More thoughts on Rock Band 3:
One new addition to RB3 I've really enjoyed is the improved music library. It's been great being able to rate songs and having these critiques affect the gameplay. I've enjoyed this degree of interaction and it's been particularly sweet not doing songs I hate ever again.
But there seems to be something about the Music Library that doesn't sit well with me. Sure it's a great feature but I'm getting the feeling the game isn't really appreciating the critiques. I like how RB games can really take flight with a variety of music available but somehow I think the game isn't really that selective.
You see, with so many selection being placed in the player's hands, there really is no excuse for the same songs to keep popping up. Why, when given the choice during the tours, I make a beeline straight for the options for a custom made setlist.
And I like variety - I make a point to choose songs I haven't tackled yet (which the ML provides admirably) but it seems with every song I rate highly the game resents me for it: "Okay you like these songs? FINE! You're welcome to 'em! Forget all that other stuff! You like this, you snobby bastard!"
I really enjoy the variety and selection that RB3 provides but somehow I'm not sure the claims Harmonix make are up to scratch...
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Monday, June 27, 2011
Rock your socks off
This weekend I've gone back to Rock Band 3 and made some more progression - well, I received no interruptions by the neighbors who were mistaking my singing for someone being strangled.
However, considering my recent rant about the value of gaming achievements I must admit I have caught myself playing a game exclusively for increasing my XBLA points total. That's right: I was doing something superficial and having no fun at all doing so.
Most of the achievements I took it upon myself to do were all based on the DLC - so I was downloaded new songs for the sake of my Xbox doing that be-boop sound. So yes: I was paying money just to boost my XBLA points total. Tragic indeed but I doubt I'm the only one whose done this. But if people are encouraged to do such a thing it is a troubling sign indeed.
But going back to the lack of fun part: It came into play through doing singing songs that were simply not fun to do. In this case, the song was awful and doing it was not really generating any enjoyment at all. And if the game is not being fun then something has gone horribly wrong.
Still there is no reason why I can't have fun through messing things up. Although I find the presence of many non-English speaking European acts on RB3 puzzling (especially when you think that many people playing this game most likely have a second language beyond native English), it does present an opportunity to mess with it the concept. I sing Manu Chaos without singing properly and got a really high score. I sang New Wave (Pleymo) with the non-singing parts done with Daft Punk.
Indeed, there is much amusement value in singing some French metal song with: "One more time / we're gonna celebrate / oh yeah / oh right / don't stop the dancing..."
However, considering my recent rant about the value of gaming achievements I must admit I have caught myself playing a game exclusively for increasing my XBLA points total. That's right: I was doing something superficial and having no fun at all doing so.
Most of the achievements I took it upon myself to do were all based on the DLC - so I was downloaded new songs for the sake of my Xbox doing that be-boop sound. So yes: I was paying money just to boost my XBLA points total. Tragic indeed but I doubt I'm the only one whose done this. But if people are encouraged to do such a thing it is a troubling sign indeed.
But going back to the lack of fun part: It came into play through doing singing songs that were simply not fun to do. In this case, the song was awful and doing it was not really generating any enjoyment at all. And if the game is not being fun then something has gone horribly wrong.
Still there is no reason why I can't have fun through messing things up. Although I find the presence of many non-English speaking European acts on RB3 puzzling (especially when you think that many people playing this game most likely have a second language beyond native English), it does present an opportunity to mess with it the concept. I sing Manu Chaos without singing properly and got a really high score. I sang New Wave (Pleymo) with the non-singing parts done with Daft Punk.
Indeed, there is much amusement value in singing some French metal song with: "One more time / we're gonna celebrate / oh yeah / oh right / don't stop the dancing..."
Friday, June 24, 2011
Zero'd In
Nope, I was wrong: Yahtzee did a review of Duke Nuke Forever anyway. Still, I doubt he's got far less important things to do than pay attention to the rantings of a nutter in this barren corner of cyberspace.
Mind you, I can only imagine how many were hoping he'd tear into it with unbridled fury - and were no doubt disappointed when the assessment came out more genuinely disappointed.
But personally I got more out of the real DNF review than the fake one. Maybe it was the surprise of hearing Yahtzee sounding saddened with the outcome. Maybe it was him saying something different when everyone else is too busy putting the boot in.
But whatever the reason, what happens to the fake review now? Has it lost it's luster now the game is finally completed? Do people still think it funny? Will everyone vote for it in the event a New Best ZP poll emerges? Or will it still be held in high esteem by those bitter souls wishing for the days when DNF was never going to released?
Mind you, I can only imagine how many were hoping he'd tear into it with unbridled fury - and were no doubt disappointed when the assessment came out more genuinely disappointed.
