If you've read this blog at all, you're well aware at this point that I'm a man of opinions. Many opinions, to be exact. They typically spring forth unbidden from my head like frenzied demon children, looking for someone (anyone, really) to overpower and consume their soul. One opinion: I unapologetically love the old show ReBoot. The original episodes were 12 different kinds of campy, but it always had heart. The later episodes were actually toned way back on the campy and turned a bit more up on the action. By no means is ReBoot my favorite show or anything, but I definitely always enjoyed it. So it's actually pretty amazing to me that I can't figure out where I stand on the news that this show is coming back. Should I be elated? Possibly. But I find myself hoping that they'll continue the trend towards the heavy action that they managed to pull off late in the show before its demise. It's kind of hard to say, though. Will they try to return to form from the original shows? Or will they move for a rock-em-sock-em romp starring poorly named avatars for a computer's inner workings? Either way, I'll almost assuredly buy it, because I understand that making ill-informed purchasing decisions is the world's surest way to Zen-like bliss. If not, at least you've got a lot of shit to preoccupy you from your hollow shell of a life, so I figure it's kind of win-win.
J. J. Abrams (the Lost guy) is working on some sort of ninja-secret, low budget, movie code-named Cloverfield. You can read about Cloverfield here, here, here, or here. If you saw the Transformers movie (and maybe even if you didn't), you've seen the trailer for this movie. It was the trailer with no name, just a release date. While I'm a bit intrigued by what this could be, I honestly can't spend all of my time and energy trying to figure out just exactly what the fuck it is that Abrams is driving at with this random menagerie of teaser footage and breadcrumb games to determine what the movie is about. So I've officially decided that I've put this movie on the back burner of my mind, only to be poked or prodded by the occasional tidbit of news. You say the name might possibly be Monstrous? Fantastic. Let me know if you actually know that's what the damn title is. You speculate that it might be a Voltron movie? Well, please allow me a moment to suppress a snicker. Ah, yes. Of course that's what it'll be. Let me know when you have confirmation on that tidbit. Seriously, why are we jumping through hoops to have someone tell us what their movie will be about? Where does that get fun? Don't mistake this attitude as hatred of ARGs in general. I'm perfectly fine with an ARG, when it is tangential to the purpose of the marketing. As an example, I didn't need to play the Halo 2 ARG, the now famous ilovebees to know what Halo 2 was going to be about. It was going to be the sequel to Halo, it would star a dude dressed in dapper green absolutely fucking up the nefarious evil alien culture, the Covenant. I didn't need to go be a beekeeper to find out that codename Spartanfield was actually Halo 2. That distinguishes these two situations: Abrams should just pitch his damn movie to us already. Faceless hype seldom precedes quality entertainment.
--Ak out
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Adding New Meaning to Viagra Spam
Well, my head is pounding and I've been crunching Tylenol like M&Ms, but it's hard for me to complain. Today must be a sort of a yang to yesterday's yin. But I won't let that stop me, oh, no! I'm still in such a good mood that I don't even think I have it in me to genuinely make fun of anything. At least, that's what I thought before I ran across this:
This, certainly, is the product that mankind has been waiting for! If only I had a quarter for every time I sat around and thought, "if only my e-mails could be the bikini clad women that I always envision them to be!" Certainly, such a world would be a paradise. While it's certainly true that the novelty of such an approach is worth noting, one has to wonder: If your e-mails assume avatars of comely visions of your favorite gender, what action, exactly, is entailed when you read these poor polygonal souls? I mean, you open an e-mail. What do you do to your beach e-mail? I'm slightly aroused and very disturbed by the implications. In the name of science, I must know. I, dear readers, will throw myself upon the sword of wtf and find out what horrors lie in this interface. And once I'm satisfied with my assessment of the product presented, I shall endeavor to return here, with knowledge!
Also from the front lines of the culture war, I receive news that Lifetime, a network whose insipid gender-centric marketing/message drives me nuts, is teaming up with RealNetworks, whose insipid crap-centric software drives me nuts, to produce insipid, crappy looking, "games" for women! Because the games that are out there apparently aren't for women, they needed special ones. Special ones like a game where you manage a beauty salon. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a salon managing sim could be great fun. I'm just as sure that by saying "this is a game made specifically for women," there are some marketing folks that sat down somewhere and had a conversation something like this:
Marketing Guy 1: Lifetime is interested in giving us some money to make a game especially for women... what kind of game should that be?
Marketing Guy 2: I dunno... what do women like? Um... they like looking pretty, right? How about a make-up application sim?
Marketing Guy 1: Think about what you just said! Make-up application? They do that shit every day. We need something that allows them to do what they've always wanted to do!
Marketing Guy 2: How about a salon? Then they could put make-up on other people
Marketing Guy 1: Holy shit, Jim, that's genius! We need to get the code monkeys on that right away.
Marketing Guy 2: Think we should come up with a compelling gameplay mechanic?
Marketing Guy 1: Mechanic? Ha! Screw that, it's got make-up. Plus, we could have them style people's hair! What else could they want?
Maybe it's my paranoia, but I can't imagine any good coming of this. Then again, what do I know? I'm certainly not a woman, perhaps Lifetime has really channeled to the core of what it is to be a woman and placed it in video game form. Or perhaps not.
The last bit I'm going to mention, I'm not going to say much about. All I think really needs to be said is this is either the luckiest kid in a while, or the unluckiest. Depending on how badly someone wants it all back. Of course, the kid did pay almost $200 for something that can be bought new for $120 in the States, so I have no idea what he was smoking in the first place.
