Xmas Memories

I wanted to do a write up of some of the games that remind me of Xmas through their content or my connection to them. Feel free to jump in and add your own stories.

Burnout Paradise: This is the most recent entry to the list so I figured it's a good place to start. The game is an arcade racer set on an open world coastal city presumably during the summer or spring. Most of the other entries on this list have at least some winter themed areas. However, this entry is on the list purely based on the story. I got my PS3 for Xmas 2008, one of the best gifts I've ever gotten thanks to the incredible amount of fantastic games that have become available. When I got the console I had no games for it so this is the first one I bought. I said to myself, "I want a racing game" and saw only two prominent games on the PSN, the other was Gran Turismo 5 Prologue. I went with this title and it blew my mind how engaging and lengthy this game was. It's because of this game that most other games I've played since then have underwhelmed me, I set the standard very high from the get go.

Guitar Hero: This is another non-winter themed entry as it has no seasonal theme whatsoever. However, Guitar Hero exists in the memories of our minds as the Xmas toy for several years in a row much like how Elmo and Beanie Babies were previously and how Call of Duty has become since. Guitar Hero 2 was great. I played the shit out of it until I'd mastered all the songs. Then, my save file got corrupted so I did it all again. Guitar Hero 3 left me disappointed but I still played the shit out of it for months until I'd, again, mastered every song. I hadn't seriously played any other Guitar Hero since, save for GH: Metallica, and instead moved on to Rock Band which was superior but never stuck in people's minds the way GH did. In fact, it was Rock Band that was my first foray into the current generation of gaming consoles and became the catalyst by which I sought out to invest in an HD console.

Parasite Eve: For those who don't know, Parasite Eve was one of the exquisite PS1 games from Squaresoft's heyday. The potential franchise went criminally underrated and underutilized save for an unpopular Resident Evil knock off sequel and a 2nd shooter sequel on PSP over 10 years later. The original game would be sold short if it were compared to Resident Evil. It's an action horror RPG with outstanding graphics, an engaging combat system and a complex story based on evolutionary rebellion of mitochondria and one woman's fight to save the city from an uncombatable foe. Some of you biology fans will have serious science boners. I remember the game cinematics were popular at demo kiosks at the time and features some rather grotesque mutations involving mice. What's all this have to do with Xmas? Well, the story is set in New York City on Xmas Eve. There's no more festive, quintessential Xmas setting than NYC. For that this game makes the list.

Twisted Metal: This series was always one of my favorites. I found the story fascinating and the cast of characters piqued my teenage mind like nothing else. In fact, I was so interested in the series that for years I wrote a long going fan-fiction based on characters and elements from the series. This was back in the 90s before any of us had internet so none of this ever went beyond my little marble notebooks and good riddance. Twisted Metal has always been a fantasy demolition derby with machine guns, explosive rockets and demonic powers. Everyone from thugs, junkies, veterans, sociopaths, bounty hunters and otherworldly beings would bring their deathmobiles on Xmas Eve to the Twisted Metal tournament. For the victor they'd be granted any wish, for the losers death. The first game, my favorite, was set in Los Angeles. The sequels were set in locales across the world due to L.A. being totally destroyed in the first game. It's a loose premise looking on it now but back then it was just what my violent young mind was craving. Now, over 15 years later, I spend a lot of time playing games where I shoot guys in the face.  So, I guess it has come full circle.

Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask: This is another game on this list due to it being an Xmas gift but it happens to be my favorite Zelda title of them all. The game wasn't as epic as Ocarina of Time (but honestly, what game is?) but it was no less satisfying with darker, more cerebral tones. Your mortality is represented by a 72 hour clock ticking down to the end of the world, a clock which stands as a constant reminder that you could die at any minute. I imagine what the citizens in the Fallout universe must have felt as the sirens started to ring and no one knew what would come next. It couldn't be too far off from this. Also, I find most of the 'side quests' in other Zelda games to be either tedious or boring but Majora's Mask relied heavily on fun side quests for character progression and engaging with the world. See, the world you're saving is full of many people with their own stories and problems. Your job, nay, your duty is to meet and help all of these people and develop a vested interest in the survival of their world. It's a powerful game.

Kirby's Adventure: Last, but not least, we have the oldest title on the list and my very first Kirby title. I've played through almost every Kirby title since then and I still say this is the definitive Kirby game. There's no inherent winter themes in the game but it's so fantastical in the dream world setting that it could suit pretty much anyone's tastes at anytime. I think my oldest gaming related Xmas memory is playing this game and eating Cookie Crisp cereal, both of them being gifts that year. It seems the longer we live the harder it becomes to feel carefree and satisfied. I can remember few moments where I've felt that way since though maybe that's just the magic of childhood memory clouding my judgement. Still, it's a great game and I've always enjoyed it thoroughly no matter what time of the year.

The Video Game Awards: The Farcest of the Farces

Award shows are all a huge farce. We can argue for or against this premise ad nauseum but it won't stop the award shows from coming. I'll just say this much. How can you quantify the value of not just one piece of art but a year's collage of art pieces and then grade them for the sake of determining the best? Any reasonable person will say you can't. At the most you could acknowledge an important piece of work or dedicate a ceremony to an entity with a long, inspiring career. But, those who've mastered logic are nowhere to be seen when it comes to television so...here we are. For the sake of argument I'll just compare the VGAs to other award shows assuming the Emmys or Grammys aren't farces themselves.

About a week ago was the airing of the 2011 Video Game Awards. First off, the program was aired on Spike TV. If that's not a red flag against the quality and validity of this program then I don't know what is. If you don't know what I'm talking about then just consider that Spike TV is the home of programs such as TNA Wrestling.

It's quality, family programming at its finest. If that's a little too heavy for you then Spike TV has more, an infotainment show called Manswers.

Entertaining and informative! With such a classy network available it'd be stupid not to host the VGAs on Spike TV! For those who don't know, Spike TV used to be known as TNN which you may remember as the former home of WWF programming and countless reruns of Walker Texas Ranger. As you can see they've cleaned up their reputation since then.

The VGAs were hosted by Zachary Levi. Is that right? Who is Zachary Levi? I mean, not only do I have no idea who this person is but he has no credentials to be hosting this show other than he's a person and he can read. Try to follow the logic: for the Emmys you should get television personalities to host, for the Oscars movie stars, for the Grammys musicians. Makes sense, right? Shouldn't you be getting some video game personalities to host the show? It seems like most of the behind the scenes guys aren't the best public speakers or their secrecy would have us believe but between eloquent, humorous people like Cliffy B., Ken Levine, Ted Price and such there's plenty of people who could pull off hosting duties. Granted a lot of these types of guys appear throughout the show to present individual awards. That's cool. But for the host couldn't they at least get a major voice actor or something? Someone we'll know? Not just some random actor who happens to be free and likes money. Speaking of which, why was Charlie Sheen there? Huh?! His speech summed up my sentiments exactly. He was only there because someone called him and offered him money. He couldn't care less about video games or the video game audience. He was there to read a few lines and eat free food in between his full time 'winning' schedule.

