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.

Day 25: Looking back at the 6th Generation.

The 6th Generation of Video Games. This is the era of the Dreamcast, PlayStation 2, Xbox and Gamecube. The period roughly runs from 1998 (Dreamcast launch) to 2005 (Xbox 360 launch) but the first two games on this list are from 2006 due to the PS2 still seeing significant releases well into the PS3's life. These are my top 5 games of the 6th generation. In all fairness, this is a little biased (aren't all 'best of' lists biased?) due to the time period being a formative one for myself. What with boarding school and preparing for college there was little time and money to dedicate to games so there weren't many games eligible. Nonetheless, these games are anything but insignificant. Anyways, here we go.

5.     Final Fantasy XII: This game pushed the PS2 to it's limits with enormous maps detailed exquisitely and a real time, almost strategy battle system not unlike an MMO. In essence, the scale and battle system makes FFXII feel like an MMO without the 'O' which isn't surprising given Final Fantasy XI was an MMO. The story was a mostly forgettable tale of political strife between two warring empires and the victim nations caught in the middle. The characters were likable but inconsequential to the story which conflicts with Final Fantasy's typically character-story driven style. The tradeoff here is 100's of hours of exploring, looting and monster hunting.

4.     Guitar Hero 2: The first game was a great concept that married Harmonix's prior rhythm games with RedOctane's top of the line gaming peripherals and influenced by Konami's Guitar Freaks. The sequel worked out the kinks of the original and introduced a whole new set list that's arguably the series' finest to date. Guitar Hero jumped the shark shortly afterward and Harmonix introduced the Rock Band series which didn't quite achieve the commercial success it deserved. This is the game that allowed both franchises to make billions of dollars, more so than the original. That fact alone speaks to the quality of Guitar Hero 2

3.     Grand Theft Auto: Vice City: Grand Theft Auto 3 completely changed video games by executing an excellent sandbox game where before one didn't exist. Thereafter every other action video game developer had to start stepping their games up. Vice City improved GTA3 in every aspect, brought us a new city to conquer and featured arguably the series' best voice cast, setting and story much like Al Pachino's Scarface. While future games may have been bigger, bolder and badder, Vice City has a distinct, 80s style world and a property tycoon focused plot unlike any other GTA game before or after. While Vice City isn't the best GTA game in all regards it does host my favorite setting and plot. 

2.     Diablo 2: Much like GTA has spawned plenty of GTA-clones, Diablo 2 is one of those games that other games that want to be like. The hack'n'slash, swords and sorcery, point and click, loot-fest is as addicting as a video game can get. Combine that with a lengthy campaign, tons of monster types, countless character builds and randomly generated dungeons there's no true end to the game. It's the kind of game that keeps you grinding for hours on end because you never know what you might find next. World of Warcraft, a similar game from Blizzard, borrows a lot of the most addicting parts of Diablo and rolls it into a subscription based game that numbers in the 10s of millions of monthly players. Both games, and their success, is a testament to how masterful Blizzard is with their craft.

1.     Half-Life 2: Half-Life was a shooter unlike any other that married story and gameplay together without ever taking players out of an interactive role. Instead the story being told to the player, the player discovered the story themselves over the course of the game. Half-Life 2 took that, added incredible graphics (at the time) and physics puzzles. Practically everything you'd want to do in an action game is here. You get to shoot down helicopters, kill lots of aliens, blow up stuff, and some driving and puzzles. For my money there's no action game campaign that comes close to Half-Life 2, even today, imagine how mind blowing it was in 2004, which is two years younger than half of the games on this list.

Day 24: Why Diablo 3's Auction House Is a Good Thing

Diablo 3 is getting closer to completion and today a huge new feature has been unveiled. You may have heard about it already. Diablo 3 is coming with an auction house. Let's get some of the details out of the way.

