First reviews are awesome. This one is particularly awesome because this game is good, so it isn't a crummy review. First however, I want to explain how I will be reviewing games a bit.
I will make this promise: I WILL NOT RATE A GAME WITH A LETTER, NUMBER, OR STAR COUNT. I will not give any game a score. I find scores to be an objective thing stuck in a subjective thing. Reviews are subjective: they are open to opinion. No one can be completely unbiased with reviews, especially game reviews. Scores are objective however, and in my opinion unfairly judge a game. The format of the review will be like this: I will start with a brief overview of the game, telling the basic facts like developer and price and stuff. I will then talk about several aspects of the game which seem to be the most important to gamers. These are story, gameplay, graphics and design, multiplayer, and replayability. At the end of the review I will say the pros and cons of the game, and that will be it.
Alright then? Let's get started.
Splosion Man is an Xbox Live Arcade title developed by independent developer Twisted Pixel (whose other credits include The Maw). It is priced at a nice 800 Microsoft Points, and comes with bunches of goodies like 2 gamer pictures, a premium themes, and, with the new Live Update on the 11th, avatar clothing. Splosion Man can be considered a 2.5D platformer, although it can be put in the puzzle genre.
STORY: Splosion Man's story is simple, but it works for the game. The story takes place in a laboratory with several scientists going crazy after and experiment is let loose. This experiment is the 2 hours old Splosion Man, a creature capable of exploding himself at will. That is basically it for the story. You are a uncontrollable creature creating havoc in a laboratory. Twisted Pixel has done a great job with the humor side of things however. Put simply, this game is hilarious. There are so many things in this game that you cannot help but laugh about something. Whether it be running like an airplace with his arms up in the air yelling uncontrollable babble, or his hilarious phrases at the end of the level like "Get to the choppa!", Splosion Man is a very funny main character. Scientist will turn into various meats such as lambchops and ribeyes when you splode them, and the boss battles keep up with the humor also. Put simply, Splosion Man is just the kind of humor needed in a platformer of this nature. And this humor does not get dull or boring ever, even with the gigantic 50 level singleplayer and multiplayer game.
GAMEPLAY: This is the crowning jewel of Splosion Man. the entire game uses 2 buttons: the d-pad for movement and any of the face buttons or triggers to explode. The game works like a normal platformer, yet you use 'sploding to get everything done. This mechanic is used to jump up and off of walls, jump into canisters to fly or travel faster and higher, destroy enemies, and basically do everything normal platformers do with one button. This simple system makes the game super easy to pick up, which becomes even better when one reaches some of the more complicated levels in the game. The player does not have to worry about the controls while playing these levels, which puts them more into the game. The levels of the game themselves differ very nicely. The first couple of levels are "learning levels", but after that there is no real pattern to difficulty in levels. This is because some levels may require speed while others may require thinking skills. The levels are varied in difficulty and skill which makes for a very fulfilling game in the end. The three boss battles contained in the game are also very exiting, and exibit full use of the skills needed to get to the bosses. Overall, gameplay in Splosion Man is near perfect.
DESIGN AND GRAPHICS: Independent developers such as Twisted Pixel seem to have very talented skills in the design area, and Splosion Man is no different. The 2.5D design of the game fits it perfectly, as the cartoony environment is needed for a humorous game like this, yet putting it in 2D would compromise the look and feel of the game. The game has a dynamic camera, so the game will shift the camera occassionally to give a better view of the area. If you are up against a big puzzle, the camera will pan out, and if you are walking down a narrow hallway, it will pan in. This is appropriate most times, but the camera has some trouble going back to its original position if you fall from a puzzle and try to return to it. The graphics of the game are great and appropriate. There are no glitches or burps in the graphics, and everythings looks great throughout. The colors and saturations vary nicely, although if you are looking for varied environments you won't find it in this game. Splosion Man takes place in a gigantic labyrinth-like laboratory, and the design fits it as such. The only design complaint is the loading screen in between levels. It can get annoying with the very simple drum roll repeating in the background with the seizure-inducing spinner on the screen. Only a very minor flaw, however.
MULTIPLAYER: Although I have not had much experience with this aspect of the game, I have toyed with it a bit. The multiplayer seems to be very enjoyable, taking all of the fun aspects of the single player campaign and bringing it over to multiplayer. This should be taken literally. The controls remain the same in the game except now a countdown timer activator is added to the left trigger. This goes along with a new mechanic in multiplayer which is the ability to explode off of the other player. By enacting a countdown, players can sync themselves to splode at the correct time. Although this seems helpful, it can only be assumed that this sync ability will be better in local multiplayer rather than online. Splosion Man supports 4 player local or online play, with an entire 50 level campaign of its own (completely seperate from single player) and unlockables of its own.
