisis Core. But to see his ears initially flare up spoke volumes. I was immediately leveled volleys about screen effects, animation, AI, textures, and it would've been more had I not stopped him and clarified: Where CC went for a more detailed, industrial, psuedorealistic look (requiring a multitude of detailed textures indoor or out), Kingdom Hearts by design doesn't carry a ton of detail, sitting squarely between Disney-style cel animation and a radical anime aesthetic. "It isn't so much the look, but the intent. KH simply looks sharp, CC looks more detailed", I said.

Then his eyes glazed over.

Was he really up for a graphics debate (given all the bullet points he threw at me), or was he likely following the spirit of a glowing review? My bet goes to the latter.

Call me crazy, but I thought we solved the graphics problem a while ago. Somehow though, the debate rages on, and really, the player loses as a result. Especially if we're going to get caught up in these faux-technical debates, when really I've seen plenty of games with a wide stamp of graphical trickery still fail to impress compared to games working with much less, practically invalidating these claims.


(Silent Hill 3 STILL looks better than any game in the series released after it. A PS2 game. From 2004.)

Generally these days, every game looks technically great. So with every game this generation sporting at least a 720p resolution and textures to boot, it should all boil down not to technical prowess, but art direction. It isn't a resolution, or an eye-light-shadow effect, its how a dev can effectively combine these things to make something that looks virtually incredible. The Wii is already proving in spades that you don't need advanced technical prowess for great visuals, and I'll be damned if someone else walks up to me and tells me Super Mario Galaxy 2 doesn't look amazing:



or that Conker: Live and Reloaded looks aything less than fantastic 5 years after its release on the original Xbox,



Or even that because Grand Theft Auto 4 doesn't look like God of War 3 or Uncharted 2, that it doesn't have the capacity to be just as breathtaking.



Surely you catch my drift by now, and it's exactly my point. The one thing that should have anyone comparing the visuals of one game to another is how well the style is pulled off, because obviously, a technical gap isn't the only obstacle a game has to overcome on its way to our eyes. More and more I'm seeing other games unfairly come under fire for not matching up with the best of the best out there, and for such bad reasons? It's almost like we forget what Namco, Konami, and Square are able to pull off on the PSP, against all odds.



Moving forward, and especially as games begin to blend into each other due to varying degrees of realism, you may want to leave the analysis behind, and focus simply on how great a piece of software looks as opposed to whatever insane machine is powering it. A game with fantastic graphical tricks but no art direction to support it is about as useless as a game with simply bad visuals, and if the critics on top don't stop copening their craws with terminology beyond the average consumer, we'll end up with a whole slew of people refusing to enjoy the finer points of our medium for what they are--that is, absorbing and enjoying our expansive vistas instead of picking apart their texture seams.



..and really, when it comes down to it, no amount of advanced 3D can produce something this intricately detailed and hilarious:



...if you have proof of otherwise, I'd love to see it sometime.

Continue Reading..

Captain Obvious RETURNS.

ONE MO' GAIN!

(Mouseover for full effect!)

Again, I'm just saying..

Continue Reading..

...Goddammit, Ninja Theory.

Ninja Theory + DMC = (Stephen)Dorff May Cry?

Devil May C(ash in on current vampire marketing trends)?

No thanks. No really. I can appreciate the refusal to continue where DMC2 left off, but dammit, we can't keep making him younger. While I have no problem with yet another prequel, I have an issue with the way he looks. We went from the handsome boyish charm of DMC3 Dante, to this travesty? Brandon Lee is probably turning in his grave due to misappropriation of his likeness.

Seriously. He looks like something a Crow direct-to-DVD movie shat out while squatting in front of Hot Topic.



I'm looking at these screens, and I'm wondering what the hell happened here. As a fan of DMC since the beginning, I'm well aware that at the conclusion of DMC 3, Dante was around 19 years old. Just HOW much younger is he supposed to be here, and...why in the hell is his hair black?

I don't trust Ninja Theory. Enslaved looks really nice and everything, but after a track record that is literally limited to Kung Fu Chaos on the original Xbox, and Heavenly Sword, sue me if I'm just a LITTLE skeptical about the direction they're taking DMC in with this alleged reboot. This is even with the promise that this new title will, in their words: "retain the series’ signature mix of sword and gunplay but add additional weapons, all new powers and a revitalised gameplay system as players encounter the game’s devilish mix of enemies and navigate the rich, interactive environment."

...Hopefully that "revitalised" gameplay system includes a jump button.

As far as I could tell, DMC didn't NEED rebooting, and the fact that Dante looks like he's as goth as his surroundings is unsettling. As an angsty rebellious action hero with platinum white hair, he was just cheesy enough to be self-depreciating and cool at the same time. Here, I just don't know what to think. What was wrong with continuing from where 4 left off, in a comfortable place between 1 and 2? I for one enjoyed (relatively) mature Dante, and wanted to know more about Nero, including his connection to the Sparda family. Now, like the Prince of Persia reboot that Ubisoft gave up on, it looks like I'll never see that new thread fleshed out.

Lost in a sea of marketing and..oh hell I don't know.

Fuck this game so far. They'd better flip this faster than Cole's unnecessary re-redesign in inFamous 2, or I can't see myself playing this at any point in the future.



GOD. Why the hell does he look like Edward Cullen?

Yep. Just as I can't unsee it, neither will you. Crab in a bucket, we're all goin' down.

Source: Destructoid [TGS: New Devil May Cry starring a younger Dante revealed]

Continue Reading..