Now, about the awards themselves. When there's a competition of many contenders vying for one prize then that prize becomes highly coveted and its value increases. When the amount of prizes multiplies with ambiguous differences among their qualifications then the value of each prize disappears. Basically, the VGAs are to award shows as a special needs class is to musical chairs. Here's an illustration:

Yay, everyone's a winner! Game of the Year, Studio of the Year, Gamer God, Best 360/PS3/Wii/PC/Handheld, Best Individual Sports, Best Team Sports, Best Song in a Game, Best Original Score, Best Graphics, Best indie, Best Downloadable Game, Best DLC, Trailer of the Year. This is a short sample of the total awards list but you can see that there's a lot of fat to be trimmed off of this roast. Not to mention that most of the awards had the same list of nominees to begin with. Plus, some of the awards don't even make sense. Best Graphics? Okay, best in what way? Say you wanted to argue the best graphics out of Bioshock and Gears of War. How would you do it? Which is more realistic? Which is more vivid? Which has a quantifiable lead on the others taking into account texture resolutions, simultaneous objects, density, etc.?

Which brings me to the most glaring flaw in the entire show: Most Anticipated Game. So we're handing out awards now based purely on hype rather than merit? Are we seriously going to do this? Fine, then lets go all the way. Let's start airing a bunch of never before seen trailers for brand new games during the show to get people excited about next year's games we want them to buy. Oh wait, they did that too! Fortnite, Mass Effect 3, Bioshock Infinite, The Last of Us, Metal Gear Rising, Tekken Tag Tournament 2 just to name a few all aired new trailers during the show. Summing up the show were musical performances by the Black Keys and Deadmau5. Again, neither have any significant connection to video games other than some people who like games may also like their music.

The VGAs are part popularity contest, part shameless advertisement, part charity award show, part B-Level celebrity variety show. In all fairness I'm sure the people that worked on the games that won awards worked very hard for a very long time. Your efforts deserve applauding...in the form of your salaries, the satisfaction of your customers and your promising future endeavors in the business. Maybe you take pride in these 'prestigious' awards but you know what the actual point of this was. A few games get to be rebranded with stickers and blurbs on the cover that'll offer little to no benefits while a few more names of hardworking teams get brushed off and forgotten. I hope that after party was worth it.

Year in Review: The Ballad of Good Vs. Evil

The year is almost done and Christmas is around the corner. With that in mind I think there's no better time than now to do a best and worst list. Now, these games are just the ones I completed this year and not necessarily the year the games were originally released. I will discard games which I've played or completed in previous years. All the games I completed this year will be listed at the end.

Best of 2011:

Portal 2: An incredible brain teasing adventure that's easy to learn but hard to master. The only shortcomings are in the replayability and complexity of the final puzzles. Some of this is alleviated in the co-op campaign but even that is surprisingly easy for the most part. There's more free DLC on the way including a level editor for those unfamiliar with the Source Editor so there's no regrets with this purchase. Also, it's more clever and humorous than anything on the market today. And really, anything that spawns this many internet memes has to be great, right?

Fallout: New Vegas: I love a deep, immersive RPG and this one takes the cake. The game is extraordinarily buggy despite a year's worth of patches, tweaks and DLC but it's definitely playable. Fallout 3 has the same problem but if you're willing to give the game patience it can be your best friend, your fiance and your mistress all at once. Personally, this was my favorite game this year and thanks to phenomenal DLC expansions I'm still playing it. For action RPG fans there's very little to hate in this package aside from the bugs. This game is even better than Fallout 3 if less impactful.

Super Mario Galaxy 2: The sequel to Mario Galaxy is quite similar however the levels are more linear courses rather than the sprawling environments of Mario 64. This is the perfect companion to New Super Mario Bros.. In fact, Mario Galaxy 2 includes several 2D levels that play with gravity and props in crazy new ways. As always, Mario stars in the best platformers on the market and I doubt anything will top this game until Mario's next adventure. If you liked the first Galaxy and New Super Mario then you're in for a treat.

Assassin's Creed 2: The first Assassin's Creed was a great idea that was held back by a few control issues, uninteresting side quests and a prolonged campaign that overstayed its welcome and became superfluously combat heavy. This game takes the good, polishes it, and transplants it into a more fun campaign that's ultimately similar to the previous game but flows so much better without getting boring. Seeing as this game has received not one but two direct sequels there's a lot of gold to be mined out of this concept. This game is the true beginning of what could become the new Legend of Zelda. In many ways it already has become that important with the community.

Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony: Grand Theft Auto 4, one of my personal favorite games of all time gets one last, crazy sendoff with this expansion pack. Calling it an expansion pack really short changes this game. It easily contains a 10-12 hour campaign reminiscent of the crazier styles present in GTA: Vice City not to mention a healthy spread of side missions and diversions. Also, there's a host of new weapons and abilities available including a riot shotgun and parachute jumping from planes. Plus, you have the option to replay any mission you want to try and get the best scores possible, a feature Rockstar has wisely recycled for future games. TBoGT may not be as long or strong as the original GTA4 but it's easily just as fun if not more so compressed into a smaller package that still blows away most other high profile games in the genre. All I can say is, "Bravo Rockstar, bravo!"

Worst of 2011:

Bulletstorm: Everything about this game either stinks or is poorly utilized. The controls are fluid and fun but the enemy AI prevents you from exercising it properly either from being too smart or too dumb. The storyline is lame and predictable. The writing and dialogue is about what you'd expect from a Beavis & Butt-head dream journal. The skill shot system is more frustrating than fun and most of the time you actually pull off a good one is due to it being practically spoon fed to you. For an FPS from Epic Games the difficulty level is yawn inducing. This might be the worse game I ever finished in my life, period.

3D Dot Game Heroes: For being an homage to the Legend of Zelda this game unwisely focuses on fan service and references rather than fun game design and balance. The dungeons are boring and devoid of any meaningful puzzles. Combat is either laughably easy or controller breaking difficult based on how long your sword is. The mini games are so difficult they were probably rejected from Demon's Souls. To its credit the game is fairly long, includes a new game + and has some humor to spare. However, this game is rooted in the game design cliches of the 80s for better and for worse. For the most part it's for worse. I'd just play Legend of Zelda instead because it's still more fun than this.

Red Dead Redemption: This game isn't bad per se but it's boring. You could say this game is essentially Grand Theft Auto 4 set in a 1911 Western. If that sounds like a great idea to you then cool, you'll probably love it. However, to me the joy of GTA comes from the vitality of the city, the people and creating chaos at my whim. Also, I happen to like stories involving drug gangs and organized crime more than Westerns. When you get down to the meat of Red Dead Redemption it's a lot like GTA, you ride a horse to one mission checkpoint, complete it, then ride to the next mission. In GTA I loved driving around because there was always something to see or havoc to create. In RDR there's just open space. Sure you can hunt animals, collect herbs, infiltrate gang hideouts, wrangle horses, etc. However, these activities bored me and didn't make up for the all the dead time when I'm just traversing empty space. I later learned I could fast travel via campfires but I expected more out of this title. So what I'm saying here is that the game isn't bad but I was just disappointed. It has a solid ending though.