--Ak out
This, certainly, is the product that mankind has been waiting for! If only I had a quarter for every time I sat around and thought, "if only my e-mails could be the bikini clad women that I always envision them to be!" Certainly, such a world would be a paradise. While it's certainly true that the novelty of such an approach is worth noting, one has to wonder: If your e-mails assume avatars of comely visions of your favorite gender, what action, exactly, is entailed when you read these poor polygonal souls? I mean, you open an e-mail. What do you do to your beach e-mail? I'm slightly aroused and very disturbed by the implications. In the name of science, I must know. I, dear readers, will throw myself upon the sword of wtf and find out what horrors lie in this interface. And once I'm satisfied with my assessment of the product presented, I shall endeavor to return here, with knowledge!
Also from the front lines of the culture war, I receive news that Lifetime, a network whose insipid gender-centric marketing/message drives me nuts, is teaming up with RealNetworks, whose insipid crap-centric software drives me nuts, to produce insipid, crappy looking, "games" for women! Because the games that are out there apparently aren't for women, they needed special ones. Special ones like a game where you manage a beauty salon. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure a salon managing sim could be great fun. I'm just as sure that by saying "this is a game made specifically for women," there are some marketing folks that sat down somewhere and had a conversation something like this:
Marketing Guy 1: Lifetime is interested in giving us some money to make a game especially for women... what kind of game should that be?
Marketing Guy 2: I dunno... what do women like? Um... they like looking pretty, right? How about a make-up application sim?
Marketing Guy 1: Think about what you just said! Make-up application? They do that shit every day. We need something that allows them to do what they've always wanted to do!
Marketing Guy 2: How about a salon? Then they could put make-up on other people
Marketing Guy 1: Holy shit, Jim, that's genius! We need to get the code monkeys on that right away.
Marketing Guy 2: Think we should come up with a compelling gameplay mechanic?
Marketing Guy 1: Mechanic? Ha! Screw that, it's got make-up. Plus, we could have them style people's hair! What else could they want?
Maybe it's my paranoia, but I can't imagine any good coming of this. Then again, what do I know? I'm certainly not a woman, perhaps Lifetime has really channeled to the core of what it is to be a woman and placed it in video game form. Or perhaps not.
The last bit I'm going to mention, I'm not going to say much about. All I think really needs to be said is this is either the luckiest kid in a while, or the unluckiest. Depending on how badly someone wants it all back. Of course, the kid did pay almost $200 for something that can be bought new for $120 in the States, so I have no idea what he was smoking in the first place.
--Ak out
Friday, July 13, 2007
Downloadable Violence
I'm late this week. I realize this. I also realize that my droves of fans have been sitting on tenterhooks waiting desperately - nay, craving - more Akbar goodness. Fear not, fair citizens, for I have returned! And with me comes more rambling nonsense! Let us begin:
It first came to my attention via the inimitable GamePolitics that some website, namely The Raw Story, was criticizing an upcoming gaming tournament for their choice of games to hold. The game in question was Gears of War, which is a remarkably violent game. For those of you who somehow misse
d out on what's going on in Gears, allow me to present you with exhibit a:
That is a picture of the Lancer, the default gun in Gears. You're welcome to follow the link to where I snagged the picture from, and read all about it if you'd like. But really, here's what you need to notice: The thing has a damn chainsaw for a bayonet. Now, as a responsible, mature, 27 year old man, I find this to be awesome beyond compare. But you don't add something like a chainsaw bayonet into a game without adding some more blood, guts, and an M for Mature rating. Alright, alright. So now you're sure you've got the gist of this whole thing: Some group decided to set up a tournament, invite all the kids, and then put a gory M rated game in there, right? Not really. The tournament was only open to people 17 and older. Meaning they were all at least old enough to walk into a store and buy this game for themselves, if they so chose. It's about now that you should be saying "Well, hmm. Perhaps there was something else about the tournament that drew public attention. Like, perhaps it was sponsored by some group opposed to violence?" And here's where the punchline comes in, ladies and gentlemen. Here's the kicker. The tournament was sponsored by the United States Army as a recruiting tool. I can't make this shit up. Apparently some overly tight-assed prick at The Raw Story felt that the Army shouldn't promote violence. It's a good thing my post is late this week, because I was damn near speechless for a few hours after I read that. I may be that only now, after 4 days, I can say anything coherent about this.
My issue with this all boils down to wondering what it was exactly that the author, one Nick Juliano thinks the Army actually does. These men and women who sign up for this job aren't going to go macramé doilies or compose disturbing yet lovely lays about pastoral countrysides. I mean, certainly some of them might have those hobbies as well, but that's not what the Army will pay them to do. Let's face it, the Army is in the business of war. War is the business of killing the other guy before he kills you. If a chainsaw bayonet were practical as far as weight and fuel concerns go, I wouldn't be shocked if the Army didn't do research on it. Hell, even with it not being practical, I wouldn't be surprised if they did research on it. The point is, they kill other people in the Army. It's sort of their job. To criticize them for using a violent, bloody game as a recruiting tool seems like criticizing model agencies for holding auditions at the mall. There are some things that just make sense.
