Vicinity of Virtuality

2007-11-15T21:17:00.000-08:00

Considering the volume of new games I've played over the past several weeks and months, I figured it was time to share my opinions on them with all of you briefly.

NOTE: When I say "new," that often means new to me, so bear with me as I review some titles that might not be hot off the shelves.

Madden NFL 08 (PlayStation2, EA Sports/Tiburon)I'm normally not a Madden fan, but the latest installment seems to have avoided most of what I hate about the series. AI is solid, play calling is seamless, controls are fabulous and I appreciate the depth of modes and attention to detail. Graphics are still kinda funky and the game still can't hold a candle to 2K's ESPN NFL 2K5, but the latest Madden is a solid and enjoyable game ... for once.
Rating: 4 out of 5

Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock (PlayStation2, Activision/Harmonix/MTV Games)More of what's made Guitar Hero so great, with a few added tweaks. Over 70 songs ensures a long stay with this title, and the boss battles with the likes of Tom Morelli and Slash are a welcome addition to single-player career mode. Timing forgiveness on the frets is annoying at first, but needed on higher difficulty levels. Solid, well-rounded set list and just more of that Guitar Hero goodness. Highly recommended.
Rating: 5 out of 5

Final Fantasy XII (PlayStation2, Square Enix)After a brief foray into the world of the MMORPG, Square's flagship title returns to its roots ... sort of. Everything you've come to expect from Final Fantasy is here -- lush graphics, epic story, many hours of gameplay and side quests -- but the random battles are gone, replaced by a more intuitive, real-time battle formula. The new system takes some getting used to, but within the first two hours it becomes second nature and really adds to the game. And kudos to the developers for adding a side quest (the hunts) centered around the new battle system.
Rating: 5 out of 5

Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass (Nintendo DS, Nintendo)I loved the style and design of wind Waker for the GameCube, and I'm glad to see another Zelda game in that mold. Phantom Hourglass is a handheld masterpiece, and a game that does a good job of giving us traditional Zelda gameplay while making good use of the DS' unique capabilities. The sounds and dialogue get annoying at times, but no DS owner should be without this excellent offering.
Rating: 5 out of 5

New Super Mario Bros. (Nintendo DS, Nintendo)Leave it to Nintendo to take a classic gameplay formula -- side-scrolling Mario -- and throw in enough kinks and innovations to make it feel like a brand-new experience. This latest installment gives us everything we love about our portly plumber, but the new additions -- specifically the super-shroom and tiny-shroom power-ups -- make everything feel fresh, while giving us older gamers a sense of nostalgia. Newer gamers will get a taste of what made games great before technology advanced like it did.
Rating: 4 out of 5

Daxter (PSP, Sony/Naughty Dog)While it isn't the epic quest the PS2 Jak and Daxter games are, Daxter is a nice diversion, and a worthy showcase of what the PSP can do. The game's a tad on the short side, but the gameplay mechanics and colorful graphics make up for it. This ride won't last long, and you won't see anything terribly new on the way, but it's still a fun ride.

Rating: 3 out of 5

2007-11-15T20:28:00.000-08:00

So, that thing earlier? You know, about me not having a PlayStation3 or Xbox 360?

Yeah, there are a few reasons for that.

Mostly, the cost. Even though my job pays me pretty well, and I don't currently have that many bills to pay, I'm still not comfortable enough financially to pony up the cash for one of these machines. It doesn't help that I'm still watching and playing on a standard-definition TV, because there's another expense I can't afford.

I've seen these new consoles on standard TVs; the difference when compared to the PS2 and original Xbox are negligible at best, and I've seen plenty of smeared colors and blurry textures in standard definition. So if I'm going to pay that much for the next generation of videogame technology, I want to get everything out of it I possibly can. And in order to do that, I need an HDTV.

Cha-ching. Cha-ching.

But mostly, I can't find many games on these platforms that strike my fancy. Okay, I absolutely have to play Halo 3 at some point, but right now I can't justify picking up a 360 for just that one game. And on the PS3? Assassin's Creed and Heavenly Sword aside, I don't see anything I can't already get on one of the current-gen consoles.

And don't even think of throwing Guitar Hero at me. I have all four of them for my PS2, and while I realize I could be downloading extra tracks and enjoying enhanced visuals on the newer machines, I don't care. Same goes for all the other multi-platform releases; for now, I will ignore shinier visuals and online extras for the sake of simply playing the game.

Online play? Don't care; if I wanna play online, I'll start playing PC games again.

For now, plenty of current-gen games are holding my attention: Madden NFL 08, Burnout: Takedown, Final Fantasy XII, NASCAR 08, Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock, God of War II and Shadow of the Colossus all have me too occupied right now to even worry about the new machines.

And let's not forget my DS and PSP. I'm flat-out addicted to The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass and my PSP is busy with Castlevania: the Dracula X Chronicles and Final Fantasy Tactics: The War of the Lions. So it's not like I'm facing a shortage of games.

I rarely, if ever, pick up a console at the beginning of its life cycle, mostly because of the cost and the lack of quality titles up front. The first generation of titles for a console is almost always mediocre, with the true blockbuster titles hitting roughly a year or two after a machine's release. By that point, the prices have come down a little and I can feel more comfortable and justified in making these purchases.

And with HDTVs getting cheaper now, there's an added incentive to eventually pick up a PS3 and a 360. But right now? With game libraries so sparse and machines so expensive?

I'll pass, thanks.

2007-10-15T20:49:00.001-07:00

Being a huge Guitar Hero nut, I'm naturally intrigued and excited by the upcoming Rock Band -- especially now that the game has been announced for release for the PlayStation2 on Dec. 17.

(Blogger's note: I don't have a PlayStation3 or Xbox 360; for more on that, tune in for a future blog entry.)

But now comes word, compliments of GameSpot.com, that buyers will not be able to purchase the game unbundled until after the holidays. The bundle that releases on Nov. 23 will come with the game, drum kit, guitar and mic. Web sites had listed each "instrument" for sale indiviually at the time of the game's release, but the announcement from Canadain gaming site The Bits Bytes Pixels and Sprites tells otherwise.