REPLAYABILITY: Any good platformer is known to be highly replayable, and Splosion Man doesn't miss this mark. The games robust 50 level campaign makes for a good 4-6 hour playthrough. After finishing this, the game unlocks a hardcore mode for level play without checkpoints. Every level also contains collectibles in the form of cakes, and believe me when I say that they are NOT easy to find. All of these aspects apply to the multiplayer game. The game also support leaderboards for timed runs of each level. This game is made for speed runs. Everything stated here also has achievements attached to it, so don't feel these things are done in vain if you are an achievement junkie. The other achievements are, as expected, very funny. One achievement awards you for configuring the controller from the options screen, even though the only option for each button in "SPLODE".
PROS: Great design, extremely simple gameplay, awesome and varying levels, tons of unlockables and goodies.
CONS: Camera can become dissoriented sometimes, loading screen is annoying.
I love this game. It is definitely one of my favorite arcade games, just because it does everything it aims to do correctly. The playthrough was fun and super hilarious. The hilarity even goes into the credits, but I won't spoil it. Simply, this game is almost perfection in the platforming genre. It is very ambitious with a 2 button control scheme, but the scheme works perfectly with the game. Hopefully Twisted Pixel can continue the momentum it gains from this title into other great titles, because this game shows how an indie developer can be successful in modern gaming.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
ESRB, Part 2
Yes, I know it is Wednesday. I know that my post is a day late.
Anyway, on to part 2 of the ESRB discussion.
Another major flaw with the ESRB is their rating system. The ESRB has used a letter system since its founding, just as the European ratings system (PEGI) does. This lettering system is very vague and should be expanded. The current ratings of the ESRB are E for Everyone, E10+ for Everyone 10 years of age and up, T for Teen, M for Mature, and AO for Adult Only (The previous rating of KA for Kids to Adults was discontinued in 2000). As shown by the previous example of Halo 3 to Call of Duty 3 in the last post, these current ratings do not do much to tell about the actual content of the game. E games are generally considered to be childish games, but E is meant to mean that anyone can play it. T is usually the rating given to games that are violent in nature but not adult in nature. This means a game could be extremely violent yet only garner a T rating. M is meant for mature audiences. It is meant for audiences that can handle adult content. Yet many M games have little violence yet only display stronger themes. Many books have more mature themes, yet they are not considered mature in nature (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia). The entire system does not aid in the slightest to an adult trying to figure out what game to buy for his or her child.
The ESRB also uses a label system to go with the letters. These are phrases such as "Intense Blood and Gore" or "Cartoon Violence" to try and specify the game's content a bit more. These in retrospect should help the letter system, and in some cases they do. Unfortunately, they can still be too vague to show the content. Cartoon violence can be anything from Looney Toons "run into the fake wall" to more mature things such as Ghost in the Shell action. Both cartoons, both violence, yet completely different. A phrase such as "Blood and Gore" can be seen on a game such as Halo, which has no gore and no human blood. The covenant bleed purple and green. Human blood is violent and mature, especially when shown at the intense level such as the Gears of War games (anyone remember the worm in Gears of War 2?). Alien blood is not mature, and is actually less noticeable than human blood. They aren't the same.
The ESRB need to overhall their ratings system. The letter and phrase idea works for some games, but not all. As the video game industry begins to expand and go into different areas of entertainment, ratings need to be more specific to show the real content of the game. A game like Kingdom Hearts looks like a nice Disney game, but as anyone who has played the game will note, the themes are mature and it is much more of a Final Fantasy game than a Disney game. More games are beginning to come out that blur those lines of E to T and T to M. Many gamers like myself have played a game and have wondered things such as "Is this really a mature game? I don't find it to be that violent." and even more concerning, "This game is way too violent to be a T game."
A good solution for the ESRB would be to specify the game content as best as possible. As already discussed in the previous post, the ESRB needs to start playing the games they are reviewing. Their ratings system should maintain a letter system, just because this is the easiest way someone can immediately know what the content of the game generally is. The letter system should be much better however. The rating of E10+ is a good idea, because it states that everyone can play it if they are 10 years of age or older. More ratings like this would be nice. Perhaps splitting the T rating into two ratings, one for younger teens and one for older teens would be more appropriate than the M rating. M rating should only be used for truly mature games, both in story and in gameplay. This would even out the ratings.
The ESRB should also do away with the phrase system. These do not help the already specified rating letter on the box. All they do is make it more confusing, leading some people to believe and trust just the letter grade and not the phrases, or just the phrases and not the letter grade. They are meant to work together. A possible thing to do would be to put a summary of the game's content on the back, and not just phrases. This way, the specific game can be rated and not constricted to the set standard of phrases. A summary provides good information on the game while not categorizing it with other games with which it can't be categorized. Guitar Hero and Call of Duty 3 are very different games, yet they are rated the same way because they are both T games.
What do you think is the status of the ESRB and their ratings system? Should they change or is their current system okay?