Then, to top it all off, this morning I was browsing the typically solid Kotaku only to be greeted by a mildly asinine post followed by approximately a trillion really asinine comments. Here's a summary: Downloadable content is too expensive for our tastes! But people are buying it! Therefore, people buying DLC are idiots who are ruining it for everyone! There are a myriad problems with this line of thinking, but I should be upfront first. I am one of those idiots who actually buys DLC. In particular, my ever-present cohort J and I have purchased all of the Guitar Hero II packs thus far. I think J actually put up the cash for them thus far, but I would've done it had he not. Why, you may ask, would either of us feel compelled to buy something that's obviously a poor value? The answer is simple: it's not as fucking obvious as you'd suppose. Really, though, calling me an idiot for having a different valuation of an ethereal item than you is something I expect. People call people stupid moronic idiots for much less.
What really chaps my ass is this assumption that by "caving in," I've apparently "ruined it" for "everyone." Let me explain how this works: If you don't think it's worth the cost that the publisher wants, you don't buy it. Theoretically, they might drop the price, if (and only if) they feel like they could make more money at a lower price! That means they sit around and think "Hey Bob, you know that pack we have on Live? Yeah, the one that's $6... What if we dropped the price to $5? Do you think we'd make more by getting more people to buy in?" Hell, I'll guarantee you that they sit around and think that all the time. That's what business guys and marketing types do. Just because I'm above the threshold where they make maximum profit and you're below it does not mean that I let the team down. There is not team. There is only me, and my desire to have the product that they offered. And my desire is strong enough to overcome the price they offer it at.
The whole situation reminds me of EAs DLC debacle, wherein EA started selling things that people took for granted as part of a game on Live. Things like cheat codes and tutorial videos. There was much outcry and gnashing of teeth and many, many, people swearing to boycott EA. I, however, have always been a realist. I'm not going to boycott one of the largest game publishers on the planet. That would be silly. What I will do, is only buy things that I feel they have priced within my personal comfort zone for spending. A game is $60. If EA tries to sell one for $75, I likely wouldn't buy it, unless they have something packaged with it that is a compelling argument for the extra $15. If EA offers something like cheat codes on Live, I wouldn't buy those, either. If EA offers legitimate content expansion via Live, then I'm all ears. At that point, I'd look at what they're offering and I'd decide whether it's worth it or not. The one thing I will not do is sit around and thing "How will this affect Johnny Football-Star-Who-Also-Happens-To-Be-A-Whiny-Internet-Bastard?" Johnny F-S-W-A-H-T-B-A-W-I-B can go sit on it. and rotate.
--Ak out
It first came to my attention via the inimitable GamePolitics that some website, namely The Raw Story, was criticizing an upcoming gaming tournament for their choice of games to hold. The game in question was Gears of War, which is a remarkably violent game. For those of you who somehow misse
d out on what's going on in Gears, allow me to present you with exhibit a:That is a picture of the Lancer, the default gun in Gears. You're welcome to follow the link to where I snagged the picture from, and read all about it if you'd like. But really, here's what you need to notice: The thing has a damn chainsaw for a bayonet. Now, as a responsible, mature, 27 year old man, I find this to be awesome beyond compare. But you don't add something like a chainsaw bayonet into a game without adding some more blood, guts, and an M for Mature rating. Alright, alright. So now you're sure you've got the gist of this whole thing: Some group decided to set up a tournament, invite all the kids, and then put a gory M rated game in there, right? Not really. The tournament was only open to people 17 and older. Meaning they were all at least old enough to walk into a store and buy this game for themselves, if they so chose. It's about now that you should be saying "Well, hmm. Perhaps there was something else about the tournament that drew public attention. Like, perhaps it was sponsored by some group opposed to violence?" And here's where the punchline comes in, ladies and gentlemen. Here's the kicker. The tournament was sponsored by the United States Army as a recruiting tool. I can't make this shit up. Apparently some overly tight-assed prick at The Raw Story felt that the Army shouldn't promote violence. It's a good thing my post is late this week, because I was damn near speechless for a few hours after I read that. I may be that only now, after 4 days, I can say anything coherent about this.
My issue with this all boils down to wondering what it was exactly that the author, one Nick Juliano thinks the Army actually does. These men and women who sign up for this job aren't going to go macramé doilies or compose disturbing yet lovely lays about pastoral countrysides. I mean, certainly some of them might have those hobbies as well, but that's not what the Army will pay them to do. Let's face it, the Army is in the business of war. War is the business of killing the other guy before he kills you. If a chainsaw bayonet were practical as far as weight and fuel concerns go, I wouldn't be shocked if the Army didn't do research on it. Hell, even with it not being practical, I wouldn't be surprised if they did research on it. The point is, they kill other people in the Army. It's sort of their job. To criticize them for using a violent, bloody game as a recruiting tool seems like criticizing model agencies for holding auditions at the mall. There are some things that just make sense.
Then, to top it all off, this morning I was browsing the typically solid Kotaku only to be greeted by a mildly asinine post followed by approximately a trillion really asinine comments. Here's a summary: Downloadable content is too expensive for our tastes! But people are buying it! Therefore, people buying DLC are idiots who are ruining it for everyone! There are a myriad problems with this line of thinking, but I should be upfront first. I am one of those idiots who actually buys DLC. In particular, my ever-present cohort J and I have purchased all of the Guitar Hero II packs thus far. I think J actually put up the cash for them thus far, but I would've done it had he not. Why, you may ask, would either of us feel compelled to buy something that's obviously a poor value? The answer is simple: it's not as fucking obvious as you'd suppose. Really, though, calling me an idiot for having a different valuation of an ethereal item than you is something I expect. People call people stupid moronic idiots for much less.
