In a few weeks time I'll be boarding a plane to Los Angeles to attend that mythical event known as the Electronic Entertainment Expo.
Here I am sitting at my office desk like that massive event isn't even going to happen. I'm trying to keep that thought at the back of my mind...the sheer massive epic event that I'm about to undertake...wow, I never thought in my wildest dreams that I'd even go to something as spectacular as E3 itself.
E3 is mythical to every gamer. We read about it in magazines (before, when we still bought them!), we watch videos from E3 after the fact...but has it ever crossed your mind to actually go? I didn't cross my mind. At all. I do watch it on the websites and all the news sites and I really enjoy that time of year when the game companies start talking about their newest stuff. But the idea of actually going there....sounds crazy!
But here I am, two weeks away....man, I don't know what to think. Part of me is a bit freaked out about it...it's a foreign country after all. I've been to the United States before but that was a long time ago, and I had my parents worry about the details of that. Now, it's just me....so yeah, I'm a bit nervous, scared, anxious, the whole nine yards.
But when I got offered the chance to do this, would you have done the same...even if you aren't really the traveling type (I'm not). I actually prefer the safety of a familiar place. Despite all my complaints about Manila I 'like' it here insofar as I have a grasp of what to expect every day.
That's probably one big reason why I've never looked for a job abroad...I'm too afraid to step out of my comfort zone.
In a few hours this week will end, and then the last two weeks before E3 officially STARTS. I'm trying not to think about it too much. In the end, I picked the option to go because when else do you have two of the titan console makers release their systems at the same time?? If you had a chance to go, knowing what THIS E3 is going to be all about, you probably would go, too. I wouldn't want to look back and remember saying no to a chance like this. It's history in the making, and I want to see it.
E3 Countdown
Friday, May 24, 2013
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Xbox One: Microsoft Makes "No Official Support" For Us, Their Official Stance
I didn't wait up for the Xbox One conference like I did for Sony's. MS picked the most god-awful time for a 'worldwide' broadcast, going at 10AM Los Angeles time which made it impossible for me to wait for it in the middle of the night (I got a real life job and a baby to take care of, and that takes much more precedence than sitting up all night waiting for a game show....)
When I did wake up the following day, I checked on NEOGAF and this was the number one topic:
"XBOX ONE does not allow used games"
So even before I got a glimpse of the new console, I got the bad news FIRST. And it wasn't too thrilling.
While maybe it's too early to tell what will really happen, what I understand is, you can never trade in your games, and if you do, whoever gets your game has to pay FULL PRICE to even play it.
Also, your game needs some kind of 24-hour online authentication to ensure it works. This is for single player games too.
I do wonder, did Microsoft's bottom line get hit so much by piracy that they're doing this? My wife says its probably publishers that are pressuring them to do it.
Truth be told, it's very hard to sell a game that is just AVERAGE now. A 7/10 game is pretty hard to justify. But the reason for this is quite simple, too. These 7/10 games cost $60, and they're priced the same as good games.
With the economy in the toilet for the United States and everyone else, justifying that people spend $60 on console games, when there are FREE or 99c games available on their tablets or phones, is absurd. I think that's the real issue here. I'm surprised that more people don't bring that up.
The other day I saw Cliff Blezinski trotting around a picture of his Lamborghini which he probably paid for with his Gears of War money. Then I wonder to myself, maybe we are paying them too much for games? Films probably take as much money, if not more, to develop. But watching a movie has a lower price of admission than games do. Games are no longer that niche hobby that only one guy in the household actually cares about. Grandparents play games now. Every teenager has probably seen or tried a game. I think the original idea behind setting the price so high for video games was that it was so niche in the past. Try looking at old games, and try to imagine what your parents must have thought when you fired them up on your TV. Most of the time they were just blocky graphics and with throwaway gameplay concepts like 'shoot this red block here' or 'jump over this pit there'. Now, games are something else entirely. Some of them are better than cheap films or TV shows. So why do they have to be priced so high?
I always thought the high price in the past is because a few people buy them; a few people really understand how they work and would actually go through the trouble of playing them. So basically the price is high to compensate for the fact that not everybody would buy them.
But in our day and age, I think it's safe to say nearly everyone buys them. We're in a generation that knows who Mario is. It's not just some hobby for basement dwellers anymore.