Bad Company 2: Before I start I can't comment on the multiplayer campaign. I haven't played what I feel is a substantial amount of time in it to voice an opinion. However, the single player campaign is a complete mess, a total joke. The enemy constantly bombards you with rockets to keep you from cover which is more infuriating than exciting given you often can't retaliate without losing a limb. To me the worse offender is all the vehicle missions. Vehicle missions in military shooters are never fun, they never make sense and they always feel cheesy. Overall, this campaign is one of the worst I ever played but I know it was only a small part of the overall package so I won't fault it as bad as say Bulletstorm.

Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit: Like RDR this game wasn't all that bad except for a few issues. However, I was greatly disappointed. See, Criterion's previous game was Burnout Paradise which is my favorite driving game of all time. I can't heap enough praise on Burnout Paradise. Hot Pursuit, by comparison, was a major step back. Sure the driving was good and the cars were fun. Sure the courses were varied. Sure you could drive around the county at your leisure like you could in Burnout. However, Paradise City felt alive and thriving. That's what made it fun to drive in. Also, Burnout hosted a massive online package of missions and competitions. Hot Pursuit doesn't. Sure, you could compete with your friends for the best times on courses and missions. Sure, there were plenty of online races. But all of this could be done in Burnout Paradise and lots more. The biggest disappointment is that the Cop campaign is more aggravating than fun. The racing campaign I enjoyed a lot but would have been better without all the traffic that pops in just early enough for you to notice but just late enough for you not to be able to dodge it. I wanted Burnout Paradise 2, and this game wasn't it. Otherwise, I'd recommend this game it was fun for awhile.

Honorable Mention:

Pac-Man Championship Edition DX - Best New Downloadable Title
The newest iteration of Pac-Man feels completely different than the old arcade days. Now, the ghosts form a train that constantly tails you, the maps transform dynamically and you're fighting the clock rather than the board. The first time you hit a super pellet and eat 30 ghosts in a row you'll get what this game is about. It's as quick and addicting as anything I'd played this year.

Chrono Trigger - Best Retro Title
My favorite game is Final Fantasy 6. Chrono Trigger came out about the same time as FF6. I believe that if I'd played this instead of FF6 when I was a kid then CT might be my favorite game of all time instead. Who knows? This is a classic RPG with a few elements that feel innovative even today. Plus, it holds up exceptionally well after over 15 years and the DS remake adds a few complimentary features that make the game immediately better.

MAG - Most Anticipated Sequel
MAG is a pure multiplayer shooter akin to Call of Duty and Battlefield's online offerings. The difference here is that it's an exclusive PS3 title that boasts up to 256 player battles on dedicated servers. Teamwork has a heavier emphasis in this game than most others of its ilk otherwise the experience falls apart. There's several issues holding this game back from greatness along with a general lack of content in the package. There's only three maps per game mode although each map is so huge it's not as glaring a weakness as it seems. There's very few weapons and virtually no variety with most of them. Worst of all is that the community is arbitrarily broken into three factions and you can't switch between them at will. So, basically one faction is massively overpowered in number and commitment while the other two get beasted more often than not. I imagine a sequel could fix most of the problems, issue a ton of new content and make a serious run at building a community that's competitive with the big boys. I'd keep an eye on this if a sequel comes because it could be huge.

And there's my best and worst of 2011. Thanks for reading.

The Complete list of 2011:

PS3:
3D Dot Game Heroes
Assassin's Creed 2
Darksiders
Dead Nation
Grand Theft Auto: The Ballad of Gay Tony
Hydrophobia: Prophecy
MAG
Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit
Pac-Man Championship Edition DX
Portal 2
Red Dead Redemption
Sonic the Hedgehog 3
Streets of Rage 2
Super Startdust HD

PC:
Battlefield: Bad Company 2
Bulletstorm
Duke Nukem Forever
Fallout: New Vegas
Half-Life
Recettear

Wii:
Kirby's Epic Yarn
Super Mario Galaxy 2

Nintendo DS:
Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow
Chrono Trigger

Day 31: Learning New Mechanics Is Hard...So Why Bother?

So I recently acquired a copy of Darksiders. While I have my likes and dislikes I'll reserve judgement as I haven't ventured too deep into the game...I think. However, its similarities to other noteworthy action/adventure titles got me thinking.

Why is it that so many games are adopting similar if not nearly indistinguishable styles of play? The most talked about are FPS games. Every year there's dozens of high profile, AAA releases and dozens more garbage or niche releases. Most of them are indistinguishable in their controls, game mechanics and overall feel. Of course, the biggest and best developers make the smoothest, most full featured titles overall but if all you want is to run around, point, aim down sights and shoot at targets? There's tons of new games every year to keep you satisfied in case the big ones don't satisfy you enough. This begs the question, why are there so many shooters in the first place, especially if they all mostly function identically? Are developers out of fresh ideas? Possibly. Do publishers push them because they sell well? Surely. Are they boring yet? Obviously not otherwise they'd be selling less per year rather than more.

I believe the core of any game is its fun factor. Pointing a virtual gun at a virtual target in a virtual world is still just as fun today as it was 10 years ago, 15 years ago even. In fact, I'd say it's even more fun today thanks to improved technology and enhanced cinematic capabilities. When shooters stop being fun then they'll stop being made, simple as that. Beyond that though there's great satisfaction in the development of skills through the game. Then we, as gamers, can take skills developed in one shooter and apply them to another, new game without having to endure the training phases and having our asses handed to us by AI and other players. For instance, one could play a Battlefield game and directly apply many basic skills learned towards Call of Duty. One could play Unreal Tournament and apply those skills, to a degree, in Counter-Strike. Since there's a perpetually unending flow of new shooters coming out in the foreseeable future there'll always be a progressive reward system for playing shooters now in anticipation of shooters later. Having played a wide variety of shooters I could be given any foreign shooter and apply my reflexes towards it and have success. I couldn't have done that if I'd only played strategy games all my life, but in that alternate reality instead I'd be awesome at Starcraft 2 without trying.

Which brings me to my point: learning new things is hard work. Rarely a game comes by that makes the tutorial phase as fun and integral as any other part of the game. An example of this would be Portal. Although it's technically a shooter, no amount of shooter skill provides an advantage over a relative novice. This is why I think some genres, like shooters, are so plentiful today. A lot of people played some shooters, loved it, got really good at them, and wanted to just make and play more games to demonstrate their skills while being able to try new things. The basic premise of run, aim at bad guy, shoot, and cover hasn't changed much if at all in all these years. They've just added more colors, bigger maps, online competition, crazy weapons, vehicles, aim down sights to reduce recoil, improved physics, chest high walls, shields, etc.

No matter how fun a brand new type of game may turn out to be it's always frustrating at first when you're not good at it. The idea with gaming today is to convince customers that 'our game is the one for you.' If you play a lot of shooters then chances are you'll grab a shooter. You can bypass the training wheels, jump right into the good parts with the skills the developers intended and have a great time with no growing pains outside the tiny quirks that make each title somewhat unique. If you play a lot of RPGs you'll likely grab another RPG because you're good at calculating stats and forming combat strategies.

I think all games that base themselves on established ideas should adapt control schemes as close to the norm as possible. For the most part game makers already do this. You can pop in any modern shooter and you'll probably know pretty much all the buttons before you even start. This one aims, this one shoots, this one sprints, this one jumps, this one reloads, this one melees...etc. Customizable control loadouts should be the norm for every game and I don't mean just a list of pre-made presets because most of those are garbage.