What really chaps my ass is this assumption that by "caving in," I've apparently "ruined it" for "everyone." Let me explain how this works: If you don't think it's worth the cost that the publisher wants, you don't buy it. Theoretically, they might drop the price, if (and only if) they feel like they could make more money at a lower price! That means they sit around and think "Hey Bob, you know that pack we have on Live? Yeah, the one that's $6... What if we dropped the price to $5? Do you think we'd make more by getting more people to buy in?" Hell, I'll guarantee you that they sit around and think that all the time. That's what business guys and marketing types do. Just because I'm above the threshold where they make maximum profit and you're below it does not mean that I let the team down. There is not team. There is only me, and my desire to have the product that they offered. And my desire is strong enough to overcome the price they offer it at.
The whole situation reminds me of EAs DLC debacle, wherein EA started selling things that people took for granted as part of a game on Live. Things like cheat codes and tutorial videos. There was much outcry and gnashing of teeth and many, many, people swearing to boycott EA. I, however, have always been a realist. I'm not going to boycott one of the largest game publishers on the planet. That would be silly. What I will do, is only buy things that I feel they have priced within my personal comfort zone for spending. A game is $60. If EA tries to sell one for $75, I likely wouldn't buy it, unless they have something packaged with it that is a compelling argument for the extra $15. If EA offers something like cheat codes on Live, I wouldn't buy those, either. If EA offers legitimate content expansion via Live, then I'm all ears. At that point, I'd look at what they're offering and I'd decide whether it's worth it or not. The one thing I will not do is sit around and thing "How will this affect Johnny Football-Star-Who-Also-Happens-To-Be-A-Whiny-Internet-Bastard?" Johnny F-S-W-A-H-T-B-A-W-I-B can go sit on it. and rotate.
--Ak out
Thursday, July 5, 2007
On Summer Droughts
Summer's here, and that can only mean one thing: Gaming news has slowed to a crawl. E3 is just around the corner, and even in it's current scaled-down incarnation, there should be plenty of new information coming out of there. But really that just means that all of the big companies are holding back until that day, so we have nothing to talk about until then. So what I'll do instead is wane intellectual on where I think the big three stand right now.
Microsoft
The big M has plenty to crow about these days, as they still seem to have the lead in hardware sold, and easily has the biggest library of titles out there to choose from. Of course, it couldn't hurt them to have hardware that didn't seem to want to explode from people breathing on it too hard, and it might not hurt to avoid confusing the customer base by not having 18 different versions of the same system on the market, all with different SKUs and price points, but hey, I'm no business major, what do I know? The important thing is that MS would have to actively try to screw up in order to alienate the hardcore gaming audience at this point. They've got the systems out there, they've got the market dominance, and they've got the title lineup to keep them comfortably in the market at this point. Not bad for a company who seemed determined to buy their way into a market that didn't want them around 7 years ago, huh?
Nintendo
The big N has become the golden child of casual gamers and a media darling. But does Nintendo have the chops to do what needs to be done to secure their place at the head of the table? Certainly Nintendo's got a great strategy whereby they (at least theoretically) profit off of not only their software, but their hardware as well, ensuring that even a low attach rate of games is going to keep them good and in business, but is that enough to really get back the market dominance Nintendo craves so badly? Nintendo's in an interesting place compared to the other two companies, as they don't have any other business units to augment their gaming sector plans. Nintendo has to tread very carefully, because a poor showing of one console generation could well spell doom for them at this point. The company which became synonymous with gaming in the 80s and 90s via the NES and Super Nintendo fell from grace, hard. After the N64 failed to compete at any real level with the Playstation, I heard that the Gamecube was seen whoring itself out for nickels on the corner of 12th and Adams... Go check it out sometime, I'm sure he's still out there. Anyway, Nintendo has finally hit it big with the general populace, but they still haven't fixed a lot of their old glaring problems. They need third party interest in a bad way. Nintendo should be like some heroin addict looking for third party games... you know, just for that one last thrill. Instead, they seem quite content with selling the system and two games to johnny everyman, completely foregoing the hardcore market that not only grew up with Nintendo, but they people that practically put them on the map 20 years ago. A note to Nintendo, from the fanboy elite: We want to love you, we do. I want to swear that the old N is back, and that we'll never stray again, and that the Wii is everything we could ever want in a system, despite being so different from what's been available before. Honestly, though? As long as games keep coming out for your competitors, good games - mind you, we'll keep buying more and more of their stuff... So until Nintendo gets that through their head, we're stuck with the same 8 amazingly good first party franchises we've had for the past 2 generations. And apparently nothing else.
Sony
The big S is apparently what I should call Sony, given the pattern of the first two sections. That's kind of awkward, though, so I'll just call them... Sony. What's left to say about Sony? They bounce from horrible ad campaigns, absurdly arrogant statements by their upper management, and a price point that seems to cater to people who not only wipe their asses with money, they also use it to make giant paper-mache genitalia. But enough about my hobbies, we're talking about Sony. So what does Sony need to do to get back into the game that they seem to have forgotten that they were a part of? Honestly, I think they just need to chill out, brace for a long, cold financial winter, and wait things out. As much as they've tried desperately to fuck this up, to lose all of their market, Sony still has some aces up their sleeves. Sony has a handful of what look like good games coming out this holiday. There will be Little Big Planet, there will be Ratchet and Clank, and for heaven's sakes, there will be Heavenly Sword. These games won't save Sony by themselves, oh no. When Final Fantasy XIII comes out next year (or is it the year after? who knows?) or Metal Gear Solid 4 comes out, then these games that seem like solid titles will become the fluff titles that a prospective buyer will look at as options to broaden their library. Johnny Football-Star-Who-Happens-To-Also-Like-Final-Fantasy (who names their child that?) will look at the PS3 and say "Oh, FF, sweet! And it also has! $600 doesn't seem so bad now!" Perhaps there will be a price-cut. Perhaps Johnny F-S-W-H-T-A-L-F-F could exclaim a lower price point. Certainly that would cut a bit of the sting away from his shitty name, but I digress. The important thing to note here is that Sony merely needs to a) not lose any of their big flagship exclusives.... anymore, and b) not go out of business. If they can accomplish those two things, I predict that 2009 might just be a decent year for the big S.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some paper mache to get back to.
