My PS3 Makes Me Cry...

Yep, Sidious and I have long been lamenting the state of the PS3 and it would appear that Sony lacks the simplest understanding of the market, or understands it at such a level that their strategy seems completely insane. My guess is the former, but I've been wrong before.

The PS2 gave Sony pole position in this market, but it would seem that they are trying to do everything possible to lose this race. Does that mean that the PS3 is circling the drain or even close to it? Of course not, but there are a few key things that need to happen to turn this ship around:

1. Developers need to crack the code on the cell processor. Right now programming for the PS3 takes longer and tends to produce worse results than on your "conventional" machines. Once developers figure out how to unlock the latent power theoretically contained within the cell processor, games produced for the PS3 should easily surpass their cross platform brethren (this was the spot the Xbox had in the last generation).
2. The PS2 needs to be officially abandoned. Sorry for all you PS2 fans out there, but part of the reason that the 360 and Wii are proving so successful is, once the next generation hit, that's where they focused. With some of the best games of the last several months and into the future coming out for the PS2 (Okami, Valkyrie Profile 2, FFXII, God of War II) it's clear that Sony hasn't thrown it's full weight onto their new horse. There's no excuse for producing first-party software on the old system (I'm looking at you God of War II), and generous incentives could easily "convince" developers to make the move more quickly. The fact is games move systems not the other way around.
3. The PS3 needs exclusives. With several former PS3 exclusives jumping ship and going multi-platform, most of the games for the PS3 are ports of old Xbox 360 games that are virtually indistinguishable from their original versions. That's clearly not a winning strategy. Again I say, games move systems, if Sony manages to release a Halo or a Twilight Princess, they can easily get back in the running, but looking out right now, there's no such system-seller in sight.

I have faith the Sony knows these things and that they are moving in the right direction, just very, very slowly. As of right now, however, my PS3 is a glorified Resistance arcade machine and The Last Samurai HD movie projector.

Seriously Sony

Well apparently this week is the week that Sony finally comes clean and admits that it has no idea how to market the PS3. In an effort to ensure that (Sony-developed) Blu-Ray beats out its rival HD-DVD in this generation of the format wars, Sony announced this week that it will be releasing, get this, a $600 Blu-Ray player.

This is all well and good except for one thing. Up until now, there has basically been but one reason to purchase a PS3. Its a $600 Blu-Ray Player. The next closest competitor was $1,000. Thus, if you wanted to experience Blu-Ray as cheap as possible, you would buy a PS3 regardless of whether or not you wanted to play games on the system (of course, considering the system's current selection of games, those not wishing to use it as a video game console are probably the better off). But with this brilliant move, Sony has effectively cut-off the PS3's best sales point. Avenger, you may be mocking for my references to ancient Mel Brooks movies/Broadway plays, but you tell me: Is it or is it not starting to look like our favorite Japanese technology giant is in fact secretly being run by monkeys?

C&C 3 Demo Now Available!

Just FYI for anyone who is interested, there is a Command & Conquer 3 demo now available!

I've been trying to download it off Fileshack but apparently it is so popular their queues can't handle the stress and are thus malfunctioning. Oh well...

Woah...

Wow, a 'The Producers' reference....weird.

Sony Missteps...Again

Well for those of you who haven't been tracking the launch of the PS3 in some foreign markets, it would appear that Sony is ceding the one advantage it currently has over the 360. That's right, for a mere $999 European and Australian video game players can experience the wonder, the mystery, and the awe, that is a PS3 which doesn't play PS2 games using the PS2's native CPU. Like the 360, the European and Australian model of PS3 will "emulate" the games of the system's immediate predecessor, resulting in players being able to play PS2 games that "mostly" work , some of the time.

What makes this particularly worrisome is that there is nothing preventing Sony from switching their American and Japanese systems over to this cheaper emulation model of system. Since Playstations of any generation are notorious for breaking down (usually days after your warranty ends, remember flipping the PS over to make sure it would run) it is possible that the next time you or I go to purchase a PS3 we could be getting the crippled version. Way to go Sony. The only thing I can figure is that the heads of Sony are actually trying to destroy their game division. You know in some kind of scheme straight from the mind of Max Bialystock. Yeah, that must be it.

RE: Mercenaries vs. Crackdown

I tend to agree in a lot of ways as Sidious well knows. Though I accept that much of that may be due to my deep love for Mercenaries. What I will say is Realtime Worlds has created an extremely fun sandbox: a beautifully developed city with a fantastic art style that is fun to move around in and shoot stuff. The only problem is there isn't that much to do in said sandbox. More bosses (ala "The Deck of 52" from Mercenaries) and actual missions would have really helped to flesh out the experience.

That being said, the game is undeniably fun and I do have a certain compulsion to pick up every orb I can find. Also, there's clearly something to be said for going online with a friend and sniping enemy gas tanks you ride on the roof of his car. Or letting him shoot people in the leg as you throw grenades at them. Good times.

Also, I got a response to my "enquiry" at Realtime Worlds:

Many thanks for your interest in Crackdown. Unfortunately due to the volume of enquiries we can't answer individual emails.

Oh well, here's hoping I am more than a single voice and I can actually go do missions with a friend. Otherwise, it will have to remain the "make your own fun" proposition that it currently is, which isn't such a bad thing after all.

Mercenaries v. Crackdown

Well since everyone else is doing it, I feel that it is my moral obligation to comment on Crackdown. Like Avenger, I think that the Co-op needs refinement in its execution. Right now the game acts as kind of an old school Game Boy Game. You know, the kind where the cartridge will only hold one save, so if you want to lend your friend a copy he (or she) will have to erase your data in order to not play on your game. This just makes no sense in a co-op situation.

As for the game itself, I can't help but think that its an extraordinarily watered down version of Mercenaries, the LucasArts/Pandemic sandbox game that cam out a few years ago. Like Crackdown, the premise of Mercanaries was to hunt down "bad" people. Unlike Crackdown's offering of 21 bosses and sub-bosses, however, Mercenaries had players capturing 52 of the world's worst war criminals. More importantly, in order to discover a given criminal's location, a Mercanaries Player had to complete a GTA-like mission. In Crackdown, the information is just given to the player if he or she drives (or spider-man jumps as the case may be) near the criminal in question. The lack of any missions in Pacific City really hurts the game. It just makes the whole experience seem that much more empty. Still, Incognito is right, the game is a lot of fun, even if I think that the dynamic of running and smashing is carried out a bit better in Hulk: Ultimate Destruction. Anyone else have any thoughts?

Crackdown Co-Op?

So I finally got my 360 back from the repair center and subsequently went out and purchased a copy of Crackdown. I enjoy the single-player component very much, but in my first experiences with the co-op gameplay I must say I was largely underwhelmed.

I can see where co-op could be fun, where you are both two super-powered agents fighting against almost impossible odds (e.g. Gears of War), but currently I think Crackdown fails to achieve this for a couple reasons:

1. Getting into and out of co-op sucks. While the system is set up so your friends (or really anyone) can join at any time you choose to accept a co-op request the game reloads and you both have to start over regardless of what you were doing. Also, if your co-op friend decides to leave, the game has to reload you back into the single-player (another reload and start over). The streamlined drop-in, drop-out Gears of War co-op this is not.
2. The campaign is attached to the host and cannot be restarted. The world that you both play in is attached to the host and short of deleting all your progress (including that of your agent) there doesn't seem to be a way to restart it. Also, the videos describing the gangs and their generals are disabled in co-op. As a result, if you are at all interested in knowing about who these people you're killing are and why, you'll need to play it on your own first, and then you've finished all the missions so you can't do them in co-op. Crackdown is screaming for a New Game+ or some way to reset all the campaign missions so you can do them with a friend. Screaming.
3. You can't start a new agent or a co-op specific agent. The problem with this is that let's say your friend, oh, let's call him Incog, has been playing Crackdown all week and has completely maxed his character. You on the other hand just got the game and so your agent but all reasonable accounts, sucks. The result is that if you want to play with your friend you're going to have to accept the fact that you are largely going to be observing him doing cool stuff while you run around trying not to die. The ability to start a new agent or scale your agent to that of the host would make for much more fun cooperative gameplay.

These are things that I think could be reasonably remedied, but the question is whether Realtime Worlds would even care to or if they're even aware there is a problem. Personally, I think #2 is the most damning and, oddly enough, the easiest to fix (I mean just have a button that sets all the dead generals back to alive).