But personally I got more out of the real DNF review than the fake one. Maybe it was the surprise of hearing Yahtzee sounding saddened with the outcome. Maybe it was him saying something different when everyone else is too busy putting the boot in.
But whatever the reason, what happens to the fake review now? Has it lost it's luster now the game is finally completed? Do people still think it funny? Will everyone vote for it in the event a New Best ZP poll emerges? Or will it still be held in high esteem by those bitter souls wishing for the days when DNF was never going to released?
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Zero Hour
I would hate to be in Yahtzee's shoes right now: Since Duke Nukem Forever has turned out to be rather unspectacular, I can imagine everyone will be chomping at the bit to have him give an unfavorable assessment in Zero Punctuation.
It's well known that when DNF was announced as abandoned in 2009, Yahtzee did a satirical review of the fictitious game - a review that ended up being voted as the best one he'd ever done.
Personally, I thought that review was more weird than funny - and I think Mr. Croshaw has done better in the past - which makes me wonder why the fictitious review turned out to be such a hit. One would say that a game of a fictitious nature (at the time) meant that no one had an opinion of it to counter Yahtzee's. Another theory is that after so much delays and frustration, people were more than eager to see the (then) unfinished game get a right mauling. Indeed, it is indeed ironic that the Gearbox acquisition happens AFTER the fake review - those making me wonder if someone is going to an awful lot of trouble just to show Yahtzee up.
And I suspect it's all those "I told you so" types who are now pestering Yahtzee do a new review of the now-finished game. But as a long time fan I hope Mr. Croshaw doesn't give in to those braying mules. He has mentioned before he's not the type to do so here's hoping he sticks to his guns.
Besides, considering the many problems DNF has, writing a bad review would be too easy, right?
It's well known that when DNF was announced as abandoned in 2009, Yahtzee did a satirical review of the fictitious game - a review that ended up being voted as the best one he'd ever done.
Personally, I thought that review was more weird than funny - and I think Mr. Croshaw has done better in the past - which makes me wonder why the fictitious review turned out to be such a hit. One would say that a game of a fictitious nature (at the time) meant that no one had an opinion of it to counter Yahtzee's. Another theory is that after so much delays and frustration, people were more than eager to see the (then) unfinished game get a right mauling. Indeed, it is indeed ironic that the Gearbox acquisition happens AFTER the fake review - those making me wonder if someone is going to an awful lot of trouble just to show Yahtzee up.
And I suspect it's all those "I told you so" types who are now pestering Yahtzee do a new review of the now-finished game. But as a long time fan I hope Mr. Croshaw doesn't give in to those braying mules. He has mentioned before he's not the type to do so here's hoping he sticks to his guns.
Besides, considering the many problems DNF has, writing a bad review would be too easy, right?
Monday, June 20, 2011
Red Dead Trigger
I've been playing a lot of Red Dead Redemption this past weekend and I'm finding it very much to my liking. Strangely, I've played other open world games but I won't call myself a fan. Yes I've enjoyed Okami, Legend of Zelda Link to the Past and Sid Meier's Pirates! but the Open world gaming carries with it a sense of intimidation that I've never quite overcome. Maybe I could go over it in a future post but for now, let's say that Red Dead Redemption is one game that slipped through the cracks. :)
Also, I've been playing Chrono Trigger - Yes it would seem that my prayers have been answered and Chrono Trigger has finally shown it's face on the Virtual console - It didn't come on the SNES and the PS1 in Australia but it's finally come (you think waiting fourteen years for Duke Nukem Forever was annoying? Mate, you don't know nothing about nothing!).
I don't know how it came about but I was indeed surprised to see Chrono Trigger finally available - and sitting comfortably on the VC best seller list. So well done to Nintendo and here's hoping they're paying attention still....
Also, I've been playing Chrono Trigger - Yes it would seem that my prayers have been answered and Chrono Trigger has finally shown it's face on the Virtual console - It didn't come on the SNES and the PS1 in Australia but it's finally come (you think waiting fourteen years for Duke Nukem Forever was annoying? Mate, you don't know nothing about nothing!).
I don't know how it came about but I was indeed surprised to see Chrono Trigger finally available - and sitting comfortably on the VC best seller list. So well done to Nintendo and here's hoping they're paying attention still....
Friday, June 17, 2011
There can only be one
Last week, I posted a rant on the absurdity of tribes in gaming. Personally I find it silly. I enjoy games the console can have and feel, in some cases, dismissing one console altogether can result in the sod missing out on something substantial completely.