I don't think every game should conform to a short list of norms. However, most popular games are so similar that in some cases the only difference in controls are the actual button layouts, as if the developers were ashamed of being so similar and decided to shuffle the buttons to hide it. If you've got a new idea that requires a new mode of play, like a Rock Band or Katamari Damacy, then go for it. But for the rest of us retreading old ground, keep it simple, because learning new things is hard and games are there for fun. Why can't they be fun right from the opening without having to re-establish in our minds that what we used to feel was our grenade button is now our melee button.

Day 30: The Hottest Games You Shouldn't Buy

Remember when a game used to just be a game? You bought the god damned thing, played it, and that was that. There were no online passes, no DLC expansions, no DRM, no day 1 patches, just a game. Well, at least a few people aren't jumping on the 'milk the customers' bandwagon. Here's the biggest titles you should be avoiding and in what capacity.

WB Games: (Mortal Kombat, Batman: Arkham City)
Starting with the newest Mortal Kombat title it's safe to assume Online Passes will be a regular feature going forward including the upcoming Batman title, which has no online component whatsoever. In the former case you're excluded from Mortal Kombat's most attractive feature, online battles. In the latter case you're unfairly locked out of single player content. In addition, they've already announced DLC plans for Batman and it seems reasonable for a GOTY edition to be released next year for it and possibly for MK as well. As long as they're selling online passes their games deserve a rental at best.

Bethesda: (Rage, Skyrim)
Bethesda games are grand and exquisite. However, Bethesda is renown for almost single handedly ushering in the DLC age all games succumb to now. In the case of Skyrim there's definitely going to be plenty of DLC but a GOTY edition next year is inevitable so just wait for that and all's good. In the case of Rage they're locking out single player content via an online pass of sorts while the co-op and vs modes are left intact. I don't like this and unless you're playing on PC I'd be skeptical of this game altogether. For the most part don't buy Bethesda games Day One, wait for the GOTY edition, they make it more than worth it.

EA: (Need for Speed, Battlefield)
EA were the first to adopt the online passes in earnest. In the case of the last Need for Speed the lack of online practically crippled the game's appeal. I wouldn't be surprised if the new NFS adopts the online pass as well and thus doesn't deserve my money at all. I'm not big on racing games anyway. Other titles like Battlefield are going to be exclusive to Origin on PC. Anyone playing EA games on PC should stop giving them business altogether as long as Origin exists in its current form. Fuck Origin, fuck EA, and fuck Battlefield if those are the terms we have to accept to play another military shooter. On console it may not be as bad if the online pass is absent. If the online pass is enacted however then Battlefield is garbage across the board.

Others: (Resistance 3, Final Fantasy 13-2)
Sony has recently adopted the online pass as well and it's changed Resistance 3 from a curiosity into a leper. You can't hope to compete with Call of Duty, luring away some of their fans AND force them to pay you more to play your game. You can't have your cake and eat it too, even Activision knows that. No one cares how good you think your multiplayer game is...no one is going to pay for it twice. Unfortunately, this means most Sony titles going forward will have online passes in some degree. As soon as they were starting to make some headway with the strongest exclusive lineup around they decided to stab themselves in the back? Well played Sony, have fun in 3rd place!

Final Fantasy XIII-2 recently had DLC announced for it. Now, if this turns out to be a bunch of crappy outfits, overpowered weapons, garbage content then hey, by all means have fun with the game. But if there's some major expansions going on here? Fuck it, wait for the GOTY edition. Square fans are good at waiting for shit that takes way too long to come out.

In summation, if any publisher wants you to pay for a pass to unlock content in your game, don't buy the game, just forget it exists. If a publishers tries to overwhelm you with DLC and nickel and dime you to death, effectively raising the game's cost from $60 to $100 or more? Fuck them, wait for the GOTY edition and don't fall for their trick. If you stop buying it then the evil practices will stop. And don't have a sense of pride for paying top dollar because 'it helps the developers.' All your money goes to middle men and rich ass publishers who milk a cash cow for all its worth then fire everyone who built it. If you want to support 'the industry' then start buying indie games directly from the developer.

Day 29: Gamer Fatigue

I have a backlog of games piling up on my Amazon list for 'once I have the money and time'. The money part is tricky right now. The time part isn't much of a problem. However, a third variable has introduced itself: will. The situation plays out like this: Game X looks and sounds very good. I save up money to purchase X. I devote a free day or period to play X but I no longer want to play X. Why is this?

For one thing, there's so many god damn games coming out each year that choosing which titles to pick becomes an annual Sophie's Choice. With $60 price tags you really don't want to make a bad choice. The game has to look specifically interesting to you but it also can't be too experimental as it runs the risk of being an unsatisfying cult hit that maybe spawns a much better sequel down the line. For example, this year, do I pick the Legend of Zelda, a title developed over 5 years for a dying console? Do I pick Rage, the next evolution in the FPS genre from the fathers of the FPS genre? Do I pick Skyrim, the RPG that promises never to end? Do I pick Battlefield 3 or MW3, reliably popular shooters that promise competition for years to come? Do I pick Batman, the expanded sequel to THE best crafted superhero game of all time? Do I go old-school and pick a heart warming 2D platformer like Kirby, Rayman or Sonic for Saturday morning pajama memories and couch co-op? Do I choose the latest Assassin's Creed title, a series that's positioned itself to be the next Legend of Zelda that, despite annual installments, keeps getting bigger and better?

Ya know what? Maybe I'm too tired for any of them, let alone all of them. Just running through the list in my head makes me want to take a nap and the other half of the list is waiting for the beginning of next year.

My backlog of titles from the last couple of years looks less exciting with each day. Part of it is the incitement of new titles on the horizon and their sheer numbers. Another big blow to my excitement is realizing how many of these titles have sequels that have come out or are coming soon. It'd be like if someone recommends a book to you but before you can start reading it in earnest they recommend 2 or 3 more books in the series to accompany it. Before you've even started on one chapter you have a veritable gauntlet of content to muscle through. Anything presented before me as a chore or task requiring significant time and energy devoted to it isn't going to be very fun. It's enough to say, 'ya know what? I played an hour of this game and I didn't like it so I'm going to save myself 100s of hours of time and just avoid this series altogether.' That's all well and good for story driven games but what about others? It's even worse. If there's a cool game you want to try and essentially a new version of it comes out soon after then what's the point of even playing the old version anymore? It's now an obsolete relic that you missed the boat on the first time. Now there's no benefit to going back and trudging through the game when a newer, shinier, more polished version is just around the corner. And if around the next corner is a sequel to that one too...

Remember when we were kids and we couldn't play all the games we wanted? We'd get maybe a few games every year and that'd be it. We'd have our meager collections to play over and over again. Also we'd get to share with our buddies and play two meager collections over and over again. Nowadays, if you have the benefit of disposable income and a fair amount of time to devote, there's a new, high quality game out at least every month and every week during the fall and winter months. The joys of settling in with a title and building a long relationship with it are gone. No one has the time or will to go back because the games aren't as replayable as they used to be. And why bother when there's a better game coming out next month anyway? There's no relationship building with games nowadays. Games have joined prime time TV and blockbuster movies as water cooler talk and little else. Everyone plays a game to talk about it with their friends and understand the internet jokes. But once the game ends then it goes back on the shelf never to be seen or talked about again. I'm not sure what's caused this issue, I have my theories, but that's a problem worthy of its own post.