Hmmmm, I'm going to send an email to Realtime Worlds and see what they say. Maybe we can make a difference. We'll see how it turns out and I'll be sure to post the exchange here. Either way I feel that Crackdown co-op has enormous potential since the gameplay is very exciting and enjoyable, but right now that potential is largely unrealized.

Things that are awesome

1. Frosted mugs. They keep beer cold for hours, and because of that their awesomeness can not be understated.
2. The Prestige. The DVD came out this week, and it was just as good the second time. It's one of those movies where you notice little things after you know the twist that you missed the first time.
3. Crackdown.

Is Crackdown a great game? Not necessarily. It's not very long, you could probably wrap up the "story" in ten to twelve hours. Also, the missions are all pretty much the same. Approach area, kill grunts, kill boss. Rinse and repeat.

Does this mean that Crackdown isn't fun? Hells no. The fun just lies elsewhere: in things like jumping from rooftop to rooftop, or throwing a semi cab at some pedestrians, or intentionally leaping from a very tall building just to hear the sickening thud when you hit the ground. If, for some reason, you were one of those ten people who didn't download the demo, you really owe it to yourself to give it a shot. Trust me, if you love homing rocket launchers and throwing vehicles (and who doesn't), you'll love it.

Re: Power PC

This isn't quite what you're talking about, but this does bring up something interesting in the computer vs. console game battle. It seems that more women play games on a computer than a console. Part of that, I think is our aversion to sitting down at a console and dumping 14 hours into an RPG (we don't have that kind of time...an article on this particular issue is forthcoming). But, truly, why do I like games on a computer more than games on a console?

Seeing as how the games I play on the computer are the more simple strategy games and I probably wouldn't know a difference in graphics if you showed them to me side-by-side (although that did work when I was convinced of the greatness of DVDs over VHS) there is something about playing computer that works better for me. Maybe it's because I'm a girl and didn't grow up with a controller in my hand or maybe it's because I'm lazy and using a mouse with some button clicking is easier than two hands on a controller. The other hand can be used for drinking something yummy and I don't miss out on some complicated button mashing battle tactics.

I'm not sure what it is but I've played the Sims on both computer and playstation 2 and I like the computer version much better. I think I just have more control over things on a computer.

Games About Books???

Hello all you gamers! What do you think about games that are based on books? I am thinking about things like Rainbow Six. Do you think that these are good for the industry or bad? And while we're at it...what do think about movies based on games? Many times I find myself thinking...WOW! That game would be a GREAT title for a new movie....but most of the video game based movies I've seen just aren't as good. Do you think there is something related to the interactive nature of a video game that makes its plot compelling on a computer or console, but not so much on a movie screen? I'm not sure. What are your thoughts?

Re: Power PC

Ummm...some might say the complete lack of games worth playing (no disrespect to Resistance of course and as a 'proud' PS3 owner) would be reason enough. As for the PC Power complaints Sidious is pretty much dead on. While your average PC gamer would say it's because the graphics were so much more impressive, in the era of HDTV that is becoming less and less apparent.

I know that the big reason for my obsession with the PC is strategy, but if the consoles ever actually manage to crack that nut, they may sway me to stop pouring money into my computer on a biannual basis. BFME II for the 360 was a good attempt, but the controls still weren't quite there and most of the reviewers appeared to miss out on the fact that the game ran like absolute and total crap.

I mean, I was playing BFME II a computer ago and it still ran about 5 times faster than the 360 version. We'll see what they can manage to do with C&C 3 using a completely ground up approach, but seeing as my PC rocks, you can imagine which version I currently have reserved...

Power PC

Ok, so I played the Supreme Commander Demo like the rest of the PC-Gaming universe. Like Avenger said in his review at the mothership. The demo didn't initially wow me. In fact, it kind of turned me off a bit. After giving it a couple of additional chances, however, I found that I quite liked the game and that it was both different from other RTS games that I had played and different from what I was expecting. Because of the experience I purchased the game on Wednesday.

Here's my problem. Apparently the demo never really got the game up to "full steam" as it were. Where as I was able to play the demo at a certain high resolution and with most of the textures and effects turned on, and whereas I was similarly able to play at such resolution and with such textures and effects in the initial stages of the single player campaign, once the **** really started hitting the fan in terms of number of units being displayed the game slowed to a crawl. Turns out that in order to play the game I needed to turn down the settings to the second lowest resolution with the lowest refresh rate with no effects and low textures. While the game functions in this condition, needless to say it fails to impress like the box shots.

Now my computer just isn't that old. I would have called it middle to upper-middle class about 18 months ago, and now it plays new games like its an old commadore 64 or circa-1984 macintosh with the chimney to keep it from over-heating. Obviously this isn't a problem in all instances, but as a consumer relatively new to PC gaming I can certainly see why the console markets have grown while the PC's has suffered. To upgrade my computer I could probably buy a PS3, so (other than the complete lack of games worth playing) why wouldn't I?

Fighting with the Playstation 3

Well, the first big name title to be released for the PS3 since its launch in mid-November of last year is finally upon us. My question to you is this: Are you going to get Virtua Fighter 5? It has been fairly well reviewed. Then again, as Avenger would say "It is just a fighting game." Will this help the PS3 sell, or are we still waiting around for a true system seller? (I defy anyone to label Resistance: Fall of Man as a true system seller. Halo that game is not.)

Re: Its going to be a long winter

Avenger, fortunately I think the correct name of your post is "It's been a long winter." It looks like the light is finally starting to penetrate the darkness. Supreme Commander, C+C 3, God of War 2, Motorstorm, NBA Street Homecourt, Crackdown, etc. all look worthy of our support. As for the way I play Battle for Middle Earth 2: The match was an hour and a half not two hours, I was beating you to a bloody pulp, and I unfortunately couldn't seal the deal. And then of course, pork chops, 'nuff said.

It's going to be a long winter...

For one of the first times I've seen Game Informer decided not to award a PC game of the month or a Handheld game of the month as they felt there wasn't enough suitable material to warrant an award. Ouch.

At least Supreme Commander comes out this week! I can't wait to have my first 4-6 hour multiplayer match! ;)

Though the way Sidious plays it will probably last about 2 min. Except when we play Battle for Middle Earth II then it will last for-ev-er. Our last 2 hour bout basically made me sick of strategy and all things strategy related for about a day...or at least a couple hours...

Getting fiscally hosed...again

If you, like me, purchased the Lost Planet collector's edition, you will no doubt be pleased to hear that the Battlegrounds map you got with your shiny new game will not be part of a future map pack. No. Instead, it will be released for free. Free?! If that map costs zero dollars, what did I pay for when I got the collector's edition? Are you really telling me that I paid ten dollars for a metal case (and in my case, a dented one), a miniature art book, and a couple months head start on a free map? Honestly, I feel as though Capcom owes me something more, and it's unlikely that I'll get satisfaction. Hopefully this isn't the start of a long history of Capcom sticking it to consumers via Marketplace, since I'd hate to see how far they would try to push people with RE5 DLC.

Seeds of a great new company

From EvilAvatar comes some great news. Some of the old members of the now defunct Clover development studio (thanks Capcom) have started a new one, called Seeds. I am very, very, very exited to see what a development studio with the directors of Okami and RE 4 on board can do. I have no doubt that they will make some "preposterously amazing" games.

Just one more turn...

I should really know better than to start a 4X game so close to bedtime.

Oh well, I still got some sleep and Galactic Civilizations II: Dark Avatar really is that good. I mean, the original Galactic Civilizations II was a fantastic game and Dark Avatar just expands and improves on its predecessor. I definitely wanted to keep playing so I could just research one more technology, build one more ship, subjugate one more race, and that's exactly how a good 4X game should feel. Supposedly Dark Avatar also includes a program that generates a narrative of what occured in your game so once I figure out how to use that I will happily regale you all with the rise of Korxcom and the fall of the other major races under the weighty bootheel of Korx trading and diplomacy.

In other news, I haven't really tried to register since my 360 is in the shop (again), but I did see that the site has basically been down since the kickoff for the challenge. Too bad...

Xbox rewards backdoor

For anyone still having trouble with the broken Xbox rewards page, I have found a backdoor. First, make sure you have a passport account (hotmail, etc.), then go here to sign in. Then go here to register for the challenge.

Finally!

Xbox Rewards = broken

So, I have been trying to sign up for the Xbox rewards thing since the site went live last night. I have not yet been able to actually get into it. It started last night when none of the pages would load when I tried to sign in. I've been trying every few hours since then, and still nothing. As of February 13 at 5:32 EST, MS Game Studios says: "sorry we are very busy at the moment, please try again later." That's all that you see now when you try to access xbox.com/rewards. Thanks, Microsoft. Thanks for making this a smooth process.