So is there still such a huge risk to sell games at $60? Apple and Valve have proven otherwise with their inexpensive offerings. The console business has to do the same. It's the only way to justify draconian DRM security measures. Because at the end of the day, people just see these games as toys and nothing more. Their relative value to people's lives are just toys, just distractions. $60 is more than enough meals for a homeless guy; it's really a lot of money, and in today's technologically aware society, its relative value is really different than what it used to be in the 70s, 80s or 90s.
Everyone plays games now. Even guys like me in the Third World.
Last thing: you can't ask everyone to be always online with your console. Internet just can't be a requirement. What MS is asking is ridiculous. Networks still aren't perfect and I doubt they will be better in 10 years or more. That requires actually putting down lines, which takes time and involves a lot of politics. And not everyone can afford big fiber lines and what not.
I don't think MS can ask people to plunk down some ridiculous amount of money for a box they can't USE unless their Internet is also working properly. I'm even hearing talk about the Cloud and how it will influence in-game A.I.
Oh please.
Now you want to put LAG in our single player games?! Imagine your in-game enemies waiting to get instructions from the Cloud before they even start working properly.
That's insane.
MS should really put themselves in the shoes of their actual customers. When they test their hardware they shouldn't think of their yacht-owning bosses who have unlimited fiber access. They have to look at the common household, and I'm not even talking about us poor saps in the Third World. I do understand that even in major cities in the US not everyone has perfect internet. Not everyone can afford the best plans available. Sometimes all the money goes to that console already, or that tablet, or that phone....and to require people to pay MORE just to enjoy that expensive toy, is just crazy on Microsoft's part.
Microsoft, what the hell happened to you guys???
I just hope that Sony will be smarter than MS with their decisions for their console.
- Be considerate of who are buying your console. Not all of them are rich; whether they are Americans or Filipinos like me.
- Focus on what your console actually does. Even an expensive smartphone can't do everything perfectly. Same goes with game machines. They should do well with playing GAMES and everything else should just be a bonus.
- Look at the current business environment. $60 games should be a thing of the past. We can't do anything about the fact that people want games to be either FREE or 99 cents. Not that console games should be free or super cheap....but at least make them within reach of people's budgets. Only then can you justify draconian anti-piracy measures.
When I did wake up the following day, I checked on NEOGAF and this was the number one topic:
"XBOX ONE does not allow used games"
So even before I got a glimpse of the new console, I got the bad news FIRST. And it wasn't too thrilling.
While maybe it's too early to tell what will really happen, what I understand is, you can never trade in your games, and if you do, whoever gets your game has to pay FULL PRICE to even play it.
Also, your game needs some kind of 24-hour online authentication to ensure it works. This is for single player games too.
I do wonder, did Microsoft's bottom line get hit so much by piracy that they're doing this? My wife says its probably publishers that are pressuring them to do it.
Truth be told, it's very hard to sell a game that is just AVERAGE now. A 7/10 game is pretty hard to justify. But the reason for this is quite simple, too. These 7/10 games cost $60, and they're priced the same as good games.
With the economy in the toilet for the United States and everyone else, justifying that people spend $60 on console games, when there are FREE or 99c games available on their tablets or phones, is absurd. I think that's the real issue here. I'm surprised that more people don't bring that up.
The other day I saw Cliff Blezinski trotting around a picture of his Lamborghini which he probably paid for with his Gears of War money. Then I wonder to myself, maybe we are paying them too much for games? Films probably take as much money, if not more, to develop. But watching a movie has a lower price of admission than games do. Games are no longer that niche hobby that only one guy in the household actually cares about. Grandparents play games now. Every teenager has probably seen or tried a game. I think the original idea behind setting the price so high for video games was that it was so niche in the past. Try looking at old games, and try to imagine what your parents must have thought when you fired them up on your TV. Most of the time they were just blocky graphics and with throwaway gameplay concepts like 'shoot this red block here' or 'jump over this pit there'. Now, games are something else entirely. Some of them are better than cheap films or TV shows. So why do they have to be priced so high?
I always thought the high price in the past is because a few people buy them; a few people really understand how they work and would actually go through the trouble of playing them. So basically the price is high to compensate for the fact that not everybody would buy them.
But in our day and age, I think it's safe to say nearly everyone buys them. We're in a generation that knows who Mario is. It's not just some hobby for basement dwellers anymore.
So is there still such a huge risk to sell games at $60? Apple and Valve have proven otherwise with their inexpensive offerings. The console business has to do the same. It's the only way to justify draconian DRM security measures. Because at the end of the day, people just see these games as toys and nothing more. Their relative value to people's lives are just toys, just distractions. $60 is more than enough meals for a homeless guy; it's really a lot of money, and in today's technologically aware society, its relative value is really different than what it used to be in the 70s, 80s or 90s.