Of the games I own there's still several I've yet to finish or even play in earnest. Some of them are just terrible games I got for a song. Some are brutally difficult. And others are just not exciting at this juncture due to the level of time and energy needed to get the most out of experiences nowadays. I played Fallout: New Vegas, twice, and I loved every minute (when it wasn't crashing). However, it took me months of playing almost every day. I knew it would take a very long time and I knew it would demand a strangle hold on my life for the duration. That's fine every now and then but I can't do that shit every month even if it's just for a few days at a time.

As a result I've consistently found myself going back and sinking into older games that have plenty of life worth squeezing out. Games either I haven't fully digested (Torchlight), I haven't mastered (CSS), I haven't finished exploring (Borderlands), or I'm not willing to let go of yet (L4D, TF2). All the best games ever made (such as some of the ones I mentioned) get better the longer you play rather than grow tedious, repetitive and boring. Besides, with all the political bullshit with games going on nowadays like DLC, GOTY editions, online passes, DRM, it's sorta refreshing to just say 'fuck it' and ignore half the market for awhile and just focus on loving the games you have rather than splitting your attention 100 different ways. Every year, make your 3-5 picks and stick to em. If one of them sucks then don't dwell on it. Above all else, wait for the GOTY edition unless it's a multiplayer/community based game. If the game is good then it'll be just as good a year later and if it's not then you'll have forgotten about it and saved yourself the money, the time and most importantly the energy.

Newsfeed: Release Date Fangasm

Release Dates:

The busy gaming season is almost here and pretty much every game has their dates chiseled in. Here's a roundup of release dates for the big titles coming this season. Note: handheld games don't count.

September:

• 6th: Resistance 3

October:

• 4th: RAGE
• 18th: Ratchet & Clank: All 4 One
• 18th: Batman: Arkham City
• 24th: Kirby's Return to Dreamland
• 25th: Battlefield 3

November:

• 1st: Uncharted 3
• 1st: Sonic Generations
• 8th: Modern Warfare 3
• 11th: Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim
• 15th: Rayman Origins
• 15th: Need for Speed: The Run
• 15th: Assassin's Creed: Revelations
• 20th: Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

Here's some pros and cons going into the season.

• Resistance 3's campaign looks solid and the multiplayer beta is reportedly great, however, Resistance 3 will be Sony's first title to bare the PSN Pass requiring used game and rental customers to pay to unlock multiplayer. If you buy new then you'll be largely unaffected but I caution everyone that this is a slippery slope. If you want to play the campaign just rent it or buy used. If you're desperate to play the multiplayer then prepare to bend over.
• Rage looks incredible on every level. Unfortunately, they're going to be carving out pieces of the campaign for players who don't buy new. Why they decided to do this is beyond me but we all feared the online passes would eventually come to this. As much as I personally want to play this game I can't in good conscience recommend it after hearing that. Rent it or buy it used and tell id to go fuck themselves if they want to take away single player content. If you're a PC gamer go ahead and buy it on Steam because you'll definitely get everything and it includes Steamworks which is proven to make good games better. Personally, I'll probably be going for the PC version.
• Ratchet & Clank looks like a fun co-op only game but I fear will have a much different feel than previous entries. Hopefully Insomniac knows what they're doing here and hopefully you have three buddies.
• Batman looks like a solid game of the year prediction. The first game was incredible and this one looks to improve and expand it on every level. It's also probably the last Joker performance by Mark Hamil so don't miss that one.
• Last year's Kirby game was okay but didn't feel like a true Kirby game. Kirby's Return to Dreamland is the long awaited console Kirby game that was announced during the early days of the Gamecube and has since been a ghost regularly appearing on Nintendo lists with a TBA. This will be the first true Kirby console game since Kirby 64 and it looks fantastic. Added bonus, it has 4 player co-op much like New Super Mario Bros. Wii.
• Battlefield 3 will be EA's premiere 2011 shooter and looks to take the flagship franchise to all new levels as it hopes to take a shark bite out of Modern Warfare 3's practically guaranteed billions in sales. Fanboy or not keep an eye on this one. If you're a console player you won't be surprised to know this will probably include EA's signature online pass. PC players be warned this will be exclusive to the Origin 'service' which is the most hated name in gaming right now (behind Kotick). My advice to PC players is to pack it up and find a new game or just stick with Bad Company 2 until EA learns to not act like cunts and invade your privacy and steal your games.
• Uncharted 3 will rock us like a hurricane.
• Sonic Generations takes the old and new and puts it together in a 20th anniversary celebration. You can expect Sonic 4 and Sonic Colours style gameplay. For those wondering, Sonic 4 Episode 2 is supposedly coming forth once this game is out. The gameplay for this looks solid but we're all aware of the Sonic cycle, keep your expectations in check. Personally, when I played the demo it gave me headaches from eye strain.
• Modern Warfare 3, a.k.a. the Big One. You don't need me to explain the significance. 
• Skyrim is the sequel to 2006's Oblivion which took console RPGs to a whole new level. This time around it's bigger and better with a whole new, hopefully bug free engine and countless refinements. Like Oblivion, Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Skyrim is guaranteed to host hundreds of hours of content. If you're the type who only wants to buy one or two games a year this will probably be your game.
• Rayman brings back the platforming mascot to his 2D roots. The game looks every bit as good as a Nintendo product declaring they're not the only ones who can make classic platformers anymore.
• The Run takes the arcade racer on a cross country race. While the racing looks fine there seems to be plenty of action scenes which are nothing but quick time events. Personally, I'd say take them all out and just give me cutscenes. No one has ever said, "this game needs more quick time events!"
• Assassin's Creed keeps rolling on with the 3rd annual installment in a row. This is also the 3rd and final chapter for Ezio D'Auditore, the protagonist of the last two Assassin's Creed titles. While the franchise is one of the most beloved today it's a dangerous prospect to produce major installments every year like Call of Duty. Will the momentum continue or will people start to get burnt out? Both prospects are highly probable.
• Skyward Sword should be the Wii's swan song. The first (and last?) true Legend of Zelda title designed for the Wii will also come in a special edition version. The special edition includes the game, a Zelda orchestra CD, and a limited edition golden Wiimote+ for $70. Given that the Wiimote+ is a requirement for Skyward Sword and I, like many I assume, never procured one, this looks to be a delightful announcement. This may very well be the last great Wii game from Nintendo before the official launch of the Wii U. Already most of Nintendo's man months are being focused on 3DS content so don't expect many surprises next year.

This game doesn't come out until Valentine's Day (how fitting!) next year but it's my all time favorite gaming franchise and I can't help but share the latest trailer. There's a series of trailers for it as well as trailers for many of the titles above floating about the intertubes and youwebz. This trailer wins out because it has Murderballs...doesn't get much better than that. Enjoy!