If anyone has been able to actually log in, good for you. You must have hit that 5 minute window before everyone broke the site. I find it very surprising that MS may have underestimated the number of people who would try to sign up ASAP.

The original GOW

So did everybody see all of the God of War II reviews hitting the web this week. Its a little bit odd to say the least since the game is not slated to hit store shelves until early March. And these reviews are coming from big sites too: Gamespy, IGN, etc. Do you figure that these guys are reviewing pre-release versions of the game. I can't imagine that they would, and yet we're faced with almost a month-long window before the game is released to us.

Why would Sony hold a finished AAA game until March? Any thoughts?

Re: Re: Gamerwhoring

I agree with Avenger on his points, however, I do think that there is some danger on the margins. It wasn't so long ago that we here in the Den were arguing over whether it was a fair and just practice to tie gamerpoints to multiplayer gaming that mandates that the player play with anyone but his friends. The problems with this system are many: The player doesn't get to play with anyone he or she knows; The system usually boots the Player out of the game once it is completed, leading to a cycle of 5 minutes finding a game/five minutes playing a game; and The Player is far more likely to find him or herself playing with "Gamerwhores" who are not the most friendly of gaming compatriots.

My thought is that the addition of tangible rewards to the Gamerpoint system will practically mandate that all multiplayer acheivments are tied to "Ranked matches." At the very least Microsoft will have to keep better tabs on how developers choose to distribute their points. I mean, do we really want a class of games (see Fuzion Frenzy) that are popular solely because you can get 1000 points out of them quite easily? I know I don't.

Re: Gamerwhoring

Ok, first of all, regardless of what slam I decided to come back at you with you would have criticized it, so I decided, "why waste the effort?" I got across the point that your insult was, in fact, false and that was all I wanted to achieve. I would imagine that you of all people would understand and respect this kind of pragmatic laziness. Anyway, on to the business at hand...

First, I actually like achievements. I can't really explain why but for some reason seeing that little 'achievement unlocked' flash across my screen actually has some level of satisfaction, and I know I'm not alone in this. It's what motivates us to play through Gears of War multiple times, to try to go through a level of Lego Star Wars II without losing a life, or to see if you can manage to get through a level of Splinter Cell: Double Agent without being seen. It's the challenges that gamers have always been giving themselves for their favorite games, but now it has been given form and function.

Next, I like the concept of the rewards program. I don't think it is likely to make anyone more of an achievement whore than they already are (though it might convince to go finish King Kong which is about 8 hours long and a cool 1000), and it actually gives the Gamerscore some value even if it is rather small (I mean the Level 1 and Level 2 prize packages are like $5-$7). Before this, Gamerscore was just some limited measure of status that no one really cared about. Now, it has some purpose, I'm actually surprised it took this long to get here. I always thought that things like cool gamer pics should be tied to your Gamerscore: you want to be Master Chief, rack up 10,000 points and you earn it. Having to pay for gamer pics is completely ridiculous anyway, but that's an argument for another day...

In the end, I don't think that the Reward program will change the way most people play, but I do think it will encourage gamers to play their 360 a little more often and maybe aim at some of the more difficult achievements just a little more aggressively. I think that's exactly what Microsoft was going for, and with that I think they'll be very successful. This is another move in the right direction for XBox Live and another innovation that Sony would do well to downright copy.

Gamerwhoring

"Cram it"? That's your comeback? I really expect better from you Avenger.

Anyways, Microsoft recently announced their Xbox Rewards program, which will reward gamers who enjoy achievement whoring with worldly goods, like t-shirts, Xbox games, etc. I'm not saying that I won't register (1500 in 2 months, especially with Crackdown coming out is a slam dunk), but I'm not excited for the online environment that this will most likely generate for two months. I think I'll just avoid ranked matches for a while (especially in Gears), until the almost certain rampant Gamerscore frenzy is over.

So, what do you guys think? Is this a cool way for Microsoft to reward dedicated fans, or just a gimmick that will cause more harm (for gamers' enjoyment of their favorite games) than good?

Supreme Commander Demo Has Landed

First off, Incognito, I finished Final Fantasy XII less than a month ago (which you'd know if you actually read stuff at the website) and that was about 80+ hours...so cram it.

In other news, for those eagerly awaiting Chris Taylor's newest strategic masterpiece, Supreme Commander, if you haven't heard already, a demo for the game was made available yesterday. I am currently downloading a copy from FileShack (my favorite of the download sites) and plan to report back on my findings (either in a short article or a blog post) after I have had a chance to play around with it some. Just thought you all should know!

Really?

Wait, you probably won't finish Rogue Galaxy? I'm so surprised by that! Seriously, when is the last time you finished a 10+ hour game? 1998?

No offense intended, it's just that I haven't made fun of you for your poor game-finishing habits in a while. It's refreshing, like a fresh pair of pants straight from the dryer on a cold day.

A Galactic Romp for the Ages...

The concept of this post will likely become a one-minute review if I ever get around to writing it, but I just wanted to say my initial impressions of Rogue Galaxy have been very strong. Actually, my initial impressions (like the first hour or so) were somewhat weak, but having now played it for upwards of 15 hours, I can say it has really grown on me.

The characters are likeable and interesting, the combat is fun, albeit repetitive at times, and the adventure would seem to be chock full of stuff to do. You can advance the plot, go on bounty hunts, train your insectors for the insectron tournament, build items in the factory, or just explore the galaxy to you heart's content. From what I've heard of the length of this beast, chances are I won't finish it, but at this point I know I have an overwhelming desire to do so, and that's all I can ask for right now. Good stuff, if you like console RPGs, be sure to give this one a look.

A Day that Will Live in Infamy

All I can say is, it's good I wasn't in command of our forces in the Pacific during WWII...

In no less than three matches of Battlestations: Midway, my forces were handily defeated by the tactically-challenged Sidious. He may have limped across the finish line on a number of occasions, but a win is a win, and I'm not sure how he managed it. I don't know what it is about that game, but I haven't yet been able to wrap my head around it and it shows in my play.

Sidious and I have a long history of playing strategy games together. In Rise of Legends he hasn't captured a single one of my cities. He hasn't managed to win a single campaign in Star Wars: Empire at War (okay, he won one, but that was before we realized it auto resolved neutral battles and I sent the emperor to go capture a pirate planet, poor Emperor Palpatine). In the collective pantheon of RTS matches we've played (Age of Mythology, Age of Empires III, Dawn of War, Company of Heroes, Command & Conquer: Generals, just to name a few) he's probably only managed a handful of victories. Yet somehow he managed three Battlestations victories in a row!

I'm not sure what to make of all this, but it was very unsettling, so I needed to vent (and counter his gloating over our Battlestations matches, with a little "scoreboard!"). Still, I congratulate him on his victories and assure him that he will not find me such easy prey the next time we meet. That is, if I can manage to tear myself away from Rogue Galaxy long enough to get in some practice...

You're a Big Boy Now

Just like in real life, lots of people online are douchebags. People in WoW gank you, people in Madden glitch you, people in Halo say stupid crap. The problem that this causes is not just social, it affects the gaming. There are PC FPS games, primarily MOH:AA, where I have played through the campaign but never touched online play. Why? Because I can't aim. I don't know what my problem is because I have good hand-eye coordination. But I can't aim to save my life...
Do I think I could have fun online without being able to aim? Heck yes I could. But I know that there will be people out there that will feel the need to belittle my lack of aim. In some games, this doesn't matter. In Tribes II it was okay that I wasn't that good at aiming. There were always enough people playing that I just tried to contribute. The smaller the game, the less likely I am to play online, partially cause I don't like losing and partially because its no fun to be that no-aim pariah.
Does that mean anything should stop you from playing Gears online? No. There are going to be some games where you'd rather smack you teammate with a polearm than congratulate him on a win, but other times it will be great. If you enjoy the game with friends, I'm sure you'll enjoy it online. If not, life goes on. It might even work out that the douchebag from the other night is on the other team. Sweet Justice!

Internet Social Anxiety Disorder

For the last 4 days, I've had a really strong urge to play Gears of War online. The problem is, I can't bring myself to do it. I'm just too terrified of joining a match full of douchebags that will ruin my multi-player experience (much like the last time I tried to play GoW with strangers), so I just turn on my Xbox and sit at the Dashboard while I watch TV. Over this time I have only managed to start gears twice: once to play some of the single-player campaign, and once to stare at the multi-player menu. Seriously, how pathetic is that? I should be making fun of myself for being such a wussy.