Presumably, the second guitar can be one of the units already sold with the previous Guitar Hero entries.

Price tag? $169.99 ($159.99 for the PS2 bundle). That's more than a new PS2, and almost half of what a PS3 or 360 cost.

Would you pay console prices for a game, no matter how kick-ass it might be? I'm not sure I would.

Then again, being first in line and ahead of the curve has never appealed to me. I hardly ever buy new consoles on the first cycle of shipments (part of it's money, part of it's knowing the first line of systems is always buggy), and I rarely get games the instant they hit the shelves.

Guitar Hero III being the exception.

I'm sure I'll get my hands on Rock Band eventually, but at release? With that price tag? Probably not.

2007-09-27T00:40:00.001-07:00

Is it sad that I'm more excited about the upcoming release of Guitar Hero III than I am over Halo 3? Granted, that's probably because I don't have an Xbox 360 (or the HDTV that would have to go with it for everything to look really purty) yet, but still; the biggest game release since ... well, the last Halo ... and all I can do is shrug my shoulders?

Oh, well.

Less than a month before the release of GHIII; not to mention the debut solo album for System of a Down front man Serj Tankian, Elect the Dead. First two singles are real good stuff; looking forward to the full album.

Though I would love a new SoaD album.

2007-09-13T20:29:00.000-07:00

Stop the presses. Call Hell, see if they're seeing snow flakes.

I bought the new Madden game, and I love it.

That's right, you read correctly. I, shameless Madden hater extraordinaire, gave in and purchased Madden NFL 08 for my PlayStation2 and found myself hooked ever since. It's still not quite the gridiron classic ESPN NFL 2K5 is, but considering how I loathe this series? Hooked is saying a lot.

I'm not even sure what it is, to be perfectly honest. It's sure as hell not the graphics, because these guys look as mutated and stunted as ever. It's not the sound, cause frakkly, it sucks. I guess ... it's the fact that the game actually feels solid. It's not the AI disaster previous editions of the games were and it's got a lot of the features I look for in a football game -- like Franchise mode.

Yeah, ESPN 2K5 has that too, but for some reason, I felt drawn to Madden 08 and now that I have it, I can't put it down. The running game is challenging without being frustrating, the passing game isn't nearly as laughable as it used to be (no more succeeding in triple coverage!) and overall it's just a better game of football.

ESPN 2K5 is still smoother and quicker and an overall more realistic football experience, but Madden 08 is a lot like Madden 04 in that it fixed everything I hate about the series and left behind a pretty enjoyable, if not uninspiring, game of football. If I gave out ratings (and I probably should start), I'd give Madden 08 a four out of five stars.

ESPN 2K5, to this day, still gets five out of five. It's just that good.

Okay, enough of this insanity; time to go back to my Guitar Hero fixation and consider starting a weekly YouTube videogame review show. Let me know if you think it'll be a good idea.

2007-07-25T20:13:00.000-07:00

Some quick impressions of two of this week's new releases:

Guitar Hero Encore: Rock the 80s (PlayStation2; Activision, RedOctane/Harmonix): If RedOctance and Harmonix aren't careful, they just might ruin one of the best things to happen to gaming over the past couple years. Guitar Hero Encore: Rock the 80s is good, make no mistake, but this is less a true sequel and more an expansion pack for GHII. Problem is, Activision's selling it as a sequel, right down to the $50 price tag. GH freaks will pick this one up and find a lot to like, but the fact is ... this game has 30 songs (less than half the setlist for GHII) with no bonus tracks for purchase in the in-game store. The 1980s restyling is nice, but the gimmick wears off fast. Early tracks are boring (aside from "We Got the Beat," which is way too difficult to be the second track in Career mode), but things get much more interesting the longer you go. Rock the 80s will tide us over until Guitar Hero III in October, and it's a fun ride, but this would feel like a better game if we'd only had to pay $25, $30 for it.

Rating: 4 out of a 5

NASCAR 08 (PlayStation2 -- also available for PlayStation3 and Xbox 360; EA Sports): I was underwhelmed by NASCAR 07; the career formula had grown stale and the physics needed a bit of an overhalu. While NASCAR 08 does little to change the career mode (you still run qualifier laps to improve your initial contract offers and work your way through Modified, Craftsman Truck, Busch and Nextel Cup Series), it tightened up the physics and made the game more user-friendly for the NASCAR novices among us. The Car of Tomorrow makes its digital debut and actually does handle differently from its current counterpart. Add a slew of bigtime NASCAR names and every Nextel Cup track, and this game could be a gearhead's dream. PS2 visuals do show their age, but renewed physics and true-to-life NASCAR action make this a worthy addition.

Rating: 4 out of 5

2007-06-06T18:20:00.001-07:00

Earlier in this intrepid (if not sometimes horribly outdated) blog, I made mention of my renewed interest in the Tomb Raider franchise. Crystal Dynamics took over a franchise dangerously close to its deathbed and revitalized it with an inspired effort in Tomb Raider Legend. The title, which I expected little from, was fresh and invigorating and fun in ways that reminded me of the first two TR games.

So much so I went back and played the original Tomb Raider on my PSOne ... and promptly noticed how much adventure games have changed in the 11 years since Lara's debut.

But now Crystal Dynamics has decided to give me -- oh yeah, and the rest of the gaming world -- a look back at the (timeless?) classic with the release of Tomb Raider Anniversary. I've yet to play this title, but if it makes use of Legend's engine and I can find it for a relatively paltry $30, I'm sure I'll be marching to my local GameStop soon for a copy.

In the meantime, I have a few ... preliminary thoughts about the game.

I generally don't care much for remakes; usually, I think a game was done well enough the first time around and any attempt to remake it would rob the original or its charm and the things that made me interested in the game in the first place. Either that or the original was just so bad a remake has no basis or merit.