• Players can auction items they find in-game for gold (game currency) or real world currency.
• Only players can buy and sell items in the auction house so Blizzard won't be trying to sell you exclusive or rare items like TeamFortress2.
• Sellers must pay several fees to Blizzard which include: 
• A fixed fee to post items for sale whether or not it sells. (new sellers may waive this fee a limited amount of times)
• An additional fixed fee when an item is sold.
• For those depositing payments into a 3rd party account (undetermined availability at this time) a "cash-out" fee will be applied.
• Players may use the gold or cash auction houses at their discretion. 
• Items may be auctioned at any time in-game and can come from any of your account's characters' storage or your shared storage.
• If your item doesn't sell it'll be returned to your account immediately.
• If you buy an item you'll have access to it immediately and can equip or store it wherever you like.
• Anything you find that isn't "soulbound" may be put up for auction or traded with other players directly.
• "Smart search" will help you exactly what items you want based on character levels, build, etc.
• Items auctioned will have a time limit with which to be sold. Buyers may either bid or buyout the item (like eBay) and either try to get the best price or pay more for immediate delivery.
• All purchases will be anonymous for buyers and sellers.
• Items bought may be re-auctioned after a 24 hour "cool down" period.
• "Hardcore" players won't be able to use the cash auction house but a separate, hardcore only, gold auction house will be available. (For those who don't know, in Hardcore mode death is permanent so upon death you'll lose all your items including purchases.)

I think that's about all the details necessary. Now, some think this is a horrible idea and yes, there are some disadvantages to consider. For instance, integrating cash-based trading into the core game means no more 3rd party mods or mod tools will be allowed. Also, constant internet connection to Battle.net will be required to play Diablo 3, solo play or not. 

The auction house isn't a bad idea. For the most part it's a very good idea and here's why. Diablo 2 created an economy that lent itself to rich players selling items under shady means. To this day you can still find and 'buy' Diablo 2 items off of eBay. This isn't safe or recommended. What's to stop Diablo 3 from turning out the same way? A good way is to add an auction house, here's an example.

When TeamFortress2 added the drop system and very rare items, such as hats, tons of servers cropped up for players to 'idle'. The longer your player idled the more items you would obtain. Since there was no way to trade items this was the only means for collectors to obtain rare items without playing 100s, maybe 1000s of hours. To combat this, Valve tweaked the drop system to improve drop rates but limit the amount of play time where new items could be obtained. A player who could idle for, potentially, 168 hours a week could now only utilize ~10-12 hours a week to get drops. This cuts down the idling but people still aren't getting the items they want. Valve added the Mann. Co store for players to buy whatever items they wanted, including exclusive items. In addition, players could trade among themselves.

It's not perfect, the Store prices are pretty high (especially since the game itself is free, now) and there's technically nothing stopping people from selling their precious hats on eBay but it seems to be a fair enough balance to keep players playing and paying exclusively in the game. Why wouldn't an auction house for Diablo 3 work just as well if not superior?

It sounds like a great idea to me to centralize the game's economy in a safe, fair environment. In fact, it makes me wish TF2 had an auction house as well except for the fact that Valve's game is free and Blizzard's game isn't. I wouldn't mind seeing people putting their hats up for sale in an auction house with Valve getting a cut of sales. It sure as hell would clean up all those trading servers that have cropped up to accommodate the dead idle servers.

That being said, Blizzard's approach isn't perfect either. These unspecified transaction fees sound suspect, for one there's too many of them. A fee to post an item just discourages involvement and experimentation with the market, especially since unsold items quickly expire and would need to be posted again for another fee. If they're worried about the auction house becoming overrun with bad sales then just do what Glyde.com does. When you post an item for sale it shows you the current market price (i.e. the lowest available buyout) and only the lowest priced available item is visible to buyers. Given that there's sure to be lots of permutations of the same item it may not be very effective but it's an idea at least. Also, a fee to transfer cash from Battle.net to a bank account? Really? Activision using ATMs to handle purchases?

Anyways, think about it. Compared to 'always-on' internet requirements...the auction house is a great idea.