Not surprisingly, Gears isn't the only game that will do this to me. Just downloading the Lost Planet online demo was a huge leap for me, let alone actually playing and enjoying it. Why was that such a huge feat? That humble Lost Planet online demo marked the first time I had ever (as in: forever) played a console game online.

What I want to know is this: does this ever happen to anyone else, even occasionally? Please tell me that I'm not as crazy as I think I am (because if I ever become that crazy, the end of the world is nigh).

As it has happened many times before, my own insanity has more or less crushed my ability to do something that I should enjoy. In this case, that thing is playing multi-player games. I know that this shouldn't be a problem, but that doesn't change the fact that I don't like playing with people I can't see. I don't know if I will ever be able to shake the discomfort of playing with people over the internets.

So the next time you see me in your Friends list just sitting at the Xbox Dashboard, you'll know that I'm probably just sitting there trying to psych myself up to boot up Gears. When this happens, do me a favor and kick my ass. I deserve it.

I spoke too soon

So, it turns out that my previous information about Blu-ray was incorrect. I was under the impression that Vivid had already announced their support of HD-DVD, but I learned to today that the opposite is true: they are producing Blu-ray movies. My apologies to Blu-ray for my premature prediction of its lack of boobies and subsequent demise. However, I still don't trust Sony not to royally screw it up.

Question for Gamers: Where do you want to see gaming go in the future?

Okay all you gamers out there....Where do you want to see gaming go in the future? There are lots of new games being made and new systems being developed. What would you like to see happen?

I think that I would like better developed sim games. It seems like some games are made so quickly that attention to detail is forgotten and they aren't as much fun to play. I would also like to see a new version of tetris...maybe like a take on Magical Mickey Tetris for the N64.

The Return of 2k Football

Hey all, in case you haven't seen this, 2k Sports has announced that they will be returning to the football field this year. As you probably know, NFL 2k5 was the last football game that 2k Sports made (and was also the first that I can recall to really put together some legitimate competition to Madden). The game was released for $20 in the Summer of 2004, and featured some of the best presentation seen in any sports game to date. EA was forced to drop the price of Madden that fall, and were not very happy about it. Then came the football video game apocalypse.

The NFL struck a deal with EA giving them exclusive rights to all league intellectual property, and the NFL 2k series was no more. EA's Madden is a good game mind you, but even this year's edition pails in comparison in some important respects to NFL 2k5 . That's why you can still find 2k5 fan boys trolling the boards spoiling for a fight with those Madden fanboys that they perceive to be representing "the man." But all that has changed now.

While still stripped of the rights to use the NFL and all of its licenses, 2k Sports has decided to go the "fake football league" route. They haven't really yet said much about what the game will entail, but if 2k5 is any indication we should be ready for a game created with impeccable presentation that closely approximates watching a real football game on TV. Whether or not this development will spur Madden to stop resting on its laurels is anybody's guess.

Re: Blu-Ray Doom and Gloom

Incognito, while its true that Sony has backed failed technologies in the past. I think its way too soon to call this match. Especially if porn is your magic bullet. As the biggest segment of the video industry, porn makers are no fools. They are going to be hedging their bets until a clear winner is decided, and I think there is reason to believe that the clear winner will be Blu-Ray.

Outside of the fact that I belive the higher storage capacity makes Blu-Ray the definitive leader in the clubhouse in terms of raw technology, there is also the marketplace to consider. Blu-Ray has an installed base of every Playstation 3 owner. HD-DVD can't say the same about the X-Box.

Take a look at this site. It tracks sales and stock trends on Amazon.com. While its clear that the two sides are in a war, I think that you will agree that the current trend is that Blu-Ray products are generally doing better than their HD-DVD counterparts. To the extent that this trend continues, there is little doubt in my mind that Blu-Ray will prove the victor. You are right, however, to identify the only problem with making such a predicition: Sony. Sony is notorious for trying to squeeze every dime out of content providers using proprietary formats. That being said, Sony has been successful in attracting powerful movie studios. For my money I'll take the offerings of Fox and Disney over those of Universal, but your mileage may vary.

Blu-ray gloom and doom

All this talk about the PS3 and you forgot to mention 1 thing: Blu-ray is doomed. You payed extra money for a format that will be obsolete in the very near future. Here are 2 reasons why:

1. Sony. Formats they back don't usually do well: see Betamax, Minidisc, UMD, etc.
2. pr0n. The adult film industry has sided with HD-DVD, and they basically decide who wins format wars. Notice that formats they have backed in the past (VHS and DVD) have greatly succeeded, while others (Betamax) have failed. No (.)(.)=doom.

I could be wrong, but look at those bullet points. Those are two very large mountains to climb. I certainly wish Blu-ray luck. It's probably going to need it.

The Future of the PS3

First of all, I think it's just you and I that own a PS3, Sidious, at least right now.

As for the overall performance of the PS3, I'd say just give it time, it's barely been out over two months and there are plenty of systems that have taken longer to hit their prime. Sony is aiming at a long haul strategy and that may take a little while to come to fruition. I mean there are at least two "emerging" technologies in the PS3: the blu-ray drive and the cell processor that are bound to trip up developers initially. The technologies available in the Wii and XBox 360 are much more conventional and much easier to develop for. I think time will tell who will emerge victorious, whatever that means, which brings me to my next point...

This is a debate that I've had a few times and for a long while, what determines the "winner" of the console war? Is it installed base? Better library of games? More AAA titles than any other? Better exclusivity agreements? I'm not really sure there is an objective criterion that can be used to differentiate which system is "better." The closest thing I could think of would be if you took all the gamers that owned or at least had significantly played all three and then had them vote on their favorite system.

Also, I don't think it's really possible to determine a winner in the middle of the battle. The Xbox 360 got a headstart and I think is maintaining it's early lead, but the Wii may be closing in. The PS3 is mostly suffering from a poor launch lineup (excepting Resistance, which is excellent) and a high price tag due to the high cost of its components. I think that if Sony is able to garner as much third-party support as it has in the past, the system will hit its stride and take off, but if they fail in that critical dimension, the system will ultimately fall. The only thing I can say in Sony's defense is that great games are still coming out for the PS2 so if they can leverage that support for their new platform (which I think they can, by the way), they may win this generation by a landslide. The PS3 is still the horse I'm backing, as it was before any of the "next-gen"systems launched. I plan to own them all (2/3 of the way there...stupid Wii), but I imagine the PS3 will be my favorite.

Quick Survey

Hey everybody,

I was surfing the net this morning looking at various articles about how the Playstation 3 is a "disaster" and how the Xbox or Wii will rule this generation. I realized while reading these articles that I didn't know who of us has the shiny black behemoth. I know that I do, and as I think I have indicated previously I'm quite nervous about its future.

I have seen little reason to believe that it will be able to outperform the 360, and while I think the price difference is overstated given the blu-ray player and hard drive included with the PS3, I don't believe that the public sees it the same way. For those of you who own a Playstation 3, how do you feel about it? Are you cool and confident? Are you nervous and concerned? Are you too busy playing your Wii to care?

Did someone say RTS?

Darn, I started this post so I could suggest Dawn of War...stupid Sidious...

Recognizing your last post was mostly about how you don't have the time to play games, you also mentioned you were looking for an RTS to play, and with that, I may be able to help. Dawn of War is a terrific RTS and probably the best one since Starcraft. It has seven different sides, each of which have reasonably different units and play styles. Each side needs to control the "requisition points" across the map in order to build up their army and base (and force the players into conflict over them). Outside of that, each side plays very differently, from the strange requisition-free units of the Necron to the cheap but effective hordes of the Imperial Guard. It's a good time and you can pick up Dawn of War: Dark Crusade (the newest "expanasion") for about $20. You won't be able to play as all the diffferent races online with just Dark Crusade, but the single-player campaign is completely standalone and should be able to stratch your RTS itch for quite a while.

Just a thought.