Crow all you want about attracting a new, sometimes younger audience (right, Mario?), but for gamers like me, I prefer to remember the "old days" of a game, rather than try to relive the past in a newer, more graphically-advanced package.

But for Tomb Raider, I think I'll make an exception, because I think Anniversary can help purge the horrible memories of how this franchise went so wrong for so long. Yeah, I can plod through Tomb Raider and Tomb Raider II and enjoy myself, but there's also that bittersweet realization that these two games represented the franchise's best years; it was all downhill from there.

Tomb Raider III was average. Tomb Raider: the Last Revelation was worse than average. Tomb Raider Chronicles was just a joke -- and not a very funny one, at that. And I'd prefer it if we never spoke of Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness again.

The franchise gave way to two pretty forgettable films, despite Angelina Jolie turning in decent performances as Lara Croft. She did what she could, but she had little, if anything, to work with.

And the comic book? Witchblade thinks its pointless and gratuitous.

But with the release -- and success -- of Legend, the series has a little credibility again, which is what really makes a remake possible. And why is the remake a good idea? I'd guess that for a lot of gamers, Legend was their first taste of the Tomb Raider franchise. And with PSOne games becoming harder to come by in retail outlets (EB and GameStop stopped selling used titles long ago), showing the new fans the series roots can be a tricky proposition if one doesn't know the right people.

So why not re-invent the original title with the mechanics and engine of the current hit? In the case of Tomb Raider, it makes all the sense in the world. And though I've yet to play Anniversary, I have a feeling I won't be disappointed when I do.

I've read online reviews in which the writers gripe about the lackluster combat and the lack of action. To me, this isn't an issue, because Tomb Raider has never been about combat or action. You want a game with a good fighting engine, go pick up God of War II (hell, pick that game up anyway, because it freakin' rocks!); Tomb Raider is, and always has been, a more cerebral, environment-dependant experience.

And because of Legend's quality, I'm willing to dive into the tombs once again. I'll probably pick the title up in the next week or so, then I'll have my impressions of it for you as soon as I get enough hours under my belt.

This is assuming, of course, I can put down Guitar Hero II ...

2007-06-06T18:04:00.000-07:00

I have found a new game addiction, something that might just have achieved the impossible. See, I once thought there was no game in existence that could surpass Tetris in terms of addictiveness. In the world of videogames, Tetris was crack.

But if that's the case, then what's Guitar Hero II? Heroine?

Either way, I've had a copy of GHII for about a week now, and I struggle to put it down. I also struggle on anything aside from Easy mode for right now, but more than anything, I have trouble putting the guitar down.

Time to go to work ... but one more song!

Time was, I swore I'd never touch this game. I thought it was nothing more than a pointless little gimmick, some company's attempt to cash in on the whole Dance Dance Revolution craze (DDR being a game I have played and loathed unlike just about any other game I've ever loathed).

But when I finally gave in and strapped on the plastic guitar, I was humbled -- and hooked.

Not to the point where I'll modify my PlayStation2 in order to try and play custom songs that aren't in the original game, but hooked to the point where I make time to play GHII at least once a day -- most days two or three times.

I'm going on vacation next week ... and taking my PS2 with me, just so I can play Guitar Hero.

I may be late to the party, but now that I'm here, I'm having a ball. And better to be late to the party than to miss it entirely.

2007-01-21T20:31:00.000-08:00

So I'm getting used to Final Fantasy XII's battle system (see post below for more on that), and I gotta say...as great as I thought this game would be before, it's exceeding even those expectations now.

First of all, this game's battle sequence isn't entirely action-based. It's still turn-based to a degree, but it;s a vastly different from the Final Fantasy titles of old. The turn-based mechanics are disguised by a free-roaming camera, real-time enemy movements (and AI!) and a more fluid engine that resembles those used in MMORPGs to give the illusion of action-based combat.

Still, the formula, combined with an intuitive Gambit system and the License boards, works brilliantly, so much so that going back to the battle systems of old FF titles almost seems dreadful.

Almost.

That said, it pains me to think how long this game's going to take to complete. Nearly eight hours into the game, I'm almost at level 10, and apparently I have quite a way to go. Granted, I'm taking part in the game hunting side quests as much as possible, but as it stands...I've played eight hours, but feel as if I've already logged in about 20.

But that's okay, because as far as I'm concerned, most games are far too short today. And if it takes me fewer than 40 hours to beat a Final Fantasy game (the first time through, anyway), then I'm left disappointed.

For as long as it took to come out, for how disappointed I was in the series' change of direction with the online-only FFXI, I'm more than happy to report FFXII is every bit as good as everyone said it was. It's no FFVII or FFX, but it's no FFX-2, either.

2007-01-03T20:01:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to throw around some random game-related blurbs now that the holidays have died down.

Getting Used To: Being the Final Fantasy whore I am, you better believe I picked up FFXII with some of my Christmas money (since I didn't get it as one of the many gifts I received). And though I still marvel at the aesthetic beauty of the series and find myself deeply immersed in the epic nature of the stories Square Enix weaves with these games, FFXII takes some definite getting used to.

And it's all because of the battle system.

Square Enix did away with the turn-based system that had been a staple of the series from installments 1 through 10, replacing it with a more MMORPG-like action sequence. Battles occur more in real-time and you can move your character during battle. This is likely a hold-over from the online FFXI, and though I have a feeling it will eventually become second nature and lend itself nicely to a spectacular game, for the first few hours it takes a bit of adjusting.

For the time being, I miss turn-based battles. I don't, however, miss random battles. I'm glad those are gone.

What should've been: Finally got my hands on Mortal Kombat Armageddon and have been impressed yet again. After years of mediocrity and stagnation, Midway finally figured out how to bring us the blood-soaked Kombat we craved.

And in Armageddon, we finally have the definitive MK fighter. I'm not really convinced this is the last game in the series--though the promos and the opening sequence scream as such--but at the very least, Armageddon is the Mortal Kombat game Tirlogy should've been.