--Ak out
Microsoft
The big M has plenty to crow about these days, as they still seem to have the lead in hardware sold, and easily has the biggest library of titles out there to choose from. Of course, it couldn't hurt them to have hardware that didn't seem to want to explode from people breathing on it too hard, and it might not hurt to avoid confusing the customer base by not having 18 different versions of the same system on the market, all with different SKUs and price points, but hey, I'm no business major, what do I know? The important thing is that MS would have to actively try to screw up in order to alienate the hardcore gaming audience at this point. They've got the systems out there, they've got the market dominance, and they've got the title lineup to keep them comfortably in the market at this point. Not bad for a company who seemed determined to buy their way into a market that didn't want them around 7 years ago, huh?
Nintendo
The big N has become the golden child of casual gamers and a media darling. But does Nintendo have the chops to do what needs to be done to secure their place at the head of the table? Certainly Nintendo's got a great strategy whereby they (at least theoretically) profit off of not only their software, but their hardware as well, ensuring that even a low attach rate of games is going to keep them good and in business, but is that enough to really get back the market dominance Nintendo craves so badly? Nintendo's in an interesting place compared to the other two companies, as they don't have any other business units to augment their gaming sector plans. Nintendo has to tread very carefully, because a poor showing of one console generation could well spell doom for them at this point. The company which became synonymous with gaming in the 80s and 90s via the NES and Super Nintendo fell from grace, hard. After the N64 failed to compete at any real level with the Playstation, I heard that the Gamecube was seen whoring itself out for nickels on the corner of 12th and Adams... Go check it out sometime, I'm sure he's still out there. Anyway, Nintendo has finally hit it big with the general populace, but they still haven't fixed a lot of their old glaring problems. They need third party interest in a bad way. Nintendo should be like some heroin addict looking for third party games... you know, just for that one last thrill. Instead, they seem quite content with selling the system and two games to johnny everyman, completely foregoing the hardcore market that not only grew up with Nintendo, but they people that practically put them on the map 20 years ago. A note to Nintendo, from the fanboy elite: We want to love you, we do. I want to swear that the old N is back, and that we'll never stray again, and that the Wii is everything we could ever want in a system, despite being so different from what's been available before. Honestly, though? As long as games keep coming out for your competitors, good games - mind you, we'll keep buying more and more of their stuff... So until Nintendo gets that through their head, we're stuck with the same 8 amazingly good first party franchises we've had for the past 2 generations. And apparently nothing else.
Sony
The big S is apparently what I should call Sony, given the pattern of the first two sections. That's kind of awkward, though, so I'll just call them... Sony. What's left to say about Sony? They bounce from horrible ad campaigns, absurdly arrogant statements by their upper management, and a price point that seems to cater to people who not only wipe their asses with money, they also use it to make giant paper-mache genitalia. But enough about my hobbies, we're talking about Sony. So what does Sony need to do to get back into the game that they seem to have forgotten that they were a part of? Honestly, I think they just need to chill out, brace for a long, cold financial winter, and wait things out. As much as they've tried desperately to fuck this up, to lose all of their market, Sony still has some aces up their sleeves. Sony has a handful of what look like good games coming out this holiday. There will be Little Big Planet, there will be Ratchet and Clank, and for heaven's sakes, there will be Heavenly Sword. These games won't save Sony by themselves, oh no. When Final Fantasy XIII comes out next year (or is it the year after? who knows?) or Metal Gear Solid 4 comes out, then these games that seem like solid titles will become the fluff titles that a prospective buyer will look at as options to broaden their library. Johnny Football-Star-Who-Happens-To-Also-Like-Final-Fantasy (who names their child that?) will look at the PS3 and say "Oh, FF, sweet! And it also has
Now if you'll excuse me, I have some paper mache to get back to.
--Ak out
Thursday, June 28, 2007
A Good Disguise Goes a Long Way
While I was attending a summit on international espionage this weekend, cleverly disguised as a bearded programmer from the Southeast, I felt a small buzz at the base of my spine. "Crap!" I thought, "It's the RSS event transponser!" Quickly, I regained my composure; I looked to the lovely lady beside me. Certainly "her" disguise wasn't as good as mine, I could tell it was my old rival from the Soviet Bloc, Ivor Brugostovich. I knew he'd have no idea it was me under my woolly mask, so I played coy. "Pardon me ma'am," I drawled, "But could you please let me know if I miss something? I need to go visit the lil' gents room." Ivor nodded his head, the delicate locks of his brunette wig falling gracefully as he did so. I remember thinking what a fantastic woman he made... And I scuttled off to the bathroom, to tap a sequence onto the crystal of my watch, allowing a screen to light up on the inside of my glasses. "Ah!" I audibly exclaimed, as I realized what had finally drawn my attention: Someone has finally made the worlds greatest game title, and it released in Japan just this week. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Growlanser VI: Precarious World. I dare you.. no! I double dog dare you not to find that title subtly hypnotic. I don't even care what the game is about, I must own it.