Everyone plays games now. Even guys like me in the Third World.
Last thing: you can't ask everyone to be always online with your console. Internet just can't be a requirement. What MS is asking is ridiculous. Networks still aren't perfect and I doubt they will be better in 10 years or more. That requires actually putting down lines, which takes time and involves a lot of politics. And not everyone can afford big fiber lines and what not.
I don't think MS can ask people to plunk down some ridiculous amount of money for a box they can't USE unless their Internet is also working properly. I'm even hearing talk about the Cloud and how it will influence in-game A.I.
Oh please.
Now you want to put LAG in our single player games?! Imagine your in-game enemies waiting to get instructions from the Cloud before they even start working properly.
That's insane.
MS should really put themselves in the shoes of their actual customers. When they test their hardware they shouldn't think of their yacht-owning bosses who have unlimited fiber access. They have to look at the common household, and I'm not even talking about us poor saps in the Third World. I do understand that even in major cities in the US not everyone has perfect internet. Not everyone can afford the best plans available. Sometimes all the money goes to that console already, or that tablet, or that phone....and to require people to pay MORE just to enjoy that expensive toy, is just crazy on Microsoft's part.
Microsoft, what the hell happened to you guys???
I just hope that Sony will be smarter than MS with their decisions for their console.
- Be considerate of who are buying your console. Not all of them are rich; whether they are Americans or Filipinos like me.
- Focus on what your console actually does. Even an expensive smartphone can't do everything perfectly. Same goes with game machines. They should do well with playing GAMES and everything else should just be a bonus.
- Look at the current business environment. $60 games should be a thing of the past. We can't do anything about the fact that people want games to be either FREE or 99 cents. Not that console games should be free or super cheap....but at least make them within reach of people's budgets. Only then can you justify draconian anti-piracy measures.
Tuesday, May 14, 2013
I'm Going To E3!
I started this blog just for fun, because blogging was cool when it was first introduced.
Never thought that a few years later I'd get the opportunity to go to E3! And it has to happen THIS YEAR, which is probably the craziest ever in gaming, with two major consoles launching at the same time! This year, which might be the last hurrah of game systems, what with the challenges from tablets and smartphones looming on the horizon.
This is the year that E3 will actually mean something. It could be the downfall of giants, or it could usher in the future of games.
It's insane.
I can't believe it, I'm going to E3!
Never thought that a few years later I'd get the opportunity to go to E3! And it has to happen THIS YEAR, which is probably the craziest ever in gaming, with two major consoles launching at the same time! This year, which might be the last hurrah of game systems, what with the challenges from tablets and smartphones looming on the horizon.
This is the year that E3 will actually mean something. It could be the downfall of giants, or it could usher in the future of games.
It's insane.
I can't believe it, I'm going to E3!
Friday, April 05, 2013
Bioshock Infinite - Review
I really liked the first Bioshock game.
http://thirdworldgamer.blogspot.com/2007/10/bioshock-review.html
So when I heard they were making another one, I really looked forward to it. All the previews and screenshots revealed what could possibly be the next great adventure game.
What we got, instead, was a strange mix of Call of Duty, Gears of War, God of War, Lost and Fringe.
The game starts with a misty aura of wonder. It begins much like the first Bioshock, and if you played that game, the introduction to Bioshock Infinite will definitely give you some goosebumps. I guess it's the anticipation of some great adventure that's about to happen. The thing is, I waited 20 whole hours for an adventure, and only got it in the LAST 10 MINUTES.
When the first big fight in the game breaks out, it's a pretty jarring experience. You get introduced to this really interesting place, which is pretty much Rapture from Bioshock 1, but with civilians, and it's high above the clouds, too. You start to wonder if the entire city will be as dynamic as it is at the start of the game, but it doesn't stay that way for long. When the shooting starts, the entire city becomes as bare as every other first-person shooter game, and the only interaction you'll ever do with Columbia's citizens is by the barrel of a gun.
I often wondered, why is the violence bothering me so much in this game?
Call of Duty, Gears, God of War...yeah I've played those games, and I think some of them are pretty good. Well, except God of War, the story wasn't so great in that game....but I digress. Violence in games is nothing new to me.
But violence in Bioshock Infinite is something else entirely. You have enemies literally screaming at you every ten seconds, blood spurting out of every orifice, it's kind of insane. It just contrasts too much with the elegant beauty that you start with, and when you get to the ending, it just feels weird.