Newsfeed: Trash Talking Punk Bitches

EA vs. Activision

This year, like most years, EA and Activision will go head to head in the battle for supremacy of shooters in the consumer market. Last year EA's Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and Medal of Honor reboot went up against Activision's Call of Duty: Black Ops. Bad Company 2 did well, Medal of Honor did okay, and Black Ops dominated the season and put every non-Nintendo product to shame, as was expected. 

Somewhere...someone with $1 billion
of our money is laughing...

EA spokesperson Jeff Brown takes a pot shot at Activision. In a statement to Eric Hirshberg, CEO of Activision, Brown says, "I know you're new in the job but someone should have told you this is an competitive industry. You've got every reason to be nervous. Last year Activision had a 90 share in the shooter category. This year, Battlefield 3 is going to take you down to 60 or 70. At that rate, you'll be out of the category in 2-3 years. If you don't believe me, go to the store and try to buy a copy of Guitar Hero or Tony Hawk."

Alright, you wanna talk about shooters? Let's take a look at the shooters EA and Activision have released in the last year and a half. Activision launched Singularity and Black Ops, that's it. EA launched Army of Two 2, Bad Company 2, Mass Effect 2, Crysis 2, Dead Space 2, Medal of Honor and recently Shadows of the Damned. First off, not only is there an awful lot of '2's in there but all but one are sequels to games no more than four years old, the same age as the original Modern Warfare. Maybe EA won't be running out of shooters anytime soon but they sure are saturating the market with them. 

Let's get something straight right now. Just because your game is superior doesn't mean it's better. Rush may be much more talented songwriters and musicians than AC/DC but guess who's more popular? Why did Black Ops marketing strategy compliment the game perfectly? Because Call of Duty is all about the multiplayer and it's highly approachable. That's it. Sure, Battlefield may be deeper, bigger and more realistic but it's not as approachable and thus it's not the same. Call of Duty is a casual type of game and that's why it succeeds. Another example would be to compare New Super Mario Bros. sales numbers with Mario Galaxy's, it's not even close. Couple this with Call of Duty's name recognition and marketability, it sits pretty with the likes of Halo and Grand Theft Auto. When Call of Duty falls, because it will fall eventually, it won't be because Battlefield usurped it. Call of Duty will fail for probably the same reason Guitar Hero failed, high investment coupled with low interest from consumers or a perceived lack of value.

Microsoft Buying Their Way to Success

The PS3 and 360 are pretty similar. They both play mostly the same games and do pretty much all the same things like play DVDs, music, Netflix and some light networking. The only real difference between the two platforms are the prices and the exclusive software. In an interview with Chris Lewis, Microsoft's European Head of Marketing, he explains how Microsoft relies on timed exclusive DLC and downloadable games to differentiate themselves from competitors (i.e. PS3).

Now, Sony has a ton of development studios churning out exclusive software for their platforms. Microsoft has a couple of development studios under their command but for the most part their only exclusive software are IPs they've bought. To further confuse and annoy gamers they buy timed exclusive DLC and indie games with no intention of paying for full exclusivity. Microsoft would rather rent an exclusive than invest in building their own exclusives. This is nothing new, it's been happening ever since the PS3 came out in 2006. The 360 has been a success on the backs of superior marketing, an earlier launch and these timed exclusives luring away purchases from competitors. I personally almost bought an Xbox because it was the cheapest method of playing Rock Band, or so I thought. Patience is a virtue and at the end of the day the Xbox 360 is the 'me first!' console without any identity of its own. I find it amusing that someone at Microsoft finally admits it.

Some people might be interested in this game. It's a sequel to a little known 90s title that no one's heard of. (sarcasm detector overload)

Newsfeed: Sony Lies Again, Borderlands 2 Tidbits

Borderlands, one of the neatest and hardest to put down games of this generation (review eventually) is getting a sequel…sometime before April 2013 probably. Not much has been said or shown of the sequel yet besides a teaser but here are a few tidbits of what’s new. The gun manufacturers from the first game which determined most of each gun’s stats will return. They’ll each be more distinctive stylistically and functionally. An example is now Tediore guns can be used like grenades. After being tossed they explode and a new gun is replicated in your hands. It’s an interesting idea that only scratches the surface of the possibilities seeing as there were many manufacturers in the first game and new ones to be introduced this time around. Other tweaks include cleaned up menu screens, online split-screen co-op, and minimap added to the HUD. Also there’ll be new vehicles, better vehicle controls, and all new classes replacing the original four. Roland, Lilith, Mordecai and Brick will return as NPCs in the sequel’s story. It sounds good so far even though the details are scant but there wasn’t much for the original to improve upon to begin with. Personally, I’d like to see craftable weapons. See, the way loot was determined in Borderlands was each part of a gun had tons of variants who’s stats were randomly generated within a preset range. So, maybe you got a gun with a great barrel but an awful clip, etc. So I’d like to see the ability to dissect weapons into their base parts and then recombine them into your own concoctions along with some form of enchantment process. It’d be sort of reminiscent of the rune words from Diablo 2. Picking the right equipment was just as important as the runes themselves.

How partnerships effect customers

Sony announced that PlayStation and DirecTV are partnering to bring NFL Sunday Ticket to the PS3. The service lets you watch every NFL season game including out-of-market broadcasts. The price is free if you already have DirecTV, NFL Sunday Ticket and NFL Sunday Ticket To-Go. If you don’t then you can just get NFL Sunday Ticket for $339.95. So, let’s get this straight. Either way you’re paying for DirecTV service ($340 would cover DirecTV for 6 months, easy) and either way you can watch all the games on your TV and PC. Exactly what is the benefit of this partnership? With MLB.TV it made sense because for $35 you could watch every MLB game (and there’s 162 games a year instead of 16) on your PC or portable device, however you couldn’t watch it on TV. The free MLB.TV PS3 app, although kinda crappy, was a great way to watch the games on your TV. But this? If you’re a DirecTV subscriber you probably already have this for free and adding a PS3 to the mix doesn’t add any benefit. This is a pointless offer, don’t even consider it. I also hear that you may have to pay $50 on top of the DirecTV subscription to use the PS3 as a receiver for NFL Sunday Ticket. All around this is a bad deal.

My gift to Sony

More Sony news as Shuhei Yoshida, president of Sony Worldwide Studios, claimed cross-game chat on the PS3 is impossible due to memory restrictions. The PS3 has 256MB of RAM and 256MB of video RAM which is apparently all being used up to run the games themselves. He said, “once a game gets RAM we never give it back. It’s not possible to retrofit something like that after the fact. The game has to use its own memory to do [in-game voice chat]. There’s always voice chat in the game. But it’s a part of a game feature. It’s not a part of an OS feature. That’s the reason in terms of the ability to have voice chat across different games.” This is why the PSVita is expected to do cross game voice chat due to a RAM pool of 512MB and 128MB of V-RAM. This is complete bullshit. First off, the 360 has had things like cross game voice chat and custom soundtracks from day one with no more RAM than the PS3 uses. Also, most of the games on the market available for PS3 are also on 360. Are you telling us that these games are so using so much more RAM on the PS3, despite the stronger CPU, that you can’t get voice chat running? Finally, remember when they were tossing around potential dangling carrot lists of features to include in PS+? What was on that list and was hinted at for months before and after the PS+ launch? Cross game chat. They claimed they’d add it but only PS+ subscribers could initiate chats, remember that? So apparently all that was bullshit because it never would have worked in the first place, Sony just wanted to see how we’d react to it. Yeah, right. They’re just lazy and they’ve gotten this far without trying so why start now, right? At this point between the PSN leaks, PS+’s lack of features (except the ones that should be universal), the PSN passes and this, I wouldn’t believe anything any of these Sony people have to say. At this point the bullshit has nowhere to go and is just hemorrhaging from their bodies as they just try to survive until the PS Vita and PS4 without destroying everything they’ve built. It seems they’re so afraid of inevitable failure that they’re pushing back the Vita launch until after Christmas for no apparent reason. We’ll see what happens but I’d be a lot more skeptical of Sony’s plans moving forward.