Re: Time if of the peasants

Jimmy,

I can certainly empathize with your lack of time. I myself have had so little time to play games that I am only playing WoW and I'm only playing that because I purchased the Burning Crusade. Unlike your dwarf avatar, I had never invested a substantial amount of time into WoW before the expansion's release so I had no problem starting over as a Paladin Draenei. That being said, I hope to get more time to play games as well. If you're looking for a speedy RTS I highly recommend Warhammer: Dawn of War. (Though admittedly I would probably recommend the game to anyone needing RTS action of any kind.) The matches usually take less than 20 minutes though they can, of course, run longer if players are of roughly equal skill. But either way let us here in the Den know what you ultimately wind up playing...when you get the time, of course.

Time is of the peasants

Instead of contributing to the current discussions here, I would like to lament my lack to time to play games and discuss. I have been playing WoW, but I don't have the Burning Crusade cause my character is only level 30. I haven't had time to build the squatty dwarf girl up any more than that, so it sure won't be worth my time to re-roll. There are many games I would like to play. I really feel like playing an RTS right now, but I've got nothing. I don't have the time to dedicate myself to a game of Civ or even C&C: Red Alert, one of my favorite games ever. Next week my time will become extended. Does that mean I'll be able to play more? I sure hope so. At the very least, I'll have more time to argue with these folks here. They could use an intelligent comment from time to time.

Less than a week until Rogue Galaxy!

So after reading some of the initial reactions to Rogue Galaxy I was a little worried, mostly by the way the game was described as "feeling like an MMORPG." Not that I am outrightly attacking MMORPGs, but they aren't what I desire from my single-player experiences. I want compelling storylines, interesting characters, and exciting battle systems from my RPGs, not just a vast world to explore and approximately 1,545,457 quests in which to partake. After reading some of the early reviews however, I feel that I can safely put my fears to rest, and there are three reasons why:

1. The game is made by Level 5. I LOVE Level 5. Dragon Quest VIII and Dark Cloud 2 were amazing experiences that oozed production values and storyline even while you were slogging through the latest dungeon. I am sure that Rogue Galaxy has been polished to such a mirror finish that even if the story is "predictable" it will still be an engaging and enjoyable experience. Add to that all the interesting weapon development, character development, and item factory systems along with the Insectron tournament (largely considered a game unto itself) and you've got a lot of interesting content to look forward to.
2. GameSpot described the game as an anime Star Wars. I don't think I really need to belabor this point: Anime = awesome, Star Wars = awesome, Anime + Star Wars = super awesome. 'Nuff said.
3. When you load your game you are given a summary of what's going on. I don't understand why this isn't more common, especially as the average length of games continues to increase (or at least polarize). Every game that can't be played over the course of a couple days should have some system of tracking your adventures: a journal, an loading update, the ability to watch previous cutscenes. I requires virtually no extra effort on the part of the developers and allows more casual gamers (like myself) to enjoy these extended experiences without having to dedicate all our free time to it. I applaud you Level 5, I applaud you.

There's certainly a lot more to like about Rogue Galaxy than just what I have listed here, but these are the points that have me sold without knowing anything more about the game's characters, storyline, or battle system. Including what I know about those points, I think it's pretty obvious that I am very excited about the game's imminent release.

And you should be too.

Re: Save Kairi...

Incognito,

You might also know her as the tomboy coach's daughter in Remember the Titans or of course as Britney from that sequel near and dear to all our hearts: Bring it On: All or Nothing.

Check here for more.

Save Kairi, save the world

I've been watching Heroes over the past couple of days, and I couldn't shake the feeling that I had seen Claire before. Well, it turns out that I hadn't seen her before, I heard her. She's the voice of Kairi, from Kingdom Hearts. This has been bugging me since Sunday, and now my mind can finally be at ease.

Re: The Traveling Gamer

Kitten, hope you are enjoying your trip. In answer to your question, if I am going on vacation, I am only likely to take my PSP. Quite frankly, my PSP gets 80% of its play when I'm away from home, so I guess I use it as one of my main sources of trip entertainment.

This calculus changes a bit if, for instance, I'm visiting geographically distant relatives. When that's the case I still bring my PSP, but I will also usually bring some mechanism to bring over the larger console experience. Whether that is simply a memory card, or the whole system packed in a backpack depends on what kind of set up the relative has. The more the relative has the less I need to bring. As you can tell I very rarely go anywhere without some form of electronic entertainment.

Mark your calendars

February 20th: Crackdown hits a store near you!

Well, the Crackdown demo finally went on Marketplace today, after being delayed for 5 days to some licensing issues, or whatever. It was well worth the wait. Do yourself a favor and go download it now (and I mean now, it's 1.24 gigs so it'll take a while).

You get access to half of one of the three islands in the game to roam around in and fight crime. You'll have plenty of time to explore, since the demo is long. It lasts for 30 minutes after you get one of your five traits up two levels. For me, this demo was well over an hour long.

3 initial impressions:
1. At first, I thought that the targeting system was stupid. Then I realized how easy it was to shoot someone in the leg, then walk up and shoot them in the head when they were down. That won me over pretty quick, but some people will probably still hate it.
2. Colors! In a 360 game! ZOMG! No, really, I love the comic-book-esqe art style.
3. Jumping from rooftop to rooftop rules. I could do it all day. I only got into approximately 3 vehicles, I was having so much fun moving around on foot.

I need to play it again to see how co-op is, and because I felt like I didn't rip off and throw enough car doors.

Re: Re: The Answer is...

My opinion on achievements and the gamerscore is decidedly split. On one hand, I really like achievements in the single-player/co-op parts of a game. They give me a little motivation to press on and attempt things that I normally would have just passed by, which can lead to hours of extra enjoyment from a game. Plus, when I reach my goal, I get something that I can proudly show to my friends that says, "I did this!"

On the other hand, I'm not a huge fan of multiplayer achievements. I think that the motivation for playing online should come from a desire to test your mettle against wily human competition. However, when you add achievements to the mix, you end up with a lot of people playing only for the achievement, which sucks since they are changing their play style in an attempt to make more kills with the pistol, or whatever to achievement requires. This means that they are handicapping themselves in an attempt to achieve a few measly points for their gamerscore, and I for one an insulted by it. It's like they see me as not worthy of their full effort.

The bottom line is: even though Live is the best online system of the consoles, it's not perfect. It seems like some people (Microsoft) forget this sometimes. I think it's only a matter of time before the people at Sony pull their heads out of their collective asses and realizes that Live is not the perfect, untoppable online platform that people make it out to be.

The Traveling Gamer

Hello Gamers and Gamegals. This week I am traveling and I was just wondering if anyone plays games while they travel and if so, what? Do you take your PSP or do you simply pack up a couple of games? Being a computer gamer myself (for the most part), I take my laptop, but I sure don't like playing games with the built-in touchpad. A real mouse is much better. Who has some advice for me???

Re: The answer is...

"...because, of course, your Gamerscore is some measure of your worth as a gamer and thus a person."

Avenger and Incognito, I think this is an excellent time to discuss with you what your feelings are with respect to the vaunted gamerscore. What most thought would be nothing more than a novelty of the Xbox 360 has, in my experience, become something else. As Avenger notes, the action by Microsoft (or the game developers, it gets a little unclear as to who is pulling the strings on this point) to limit Achievments to Ranked Match participants (which, by the way, can't be played with friends unless by happenstance) would seem to be fueled by the notion that there are those that would game the system to gain acheivements both in-game (badges, medals, and the like) and for gamerscore.

There are almost innumerable problems with this system. The most obvious, of course, is why anyone would want to play video games with people that aren't fun to play with. Why is Halo 2 the most popular multiplayer game in existence (excluding MMO's like WOW, of course)? I would argue its because of a Bungie invention called the couch. For those of you that haven't played much Halo 2, the "couch" is essentially a group of people that move through the interface together. That is, you and your six buddies become linked and will stay together no matter what options the couch leader picks. Want to play 7 v. 7? You'll play together. Want to Play CTF? Want to Play Deathmatch? With vehicles? Without? You'll stay together. And thus camaraderie is born.

In the "Ranked Matches/No Friends" system, not only can you not play with friends, Microsoft (or other powers that be) won't let you play with the same group more than once. This is the antithesis of the couch, arguably the most successful multiplayer system ever. Not only does this prevent camaraderie of any kind, it also forces the player out to a menu between matches. For games that can take only 5 minutes to play a "round" this means that the player will spend as much time finding a match as playing it. This is unacceptable.

And why? To prevent people from "cheating"? As Avenger says, who cares, "their dead in side." Do real gamers actually care that there might be cheaters? Is that concern worth eliminating the ability to play with friends (or at the very list with the same core group)? Seems like using a cannon to kill a fly to me. And the collateral damage is devastating. Your thoughts?