The ending is 'classy'. I wish more endings for games would be done like it. But does it justify 60$ (or in our case, Pinoy gamers, 2,200+ pesos?) The rest of the game just doesn't do it.
The shooting model in the game feels a bit poor. Something about the way you lock on to targets; I found it difficult to hit enemies here, or find cover. It just didn't click as well as other military shooters.
And in later sections the framerate issues get ridiculous on the Xbox 360 version.
The game also seems to rely on a lot of flashing white lights and screen shake to mess up your aim. It's pretty irritating. I don't know if they just crammed so many enemies in there, or they just wanted to make the game artificially hard.
Normally I start out game reviews with a gist of the story. Well, truth be told, when you finally finish the game, Bioshock Infinite doesn't really have much of a story throughout 3/4ths of it. The story only really happens when you get to the end. It doesn't have the immediacy of the first game in terms of feeling interesting or compelling.
I wonder if it was my expectations that made me so disappointed with this game. It's probably a big factor. But if a game of this quality was released without some sort of franchise history, everyone would be talking about all these glaring flaws in the game:
- Elizabeth just gives you potions and items and money. I wish she would pick up a gun and start shooting at something.
- The game has a horrible time telling you where to go. Maybe they wanted it to be less linear but, seriously, this game is pure linearity. There isn't much to exploration, it doesn't add to the game other than let you find a few more audio recordings. But with the audio recordings I found, they don't add too much to the story anyway. It doesn't help that the waypoint marker gets lost on the way to the objective too. I've had that happen once in an area that had a skyrail, the marker kept pointing at the skyrail even if I was NOT supposed to get on it!
- The game has a lot of glitchy scripted areas. There was one where you couldn't leave at all until you kill a certain enemy. It so happened in my game that that enemy was on the skyrail moving around over and over again. I took a good 30 minutes finding the guy before eventually killing him and moving on. This type of problem did not just happen once.
- The game has this horrible, HORRIBLE boss battle in the middle where you fight a creature several times, and there is absolutely nothing new introduced with every encounter.
- Later in the game, it takes forever to kill enemies. Yes I know you can upgrade your weapons, and I did do that....but I still found it quite hard to kill them even after several upgrades.
And I found it pretty bizarre that your character can use all of these spells, but the citizens of Columbia generally couldn't.use them the same way you did. It was strange because at the start of the game you have all these ads advertising them as daily 'products' they can easily buy from anywhere. So why was it that most of the citizenry just fought me with guns? Couldn't they easily just get an of the 'vigors' and use it against me? It's just a strange inconsistency with both gameplay and the storyline.
When I got to the end of the game, I will say I perked up quite a bit because there was FINALLY more story than usual. Most of the game is literally hordes of enemies shooting you from all directions, and screaming at you too. By the end, there's just this peaceful approach to it all, which felt really fresh. And I ended up thinking, why isn't the ENTIRE game like this?
And there lies the problem with this game. You've got the backdrop for an amazing adventure game, with interesting characters and potentially a good storyline....then you give everyone a bazooka. It's just this really strange mix of design and genre. Granted the first game was a shooter, too, but I don't remember it being this chaotic
I really, really wanted to like Bioshock Infinite. Hey, a 90+% metacritic...it must be ME who is the crazy one, right? If you don't believe me, borrow it from a friend first. Maybe you'll like it more than I did. I just thought this game never captured the spirit of the original.
Final point, and this is spoiler ridden, so stop reading if you don't want to be spoiled:
START SPOILER START SPOILER START SPOILER START SPOILER
The best part of the game is when Elizabeth teleports you to Rapture. At that moment, I was pretty much blown away. Then they decided to scrap that and make it basically fan service.
END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER
Overall, Bioshock Infinite had so much going for it. The world, the art design, the characters....these elements in the game were interesting on their own. But when they mixed them together into the context of a game, they forgot to make the game itself fun. They forgot that motivating the player to keep going with a good storyline throughout the game (and not just the end) can prevent it from feeling monotonous. Perhaps the developers, maybe even Ken Levine himself, didn't truly understand why the first game was so good.
http://thirdworldgamer.blogspot.com/2007/10/bioshock-review.html
So when I heard they were making another one, I really looked forward to it. All the previews and screenshots revealed what could possibly be the next great adventure game.
What we got, instead, was a strange mix of Call of Duty, Gears of War, God of War, Lost and Fringe.