Every MK character ever, tons of playable modes and unlockable extras (as ridiculous as Kombat Kart sounds, it's actually quite fun), and a nifty little fighter creation mode--not to mention the involved and refined fighting system. No MK game has ever been perfect, but Armageddon is the closest the series has come since MKII.

Finally Found the Hidden Gem: Remember all the love the game press had for PlayStation2's Shadow of the Colossus? Well, between none of the stores in my area having copies and a general "eh" feeling among those I knew who'd played it, I hadn't really given it much thought. But, like FFXII, I picked the game up with my holiday money and have been floored by the game.

If you can find this title--just $20 now that it's a Greatest Hits title--by all means do so. It may not be innovative in terms of it never having been done before, but in a game market flooded with derivative, ultra-violent action titles (not that there's anything wrong with that), Shadow is a breath of fresh air, and any self-respecting gamer will appreciate the mental strength that goes into this title.

I daresay this is a must-have if you've missed out until now. Better late than never.

EA in need of a revamp: Dear EA Sports,

Let me just say that aside from your golf and NASCAR games, I don't really enjoy your sports games anymore. 2K Games has clearly outclassed you in basketball, baseball and hockey, and you got so scared by the obvious quality of ESNP NFL 2K5 you gobbled up both the NFL and ESPN licenses all to yourself.

But I still love your NASCAR and Tiger Woods PGA Tour titles.

That being said, having played the 07 version of both games, I think a serious overhaul is in order. Tiger Woods 07 is virtually the same game as 06, just with a team feature and more courses, while you've been using the same formula for the past three NASCAR games.

The work-your-way-up-the-ranks formula worked as is brilliantly the first time out; now it needs tweaking, cause it's starting to feel old. Also, it might help if you had EVERY Nextel Cup driver in the game (like, say, Clint Bowyer?).

Just because you're the largest third-party game publisher in the world doesn't mean you can get complacent. You never know when the next 2K might come along.

2006-12-10T18:02:00.000-08:00

Square Enix is evil.

The company's release of Final Fantasy III for the Nintendo DS is a great thing, in terms of every FF game ever made finally being released on American soil. The only problem with this is, the game is a DS exclusive at the moment, and I am currently sans DS.

Part of it's an issue of money, but more importantly I've never felt entirely compelled to purchase a DS. Sure, it's got that nifty little dual-screen thing, but at this point, I haven't seen it as anything but a pricey little gimmick.

And the games? Meh...like I need another version of Super Mario Bros. or Mario Kart. I have versions of both games for my NES, Super NES, Gameboy Advance and Nintendo 64...do I really need more of the same on yet another Nintendo console?

Nintendogs? Sorry; I didn't care for the whole Tamagauchi thing when it was this big fad over a decade ago...no way I'm getting into it now. And if I wanted to play with a puppy, I'd go to the pet store and buy one. A real one.

Brain Age? Okay, I kinda like the idea of a mentally-stimulating videogame, but in all honesty, I just can't force myself to buy a videogame whose only purpose is to make me think. If I was gonna pay for thinking, I'd go back to college.

But suddenly, because of the release of FFIII, I find myself considering a Nintendo DS. I've been a huge FF nut since FFVII found its way on PlayStation nearly 10 years ago, and I've gobbled up pretty much every version of the game I could since (including the underwhelming Crystal Chronicles for GameCube). So naturally, I feel compelled to play FFIII to sort of "complete" my FF expierence.

(As a caveat, I should probably mention I'm not including FFXI in this discussion; my distaste for online gaming and the pricing structure of the whole deal makes me consider FFXI separate from the rest of the Final Fantasy world.)

I really don't feel like plopping down the $150 for a DS (mainly because everyone seems so adamant about bundles these days--whatever happened to just being able to buy the damn console, then pick whichever game you feel like getting?) and only wind up playing one game. If you know of any worthwhile DS games out there, please let me know and I might feel better about this potential purchase.

But as it stands right now, I would only play a DS for one thing: Final Fantasy III. And I've never been a fan of buying a console for just one game--hence why I no longer own a PSP.

2006-11-20T20:22:00.000-08:00

Though I've yet to actually get my hands on a Nintendo Wii or a PlayStation3--a combination of little time to spare and even less money--I do have some initial reactions to the goings-on of each next-gen console launch. Read along, intrepid blog fan, lest you lose out on some juicy semi-professional, almost-insightful game knowledge.

-Despite IGN.com's lackluster review, I'm intrigued by THQ's Wii launch title Red Steel. I've felt the first-person shooter has become stagnant and dull in the console world over the past several years (Halo aside, of course), but this seemed to be the title to revitalize the genre. I like some of the ideas THQ implemented to take full advantage of the Wii's unique gameplay capabilities, and when I finally do get my hands on one, I'll gladly give Red Steel a go.

-I might even give Wii Madden NFL '07 a try. I've made my hatred for the EA football series well-known, but I can't help but wonder if the Wii's unconventional mechanics might make the gridiron "classic" a playable bundle o' fun. I'm not impressed by the graphics--why can't EA create football players who look like actual humans?--but if the remote-nunchuku combination makes for an exciting game of football, I'll let an NFL full of ETs slide.

-To anyone griping about the pack-in title Wii Sports being less-than-spectacular...what did you expect? It was merely a pack-in designed to help Nintendo push Wiis off store shelves. I realize their previous pack-ins were always classic Mario titles, but this is a different era; pack-in games are a promotional tool, nothing more. You want a classic? Better shell out a bit more dough for Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess.

-On to the PS3...am I the only one disgusted by the fact that so many of its launch titles hardly look any better than most PS2 offerings? I'm sorry, but if Sony expects me to fork over $600 for a new console, it better make my games shine much prettier than the box I currently play my Sony games on.

-And while we're at it, can we get rid of the Armored Core series already? We've had at least 10 sequels or spin-offs since the PlayStation orginial, and I don't see where things have changed that much. I used to respect this series; now, it's a sad reminder of how far other games have come over the years. A decidedly last-gen game in the next-gen console world.