Special edition versions of video games are one of those nebulous creatures: you pay a lot of extra money for developers to basically give you stuff that does little more than proclaim your undying affection for the game. As someone who bought the big collector's edition box of Warcraft III, this is something I know a little bit about. Typically, however, these extras are an extra $10 for a soundtrack or a little art book or something that seems somewhat insignificant. Leave it to Rockstar to come up with some of the coolest swag I think I've ever seen in a special edition. I've got to admit, the Halo 3 "Legendary Edition" with the cat helmet seemed cool for a while, but nothing says cool like a freaking safe deposit box complete with a R* key chain. Besides, now I can throw all of my fake passports in the safe deposit box, and my loads of cash in the duffel. These are things you'd think an international man of intrigue and action would have by now, but then again, I spent all of my money on my totally believable disguise.
I'll leave you now with a note to people who need a disguise: crazy glue does not make a good spirit gum replacement. Ow.
--Ak out
Special edition versions of video games are one of those nebulous creatures: you pay a lot of extra money for developers to basically give you stuff that does little more than proclaim your undying affection for the game. As someone who bought the big collector's edition box of Warcraft III, this is something I know a little bit about. Typically, however, these extras are an extra $10 for a soundtrack or a little art book or something that seems somewhat insignificant. Leave it to Rockstar to come up with some of the coolest swag I think I've ever seen in a special edition. I've got to admit, the Halo 3 "Legendary Edition" with the cat helmet seemed cool for a while, but nothing says cool like a freaking safe deposit box complete with a R* key chain. Besides, now I can throw all of my fake passports in the safe deposit box, and my loads of cash in the duffel. These are things you'd think an international man of intrigue and action would have by now, but then again, I spent all of my money on my totally believable disguise.
I'll leave you now with a note to people who need a disguise: crazy glue does not make a good spirit gum replacement. Ow.
--Ak out
Thursday, June 21, 2007
On MMOs and Special Movies
I know that when I laid down this site, I promised that it would be about video games and movies. Also know that I realize that movies have been under-represented. But know this: I now have a movie topic to talk about! Fantastic, right? At any rate, charging forward, ever forward.
Last night, during the AFI's 100 best movies of the past 100 years, an ad was aired. This was no normal ad, no, no! In fact, the ad was hyped and teased at by not only the omni-present AICN, but also by the much cooler, yet smaller site, Chud. So what was the ad for? It was for a DVD of a movie. A movie that's already been released. Ok, I suck at this hype machine thing, so I'll just say it: Blade Runner: The Final Cut. I pray now that they really mean it this time when they say "Final," because I think maybe Ridley Scott has caught Lucasitis, wherein you have to release about 50 billion (with a b) editions and re-cuts of your successful films. Of course, what kind of digital host would I be if I didn't offer you a way to look at this trailer for yourself? So what's the ad tell us? Well, it looks like the whole thing has gone into some sort of LSD inspired techno post-futurist trip-hop thing. But what do I know, I think I just misapplied half of the previous terms to describe the movie... What it really boils down to is this: I've often been upset that the theatrical release of Blade Runner isn't available on DVD. If it was a cut and dried argument that the director's cut was just an enhanced version of the theatrical, that'd be easier to swallow. But from my understanding (seeing as how I don't think I've ever seen the theatrical), they're like two different damn movies. Now Mr. Scott wants to throw a third one in the mix, to truly chum up the waters, likely never re-releasing either the theatrical or the director's cut on either of the HD media. What does this mean for us? I think in a nutshell, it means that you'd damn well better like the movie the way Ridley Scott has decided it should be, not the way he made it originally. Which, up until now, I could live with, as the director's cut of Blade Runner is a fucking amazing movie. In the end, I'm praying we don't wind up arguing that "Deckard shot first" after this came out.
And now back to video games. If you know me, you know I play Everquest 2. It's not as popular of an MMO as another game which shall remain nameless, but I can't help but believe it's a superior product. My problems with MMOs have always been that I grow bored of them around the time I hit a very high level. EQ2 has a great blend of epic feeling quest lines and rewards, a house to show off your trophies (and a merchant system that encourages people to visit your virtual domicile), and a genuine sense of epic scale that other games seem to lack. According to my Xfire profile, I've logged 9 hours this week alone, which sounds better than it is, as I had other things to do Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Really, this speech isn't so much a commentary on MMOs as it is a hybrid ad/plea for help. Even now, I can feel the deep hooks of addiction calling me back to my keyboard, the beast audibly crying for my attention, much like a newborn child. Perhaps I'll spend the night trying to get my carpentry up to 36... Hmm.
The purpose of a rambling love letter to EQ2 was to set up my improptu review of a new MMO, Phylon, but I realize now that a simple segue has evolved into product placement that Sony loves to see (and certain parts of their company aren't above paying for, either). But I shall press forward! Phylon is essentially an MMO shooter set in a generic sci fi universe. What sets it apart is primarily the sense of humor they went about the whole process. Seriously, I charge anyone to read the faction descriptions from their page, they're great. What's better is, this game seems to have been made by the "little guys," trying to muscle their way in on the big guys. What they've got going against them is: They're the fucking little guys trying to go up against the big guys. I can't really emphasize enough that money going into a game tends to make the game better.