The game starts with a misty aura of wonder. It begins much like the first Bioshock, and if you played that game, the introduction to Bioshock Infinite will definitely give you some goosebumps. I guess it's the anticipation of some great adventure that's about to happen. The thing is, I waited 20 whole hours for an adventure, and only got it in the LAST 10 MINUTES.
When the first big fight in the game breaks out, it's a pretty jarring experience. You get introduced to this really interesting place, which is pretty much Rapture from Bioshock 1, but with civilians, and it's high above the clouds, too. You start to wonder if the entire city will be as dynamic as it is at the start of the game, but it doesn't stay that way for long. When the shooting starts, the entire city becomes as bare as every other first-person shooter game, and the only interaction you'll ever do with Columbia's citizens is by the barrel of a gun.
I often wondered, why is the violence bothering me so much in this game?
Call of Duty, Gears, God of War...yeah I've played those games, and I think some of them are pretty good. Well, except God of War, the story wasn't so great in that game....but I digress. Violence in games is nothing new to me.
But violence in Bioshock Infinite is something else entirely. You have enemies literally screaming at you every ten seconds, blood spurting out of every orifice, it's kind of insane. It just contrasts too much with the elegant beauty that you start with, and when you get to the ending, it just feels weird.
The ending is 'classy'. I wish more endings for games would be done like it. But does it justify 60$ (or in our case, Pinoy gamers, 2,200+ pesos?) The rest of the game just doesn't do it.
The shooting model in the game feels a bit poor. Something about the way you lock on to targets; I found it difficult to hit enemies here, or find cover. It just didn't click as well as other military shooters.
And in later sections the framerate issues get ridiculous on the Xbox 360 version.
The game also seems to rely on a lot of flashing white lights and screen shake to mess up your aim. It's pretty irritating. I don't know if they just crammed so many enemies in there, or they just wanted to make the game artificially hard.
Normally I start out game reviews with a gist of the story. Well, truth be told, when you finally finish the game, Bioshock Infinite doesn't really have much of a story throughout 3/4ths of it. The story only really happens when you get to the end. It doesn't have the immediacy of the first game in terms of feeling interesting or compelling.
I wonder if it was my expectations that made me so disappointed with this game. It's probably a big factor. But if a game of this quality was released without some sort of franchise history, everyone would be talking about all these glaring flaws in the game:
- Elizabeth just gives you potions and items and money. I wish she would pick up a gun and start shooting at something.
- The game has a horrible time telling you where to go. Maybe they wanted it to be less linear but, seriously, this game is pure linearity. There isn't much to exploration, it doesn't add to the game other than let you find a few more audio recordings. But with the audio recordings I found, they don't add too much to the story anyway. It doesn't help that the waypoint marker gets lost on the way to the objective too. I've had that happen once in an area that had a skyrail, the marker kept pointing at the skyrail even if I was NOT supposed to get on it!
- The game has a lot of glitchy scripted areas. There was one where you couldn't leave at all until you kill a certain enemy. It so happened in my game that that enemy was on the skyrail moving around over and over again. I took a good 30 minutes finding the guy before eventually killing him and moving on. This type of problem did not just happen once.
- The game has this horrible, HORRIBLE boss battle in the middle where you fight a creature several times, and there is absolutely nothing new introduced with every encounter.
- Later in the game, it takes forever to kill enemies. Yes I know you can upgrade your weapons, and I did do that....but I still found it quite hard to kill them even after several upgrades.
And I found it pretty bizarre that your character can use all of these spells, but the citizens of Columbia generally couldn't.use them the same way you did. It was strange because at the start of the game you have all these ads advertising them as daily 'products' they can easily buy from anywhere. So why was it that most of the citizenry just fought me with guns? Couldn't they easily just get an of the 'vigors' and use it against me? It's just a strange inconsistency with both gameplay and the storyline.
When I got to the end of the game, I will say I perked up quite a bit because there was FINALLY more story than usual. Most of the game is literally hordes of enemies shooting you from all directions, and screaming at you too. By the end, there's just this peaceful approach to it all, which felt really fresh. And I ended up thinking, why isn't the ENTIRE game like this?
And there lies the problem with this game. You've got the backdrop for an amazing adventure game, with interesting characters and potentially a good storyline....then you give everyone a bazooka. It's just this really strange mix of design and genre. Granted the first game was a shooter, too, but I don't remember it being this chaotic
I really, really wanted to like Bioshock Infinite. Hey, a 90+% metacritic...it must be ME who is the crazy one, right? If you don't believe me, borrow it from a friend first. Maybe you'll like it more than I did. I just thought this game never captured the spirit of the original.