-Anyone seen the video on YouTube yet of the guy smashing a PS3 in front of a line of potential customers at Best Buy? If you haven't, mosey on over there and take a look, because I think it's hilarious. This guy in a pimp jacket buys a PS3 at a local Best Buy before taking it outside and letting his buddy trash it with a sledgehammer in front of said line. I can only imagine how pissed those customers were watching someone trash a precious PS3 right in front of them, but I say they deserve it. If your life is so pathetic you're willing to wait hours, even days, for a console you're not even guaranteed of getting, you deserve to be taunted like that.

I'll have more impressions once I manage to get my hands on these new machines. I'm interested to see if the Wii lives up to the hype, and just what exactly Sony thinks its doing with its over-priced machine.

2006-10-24T20:06:00.000-07:00

Hear where Sony's announced the first 500,000 PlayStation3's to launch in North America will come with a Blu-Ray movie? Interesting concept, to be sure; I've never heard of a game console launching with a movie before.

The movie, you ask?

Talladega Nights: the Ballad of Ricky Bobby.

Yes...because nothing showcases a shiny new piece of technology better than a NASCAR movie starring the highly-overrated Will Ferrell.

I can appreciate Sony's eagerness to show consumers the potential power of the Blu-Ray format; the company's really been harping on the feature as one of the PS3's biggest selling points--and pointing to it as one of the reasons the console's going to be so expensive--so I can dig them wanting to throw in a movie with the console.

I still think Nintendo has the edge, packing in a game with the Wii at launch, but I can't fault Sony for trying to milk a potential cash cow from Day One.

But...Talladega Nights? Sorry, that movie was funnier when it was called Anchorman.

Why not throw in some big-budget action flick or epic saga that'll really get the masses foaming at the mouth? Can you imagine the fervor Sony could create if it somehow managed to package PS3's with Lord of the Rings on Blu-Ray? I know it's not really that feasible, but it'd generate a lot more interest than some Will Ferrell NASCAR stereotype thing.

Or hell, let me be selfish and suggest the first 500,000 PS3's come packed with a Blu-Ray version of Serenity. I'd gladly fork over the $600 for that bit of crystal-clear Joss Whedon goodness.

Of course, I need a better-paying job first.

I do like the trend of packing content with the console; it's ultimately cheaper on consumers if they can have something to play or watch right out of the box (and no, the demo disc that came with the original PlayStation doesn't count; I'm talking actual material, like when the NES and Super NES launched). As expensive as next-generation consoles and games are becoming, any time consumers can save a buck or two, that's definitely a good thing.

I just question Sony's choice of movie. I'd definitely prefer a Blu-Ray edition of Spider-Man 2...complete with extensive preview footage of Spider-Man 3.

Just saying...

2006-10-23T20:14:00.000-07:00

So Nintendo announced at a recent New York event the launch date and price for its next-generation Wii console, and the details have this intrepid (albeit part-time...jobs suck like that) blogger excited, moreso than the other two next-gen consoles.

Yes, I still think the name sucks (what was so wrong with Revolution?), but the other details are more than enough to compensate for one little potential marketing snafu.

So, using the latest edition of Game Informer (issue #163) as my source, let's go point-by-point on the upcoming launch of the Nintendo Wii.

-The Wii will hit shelves in the U.S. on November 19, two days after Sony unleashes the PlayStation3. Industry speculation has it consumers will face a PS3 shortage at launch and throughout the holidays, whereas Nintendo assures all plenty will be in stock. Nintendo of America says it hopes to have 400,000 units available at launch, and the "majority" of the 4 million consoles it releases during the holiday rush will land in North America. This looks to steal some of Sony's thunder, especially since...

-...the console will retail for a measly $250. This isn't exactly surprising--Nintendo's always had the cheapest console on the market--but given Xbox 360's current $400 price tag, and the whopping $600 Sony wants us to fork over for a PS3, Nintendo's insistence in keeping the launch price below $300 could result in a bevy of positive pre-holiday buzz within--and outside of--the industry.

-For the first time since Nintendo launched the Super NES, the Wii will come packaged with a game. It's not the next Mario, and alas, it isn't The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess either. Instead, it's Wii Sports, a collection of games that will undoubtedly showcase the unique gameplay features the Wii and its controller are capable of. I think old-school gamers and parents alike will appreciate this move, as it will save even more on the cost of buying a new console.

-It's also expected that, unlike its competitors, the Wii won't be entirely reliant on high-definition technology. As it stands now, 360 and PS3 owners will have to have an HDTV to get the full next-gen effect; otherwise, they look like nothing more than spruced-up Xboxes and PlayStation2's. But the Wii won't have that necessity, further cutting the costs of graduating to the next generation of gaming (cause come on, have you seen the prices for those HDTVs?).

If the Wii's potential can be realized--and from the looks of some of the early titles for the machine (like THQ's Red Steel), that's a definite possibility, Nintendo could very well pull the wool over Sony and Microsoft's eyes. The two electronics giants are so busy driving price tags up in search of the prettiest game in the world, one might argue they're forgetting the point of videogames. Nintendo, through Wii, wants to remind everyone of that, and at $250 with a game already included, I'm inclined to be one of many to give it a go.

I was burned by the Nintendo 64 and the GameCube, left to wait months on end for the next Nintendo release while PlayStation2 and Xbox got all the great third-party offerings, but I'm going to give Nintendo another chance with Wii.

Nintendo has enough money in its numerous accounts that finishing third in yet another console race won't demote the company to third-party software developer, but I feel the videogame industry needs a healthy Nintendo to succeed. The company once singlehandedly saved the home videogame; the industry just wouldn't be the same if Nintendo went the Sega route and began making nothing but games while companies like Sony and Microsoft made the consoles.

Hopefully, the Wii will be just as successful as the Sega Dreamcast was...without suffering the same fate.

2006-08-14T11:27:00.000-07:00

If you believe the commercials (and if you do, just how gullible are you?), a new holiday is on the way. August 22, or as EA Sports calls it, Maddenoliday, is unquestionably one of the most anticipated dates on the calendar in the videogame industry. Why?