The answer is...

be mad at the Microsoft, or whoever decided that player matches don't count or that you can't play with your friends in ranked matches, but also at the gamers that make such a situation "necessary."

For the most part, gamers want to play with their friends, even if they are just people in their WoW guild or the writers of Penny Arcade. It makes no sense that if you want achievements you have to be matched with however XBox Live so chooses, and I think it hampers some of the system's multiplayer success, especially with very team oriented games.

Take Gears of War for example, it has a great multiplayer component. It's fun, it's very team oriented, and it has chainsaw bayonets. I remember one game where me, two of the writers here, and an old friend from my Chromehounds squad were playing togehter on one team. We easily formed two man squads that actually managed to pincer the entire enemy team into a warehouse and then proceed to systematically destroy them. That was quite possibly one of the best multiplayer experiences I have ever had. We were able to quickly communicate with one another, cover each other's backs, and we all rocked, however, we recieved no credit for it, any particular reason?

Did the fact that I was playing with friends make me shoot straighter or make me otherwise a better player? In short, no. But the fact of the matter is, there are those people who would use this system to pad their stats by forming a game with some friends and then proceeding to allow each other to do whatever they wanted in order to gain achievements, because, of course, your Gamerscore is some measure of your worth as a gamer and thus a person. It is because of these people that this unfortunate dichotomy exists so if you want to be mad at anyone, be mad at them.

In the end I think player matches should count, and if a few people pad their stats, I couldn't care less, they're already dead inside.

My Greatness goes unrecorded

Yes, that is "Greatness" with a capital G.

Could someone explain to me why all the normal people playing Lost Planet online are playing in player matches instead of ranked matches? I mean, there really is nothing to gain my doing a player match: no experience, no achievements, no nothing. And yet, everyone seems to flock to the player matches, leaving ranked matches generally populated by douchebag power-levelers, and/or absolutely ridiculous gametypes (fugitive with the rifle?! wtf?!). This is distressing to me, since I am now forced to play in player matches to find a good game, but this means that when I get a 10-kill chain (which I did) it doesn't count! That's a 50 point achievement!

As you might be able to tell, I'm a little irritated right now, but I'm no longer sure what I'm mad at: the lack of friendly competition in ranked matches, or Microsoft for making multi-player achievements attainable in ranked matches only.

Re: The Wasteland

"Sony fanboys should be seriously concerned. The PS3 needs some games to gain traction and I just don't see them on the horizon."

Sidious, you're not looking far enough on the horizon. Even though Sony has seriously botched some deals, like losing GTA 4 as a PS3 exclusive, they still have the two games that really matter: MGS 4 and FF XIII. Sony doesn't need to beat Microsoft right now, they only need to tread water until Squeenix waves their magic wand and moves a few million PS3's off the shelves. Now, Sony doesn't have a stranglehold on Squeenix, they're still going to make games for other platforms like the DS, but even Sony isn't stupid enough to let them release the big titles for any other system. I really don't expect to see the important Final Fantasy or Dragon Warrior titles on another console anytime soon. Of course, I've been wrong before. In fact, I'm wrong frequently.

Re: Winter Wonderland

Well Avenger, you're not wrong that all of those games are coming out over the winter. I guess what I was trying to express was my disappointment that there weren't more AAA, AA, or even A quality titles. I can appreciate your argument though and I'm glad you made it. I have always wondered why game companies don't spread out the wealth a little bit more. Take for instance the November-December Christmas Season.

During the Christmas Season there are generally more games than one can even accurately keep track of. Yet games keep coming until the season has passed. Then you have the winter season proper, in which nothing (or virtually nothing as you pointed out Avenger) comes out. Why not spread it out a little bit. I mean I'm sure the game companies are working off of a substantial amount of data suggesting that they will make more money if they release over Christmas, and all things being equal, I would have to agree.

The problem, of course, is that all things are not equal, a AA quality title released in November might not even get notice in November, when it would be treated as something of a savior in January or February. Am I missing something?

Why I Won't Play WoW

Okay, so I was cleaning out a file box and found this little clipping from 5/9/2003 from The Week magazine:

"Women have a tough time finding their way around virtual reality. Female architects, trainee pilots, and computer gamers are generally 20 percent slower than men in figuring out where they are in a computer-generated world, say Microsoft researchers. Men, on average, can quickly create a mental image of their surroundings, and orient themselves. Unfortunately, 'women have lower spatial ability,' computer scientist Mary Czerwinski tells New Scientist. But the gender gap disappears when women are given a wider screen. Researchers found that women were just as adept as men at virtual navigation when their monitor offered a viewing angle of 100 degrees, instead of the standard 35 degrees."

I don't think that I necessarily agree...especially about that whole spatial thing...since I seem to be able to pack the car more efficiently than my male-counterpart. But, at least I have an excuse for why I'm not any good at these games. :)

Winter Wonderland...

While, I think that Sidious is right, there isn't a breadth of content coming out (especially for the PS3), I think there is a lot of quality to be had. Also doldrums after a system launch aren't uncommon it's just that two systems launched at the same time so a lot of effort was soaked into making launch or near-launch titles so it will take a little while before things get back to usual.

Still there's Fusion Frenzy 2, Supreme Commander, Rogue Galaxy, Burning Crusade, God of War II, Rathet & Clank: Size Matters, D&D: Tactics, Battlestations: Midway, Crackdown, Bullet Witch, Maelstrom, and Tital Quest: Immortal Throne, just to name a few all available by early March.

I'm not saying these will all be great, things could be a lot worse, much like "The Mild Recession" (if you get that reference, thank you). So stop worrying about your ailing PS3 and go play some Resistance: Fall of Man.

Gene Splicing

Jimmy, look up Impossible Creatures or Gene Wars. I think you might be pleasantly surpised.

As for Spore, that game looks sweet, any idea when it's supposed to come out?

The Wasteland

Well folks, here we are in the middle of January. Aside from the cold weather, this time of year usually means only one thing: No Video Games. Of course the "no" part of that statement is hyperbole. There are of course some video games being released. But compared to the holidays, well there simply is no comparison. Now IGN has created a series of articles under the moniker "Games of Winter." I highly recommend you check it out here. (The link goes to the PS3 games of winter, but all of the relevant links to other platforms can be found on the bottom of the page.) I have to say, even after checking out the entire list of games that IGN has compiled (which by the way includes a number of games from late March...stretching as far as I am concerned), I remain less than impressed. Sony fanboys should be seriously concerned. The PS3 needs some games to gain traction and I just don't see them on the horizon. Does anyone else here have a different impression?

Idle Hands

Avenger has recently been critical of the film known as Idle Hands. I protest this. Seth Green, Jessica Alba, and the rest of the cast of that movie provided me with a highly enjoyable experience. It was ridiculous, but who can dislike a movie with quotes like:

"Guy: I mean, there was this bright white light at the end of a long tunnel, right, and there was these chicks' voices, and that music... kinda uncool music, like, Enya. And these chicks' voices, they were saying, "come to us, come towards the light".

Other guy: So what happened?

Guy: We figured, f*** it, I mean, it was really far! "

What does this have to do with games? Campiness! I love movies like Idle Hands or Not Another Teen Movie. Other than games like Simpsons: Hit and Run and a few other series (mostly platformers like Jak and Daxter) dorky comedy is sorely lacking. I would like to see campy games come out with silly plots that are supposed to be silly, not just poorly written stories that are so stupid they are funny.

Overheard at the Bar-B

"Gene mutations are overrated"
"Would pig people taste better than normal pigs"
"I don't think the world is going to end in the next three hundred years"

Valid points all, but what is sorely missing here is a video game. Spore may be part of this, but that's not exactly what I'm talking about. Spore needs to add in the ability (in an expansion, it'll take long enough to be released in current concept) to splice the genes of one animal with those of another. I think this would be a great gameplay dynamic.

Or else it could be a whole game, probably for the DS. You can take over the world but have to create your own army. You can create horses crossed with dogs that pig people ride upon. You get the biology part, which could be mucho fun, and then also get the stratgy part. You could even fight your bizarre creation with someone else's. Other games do it, but they have set systems of character building. This would be more freeform. I'm excited already!

Games I Want Made...

Been playing a lot of Sword of the Stars lately and also talking to Sidious about Galactic Civilizations II and it has identified in my brain two titles that I would like to see made:

Alpha Centauri II - Dude, Alpha Centauri was sweet, it had a bunch of cool future techs, a neat sci-fi "plotline," and the ability to design your own units. Just fantastic.