Final point, and this is spoiler ridden, so stop reading if you don't want to be spoiled:
START SPOILER START SPOILER START SPOILER START SPOILER
The best part of the game is when Elizabeth teleports you to Rapture. At that moment, I was pretty much blown away. Then they decided to scrap that and make it basically fan service.
END SPOILER END SPOILER END SPOILER
Overall, Bioshock Infinite had so much going for it. The world, the art design, the characters....these elements in the game were interesting on their own. But when they mixed them together into the context of a game, they forgot to make the game itself fun. They forgot that motivating the player to keep going with a good storyline throughout the game (and not just the end) can prevent it from feeling monotonous. Perhaps the developers, maybe even Ken Levine himself, didn't truly understand why the first game was so good.
Thursday, April 04, 2013
Bioshock Infinite: Game of the Year? Are you sure?
I think I'm at the halfway mark. The whole time I'm waiting for "that
moment" when this game will click, or when it will make me realize, hey,
this is actually good.
That moment hasn't really happened yet.
So yeah, I'm just playing this to get to the ending everyone's been raving about. But I don't know if I'm experiencing a hell of a lot of build up towards something, or simply experiencing a whole lot of nothing in this game.
Elizabeth? Well, she's good for giving me money and healing...and that's about it. Uh, I thought there was supposed to be some sort of OMG INCREDIBLE tech under the hood of this A.I., but I'm not seeing it at all. She never gets stuck. Sure, that's because she teleports all over the place anyway. I don't mind that. But I'm still waiting for her to do *something* I haven't seen other characters in other games do.
If anything, this game DESPERATELY needs cutscenes. It's focusing so much on emergent gameplay that it feels like nothing is happening half the time. Go here, shoot those goons. Rinse. Repeat. I got nothing against shooters but this game is just really a shooter from 1999 (literally, like the free bonus mode you can unlock). It just has this 'I am an old game' feel to it.
I don't know. Bioshock had something special. I think it was the mystery behind everything. For this game, if there is a mystery well, it doesn't feel obvious yet. And whatever weirdness is going on like that whole teleporting through three worlds nonsense doesn't feel that "compelling" (Everyone's favorite word in the gaming industry...)
I'm at Emporia now. Still waiting if there's going to be a "Will You Kindly" kind of moment. If it didn't have that expectation as a crutch, would this be a good game? Actually, i still don't think so. It's a room to room shooter which gives you an overacting assistant. Tomb Raider and DmC were far more entertaining, at least as far as 2013 releases go.
One last thing. I really hate it when Elizabeth says, "Oh, a lockpick!", then I spend the next fifteen minutes looking for the goddamned lockpick. Argh. It's those little things, did all the reviewers miss these bugs or is Rockstar really good at sending strippers to their houses? I'm getting the same feeling I got when I fired up Red Dead Redemption and expected the greatest game of all time...only to be faced with lots of brown, boring deserts and dull NPCs.
That moment hasn't really happened yet.
So yeah, I'm just playing this to get to the ending everyone's been raving about. But I don't know if I'm experiencing a hell of a lot of build up towards something, or simply experiencing a whole lot of nothing in this game.
Elizabeth? Well, she's good for giving me money and healing...and that's about it. Uh, I thought there was supposed to be some sort of OMG INCREDIBLE tech under the hood of this A.I., but I'm not seeing it at all. She never gets stuck. Sure, that's because she teleports all over the place anyway. I don't mind that. But I'm still waiting for her to do *something* I haven't seen other characters in other games do.
If anything, this game DESPERATELY needs cutscenes. It's focusing so much on emergent gameplay that it feels like nothing is happening half the time. Go here, shoot those goons. Rinse. Repeat. I got nothing against shooters but this game is just really a shooter from 1999 (literally, like the free bonus mode you can unlock). It just has this 'I am an old game' feel to it.
I don't know. Bioshock had something special. I think it was the mystery behind everything. For this game, if there is a mystery well, it doesn't feel obvious yet. And whatever weirdness is going on like that whole teleporting through three worlds nonsense doesn't feel that "compelling" (Everyone's favorite word in the gaming industry...)
I'm at Emporia now. Still waiting if there's going to be a "Will You Kindly" kind of moment. If it didn't have that expectation as a crutch, would this be a good game? Actually, i still don't think so. It's a room to room shooter which gives you an overacting assistant. Tomb Raider and DmC were far more entertaining, at least as far as 2013 releases go.