All in all, there is no reason for the 'tribal' element to exist. Yet in retrospect, I can, however reluctantly, see one thing this tribal sense has going for it:
A sense of focus.
True people with two or more consoles is becoming increasingly commonplace but it does raise some questions:
Firstly, where does one get the money to get consoles? Consoles aren't cheap, accessorises and games don't come easily and even buying a decent TV still burns a hole in one's wallet. Having lived in the real world and knowing what it's like paying bills and rent, I know for a fact that a couple of hundred bucks isn't something that can be simply thrown away.
No matter what the generation, games will continue to be costly affairs - If I remember correctly twenty years ago certain Megadrive/SNES games cost the same as top of the line 360 games do today. The only difference is, back then it was the children pestering their parents for this gear. Now, those children have become adults and are paying for it with their own money (or even buying for their own children). Ultimately it is those former children who are now facing what they put their parents through.
Secondly, where does one get the time to play these games? Having a large collection of games may look impressive but how many of them have actually been beaten by the player? Granted, games is a luxury item (as described above) and one must contend with other important things like work, family and maintaining a healthy social life. Sure it can be done but given time, one may find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having far too many games left unbeaten. By having a small number of games, one can realistic arrange their time accordingly - I mean what's the point of having a large of number of games when really you're only playing a small number of them? (particularly in this achievement-based era of gaming we find ourselves in?)
So in the end, these Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony loyalties do seem pretty pointless on paper but if it has persisted for years, since the days of Sonic's Megadrive heyday, then it must've for a damn good reason.
But I'm not bothered. True I have blown a lot of money on games - and half of which are going unplayed on my Virtual Console but I chose the games not the system. I chose games I thought were interesting and/or was unable to play them in their respective generations.
And for that reason alone, I feel no shame or any regrets with this decision.
Thank you and good night
All in all, there is no reason for the 'tribal' element to exist. Yet in retrospect, I can, however reluctantly, see one thing this tribal sense has going for it:
A sense of focus.
True people with two or more consoles is becoming increasingly commonplace but it does raise some questions:
Firstly, where does one get the money to get consoles? Consoles aren't cheap, accessorises and games don't come easily and even buying a decent TV still burns a hole in one's wallet. Having lived in the real world and knowing what it's like paying bills and rent, I know for a fact that a couple of hundred bucks isn't something that can be simply thrown away.
No matter what the generation, games will continue to be costly affairs - If I remember correctly twenty years ago certain Megadrive/SNES games cost the same as top of the line 360 games do today. The only difference is, back then it was the children pestering their parents for this gear. Now, those children have become adults and are paying for it with their own money (or even buying for their own children). Ultimately it is those former children who are now facing what they put their parents through.
Secondly, where does one get the time to play these games? Having a large collection of games may look impressive but how many of them have actually been beaten by the player? Granted, games is a luxury item (as described above) and one must contend with other important things like work, family and maintaining a healthy social life. Sure it can be done but given time, one may find themselves in the uncomfortable position of having far too many games left unbeaten. By having a small number of games, one can realistic arrange their time accordingly - I mean what's the point of having a large of number of games when really you're only playing a small number of them? (particularly in this achievement-based era of gaming we find ourselves in?)
So in the end, these Nintendo/Microsoft/Sony loyalties do seem pretty pointless on paper but if it has persisted for years, since the days of Sonic's Megadrive heyday, then it must've for a damn good reason.
But I'm not bothered. True I have blown a lot of money on games - and half of which are going unplayed on my Virtual Console but I chose the games not the system. I chose games I thought were interesting and/or was unable to play them in their respective generations.
And for that reason alone, I feel no shame or any regrets with this decision.
Thank you and good night
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Did Not.....Flabbergast?
Well it's been less than a week since Duke Nukem Forever was finally unleashed on a suspecting world and already the knives are out. Common criticisms range from loading times, a structure made from an incoherent jumble of ideas, inane jokes, nothing new to offer the FPS genre and being outpaced by it's older brethren (Half Life and Halo being two such examples)
I've read quite a few negative reviews and it seems everyone is more than willing to put the boot in. Indeed, the only good positive review I've seen came from Good Game - and I was indeed waiting for Bajo and Andrew Hansen to suddenly turn around and say "Just Kidding: THIS is what's really like."