Apparently, people still care about the Madden NFL series. Madden NFL ’07 comes out August 22 on all major consoles.

And I just don’t care.

I used to love the Madden series; in the days of the Super NES and Genesis, Madden was easily the best gridiron action in town, certainly much better than the Tecmo Super Bowls and NFL Quarterback Clubs of the world. But since the series made its debut on PlayStation, thus ushering the series into 3D, Madden has suffered.

Not in sales—it’s obvious each new installment of the series sells about as well as any other game this side of the new Grand Theft Auto—but in gameplay. While Sony broke new ground with its GameDay series, Madden seemed to stand pat in its conventions, conventions that looked slow, clunky, and frustrating in the 3D world.

Yet people continued to eat it up, extolling the series’ virtues with each new installment. The gameplay hardly ever changed—AI was questionable at best, laughable at worst…running the football was always a crapshoot…money plays were as much a part of the game as before. GameDay was a better game—faster, more fluid, more accessible—but everyone still clamored over Madden.

Even as GameDay fell from grace, a new player entered the fray: Sega and its 2K series. Again, the games were faster, smoother, and easier to play than Madden, who suffered the same problems with each successive addition, despite the evolution of videogame technology and videogame football. Sega’s series gained in popularity each year, and after a masterful 2K5 effort—which was 30 dollars cheaper than Madden NFL ’05—EA gobbled up the exclusive NFL license, thus killing the football videogame for those of us no longer under Madden’s inexplicable spell.

Me? I still play ESPN NFL 2K5, because I think it’s still a better game than anything EA has come out with in the years since. And though I’ve yet to play Madden ’07, and I’m not real sure I want to, I have a feeling it’s gonna be so similar to the previous editions I still won’t care.

I have a hard time playing a football game where successful passes into triple coverage are the norm. I have a hard time playing a football game where the standard rushing stat line is eight yards on 31 carries. I can’t get behind a game where the players look like deformed midgets and they move like snails in molasses.

I just can’t get into Madden NFL anymore. I appreciate its effect on the videogame industry, as well as on the National Football League, but I just don’t think it’s that good a game anymore.

People are still going to buy the game…in droves, even. I guarantee EB Games, GameStop, and all those stores will be swamped on the 22nd, finalizing preorders, picking up the game, and/or praying to find a copy that hasn’t yet found a home.

Me? I’ll be sitting in my room, playing ESPN NFL 2K5, guiding my Redskins to another Super Bowl campaign. Two years after its release, ESPN 2K5 still provides me with hard-hitting, fun football action. I was bored after two hours with Madden.

So, if you’ll excuse me, I’ll skip Maddenoliday this year. Wake me up when we get to National Halo Day.

2006-06-09T18:53:00.000-07:00

The June 2006 issue of Game Informer magazine (issue #158) featured a web site every gamer should visit: http://www.videogamevoters.org/

Set up by the Entertainment Software Association, the site gives gamers a voice to Washington. Over the past decade or so, violent videogames have been a hot-button topic among some politicians, drawing the ire of the likes of Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), Hilary Rodham-Clinton (D-N.Y.), and former vice president Al Gore's wife Tipper. They spouted a lot of talk, but for the most part it was just that: talk.

But in the past two years, California, Michigan, and Illinois have taken things a step further, passing legislation to limit the sale of certain videogames to minors. The courts have taken action to keep these laws from being enacted, but the threat is there, and the threat is real.

Videogamevoters.com is designed to educate gamers about the state of the industry as it relates to politics, mainly in posing the question as to why no other entertainment medium is facing this kind of scrutiny. Not books, not movies, not music, not television; only videogames are drawing this sort of attention from Capitol Hill.

We don't have laws keeping minors out of R- and NC-17 rated films, so why pass a law keeping 14-year-old Johnny from plopping down 50 bucks on Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas?

I urge all gamers to visit this site, read what it has to say. If you're a registered voter, sign up and join the fight. You can send a letter from the site telling your Congressman how you feel about videogame legislation. I've already sent the letter to both Senators George Allen (R-Va.) and John Warner (R-Va.), and I strongly suggest you do the same.

If you're old enough to vote but not registered, get registered so you can take part in this. You can send your district's representative a letter of opinion regardless, but they're infinitely more likely to listen to you if you're a registered voter (translation: they realize you'll have the power to vote them out of office if they don't act in your best interests).

If you're not yet old enough to vote, keep abreast of the situation; this could very well affect the future of videogames, both how they're made and how you play them.

The videogame industry has been lucky thus far, with the formation of the Electronic Software Ratings Board (ESRB) and the comprehensive ratings system it's implemented. The ratings, which are displayed clearly on the front and back of each videogame, have helped the industry come a long way, but according to some in Washington, that's not enough.

According to some in Washington, more needs to be done. Including passing laws that could one day essentially lead to censorship. Censorship in any form is wrong, and it's up to us as gamers to let Congress know that.

So visit the site, let your representative know how you feel about lawmakers' attempts to quell the material developers and publishers give us. I'm not normally one to tell people what they should do, but in this instance, it is of utmost importance for us, as gamers and as a community, to take a stand.

On the site, Will Wright says, "We can't afford to just sit back while games become subject to government regulation! Take a stand today."

The future of videogames could depend on it.

2006-05-22T20:08:00.000-07:00

For all this talk of videogames infiltrating the mainstream, it appears there’s still work to be done.

After waking up this morning, I decided to take a look at the local newspaper (like I always do). I noticed in the Life section of this morning’s Daily Press (Newport News, Va.) an article detailing the next generation of videogame consoles, detailing the Xbox 360 and previewing both the PlayStation3 and the Nintendo Wii.

Which was all well and good, until I read the article and saw the dreaded “t” word:

Toy.

The newspaper called these machines toys. Not next-generation consoles, not high-powered interactive entertainment machines…toys.