Here's how I see the problems:
1) AI acts like MMORPG AI, not shooter AI. If I'm in a shooter, I expect the enemies to be running around, making harder targets of themselves and generally testing my reflexes. These guys just charge straight at me, attacking me as soon as they get close. Perhaps that changes as you encounter harder enemies? I don't get the feeling it does, however much I'd like to hope so.
2) The UI is crappy. When you start the game, the menu to create a character is inexplicably choppy. It feels like my video card just got Parkinson's, and I can't really figure out why the in-game 3d world would run smoother than the starting menu. Also worth noting is that my CPU wasn't really taxed at any point during this menu; I think I heard some of my hertz tell the other hertz they were going on "siesta." Apparently my processor's frequency measurements are Spanish. Who knew? But if only the UI problems were limited to logging in, a sin could be forgiven! In reality, all of the interface elements have fixed positions, the only way to count a stack of an item is to mouse over it, and there's no way to inspect items/weapons/other gear to find out what the fuck it does before using it. These things do not a happy Akbar make.
3) The UI sucks part II. I got bored with that bullet point, so I decided to make a second one: The font they used for everything is nigh-illegible. I ran this game at 1280x1024 (the engine is old, it's not a super-pretty game or anything) and I {still} had some issues reading some of the player text. Inexcusable!
4) They're not that funny, on the whole. I loved reading over the site, chuckling at their many absurdities and comments, hoping for a game that would make me laugh as much as it would make me want to explore new areas. What I really got, however, was a game that lacked imagination. NPCs nearly across the board had some sort of a movie quote in their dialog. I love the occasional homage or quote, but you need to spread it out! Share the love, add some new dialog in there to keep people from thinking that you just didn't know how to be funny. Unless, of course, you don't know how to be funny. Then I can't help you, except to say that perhaps making a whimsical game shouldn't be your primary focus. Non-funny motherfucker.
5) Point 4 is compounded by what amounts to a lack of originality in other designs, as well. I mean, they have a Buster Sword in the game, for crying out loud! It looks really good, and they did a good job of making it look enough like the Buster Sword to be recognizable, but sci fi enough to fit into their universe. Taken by itself, and I would have praised them for the sly homage. Added to the rest of what they've given us, and it just aggravates the hell out of me. Besides, if they're going to give us the Buster Sword, they really need to go the whole 9 yards and give us an angsty, androgynous, he-woman who can somehow lift a sword the size of him despite being too obviously concerned with keeping his girlish good looks to go hit the gym once in a while. Because if that were a playable character, you know I'd be all over that shit.
So there you have it: My 5 reasons why Phylon isn't worth your $15. Noting that this is an MMO, and MMOs have a surprisingly malleable nature to them, I wouldn't be surprised if Rapid Reality doesn't address some of these concerns before long. Until they do, however, caveat emptor. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to make a few dozen virtual tables for my fake house. Ah, the tasks of being a home-owner.
--Ak out
Last night, during the AFI's 100 best movies of the past 100 years, an ad was aired. This was no normal ad, no, no! In fact, the ad was hyped and teased at by not only the omni-present AICN, but also by the much cooler, yet smaller site, Chud. So what was the ad for? It was for a DVD of a movie. A movie that's already been released. Ok, I suck at this hype machine thing, so I'll just say it: Blade Runner: The Final Cut. I pray now that they really mean it this time when they say "Final," because I think maybe Ridley Scott has caught Lucasitis, wherein you have to release about 50 billion (with a b) editions and re-cuts of your successful films. Of course, what kind of digital host would I be if I didn't offer you a way to look at this trailer for yourself? So what's the ad tell us? Well, it looks like the whole thing has gone into some sort of LSD inspired techno post-futurist trip-hop thing. But what do I know, I think I just misapplied half of the previous terms to describe the movie... What it really boils down to is this: I've often been upset that the theatrical release of Blade Runner isn't available on DVD. If it was a cut and dried argument that the director's cut was just an enhanced version of the theatrical, that'd be easier to swallow. But from my understanding (seeing as how I don't think I've ever seen the theatrical), they're like two different damn movies. Now Mr. Scott wants to throw a third one in the mix, to truly chum up the waters, likely never re-releasing either the theatrical or the director's cut on either of the HD media. What does this mean for us? I think in a nutshell, it means that you'd damn well better like the movie the way Ridley Scott has decided it should be, not the way he made it originally. Which, up until now, I could live with, as the director's cut of Blade Runner is a fucking amazing movie. In the end, I'm praying we don't wind up arguing that "Deckard shot first" after this came out.
And now back to video games. If you know me, you know I play Everquest 2. It's not as popular of an MMO as another game which shall remain nameless, but I can't help but believe it's a superior product. My problems with MMOs have always been that I grow bored of them around the time I hit a very high level. EQ2 has a great blend of epic feeling quest lines and rewards, a house to show off your trophies (and a merchant system that encourages people to visit your virtual domicile), and a genuine sense of epic scale that other games seem to lack. According to my Xfire profile, I've logged 9 hours this week alone, which sounds better than it is, as I had other things to do Tuesday and Wednesday nights. Really, this speech isn't so much a commentary on MMOs as it is a hybrid ad/plea for help. Even now, I can feel the deep hooks of addiction calling me back to my keyboard, the beast audibly crying for my attention, much like a newborn child. Perhaps I'll spend the night trying to get my carpentry up to 36... Hmm.