It may be too soon to deem the eventual product/conclusion of the DNF saga to be a complete failure but, for the purposes of this post, I'm going to do it anyway. You see, looking at the divisive opinions of DNF it seems that everyone is angry by the fourteen years of inaction and, as a result, can't escape that fact - thus leaving many critics more than willing to put the boot in. It's as if the development time was more important than the game itself - but me, conversely, I find the fan reaction more important than the game itself. I'm intrigued that people can feel so hurt and betrayed that they are ready to dismiss the game before it has a chance to prove itself. I'm fascinated with the idea that people can make jokes for so long about this game and can get angry with the idea of their joke being taken away from them. I'm enthralled that people can get so worked up about a game. I'm amazed that people can be delighted that it turned out rubbish and get so infuriated with the idea that it might actually be good (and before you say a prolonged development couldn't possibly yield a great game then I suggest you retreat back to the bosom of Team Fortress 2).
Indeed, I myself will admit I have yet to play DNF - becuase in all honesty I find the venomous fan reaction far more entertaining. And if the fans garner more attention than the game itself then something has gone very wrong.
That being said, with this saga coming to such an anti-climatic ending, who are the real winners here? Is it 3d Realms? No, they had a hit with Duke3D but the momentum afterward fell apart. Is it Gearbox? No, they just took, what seems to be, a mess and tried to make it go. Is it Duke himself? No, he seems now more like an anachronism. Is it the franchise? No, it seems it won't go any further following this debacle and it's unlikelyan attempt to be a better job the second time around a sequel will emerge.
No, I think the real winners are the fans: Those who felt betrayed to a point where they were more than eager to dismiss the game as rubbish. Those who got their wish of an irredeemable disaster. Those who refuse to forgive and forget. Those who have been shouting "I told you so", are shouting "I told you so" and, I suspect, will continue to shout "I told you so" for the next fourteen years. And those who are no doubt waiting eagerly to hear Yahtzee tear into it with the next Zero Punctuation.
Personally, considering the troubled development DNF had, I wanted it to get a happy ending - but there's always the thought of how many people genuinely wanted it to fail.
I've read quite a few negative reviews and it seems everyone is more than willing to put the boot in. Indeed, the only good positive review I've seen came from Good Game - and I was indeed waiting for Bajo and Andrew Hansen to suddenly turn around and say "Just Kidding: THIS is what's really like."
It may be too soon to deem the eventual product/conclusion of the DNF saga to be a complete failure but, for the purposes of this post, I'm going to do it anyway. You see, looking at the divisive opinions of DNF it seems that everyone is angry by the fourteen years of inaction and, as a result, can't escape that fact - thus leaving many critics more than willing to put the boot in. It's as if the development time was more important than the game itself - but me, conversely, I find the fan reaction more important than the game itself. I'm intrigued that people can feel so hurt and betrayed that they are ready to dismiss the game before it has a chance to prove itself. I'm fascinated with the idea that people can make jokes for so long about this game and can get angry with the idea of their joke being taken away from them. I'm enthralled that people can get so worked up about a game. I'm amazed that people can be delighted that it turned out rubbish and get so infuriated with the idea that it might actually be good (and before you say a prolonged development couldn't possibly yield a great game then I suggest you retreat back to the bosom of Team Fortress 2).
Indeed, I myself will admit I have yet to play DNF - becuase in all honesty I find the venomous fan reaction far more entertaining. And if the fans garner more attention than the game itself then something has gone very wrong.
That being said, with this saga coming to such an anti-climatic ending, who are the real winners here? Is it 3d Realms? No, they had a hit with Duke3D but the momentum afterward fell apart. Is it Gearbox? No, they just took, what seems to be, a mess and tried to make it go. Is it Duke himself? No, he seems now more like an anachronism. Is it the franchise? No, it seems it won't go any further following this debacle and it's unlikely
No, I think the real winners are the fans: Those who felt betrayed to a point where they were more than eager to dismiss the game as rubbish. Those who got their wish of an irredeemable disaster. Those who refuse to forgive and forget. Those who have been shouting "I told you so", are shouting "I told you so" and, I suspect, will continue to shout "I told you so" for the next fourteen years. And those who are no doubt waiting eagerly to hear Yahtzee tear into it with the next Zero Punctuation.
Personally, considering the troubled development DNF had, I wanted it to get a happy ending - but there's always the thought of how many people genuinely wanted it to fail.
Monday, June 13, 2011
So GLaD you decided to join us
Recently I finally got my claws on the Orange Box. It may have taken me awhile but I saw a sale and snapped it up for $25. Five bucks for a game? Sounds like a sweet deal for me!
And once I got it home, I made a beeline for Portal. Having heard so much about this I had very high hopes for it and was keen to see how it would hold up.
And what did I think of it?
To be honest I'm not entirely sure.
To begin with, lets get what we know out of the way: When Portal came out in 2007, it was a completely new title that came packaged with two well-established brothers (Half Life and Team Fortress). In the time since then, Portal has scooped up plenty of praise, awards and spawned a whole lot of memes. And it's into this environment I step into.