A lot has been made over the past decade about the impact Sony has had on the videogame industry with the PlayStation brand. With the PSOne and the PS2, Sony has made the videogame a mainstream attraction, an entertainment medium accessible to both the hardcore crowd and the casual, everyday person. People who had never before considered videogames became gamers because of the PlayStation brand.

And one would think if Sony and Microsoft were investing time, energy, resources, and tons of cash into the industry that it would garner a little more respect than this. Not that mainstream media bias against the videogame industry is anything new—seems like we’ve been having the violent videogame debate forever now—but how can you dismiss an industry that makes more money annually than Hollywood by merely calling it a toy?

Boggles the mind.

Microsoft and Sony do not invest in toys; they invest in computer technologies and consumer electronics. Their inclusion in an industry once dominated by the likes of Nintendo, Sega, and Atari has given videogames a sense of credibility. In the 1980s, videogames were indeed considered toys, and the numbers seemed to back up that claim; the vast majority of gamers back then were under the age of 18.

But the minute Sony entered the industry and found some success, perception of the industry changed. Videogames were no longer the hobby of the young and the lazy. They were now a legitimate entertainment medium…to everyone outside the mainstream media.

Every time mainstream media outlets run a videogame-related story—be it an overview of E3, the launch of a new console, or the latest Mortal Kombat controversy—I am amazed at the level of ignorance the media displays. And I think some of that ignorance comes from the long-held belief that videogames are still nothing more than toys, something nobody older than the age of 16 needs to bother with.

Then again, the average age of gamers today is 28 years, so, as usual, the pundits are wrong.

But back to this issue of toys. Do toys offer BluRay technology? Do toys bring us an HD-DVD drive, complete with Ethernet connectivity and an online service allowing for community gaming and chats? If videogames are toys, then so are DVDs and any other device that can be plugged into a television for the purpose of entertainment.

There’s a reason the videogame industry has its own specific types of media—magazines, web sites, G4TV, etc.—because if we were to rely on the mainstream media for information about the videogame industry, said industry would be in sad, sad shape. Until the sheen of ignorance is removed, the videogame industry will be viewed from afar as nothing more than a children’s hobby.

Which, ironically, is an awful childish point of view.

2006-05-18T20:21:00.000-07:00

Ah, Lara. How we’ve missed you.

Actually, I haven’t really missed Lara over the past couple years as I’ve wished she’d just up and leave. A once-proud franchise reduced to copycat sequels and horrible movies that discredited the wonderful actress sucked into them…there for a while, it seemed as if Tomb Raider was destined for the deepest of tombs in the most barren of desserts.

And after the dismal Angel of Darkness, I was fine with that.

But what’s this? Eidos gave the development over to Crystal Dynamics, which promptly promised to start from scratch and rework everything in an effort to bring Lara back to what made her so appealing in the first place? Are you people serious?

No…you can’t be. These promises have been made before; game makers always tell us they fixed what was wrong with the games before, that everything we hated was gone, replaced by new and exciting features that were bound to wow and amaze us.

Only it never happened; we were force-fed the same crap we grew tired of years ago. So you’ll understand my skepticism.

Yes, I realize the screenshots and the media buzz in the previews are nice. Anyone can show me pretty screenshots with today’s technology; the PlayStation2 and Xbox might be five or so years old, but they’re no slouches when it comes to technology. If pretty pictures made good games, The Bouncer wouldn’t have sucked as bad as it did.

But wait a second…positive review after positive review. Game Informer, EGM, GameSpot, IGN, Edge over in England…okay, maybe you guys are onto something after all. I guess I can invest a bit of cash and give the virtual archaeologist one more try.

…

Well, I’ll be damned. Crystal Dynamics did it. They actually pulled off what I thought couldn’t be done. Not only is Tomb Raider relevant again, Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend is a wonderful game. A near masterpiece that reminds me of why I fell in love with the series all those years ago, when the original hit PlayStation.

Gone is the horrid grid system, the awkward controls that positively screamed 1996. Gone are the jagged graphics, the kind that made Lara look less like a human being and more like a pointy-breasted alien. In their place is a magnificent world full of a wonder and magic, a world I can’t help but get lost in for hours, just running around exploring.

Puzzles are no longer pointless and demeaning; now, they’re stimulating and specific to the level objectives. Combat is still hit-or-miss—God of War this ain’t—but that’s okay. Tomb Raider was never about combat anyway.

Legend knows what it is, and it sticks to what works. Core Design lost sight of this years ago, churning out sequel after carbon-copy sequel annually to pull in the almighty dollar. The franchise, which hit bottom after two bad movies, a haphazard comic book, and the putrid Angel of Darkness, has risen from the ashes, back from the dead to bring us all that videogame adventure we feared (or hoped) dead.

But Crystal Dynamics…you get it. You know what makes a game great. It’s not digital breasts or flashy casuals; it’s smooth controls, intuitive missions, a solid plot to tie everything together, and an experience that overall enthralling and ultimately satisfying.

It wasn’t too long ago I was begging for Tomb Raider to never return. Now, as I make my way through the fantastic adventure known as Lara Croft Tomb Raider: Legend, I can’t help but beg for a sequel.

Welcome back, Lara. How we’ve missed you.

2006-05-11T20:35:00.000-07:00

Is it just me, or does it seem like Sony feels it can do just about anything it wants now?

There's no doubt Sony's first two consoles have been massive successes--both the PlayStation and the PlayStation2 have dominated the gaming landscape for the past decade, selling hundreds of millions of units worldwide and influencing an entire generation of game players and game makers.

Whereas Nintendo was synonymous with videogaming in the 1980s, PlayStation is synonymous with videogaming today.

But does that give the company license to do whatever it wants? A cursory glance at the revelations made at this year's E3 might lead some to believe that's the case.

Take, most notably, the price tag. Sony announced two bundles at launch, one including a 20-gig hard drive for $499, and a 60-gig hard drive model going for $599.

The last console to even come close to that price point was the 3DO in the mid-90s. That console launched for around $700 and instantly failed. Granted, a weak software library didn't help, but any game company is going to have a hard time convincing a consumer outside the hardcore gaming community to plop down that kind of cash on a console.