The purpose of a rambling love letter to EQ2 was to set up my improptu review of a new MMO, Phylon, but I realize now that a simple segue has evolved into product placement that Sony loves to see (and certain parts of their company aren't above paying for, either). But I shall press forward! Phylon is essentially an MMO shooter set in a generic sci fi universe. What sets it apart is primarily the sense of humor they went about the whole process. Seriously, I charge anyone to read the faction descriptions from their page, they're great. What's better is, this game seems to have been made by the "little guys," trying to muscle their way in on the big guys. What they've got going against them is: They're the fucking little guys trying to go up against the big guys. I can't really emphasize enough that money going into a game tends to make the game better.
Here's how I see the problems:
1) AI acts like MMORPG AI, not shooter AI. If I'm in a shooter, I expect the enemies to be running around, making harder targets of themselves and generally testing my reflexes. These guys just charge straight at me, attacking me as soon as they get close. Perhaps that changes as you encounter harder enemies? I don't get the feeling it does, however much I'd like to hope so.
2) The UI is crappy. When you start the game, the menu to create a character is inexplicably choppy. It feels like my video card just got Parkinson's, and I can't really figure out why the in-game 3d world would run smoother than the starting menu. Also worth noting is that my CPU wasn't really taxed at any point during this menu; I think I heard some of my hertz tell the other hertz they were going on "siesta." Apparently my processor's frequency measurements are Spanish. Who knew? But if only the UI problems were limited to logging in, a sin could be forgiven! In reality, all of the interface elements have fixed positions, the only way to count a stack of an item is to mouse over it, and there's no way to inspect items/weapons/other gear to find out what the fuck it does before using it. These things do not a happy Akbar make.
3) The UI sucks part II. I got bored with that bullet point, so I decided to make a second one: The font they used for everything is nigh-illegible. I ran this game at 1280x1024 (the engine is old, it's not a super-pretty game or anything) and I {still} had some issues reading some of the player text. Inexcusable!
4) They're not that funny, on the whole. I loved reading over the site, chuckling at their many absurdities and comments, hoping for a game that would make me laugh as much as it would make me want to explore new areas. What I really got, however, was a game that lacked imagination. NPCs nearly across the board had some sort of a movie quote in their dialog. I love the occasional homage or quote, but you need to spread it out! Share the love, add some new dialog in there to keep people from thinking that you just didn't know how to be funny. Unless, of course, you don't know how to be funny. Then I can't help you, except to say that perhaps making a whimsical game shouldn't be your primary focus. Non-funny motherfucker.
5) Point 4 is compounded by what amounts to a lack of originality in other designs, as well. I mean, they have a Buster Sword in the game, for crying out loud! It looks really good, and they did a good job of making it look enough like the Buster Sword to be recognizable, but sci fi enough to fit into their universe. Taken by itself, and I would have praised them for the sly homage. Added to the rest of what they've given us, and it just aggravates the hell out of me. Besides, if they're going to give us the Buster Sword, they really need to go the whole 9 yards and give us an angsty, androgynous, he-woman who can somehow lift a sword the size of him despite being too obviously concerned with keeping his girlish good looks to go hit the gym once in a while. Because if that were a playable character, you know I'd be all over that shit.
So there you have it: My 5 reasons why Phylon isn't worth your $15. Noting that this is an MMO, and MMOs have a surprisingly malleable nature to them, I wouldn't be surprised if Rapid Reality doesn't address some of these concerns before long. Until they do, however, caveat emptor. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to make a few dozen virtual tables for my fake house. Ah, the tasks of being a home-owner.
--Ak out
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
A Toilet as a Metaphor for Life
You know how sometimes, you're in the bathroom, minding your own business when someone else walks in and goes into a neighboring stall? Then you know how sometimes on top of that, the cleaning lady will knock on the door, and you and your anonymous neighbor will both chime in "occupied" simultaneously, in the same dull, monotone voice? I love synchronicity like that. So it's no wonder that I'm super-pumped for the new Time Crisis coming for the PS3. Time Crisis to me has always been about the most pure of pure cooperative experiences available. The fact that it's for my poor, underused PS3 just makes the game all the more appealing! I can only hope that a) the controllers don't suck or cost a fortune and b) the game itself is any fucking good. I guess we'll have to wait this one out and see.
I don't know if anyone has seen these, but Todd "Hate me for I created Spawn" McFarlane has done some artwork for what may be the ugliest 360 pads ever. Don't get me wrong: I love McFarlane's artwork. For my money, he did the absolute best looking Spider-Man of all time. But let's face it: Those controllers just look tacky. Like, Elton John tacky. So what would convince someone to buy one of those things? Oh, yeah. The freaking awesome Miniature Chief that comes with the thing. At least they're wireless, so you could potentially hide in another room while you use the thing, thus keeping your embarrassment for owning it to a minimum. On the same page, you'll find the Halo 3 branded headset, which I think I can say without fear of reprisal is fucking rad.
--Ak out
I don't know if anyone has seen these, but Todd "Hate me for I created Spawn" McFarlane has done some artwork for what may be the ugliest 360 pads ever. Don't get me wrong: I love McFarlane's artwork. For my money, he did the absolute best looking Spider-Man of all time. But let's face it: Those controllers just look tacky. Like, Elton John tacky. So what would convince someone to buy one of those things? Oh, yeah. The freaking awesome Miniature Chief that comes with the thing. At least they're wireless, so you could potentially hide in another room while you use the thing, thus keeping your embarrassment for owning it to a minimum. On the same page, you'll find the Halo 3 branded headset, which I think I can say without fear of reprisal is fucking rad.
--Ak out
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)