One last thing. I really hate it when Elizabeth says, "Oh, a lockpick!", then I spend the next fifteen minutes looking for the goddamned lockpick. Argh. It's those little things, did all the reviewers miss these bugs or is Rockstar really good at sending strippers to their houses? I'm getting the same feeling I got when I fired up Red Dead Redemption and expected the greatest game of all time...only to be faced with lots of brown, boring deserts and dull NPCs.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
It's The Controls, Stupid
In my humble opinion, Sony did an average to good job with their Playstation 4 press conference today. I was impressed with some things that they featured, while there were also things that felt more of the same. But I didn't think they did a terrible job. I do believe they may be saving most of their information for E3 2013. A lot of what they showed were games and tech demos, but notably the console itself was not present at the event.
My wife and I were talking about this and for both of us it was a pretty big deal that they didn't show the console. I was primarily impressed with the video recording/streaming features....a lot of people play online to an audience via UStream, and the new PS4 will make it a lot easier for them to do that. It was impressive on a technological level....to have it rendering a game with all the effects and at the same time have it record your gameplay. I have a feeling this will also be the way they will stream gameplay to the PSVita if you plan on playing remotely.
That said, I want to react to the mostly negative reaction from the mainstream press:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=48023207&postcount=1
I know that IOS and Android are all the rage right now (You could probably read that like that character on Zoolander---you know that guy that says 'Magnum is like, so hot right now!') . Games on those platforms are free, or cheap. You can play them anywhere. And there are arguments that they look "as good, if not better than their console counterparts".
Ok, yeah. I do like Angry Birds. I do like Temple Run 2. I like a lot of mobile games. But do I think they should replace console and PC game experiences? Hell, no.
What is going to happen if consoles die out because of bad press like this? Have you ever tried to spend an extended amount of time with a mobile game? Honestly, they do not feel like experiences you want to go through for more than five minutes. Is this the future of gaming?
That is just disastrous for the industry if you ask me. The video game industry has been through a crash before, precisely because the industry churned out a lot of games just like 'Angry Birds' in the past. Quick distractions that didn't have depth. I don't mean to bash mobile games in any way, I really don't. But to suggest that that's where we are all headed with gaming is really crazy. These people who make these statements aren't even gamers. They're the hipsters at parties who show off their new gadgets but don't even know how to root them. It would be sad if everyone took what they had to say at face value.
There is room in the world for casual games. But I pray that won't be the end of gaming as we know it now.
What would we do if massive role playing games like Final Fantasy were never to be made again because stockholders don't find it cool to support companies that make them?
Imagine a world with no Halo, or Killzone, or Super Mario Brothers---hell, even with Mario's simple gameplay there's a lot more imagination to its levels than the hundreds of levels in an Angry Birds title.
The sad thing is that these mainstream journalists don't know what they're talking about when they bash the consoles of today like the PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, the Wii U.....they don't represent the industry or the customers of that industry. They just follow what's the trend but they don't understand the market that is served by those systems. IOS and Android are surely changing the face of the tech world, and that can't be denied. But there is one thing they will never offer that bigger dedicated machines always will.
Controls.
It's the controls, stupid. Have they ever TRIED to play an FPS on a phone? The graphics may get better with each new phone model, but the gameplay on a phone is always next to impossible to enjoy on a deeper level. Everything is a swipe or a click; there's no meaningful way to control your in-game avatar, and that's why everything is on rails on mobile.
That won't ever change, if you look at the trend with mobile phones. Buttons aren't exactly 'hot right now'.
But the ones who play games on phones, I don't think you can expect them to even take games seriously.
There are people who take games seriously. Like me. And several million gamers around the world. We aren't going to settle for phones. And I don't think we will disappear anytime soon.
So my hope is that games on 'hardcore' systems will survive, and that companies like MS, Sony and Nintendo will press on. I think we all know something that the mainstream just can't understand. Controls on dedicated systems will always make them superior to mobile phones in terms of providing meaningful and immersive gameplay experiences.
My wife and I were talking about this and for both of us it was a pretty big deal that they didn't show the console. I was primarily impressed with the video recording/streaming features....a lot of people play online to an audience via UStream, and the new PS4 will make it a lot easier for them to do that. It was impressive on a technological level....to have it rendering a game with all the effects and at the same time have it record your gameplay. I have a feeling this will also be the way they will stream gameplay to the PSVita if you plan on playing remotely.
That said, I want to react to the mostly negative reaction from the mainstream press:
http://neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=48023207&postcount=1
I know that IOS and Android are all the rage right now (You could probably read that like that character on Zoolander---you know that guy that says 'Magnum is like, so hot right now!') . Games on those platforms are free, or cheap. You can play them anywhere. And there are arguments that they look "as good, if not better than their console counterparts".