Maybe I'm an interesting candidate to assess Portal: Unlike everyone who first played it back in 2007, I know exactly what to expect, I have an understanding that this is a highly regarded game and I have become familiar with both the phrase 'The Cake is a Lie' (although more through accident than design) and the song Still Alive (to the point I have downloaded for use in Rock Band).
But that's the thing: Through many words being written about Portal and the prevalence of the Cake is a Lie meme, a lot of the mystique about the game is gone. Anyone playing Portal now is going to go through a completely different experience then those playing it for the first time in 2007 had.
That's not to say that I didn't enjoy Portal: Far from it. I liked the black humour, I liked the challenge of the puzzles and the final confrontation with GLaDOS was intense - yet bizarrely counter-balanced with her witty insults.
But for me the popularity of Portal has more or less killed the subtle nature of the game itself. With Portal being a huge hit and inspiring more than a few catchphrases, there are no surprises left. Sure seeing 'The Cake is a Lie' scribbled on the wall may be a surprise but it's not when you've heard many times elsewhere. And I found the promise of Cake isn't really featured that many times in the game itself - which left me wondering why that aspect of the game got more attention than it did. There were some great ideas being put to work in Portal but it a shame that many of them got lost in GLaDOS' witticisms and endless youtube clips of Still Alive. And I find the reaction to the heart-cube puzzling - and indeed the presence of the heart cube plushy's seem more of an undermining of the point Valve were trying to convey (although personally if you're going to invoke feelings of remorse towards the player you may as well not bother becuase Shadow of the Colossus has already been made).
I guess humour is really hard to pull off in a game: If it's not funny then the game looks silly. But if it's really funny then it ends up being repeated endlessly in chatrooms and e-mails everywhere and it gradually loses it's impact.
And that's what bothers me about Portal: There were some great ideas at work but they seemed to have been lost in a tidal of wave of fandom. Imagine if someone wrote a novelization about Ico and gave their own interpretation on the characters and events in the game. Wouldn't it suck to have all that mystery taken away? Wouldn't it suck to have your own ideas squashed by someone else's? Wouldn't it ruin your own perception of the game?
But then again, Valve have made more games and more fans then that of Team Ico so maybe the adulation should come as no surprise.
Mind you, one consistent theme in this blog is how I've been discovering games in my own time and how I've come out better for it. Indeed this is not the first time I've been intimidated by a game through reputation alone. But in the case Portal, it has made such an impact within such a small space of time - is it any wonder why someone like me would be intimidated?
I don't know: Maybe I should've left it for a few more years.....
And once I got it home, I made a beeline for Portal. Having heard so much about this I had very high hopes for it and was keen to see how it would hold up.
And what did I think of it?
To be honest I'm not entirely sure.
To begin with, lets get what we know out of the way: When Portal came out in 2007, it was a completely new title that came packaged with two well-established brothers (Half Life and Team Fortress). In the time since then, Portal has scooped up plenty of praise, awards and spawned a whole lot of memes. And it's into this environment I step into.
Maybe I'm an interesting candidate to assess Portal: Unlike everyone who first played it back in 2007, I know exactly what to expect, I have an understanding that this is a highly regarded game and I have become familiar with both the phrase 'The Cake is a Lie' (although more through accident than design) and the song Still Alive (to the point I have downloaded for use in Rock Band).
But that's the thing: Through many words being written about Portal and the prevalence of the Cake is a Lie meme, a lot of the mystique about the game is gone. Anyone playing Portal now is going to go through a completely different experience then those playing it for the first time in 2007 had.
That's not to say that I didn't enjoy Portal: Far from it. I liked the black humour, I liked the challenge of the puzzles and the final confrontation with GLaDOS was intense - yet bizarrely counter-balanced with her witty insults.
But for me the popularity of Portal has more or less killed the subtle nature of the game itself. With Portal being a huge hit and inspiring more than a few catchphrases, there are no surprises left. Sure seeing 'The Cake is a Lie' scribbled on the wall may be a surprise but it's not when you've heard many times elsewhere. And I found the promise of Cake isn't really featured that many times in the game itself - which left me wondering why that aspect of the game got more attention than it did. There were some great ideas being put to work in Portal but it a shame that many of them got lost in GLaDOS' witticisms and endless youtube clips of Still Alive. And I find the reaction to the heart-cube puzzling - and indeed the presence of the heart cube plushy's seem more of an undermining of the point Valve were trying to convey (although personally if you're going to invoke feelings of remorse towards the player you may as well not bother becuase Shadow of the Colossus has already been made).