Finally, check this trailer out. I like how it gets you interested in the world but doesn't utilize any gameplay footage whatsoever. This would work well as a movie trailer and the game looks good so far.

Day 28: Why G4TV Sucks (but it's not their fault)

This was a rebuttal to a discussion about G4TV's bias against Japanese games and the gamers that play them. Also, this covers why G4 sucks by design and not because of the cast members involved.

First, let's limit our scope to include only XPlay and AOTS (G4's only real content). AOTS is a poorly written, boring variety show that serves only to stir up ad revenue and launch careers for pretty faces (i.e. Olivia Munn). Most everyone on that show is obviously fake but it's an easy gig and if you're loud enough it seems to get you noticed eventually. It's just a platform.

XPlay is the only true video game series on cable, at least that I know of. Considering that fact it shouldn't be a surprise that it's a 20 minute video game advertisement and little more. What constitutes an episode? Trailers (an ad), previews and interviews (an ad), reviews (an ad) and maybe a goofy skit tossed in that's mostly harmless. Everyone on that show feels at least somewhat sincere even if they're not as 'dedicated' as their audience. However, the conduct on the show itself could be interpreted either way with justification.

Now, I'm sure you realize that the game industry has a relationship with the press unlike any other media industry. The game producers and press employees have a symbiotic relationship without regard for the customer's satisfaction. The relationship works like this: the producers hand pick pieces of information to drip feed to the press, the press doesn't ask any questions and reports in a timely manner. The result is that the most important producers get to keep their products constantly in their customer's peripheral while the press get to have an easy job that requires no thought, initiative or being inquisitive. The producers advertise their games for cheap to their most precious customers and the press leeches off that information traffic to create jobs. These people are not journalists. In fact, there's not a single journalist in this industry because there's no news to report that won't get someone fired (i.e. legal spats that make certain companies resemble the ogres they truly are, but bringing that to light is bad business). The gaming press would have no jobs if they didn't spend all their time advertising other people's products.

Now, I want to talk about their bias. First of all, it's no secret that G4 has an apparent contempt for Japanophiles. Whether this is genuine or not is uncertain but it's been blatantly obvious for many years. It's never been questioned. Could it be that those above the cast would prefer to bash the audience? Highly unlikely. Do the cast harbor genuine resentment or xenophobia towards Japanese games and their audience? Possibly, even if it's just an act no different than a pro wrestler making racist comments to rile up an audience. My theory is it's actually audience pandering. The theory is that media bias is little more than a reflection of the audience's beliefs. I don't know about you but when I'm on forums or in games there's a lot of hate for perceived Japanophiles. I mean, look at my screen name, I use the same screen name on every gaming network I'm on and more often than not if I encounter an angry citizen they'll immediately start spouting anti-Japanese/Japanophile slurs. Hell, I often use a female avatar online and I've gotten slammed for that and sent pictures of genitalia. To me, the treatment I've gotten as a perceived woman was much less offensive than the treatment I've gotten as a perceived Japanese person. So, if the audience at large revels in slamming Japanophiles then wouldn't G4 pandering to that make a lot more sense? That's my theory anyway.

In closing, I agree that what G4 puts on television is an absolute joke and a shame it's the only thing that can be loosely considered a 'gaming' network (ya know, at least for those 2 hours they're not showing Cops, Cheaters, and infomercials). However, the website content has a lot of 'real' content and discussion namely Feedback. Also, some of their written reviews are good, I'm personally fond of Sessler's reviews, however G4 (like most sites actually) tends to skew game scores too high or too low relative to their perceived marketability. Though, review scores are complete bullshit anyway and can largely be forgotten. Some of their critics have serious chops so I wouldn't call them 'fake', they're just fake on TV but then so is everyone.

Day 27: Newsfeed: PSVita Specs, Gabe Talks EA, Bethesda Adopting Steam

Figured I'd start something more along the lines of news and information. I'll try keeping this regular. We're getting closer to the start of the big gaming season so there'll soon be tons of news and games floating around to try to contend with. Today, I'm looking at the ongoing Origin vs. Steam rivalry along with new details from Bethesda and the PSVita.

Portal 2:
In Valve news, remember that free Portal 2 DLC we should have gotten, enjoyed, and forgotten by now? It was originally announced at launch for a summer release. It’s due to come out next month which Doug Lombardi says is “still technically summer.” If you’ve been watching the weather channel or you just live in the South then you’d be hard pressed to disagree. The Portal 2 DLC will add new test chambers, leaderboards and a challenge mode for both single player and co-op. Did I mention it’s free?

Seal of Approval

Skyrim:
Speculation arose over whether or not Skyrim uses some kind of DRM laden system, namely Games for Windows Live due to the Games for Windows branding appearing on the box. As you may know there’s a slight difference between Games for Windows and Games for Windows Live. Namely, the former is a marketing brand similar to the old Nintendo Seal of Approval back in the day. The latter uses the Games for Windows Live client which I have a personal beef with and highly recommend avoiding at all costs.

At GamesCon, Bethesda’s VP of PR Pete Hines declared that Skyrim will use Steamworks rather than GFWL. While some will view that as a disappointment I believe most would see it as good news. Sure, Steam has DRM and all but the advantages of Steamworks can’t be seen as anything but an improvement. Cloud saving, Achievements, real-time patching, New Vegas was the first Bethesda title to adopt Steamworks (albeit it’s not fully functional yet) followed by Brink. Now Rage and Skyrim are being added to the list. Hooray for adoption!

PS Vita:

We have hard numbers on the PS Vita’s specs. The official link is below but here’s a few highlights: a 4 core CPU (800-2000MHz), 4 core GPU (134M polygons/s, 4Gpixels/s @200MHz), 5 inch OLED multi touch screen (960x544), 512MB main memory, 128MB VRAM, front and rear cameras running at 120fps@320x240 or 60fps@640x480, six-axis motion sensing and three-axis electric compass, built-in GPS for 3G version. It’s got a lot of stuff crammed in there. It looks like for all intents and purposes it could be used as a phone replacement. It also comes with Facebook, Twitter, Skype, and Foursquare.

http://us.playstation.com/corporate/about/press-release/playstation-vita-expands-its-entertainment-experience.html


EA vs. Valve:

Finally, you may know about the ongoing rivalry between Valve and EA. It all started with EA announced Origin, a new gaming service and storefront not unlike Steam, and began to stock it with EA’s titles. Then, EA decided to pull several titles from Steam and host them exclusively on Origin. EA claimed it was Steam’s fault, their terms not meeting EA’s interest. Valve claimed it was EA deliberately breaking away.