Ok, yeah. I do like Angry Birds. I do like Temple Run 2. I like a lot of mobile games. But do I think they should replace console and PC game experiences? Hell, no.
What is going to happen if consoles die out because of bad press like this? Have you ever tried to spend an extended amount of time with a mobile game? Honestly, they do not feel like experiences you want to go through for more than five minutes. Is this the future of gaming?
That is just disastrous for the industry if you ask me. The video game industry has been through a crash before, precisely because the industry churned out a lot of games just like 'Angry Birds' in the past. Quick distractions that didn't have depth. I don't mean to bash mobile games in any way, I really don't. But to suggest that that's where we are all headed with gaming is really crazy. These people who make these statements aren't even gamers. They're the hipsters at parties who show off their new gadgets but don't even know how to root them. It would be sad if everyone took what they had to say at face value.
There is room in the world for casual games. But I pray that won't be the end of gaming as we know it now.
What would we do if massive role playing games like Final Fantasy were never to be made again because stockholders don't find it cool to support companies that make them?
Imagine a world with no Halo, or Killzone, or Super Mario Brothers---hell, even with Mario's simple gameplay there's a lot more imagination to its levels than the hundreds of levels in an Angry Birds title.
The sad thing is that these mainstream journalists don't know what they're talking about when they bash the consoles of today like the PS3, PS4, Xbox 360, the Wii U.....they don't represent the industry or the customers of that industry. They just follow what's the trend but they don't understand the market that is served by those systems. IOS and Android are surely changing the face of the tech world, and that can't be denied. But there is one thing they will never offer that bigger dedicated machines always will.
Controls.
It's the controls, stupid. Have they ever TRIED to play an FPS on a phone? The graphics may get better with each new phone model, but the gameplay on a phone is always next to impossible to enjoy on a deeper level. Everything is a swipe or a click; there's no meaningful way to control your in-game avatar, and that's why everything is on rails on mobile.
That won't ever change, if you look at the trend with mobile phones. Buttons aren't exactly 'hot right now'.
But the ones who play games on phones, I don't think you can expect them to even take games seriously.
There are people who take games seriously. Like me. And several million gamers around the world. We aren't going to settle for phones. And I don't think we will disappear anytime soon.
So my hope is that games on 'hardcore' systems will survive, and that companies like MS, Sony and Nintendo will press on. I think we all know something that the mainstream just can't understand. Controls on dedicated systems will always make them superior to mobile phones in terms of providing meaningful and immersive gameplay experiences.
Thursday, February 07, 2013
Rumor: Next Xbox Will Require Internet To Work
Just read this news today from Edge Online:
Simply put, are they crazy? We don’t even know what their
console looks like or what games it has, and this is the best news that they
can “leak” out there? It’s not as if they are not making any money from selling
games. This just reeks of greed.
Also, requiring people to be online all the time is
ridiculous. Do they at Redmond never lose connectivity every so often? It’s as
if Microsoft was Maria Antoinette saying, “Let them eat cake!” They seem so
oblivious to the lifestyle of gamers around the world. Players don’t always
have internet connection, and sometimes they don’t want to bother setting it
up. It’s way too optimistic to expect players to find a way to connect all the
time. It’s just anti-consumer. While they have the tech to do this sort of
draconian measure, it doesn’t mean that they should implement it.
Does this mean Sony is not going to do this? The original
story was that Sony ‘invented’ this technology. So if Microsoft is doing it,
Sony MIGHT be doing it later on as well. If Sony does NOT do this, they will be
the landslide victor of this upcoming ‘console war’ even before it has started.
If Microsoft was smart, and if they still want to do this really stupid
business practice, they would do this later in the next generation, maybe in
their second or third year. NOT at launch. This is just giving them bad press.
It’s not like they don’t have enough bad press already, with the failures of
Windows Phone and Windows 8. Microsoft needs a positive story this time. And
doing these business moves, while looking more profitable for their
stockholders, is not going to be good for them in the long run.
The only seeming beneficiary of all this is Nintendo. Lucky
for gamers, they haven’t discovered DRM yet,…well, sorta. But at least they
didn’t put this in their cartridges for 3DS or in their games for Wii or Wii U.
This might be the key weakness in both their opponents for them to stay
relevant. All they need now are solid games…since they released earlier than
Sony or MS, it gives them a small advantage.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