I guess humour is really hard to pull off in a game: If it's not funny then the game looks silly. But if it's really funny then it ends up being repeated endlessly in chatrooms and e-mails everywhere and it gradually loses it's impact.
And that's what bothers me about Portal: There were some great ideas at work but they seemed to have been lost in a tidal of wave of fandom. Imagine if someone wrote a novelization about Ico and gave their own interpretation on the characters and events in the game. Wouldn't it suck to have all that mystery taken away? Wouldn't it suck to have your own ideas squashed by someone else's? Wouldn't it ruin your own perception of the game?
But then again, Valve have made more games and more fans then that of Team Ico so maybe the adulation should come as no surprise.
Mind you, one consistent theme in this blog is how I've been discovering games in my own time and how I've come out better for it. Indeed this is not the first time I've been intimidated by a game through reputation alone. But in the case Portal, it has made such an impact within such a small space of time - is it any wonder why someone like me would be intimidated?
I don't know: Maybe I should've left it for a few more years.....
Friday, June 10, 2011
DNF-Day
So today's the day that Duke Nukem Forever finally appears. The end of 14 years of delays, frustration, broken promises and unconfined fan rage. I suspect that people will have low expectations and be all-too ready to the boot in.
So who has it? Who's willing to place bets on the length of time before the vile starts appearing on the lips of gamers? Who would be willing to condemn this anachronism in an age of realistic/cover-based shooters?
Still you have to give Gearbox props for trying. From the blurb on the back of the game case:
The text suggests the wait was worth it but only the players themselves will be the judge of that.
So who has it? Who's willing to place bets on the length of time before the vile starts appearing on the lips of gamers? Who would be willing to condemn this anachronism in an age of realistic/cover-based shooters?
Still you have to give Gearbox props for trying. From the blurb on the back of the game case:
Put on your shades and prepare to step into the boots of Duke Nukem, whose legend has reached epic proportions in the years since his last adventure. The alien hordes are invading and only Duke can save the world. Pig cops, alien shrink rays and enormous alien bosses can't stop our hero from accomplishing his goal: to save the world, save the babes and to be a bad-ass while doing it. The King arrives with an arsenal of over-the-top weapons, non-stop action, and unprecedented levels of interactivity. This game puts the pedal to the metal and tongue firmly in cheek. Shoot hoops, lift weights, read adult magazines, draw crude messages on whiteboards or ogle the many hot women that occupy Duke's life - that is if you can pull yourself away from destroying alien invaders. With hours and hours of over-the-top single player action, and a range of bodacious multiplayer modes, rest assured knowing the fun will last. Duke Nukem was and will forever be a gaming icon, and this is his legend.
The text suggests the wait was worth it but only the players themselves will be the judge of that.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Choose your tribe
Tribes - are they still prominent within gaming circles?
Being a child of the eighties I can remember quite vividly growing up in the early-to mid nineties. This period is often looked fondly by gamers as The Golden Age of 16 bit gaming. And one of the key elements of that period was the rivalry between the big two: Sega and Nintendo. And as such, one had to pick one side, stick with it and keep defending it no matter how much crap comes from people telling you otherwise.
Of course, now it's changed. Now it's a three way race: Sega has fallen and Sony and Microsoft have stepped into challenge the almighty Nintendo.
So what I want to know is does the rivalry that happened back in the nineties still persisting.
And if so, is it still as intense as it used to be?
I really found the passion of these console debates rather puzzling. I mean, back in the day I played both Mario and Sonic and found them both great games in their own right. I swore allegiance to no console (and still do) favoring the games instead. Thus it is indeed peculiar that the way some fans react. Particularly the Nintendo mob who laughed at Sega fans and treat the Sony fans with the same venom usually reserved for some scum who sleeps with one's wife.
One compelling argument is that when you're a child, your parents can only afford to buy one console. Thus it is a challenge in order not to pick the wrong one. But that argument doesn't really have weight - at least from my perspective because I'm an adult and, like most gaming veterans from the Golden Age, I have the money to obtain more than one console. Thus I have a PS2, a Dreamcast, a 360 and a Wii. But again there is no loyalty - because the games rule.
I can understand a human need to find people with similar interests and band together in groups but the same thing is happening is more war-torn regions in the world today. Conflicts that make these console debates feeble in comparison, dealing with race, territory and an inability to co-exist
Compared to the console debates which are ultimately based on forms of entertainment.
I honestly feel that loyalties can have a drastic effect on gaming in general. Some people may refuse to play anything but the games on their console of choice but in some cases they may be missing out on something good. After all, that goes against something that drives any game: Exploration It is this single drive that makes people pick up games. It makes us keep coming back. It makes us go hunting down everything from every last corner in the game. It makes us to invest so many hours into a game itself. Thus, shunning a system really goes against one of the foundation stones of gaming: Both as a game and a gamer.