Imperium Galactica III - I loved the way the Imperium Galactica games combined the RTS and 4X genres AND tried to have interesting stories at the same time. Imperium Galactica II actually had different storylines for each of the different sides (there were 3). That was a great series I'd like to see more of.

Re: Best Sim Ever?

Hahahaha, you got served, Sidious, you got served...

As for me, I'm never sure exactly what falls into the "Sim" category. I think there are a lot of games that combine Sim aspects with other genres like the Stronghold series adds RTS elements to what is largely a sim game, or The Sims has many RPG elements included in it's "life simulator".

For me, I think I would have to go with Zeus by Impressions. While arguably not as good as Pharoh (by the same company) I think I played through pretty much every mission this game had to offer and loved every minute of it. There was a complex economy that involved trade between several cities, a military RTS aspect that wasn't particularly complicated but was fun nonetheless, and also exciting mythical monsters and heroes that your city would have to deal with (i.e. Cyclops running around, Odysseus will only show up if you have x and y). Good times.

What ever happened to Impressions? Did they get absorbed, or close, or change their name? I haven't heard anything about them in a while...

Re: Re: Best Sim Ever?

Seriously? Railroads? I mean don't you think for something to the BEST EVER it should maybe be INTERESTING? I have absolutely no reason to want to play a game that would make me a 3-piece-suit wearing, cigar chomping, mustache twirling robber baron (not that I have anything against robber barons). But come on....roller coaster are much more FUN and EXCITING. And that's why you're just wrong. RCT ROCKS!

Re: Best Sim Ever?

Well, Kitten already knows this, but my vote is for Railroad Tycoon. That game has it all, building things, ruthless business tactics, a dynamic stock exchange, ruthless business tactics... I mean, the games not for everybody. Stock manipulation in 19th century industrial transport enterprises may not sound like a good time to everyone. That's why Roller Coaster Tycoon is so successful. Everybody loves theme parks. And perhaps if they could figure out a really good way to have your parks in Roller Coaster Tycoon compete with other parks, I might promote it to best sim ever, but for now if you want the best you have to ride the rails.

Best Sim Ever?

Over the weekend I went through my pile of games, weeding out the good from the not-so-good and stacking up the truly great. In the process a great fight started, one that I think belongs on the blog.

I love to build things. I don't mean bookshelves. I mean roller coasters, sim houses, and zoos. When I judge a sim game I measure it against the greatest Sim game of all time...Roller Coaster Tycoon.

Roller Coaster Tycoon has it all: the ability to manipulate a lot of items, challenging scnearios, fun graphics and gameplay, great music, and awesome expansions. I'm not exactly sure what controls making people buy more sodas when the price goes down, but the cause and effect of gameplay is right on (in some other knock off sims I am greatly disappointed). It's addicting and fun, exactly what a video game should be.

So make your case...Roller Coaster Tycoon, Railroad Tycoon, Zoo Tycoon...which do you think is best? I'd love to tell you why you're wrong.

OMGICBTJBDSTSNO24!!! [Spoiler Warning - Highlight to Read]

Oh My God I Can't Believe That Jack Bauer Didn't Stop the Suitcase Nuke On 24!!!

Nuff' Said.

[Post Edit: Text turned white to prevent readers from unintentionally spoiling the 24: Day 6 premiere for themselves]

Wow...

This s#$% is ridiculous, according to GameSpot:

Woman dies after Wii contest

28-year-old who took part in 'hold your wee for a Wii' radio show competition dies of likely water intoxication, reports AP.

Mother-of-three Jennifer Strange was hoping to win one of Nintendo's next-gen consoles for her children. But the KDND 107.9 radio show contest she took part in had a tragic end when the woman was found dead in her Rancho Cordova, California, home.

Coroner Ed Smith, performing a preliminary investigation, found evidence that was "consistent with a water intoxication death."

The winner of the Wii game console was to be the person who managed to not go to the toilet for the longest amount of time, despite consuming large quantities of water. Contestants had to drink an eight-ounce bottle of water every 15 minutes--one quit after five bottles. In the later stages of the competition, the remaining entrants were given even bigger bottles to drink.

It is not known how much water Ms Strange consumed. She told a colleague after the contest that she felt sick, and had a "really bad" headache. The woman was later found dead in her suburban home. It is not known if Ms Strange succeeded in winning the console.

A spokesperson for the radio station commented, "We are awaiting information that will help explain how this tragic event occurred."

No real comment. Just thought you all should know...be careful out there...

Fun with glitches

You know what I love? I love when an update (aka a patch) is available the day a game comes out. You know what's even better? When there are still huge glitches that said patch doesn't address. This is a warning to everyone out there playing Lost Planet: THERE IS A GLITCH WITH THE LAST BOSS. Sometimes, he will simply not die. Ever. You can wail on him for 5 minutes with no health and he just keeps on coming. So, as a note, if this happens to you, reload your save and it should be fixed.

Hopefully you don't spend an hour trying to kill a glitchy boss before thinking that there might be something wrong. That might make you as frustrated as I was last night.

Good to know

Thanks, Sidious. I wouldn't call those two people "stars," but it's good to know that there IS a connection. Working out of my apartment last year I ended up watching a lot of DS9 in the middle of the day, so I just thought it was funny. Especially since it still took me a second to recognize him. It must be that beard, or his sticking a knife in that guy's knee, not very Dr. Bashir at all...

Re: 24

Well, Avenger. Manny Coto is executive producer of the show. You might recognize the name from the credits of Enterprise. While he had no direct involvement in DS9 as far as I can tell, he was part of the Paramount sci-fi powerhouse for a number of years. As such, it should probably come as no surprise that he incorporates stars from Star Trek. As for not recognizing good doctor Julin, I can only offer an admonishing "tsk, tsk."

Re: Symphony of Retro Games

Thank you Kitten for your analysis of my situation. I think you are right. Games are like movies, and retro games do remind us of an earlier, simpler time. Of course, I may just be clinging to any indication that I'm not a crazy person for potentially enjoying my time with Sam and Max better than Lost Planet (blasphemy I know).

Note for the 24 Season Premier

Anyone else recognize the "peacemaking" (intentions not entirely identified at this point) terrorist Assad in the new season of 24 is Dr. Julian Bashir from Deep Space Nine? Along with Sherry Palmer they mark two clearly identifiable DS9 connections and it just amused me as it took me a second to identify him (though many in the room thought he looked "familiar"). I'm curious are there other DS9 or general Trek connections that people have seen throughout the show's five seasons?

Re: Symphony of Retro Games

My short answer to your question is: I don't think all the good ideas are gone.

First, your question is also like asking "Can Hollywood really make an original movie?" We still keep going to movies even though we know that in the end the boy will either get the girl or he won't. We still keep going to movies because they are fun! I think that the same is true of video games. They are re-released because even if the graphics aren't as great as the PS3, they are still fun. I still play Pharoah's Tomb (yes, from like 1991) because it's fun.

Second, I think that there is some nostalgia associated with retro games, just like old movies. They remind us of a different time, whether we lived it or not. For me Pharaoah's Tomb is everything great about my childhood. We were the first kids with a computer since my Dad worked at home. You know the ones with the old floppy drives? My Mom used to take us to the Sav-On drugstore on Saturdays and sometimes we'd talk her into a shareware game for $5. I can still picture the big stand with all the games on it in the aisle at the store. My brother and I would play and play and play and shared this hobby together. It was a way we could relate to each other (especially when we finally figured out that on level three if you hit the arrow button one extra time you can actually make the jump).

To Sum Up, I think that not all the good ideas are gone. Maybe just all the good endings are. I think there were only like three endings to begin with anyway. Gameplay, challenges, and advances in technology continue to change what games can do. You actually bowl on the Wii for crying outloud! Liking retro games doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you. I'm sure you probably have some great memories that they remind you of when you play them. Plus, Super Mario Bros. Rocks!!!

Whither the Adventure Game

Well now that I know that there is in fact something wrong with me, I feel as if a great burden has been lifted. Now I can talk about whatever random thoughts enter my mind. Those of you who visit the mothership regularly (and that should be everyone, the site's great), and who obsess over what all of us here are playing, know that one of the things I am currently playing is Telltale's Sam and Max series of games. I can't tell you how happy they make me.

