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?