I liked the Sonic games, in their heyday, but I wonder how many Nintendo fans overlooked it in passionate (and ultimately futile) disgust. They were great games and at least worth a look. And indeed, I still think it's a delightful irony that the Megadrive Sonic games are now accessible on the Wii Virtual Console.
So to summarize, loyalties may exist but I don't care. I'm only interested in the games.
As we all should.
Being a child of the eighties I can remember quite vividly growing up in the early-to mid nineties. This period is often looked fondly by gamers as The Golden Age of 16 bit gaming. And one of the key elements of that period was the rivalry between the big two: Sega and Nintendo. And as such, one had to pick one side, stick with it and keep defending it no matter how much crap comes from people telling you otherwise.
Of course, now it's changed. Now it's a three way race: Sega has fallen and Sony and Microsoft have stepped into challenge the almighty Nintendo.
So what I want to know is does the rivalry that happened back in the nineties still persisting.
And if so, is it still as intense as it used to be?
I really found the passion of these console debates rather puzzling. I mean, back in the day I played both Mario and Sonic and found them both great games in their own right. I swore allegiance to no console (and still do) favoring the games instead. Thus it is indeed peculiar that the way some fans react. Particularly the Nintendo mob who laughed at Sega fans and treat the Sony fans with the same venom usually reserved for some scum who sleeps with one's wife.
One compelling argument is that when you're a child, your parents can only afford to buy one console. Thus it is a challenge in order not to pick the wrong one. But that argument doesn't really have weight - at least from my perspective because I'm an adult and, like most gaming veterans from the Golden Age, I have the money to obtain more than one console. Thus I have a PS2, a Dreamcast, a 360 and a Wii. But again there is no loyalty - because the games rule.
I can understand a human need to find people with similar interests and band together in groups but the same thing is happening is more war-torn regions in the world today. Conflicts that make these console debates feeble in comparison, dealing with race, territory and an inability to co-exist
Compared to the console debates which are ultimately based on forms of entertainment.
I honestly feel that loyalties can have a drastic effect on gaming in general. Some people may refuse to play anything but the games on their console of choice but in some cases they may be missing out on something good. After all, that goes against something that drives any game: Exploration It is this single drive that makes people pick up games. It makes us keep coming back. It makes us go hunting down everything from every last corner in the game. It makes us to invest so many hours into a game itself. Thus, shunning a system really goes against one of the foundation stones of gaming: Both as a game and a gamer.
I liked the Sonic games, in their heyday, but I wonder how many Nintendo fans overlooked it in passionate (and ultimately futile) disgust. They were great games and at least worth a look. And indeed, I still think it's a delightful irony that the Megadrive Sonic games are now accessible on the Wii Virtual Console.
So to summarize, loyalties may exist but I don't care. I'm only interested in the games.
As we all should.
Monday, June 6, 2011
Forever is Yesterday's Tomorrow Today!
For a laugh, I posted the following poll on Facebook:
Ironically, all the votes went into the fifth option....
So how do you REALLY feel about Duke Nukem Forever finally showing it's face?
o - Hope it sucks so it'll serve Gearbox right for not letting this farce die!
o - Hope it sucks so we can all move on with our lives!
o - Hope it sucks so it'll serve Gearbox right for taking our joke away from us!
o - Hope it sucks so we gamers can have the last laugh that is truly ours!
o - Hope it's actually good so this story gets a happy ending
Ironically, all the votes went into the fifth option....
Friday, June 3, 2011
Rock n Roll Ain't Noise Pollution
Those who have been following my posts on the Rock Band series may suspect that I have RB on both the Wii and the Xbox 360. And I can confirm this: yes I have RB2 for the Wii and Rock Band 1+2+3 for the Xbox 360.
Why the same game on multiple system? Well, it was more accident than design (thankfully). In 2009, I attended an EB Games con in Melbourne where they had live Rock Band on stage, offered to anyone willing to go up and have a go. A promise of a prize was on offer to anyonewilling to make an arse of themselves who rocked out. I went up dressed as a Cloud from Final Fantasy 7 and performed a blistering performance of Jet's Are You Gonna Be My Girl. And I won a prize. I told the people running the event I had a Wii as it was the only current-gen console I had at the time. I had no idea what the prize in question will be but I certainly wasn't expecting a complete RB set with game, mike, guitar and drumkit! (yes I've told this story before but what the hell - It's one I'll never tire of telling!)