I grew up typing commands to King Graham and Roger Wilco, clicking on drunken pirates, and helping save the world from an evil tentacle, and all in games which offered me no direct control over the main characters. These were Adventure games with a capital "A" and they have almost completely gone by the wayside thanks to a negative media that would apparently rather play 600 RTS's when they aren't cruising through 357 FPS's. Sam and Max is great, but it represents the exception to the rule. I would argue that the "death" of the adventure game genre nicely corresponds with the death of story-telling in at least a segment of the video-game field.

Will adventure games ever get the comeback they so richly deserve? Only time will tell.

In short, yes.

There is definitely something wrong with you.

Re: Re; Symphony of Retro Games

Your points are well taken, Incognito, but outside of the fact that I am sure that I am not as excited about Lost Planet as you are, I still can't understand my current fascination with retro games. I mean taken on face, the games I have been playing as of late are outmatched by current offerings in: graphics, audio quality, often story, sometimes design, length of play, and often raw innovation. And yet...I still find myself playin' Super Mario Bros. every night. To a lesser extent this also applies to the Playstation 3. I haven't played a "PS3" game on the PS3 in maybe a month. Instead I play FF XII, and currently "24" (to get mentally prepared for Day 6, oh yeah!!). I know that this is largely a function of the lack of superb games on the PS3, but still, I'm beginning to think that there is something wrong with me. Are any of the rest of you experiencing a sort of Retro-renaissance in your own lives? Or am I an outlier?

Re: Symphony of Retro Games

No, I do not think all the good ideas are gone. References: Gears of War, Lost Planet, Okami, and Shadow of the Colossus, all of which have been released in the last fifteen months or so. That's enough proof for me that there are still original (and good) ideas out there.

I also disagree that this season is a "barren wasteland." In the next month, we get the following:

Lost Planet
Rogue Galaxy
Forza Motorsport 2
Crackdown
Persona 3

That seems pretty bountiful to me, and that's only what's coming for the PS2 and 360 that I can think of off the top of my head. And yes, I did come up with Persona 3 off the top of my head: I'm always excited about a game where you execute attacks by shooting yourself in the head. I'm serious! Find a gameplay video and see for yourself!

Stay cool baby!

For everyone else who loves the Cole Train, I'd like to direct you to this official forum post with an .mp3 of the song that plays during the credits of Gears of War.

Woo! Bring it on sucka!

Symphony of Retro Games

Maybe its just because I have been immersed in the world of retro games since the Wii Launch, or maybe its because I have a sub-conscious longing to relive the days of my youth, but for the last little while I have been thoroughly enamored with retro gaming. And this news from gamespot does little to end my courtship. Still, I find it a little concerning that the games I am most looking forward to this year are largely the same as the games I was most looking forward to in 1997. Even Comand and Conquer 3, the game I am most looking forward to this spring, I expect to be largely unchanged from the "fight, win, prevail" days of old. Is this a trend? Are all the good ideas gone? Or am I just overreacting in the face of the barren video-game wasteland that we see every January?

Preorders...

Preordered Lost Planet and Rogue Galaxy today. I already know Lost Planet is going to be awesome and I trust Level 5 pretty implicitly at this point (Dark Cloud 2 was great). I just hope I manage to get one of those little vital suits with my preorder. I'd love to have one of those on my desk at work.

As a note, can someone explain to me why EB/Gamestop employees insist on trying to get me to preorder stuff that doesn't even have a confirmed release date yet? The guy tried to get me to preorder Mass Effect or Bioshock. At the earliest those are what? Fall? I'm pretty sure they're not about to run out just yet.

I just don't get it, so if someone could explain, please go ahead...

Embedding FTW

Good Catch!

New Blue Dragon Goodness

Gametrailers.com has a video review of the import version of Blue Dragon, and it certainly looks interesting. I would recommend checking it out, especially if you are a fan of ridiculous Japanese theme music.

Do you buy or rent?

Hello gamers...here's a question for you...Do you buy or rent your games? What decides which you do?

Most of the games I play are games that you can't you rent, so I can't really try them out or even play them all the way through by renting. Even so, games like the Sims or Roller Coaster Tycoon are my favorite and since they have no beginning-middle-or-end I can't really say they are worth renting since they are best played at any time. So I suppose my answer is I buy my games because they can't really be played "straight through."

And when you consider that I only play games I really like, I don't really spend a lot of money buying games I don't finish or don't play.

I won't lie, I'm kind of jealous...

According to this article from GameSpot, their editor-in-chief Greg Kasavin is leaving to pursue a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" as a game developer:

The name Greg Kasavin is synonymous with GameSpot. As one of the veteran members of this Web site, Kasavin has helped shape GameSpot for more than a decade.

Next week marks Kasavin's last at GameSpot, as he has decided to pursue a goal he has had since he was a child and approach the industry from the other side. He has accepted a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" at an established development studio.

"My friends, family, and close colleagues have known that making games has always been my goal," says Kasavin in a farewell blog post. "But breaking into that business is hard, and I wasn't going to do it until I was ready. At last, when faced with a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get my foot in the door and contribute to one of my favorite gaming franchises, I still didn't have an easy time making the choice. That's because, in case it hasn't been abundantly clear, I love this job."

Kasavin has been writing game reviews for GameSpot for the better part of 10 years, and began working for this site as a college intern in 1996. Outside of GameSpot, Kasavin has served on the judging panel for the Game Critics Awards, which offers post-E3 honors to games "that will shape the future of interactive entertainment," and was featured as the subject of a 2002 Penny Arcade Web comic.

While I personally was never particularly fond of Kasavin's reviews, you have to respect what he has done as GameSpot's editor, and if I could manage to be in his shoes six years from now (he is 6 years older than I am) I'd be pretty pleased. Farewell, Greg, we barely knew ye...

RE: PS3 Woes Pt. 2

Hahaha....nice...

That's right Sony, you OWE it to us and our significant others, so get crackin'!

PS3 Woes Pt. 2

I do not own a PS3, nor do I frequently play it (although I did convince someone to download the Lemmings free trial so I could try it...it is everything I thought it would be). However, I have felt the residual PS3 woes myself watching my poor video-game obsessed fiance mourn his lost saves. How can Sony do this to me??

I deal with the inevitable football loss every fall, the yearly nail-biting of NBA playoffs, and the week-long mope session after hockey playoffs turn into a joke. Why must I endure the mood swings of a gamer who lost his saves too...through no fault of his own???!!!

This kind of gross electronic malfunction should be fixed....for women everywhere....because I just can't take it anymore.

PS3 Woes

Now, I personally believe that the current tendency of the media to bash the launch of the PS3 is a bit unfair. A system does not generally show its true colors at launch, and while I agree that the launch could have been better there is still much to like in what amounts to the cheapest Blu Ray player on the market. That being said, Sony is severely testing my patience this week.

In order to play PS2 and PS1 games on the PS3, a user is made to create what Sony calls an "internal memory card." Essentially this internal memory card is simply a block of data which is formatted to look like a memory card to those games from earlier Playstation eras. In general, the system works wonderfully. On Monday, however, I awoke to play a quick hunt or two on FF XII when much to my surprise, though the card still existed in my system's memory, the contents of said card were nowhere to be found. 71 hours of FF XII...gone. 15 hours of Okami...gone. 20 hours of Bully...gone. And it turns out that I am not the only one to have this happpen. Its amazing to me that the media hasn't seized on this as a major problem. Compared to the hullabaloo about Backwards Compatability (which as far as I can tell is mostly well executed on the PS3), this problem is far the more serious. In a mere two months Sony has managed to make my expensive new toy feel like junk.

Re: Game of the Year?

Well while my game of 2006 may well be FF XII, I am not willing to concede victory to it just yet. On the one hand FF XII does offer a great deal of RPG fun. On the other hand, I think that the size of the game, both in terms of side quests and geography, serves to hurt what might otherwise be a strong narrative flow. As a result, I am at least partially inclined to award the honor to Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. The problem is that I don't feel qualified to do so, since I have only played the game to about half way. Still, I can't imagine that one of FF XII and Legend of Zelda will eventually be my game of the year. Does that answer the question?

Re: Which is the Better Game?

Avenger, I would have to say that Rainbow Six: Vegas is the better game. First of all, I much prefer dealing with terrorists in the hustle and bustle of a tachnically advanced American city. I have always enjoyed video games that deal with a real threat to America rather than a distant threat in the slums of, oh I don't know, Mexico City. That being said, I think its a little bit sad that the Rainbow Six series and the Ghost Recon series now play so alike as to be darn near indistinguishable. On a certain level, it feels like where the gaming population used to have two different game series we now only have one. Its a good one, but still...