How negotiations really went down. (Valve is on the right)

Gabe Newell had this to say about it: The reason EA is pulling support is due to a “whole complicated set of issues. I don’t think Valve can pick just one thing and think the issue would go away if we fixed that. We have to show EA it’s a smarter decision to have EA games on Steam, and we’re going to try to show them that.” Interesting stuff, it sounds like what he says could be taken as either remorse or a threat. If Gabe were Italian, sitting in a chair stroking a cat then I’d be just a little bit worried Mr. Riccitiello.

Gabe Newell is serious business.

Back to the topic at hand, Gabe was asked whether customers should expect more games to be removed from Steam by publishing competitors. “Companies have to earn the right to install content on their customer’s PCs on a regular basis. The same thing is true of Steam. We have to prove we are creating value on an ongoing basis, whether it’s to EA or Ubisoft or whoever. We really want to show there’s a lot of value having EA gmaes on Steam. We want EA’s games on Steam and we have to show them that’s a smart thing to do. I think at the end of the day we’re going to prove to EA they have happier customers, a higher quality service, and will make more money if they have their titles on Steam. It’s our duty to demonstrate that to them. We don’t have a natural right to publish their games.” Well said. Steam has certainly earned the right to be on my machine and the biggest obstacle in front of Origin, based on community comments, is that lack of earned trust and respect. Few people are willing to trust Origin right now but hey, few people were willing to trust Steam when it first came out too. It was pretty disastrous. But they turned it around and there’s no reason EA can’t turn it around too.

The most speculated cause of this fissure between EA and Valve is DLC revenue. EA wants to sell DLC directly to their Steam customers as opposed to hosting content on Steam. The difference is anything sold through Steam generates a cut for Valve. EA wants to take 100% of the revenue. Now, is this lost revenue, plus the cuts on game sales, enough to warrant starting your own service? Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. However, all of Bioware’s games (property of EA) have had DLC, some of which was available for purchase through the game itself without any hosting by Valve at all. If this were really about DLC sales then couldn’t EA just replicate what Bioware has been doing and everything would be business as usual? To me this smells like bullshit and there are definitely other factors at work here. If you’ve read Origin’s ToS agreements then you’ll see in the fine print some rather shocking details.

That's it for now. I want to close things out with a trailer. This game has had a lot of trailers in recent months announcing new characters and showing off different facets of gameplay and the story. I think it's going to be an amazing game, and if it lives up to its predecessor it may be one of the best games ever made. Here's the newest trailer. Thanks for reading.

Day 26: Is it an RPG or a Shooter?

So lately I've been playing a lot of Borderlands on PS3 and Fallout: New Vegas on PC. It's astounding to me how similar both games are in premise but in execution are completely different. They're both RPG/Shooter hybrids. Despite Shooters being the most popular games nowadays...the similarities virtually end there. However, they're both categorized as RPG Shooters when they're virtually nothing alike. Borderlands is a shooter with RPG elements and New Vegas is an RPG with shooter elements. Well what's the difference?

Borderlands is a shooter through and through. A shooter focuses on quick, fluid controls and non-stop action. A shooter is like taking an adrenaline shot and charging into a horde of zombies with a chainsaw. But...Borderlands has health points, and levels, and proficiencies, and skills! The health points and levels are just arbitrary constrictions on which enemies you can combat at a given time. If your level is high then you're practically invincible and if it's low then enemies are practically omnipotent. The proficiencies and skills are just arbitrary enhancements to your power which is always focused on aiming and shooting...and sometimes punching. The 'skills' in Borderlands are misleading in that no class has any 'skills'. Every class has one skill and the rest is just perks to enhance the shootings and punchings and survivings.

The most significant departure Borderlands makes from other shooters is its campaign. Most shooters have you trekking through mazes looking for arbitrary 'keys' to progress forward while fighting hordes of enemies along the way. Most RPGs have you trekking across maps collecting an arbitrary amount of items or killing an arbitrary amount of enemies, returning for a reward, and repeating until all NPCs are satisfied and let you fight a boss and move on to the next realm. Depending on the shooter, the campaign is a linear, run and gun, pushing the line initiative until you eventually reach the end. Or the campaign may be finding your way out of labyrinthine mazes. RPG campaigns are comprised mostly of fetch quests, kill quotas and diplomatic relations. What Borderlands does is take the shooting gameplay and put it in an RPG campaign full of fetch quests and kill quotas. Also, they added the loot system popularized by Diablo. Where loot is important to an RPG with the abundance of customization options in a shooter it makes little sense. It doesn't matter what the item's stats are, if I can aim and shooter better than the enemies I'm going to win no matter what I'm shooting with. Luckily, the loot system is such an addicting gameplay mechanic that even in this shallow implementation it'll turn everyone into hoarders. You can only fire one gun at once, only carry four, and your inventory grows upwards of 40+ slots...we totally don't need this many guys...but why can't I get rid of them?

Which brings me to New Vegas, a different kind of hoarding. Where Borderlands has you hoarding guns because one might be better for a certain situation, New Vegas has you hoarding just because there's valuables you don't want to waste. I could or would use this item...I think I'll take it. Then 15 minutes later you've overfilled your inventory and need to start combining those 20 10mm pistols and chugging those 30 bottles of beer. The only difference is that Borderlands you're never going to use most of the stuff you find and couldn't keep it anyway. New Vegas you can always find a place to stash your stuff and everything wears out with use so you never know when something will come in handy. Sure, you know you'll never use 15 Plasma Rifles until they're broken and stripped for parts...but why just leave them there when I can take them with me?

New Vegas is a true RPG disguised as a shooter. Every action has consequences and a host of alternative actions. Person A wants Person B dead. Do you do it? Do you tell B that you'll say you did it? Do you kill A instead? Which leads to another point, not everything is solved at the end of a barrel. Borderlands gives you 2 actions: shooting and picking up items. New Vegas has tons of actions and specializations that determine how the story goes. You could go through most, if not all, of New Vegas without killing anyone yourself. If the action in New Vegas weren't designed like a shooter then this game wouldn't be called a shooter at all. You can at least get through the whole game without shooting anyone I know that for sure.

The thing that makes games like New Vegas unique is that it's an action game where your non violent actions have real effects. If you were playing something like God of War or Uncharted and wished you could sneak out of a situation or negotiate? Too bad, punk! Fight or die! In New Vegas your voice matters just as much, if not more so, than your gun. In fact, for the most part the world, and yourself, are better off when you exercise as little violence as necessary. However, for the bloodthirsty, all you need do is wander outside of civilized areas where various monsters are waiting to be hunted. No one'll shed a tear if you make Deathclaws extinct, I promise.

So, what are they? Borderlands is a shooter with an RPG questing system and arbitrary combat limits to keep you on track. Fallout New Vegas is an RPG with some shooting. Borderlands is not a 'role-playing shooter' as they've called it, it's just a shooter with a progression system. New Vegas would define 'role-playing shooter' if such a genre existed. They're both excellent in their own ways but genre tags would mislead one into thinking they're similar...they're not.