But eventually a problem arose: the Wii didn't offer backwards compatibility/exportation with any of the other RB titles. Sure I had some DLC to show for it but it also meant missing out on some other cool songs. So when RB3 came around, I got all three of the titles for the 360.
Looking back, I'm not sure if this was a wise move. Sure the graphics on the 360 make it difficult to go back to the Wii but there is also the troubling thought that I would need to go back and download all my favored songs all over again. Sure I have my exportation feature but the Wii can let anyone pick up an instrument and play - without any of the profile building nonsense that can delay the fun.
Indeed, I have a whole lotta dead money on my wii and going through the DLC again means a whole lot more money going up in smoke.
Still, would this be a surprise to any gamer? just think twenty years ago, people were playing a LOT of money for SNES/Megadrive games, whereas now you can pick them up for a few dollars. Makes you wonder if the DLC for Rock Band will be any good some five/ten and a number of sequels later....
Why the same game on multiple system? Well, it was more accident than design (thankfully). In 2009, I attended an EB Games con in Melbourne where they had live Rock Band on stage, offered to anyone willing to go up and have a go. A promise of a prize was on offer to anyone
But eventually a problem arose: the Wii didn't offer backwards compatibility/exportation with any of the other RB titles. Sure I had some DLC to show for it but it also meant missing out on some other cool songs. So when RB3 came around, I got all three of the titles for the 360.
Looking back, I'm not sure if this was a wise move. Sure the graphics on the 360 make it difficult to go back to the Wii but there is also the troubling thought that I would need to go back and download all my favored songs all over again. Sure I have my exportation feature but the Wii can let anyone pick up an instrument and play - without any of the profile building nonsense that can delay the fun.
Indeed, I have a whole lotta dead money on my wii and going through the DLC again means a whole lot more money going up in smoke.
Still, would this be a surprise to any gamer? just think twenty years ago, people were playing a LOT of money for SNES/Megadrive games, whereas now you can pick them up for a few dollars. Makes you wonder if the DLC for Rock Band will be any good some five/ten and a number of sequels later....
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
RPG Suggestions
I heard that Bioware may continue making RPGs but beyond the confines of a fantasy or sci-fi setting. That's not a bad idea - I mean why not? So many RPGs get the fantasy/sci-fi setting down so why not something else? With a bit of thought and creativity, anything can work.
How about a pirate RPG? I heard Sid Meier's Pirates! started out this way before it turned into the open-world game it eventually became known as. Why not dust off the original idea? Using the Mass Effect/Star Wars KOTOR model, I can see a pirate captain going on a ship with a crew, visiting islands to go on a main quest to find a buried treasure (or something). Along the way, the captain can do sidequests like doing things as a privateer (ie killing certain dudes) or exploring unfamiliar territory. As for character classes, I can see three types (again going with the ME model): Combat (swordplay), Cunning (lockpicking) and Gunner (firearms and explosives).
Or how about a western RPG? If Red Dead Redemption is anything to go by, there may be an audience for Sergio Leoni-inspired antics and certainly room for it the gaming world. Indeed, I would like see a western-based RPG having a character traversing across a world, killing dudes with antiqued firearms and exploring the world he lives in. I like the idea of getting a posse together and riding out into the great wild open righting wrongs and shooting people.
Of course, both the reference points I have mentioned above are both open-world games and such games do a lot and offer so much to the player. Perhaps that's why no RPG's have been attempted in either a pirate or western setting - perhaps they have nothing more to add to that which has already been done.
Oh well....
How about a pirate RPG? I heard Sid Meier's Pirates! started out this way before it turned into the open-world game it eventually became known as. Why not dust off the original idea? Using the Mass Effect/Star Wars KOTOR model, I can see a pirate captain going on a ship with a crew, visiting islands to go on a main quest to find a buried treasure (or something). Along the way, the captain can do sidequests like doing things as a privateer (ie killing certain dudes) or exploring unfamiliar territory. As for character classes, I can see three types (again going with the ME model): Combat (swordplay), Cunning (lockpicking) and Gunner (firearms and explosives).
Or how about a western RPG? If Red Dead Redemption is anything to go by, there may be an audience for Sergio Leoni-inspired antics and certainly room for it the gaming world. Indeed, I would like see a western-based RPG having a character traversing across a world, killing dudes with antiqued firearms and exploring the world he lives in. I like the idea of getting a posse together and riding out into the great wild open righting wrongs and shooting people.
Of course, both the reference points I have mentioned above are both open-world games and such games do a lot and offer so much to the player. Perhaps that's why no RPG's have been attempted in either a pirate or western setting - perhaps they have nothing more to add to that which has already been done.
Oh well....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)