Obviously, the $499 model will not have the same features as the $599 model, which means the cheaper option will likely be chastized and ignored. Microsoft experienced this very thing with the launch of Xbox 360; the Core unit, at $299, was left for dead on store shelves, gamers instead favoring the beefier $399 model. So, with the $599 PS3 being the only likely option for gamers, the question remains: who's going to be willing to pony up the dough?

Especially if the trend continues where in order to get the most out of your new console, you need a sophisticated (and highly expensive) high-definition TV. Without an HDTV, the Xbox 360 isn't that different from the original Xbox, and I suspect the same would be true for the PS3.

Now, don't get me wrong; I understand why the PS3 is going to cost this much; the technology is expensive to manufacture, and the console's reliance on BluRay technology was likely the straw that broke the camel's financial back. I knew the minute Sony announced its BluRay plans that keeping the PS3's launch price manageable was going to be an uphill battle, and it appears I was right.

But I can't help but wonder if the success of both the PSOne and the PS2 has Sony thinking it can slap a $600 price tag on the PS3 and the gamers would come in droves regardless. Sony has made quite a name for itself in the industry over the past decade, and the games will likely be of the same high quality they have been for years. But does Sony simply feel it can get away with this, for no reason other than the knowledge that, at the end of the day, this is still Sony and this is still PlayStation we're talking about?

If that's the case, then that's complacency, and that's dangerous territory for Sony. Nintendo seems as focused as ever, and Microsoft's spent the better part of the past five years trying to dethrone the electronics giant. If Sony starts getting too full of itself, then one of the other two console manufacturers might just inherit the industry.

I won't sit here and call the PS3 a failure before it even hits store shelves (November 11 in Japan, November 17 here in the States). If some of the games I've seen so far--Metal Gear Solid 4 and Warhawk, specifically--are any indication, the PS3 could be just as strong as its predecessors where it matters most: the games. But I can't ignore the price tag...and I'm willing to bet a lot of other gamers won't be able to ignore it, either.

People griped about the 360's $400 price point, and if the PS3 is going to go for $100 more, Sony could be in trouble. The first thing that led to the ultimate doom of the Sega Saturn in the 32-bit era was the fact that it was $100 more expensive than the PlayStation; Sony managed to get its machine to market for $300, while Sega rushed an inferior product to stores for $400.

Sometimes, the cheaper console is the one the general public goes for. Advantage: likely Nintendo.

I just hope the $600 price tag on the PlayStation3 is legitimate, and not a case of Sony's head getting too big for its own cap. Even more, I hope that price comes down between now and November 17; we know there's going to be a shortage at launch, but to add that public relations nightmare to the ongoing question of why the machine's so expensive? Sony might find itself staring up the side of a really tough mountain.

2006-05-09T18:43:00.000-07:00

Nintendo's next-generation console has already provided months of intrigue and speculation, with the company's mindset that it isn't in direct competition with Sony and Microsoft and the admittedly off-kilter controller the company unveiled in Japan several months back. While the former can be argued nearly ad nauseam, time--and the success of the DS handheld--has softened the blow caused by the one-handed wonder (insert masturbation joke here; you know you want to).

But Nintendo once again has this intrepid blogger scratching his head, announcing recently that the console's name has changed from Revolution to Wii.

Pronounced "We," but spelled "Wii."

I can just hear it now: kids running home from school, screaming, "Let's all go play Wii!"

I realize the company is known for marketing to a younger demographic when compared to its corporate rivals, but Nintendo's decision to change the Revolution's name smacks of demographical exclusion (pretty sure I just made up a phrase there). The Revolution brand had an edge to it, and it was kind of fitting, giving what Nintendo was hoping to accomplish with the console. The controller would almost certainly change the way you and I played games, and if Nintendo could pull off its strategy of staying as far away from Xbox 360 and PlayStation3 as possible, the console would've likely been a revolution, if not an evolution.

But the name change disregards all of that. I liked the Revolution name; it was different, not some sequel-like crap similar to what Sony and Microsoft were doing (c'mon, PlayStation3? I understand brand recognition and all, but try to be a little more original). But Wii could potentially undercut the console's possible imapct on the industry, as well as the way we play games. In fact, it could alienate some of the audience Nintendo's hoping to cultivate.

The very sound of the console's new moniker--"We"--makes the machine sound like a child's toy. It almost exclusively markets the machine for the under-12 crowd, a crowd Nintendo has never had trouble getting on its side. The problem with this is that most gamers today are older than that--the average age of gamers today is 28 years. Also, many of today's older gamers grew up on Nintendo's 8- and 16-bit offerings. I remember the year I got an NES for Christmas, and when I first cracked open the box to my Super Nintendo.

Those were great consoles, with great games, but Nintendo needs to realize the gamers--and the industry as a whole--has grown up. The videogame industry doesn't pull in more money annually than Hollywood by catering to the tee-ball and training wheels crowd; it does so by growing up, expanding its horizons. And while the console itself might very well do that, the name could just as easily give gamers the opposite impression.

It's not just about the games; it's about appearances too.

The games themselves might be great; if the DS' success is any indication, Nintendo could very well revolutionize the way we play games. Also, Red Steel looks like it's going to be the game that will make you go out and pick up a Wii when it launches, much the way Halo was Xbox's killer app and Madden NFL 2001 moved PS2s off store shelves. Wii will also likely be cheaper than both the 360 and the PS3; Nintendo's M.O. the past two generations was to be cheaper than its competitors at launch.

But the name could damage some of the momentum the company's trying to build as we plow through this year's E3 and await the holiday rush. I sincerely hope people are intelligent enough to look past the stupid name and give the games a try, because Nintendo could very well have the next big thing in gaming on its hands. I'm just trying to figure out why the company would forgo such a classic and appropriate name like Revolution in favor of the strange and extremely befuddling Wii.

In the meantime, I think I should go pay Lara Croft a visit. It's been years, and I hear she's gotten herself back together...

Happy gaming, everyone.