Anyway, on to part 2 of the ESRB discussion.
Another major flaw with the ESRB is their rating system. The ESRB has used a letter system since its founding, just as the European ratings system (PEGI) does. This lettering system is very vague and should be expanded. The current ratings of the ESRB are E for Everyone, E10+ for Everyone 10 years of age and up, T for Teen, M for Mature, and AO for Adult Only (The previous rating of KA for Kids to Adults was discontinued in 2000). As shown by the previous example of Halo 3 to Call of Duty 3 in the last post, these current ratings do not do much to tell about the actual content of the game. E games are generally considered to be childish games, but E is meant to mean that anyone can play it. T is usually the rating given to games that are violent in nature but not adult in nature. This means a game could be extremely violent yet only garner a T rating. M is meant for mature audiences. It is meant for audiences that can handle adult content. Yet many M games have little violence yet only display stronger themes. Many books have more mature themes, yet they are not considered mature in nature (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Chronicles of Narnia). The entire system does not aid in the slightest to an adult trying to figure out what game to buy for his or her child.
The ESRB also uses a label system to go with the letters. These are phrases such as "Intense Blood and Gore" or "Cartoon Violence" to try and specify the game's content a bit more. These in retrospect should help the letter system, and in some cases they do. Unfortunately, they can still be too vague to show the content. Cartoon violence can be anything from Looney Toons "run into the fake wall" to more mature things such as Ghost in the Shell action. Both cartoons, both violence, yet completely different. A phrase such as "Blood and Gore" can be seen on a game such as Halo, which has no gore and no human blood. The covenant bleed purple and green. Human blood is violent and mature, especially when shown at the intense level such as the Gears of War games (anyone remember the worm in Gears of War 2?). Alien blood is not mature, and is actually less noticeable than human blood. They aren't the same.
The ESRB need to overhall their ratings system. The letter and phrase idea works for some games, but not all. As the video game industry begins to expand and go into different areas of entertainment, ratings need to be more specific to show the real content of the game. A game like Kingdom Hearts looks like a nice Disney game, but as anyone who has played the game will note, the themes are mature and it is much more of a Final Fantasy game than a Disney game. More games are beginning to come out that blur those lines of E to T and T to M. Many gamers like myself have played a game and have wondered things such as "Is this really a mature game? I don't find it to be that violent." and even more concerning, "This game is way too violent to be a T game."
A good solution for the ESRB would be to specify the game content as best as possible. As already discussed in the previous post, the ESRB needs to start playing the games they are reviewing. Their ratings system should maintain a letter system, just because this is the easiest way someone can immediately know what the content of the game generally is. The letter system should be much better however. The rating of E10+ is a good idea, because it states that everyone can play it if they are 10 years of age or older. More ratings like this would be nice. Perhaps splitting the T rating into two ratings, one for younger teens and one for older teens would be more appropriate than the M rating. M rating should only be used for truly mature games, both in story and in gameplay. This would even out the ratings.
The ESRB should also do away with the phrase system. These do not help the already specified rating letter on the box. All they do is make it more confusing, leading some people to believe and trust just the letter grade and not the phrases, or just the phrases and not the letter grade. They are meant to work together. A possible thing to do would be to put a summary of the game's content on the back, and not just phrases. This way, the specific game can be rated and not constricted to the set standard of phrases. A summary provides good information on the game while not categorizing it with other games with which it can't be categorized. Guitar Hero and Call of Duty 3 are very different games, yet they are rated the same way because they are both T games.
What do you think is the status of the ESRB and their ratings system? Should they change or is their current system okay?
Sunday, July 26, 2009
ESRB
The topic of today's blog is that of the Entertainment Software Ratings Board, or the ESRB. This company takes all forms of digital and electronic entertainment (which is mostly comprised of video games) and rates them to inform the public of the nature of the game or media. The ESRB has been around for a while, being established by a bill to Congress in 1994. They are the one and only ratings board for video games, and are a very important entity. The ESRB like any company has had its ups and downs. Their rating system has been criticized many times, and their conduct within the video game industry has been noted to be harsh at times.
The ESRB has become more than just a ratings board. In countless cases, they have become a entity that influences the development of games. If a game is found to be too violent by the company, many publishers will edit and re-do things in their games to get a better rating. The ESRB has misused this influence many times, and in some cases has made "a mountain out of a molehill". This comes along due to their very poor way of rating games. The current technique in rating a game starts with random employees chosen to rate the stated game. The publisher then sends video with the most violent aspects of their game. The ratings board looks over this and rates it as follows. In many cases, no one touches the game at the ESRB until after the game's release. A great example of this very obvious flaw is that of Halo. Microsoft Game Studios released a video with the most violent parts of Halo: Combat Evolved. The ESRB decided to rate the game M for Mature. First hand experience of the game actually reveals that Halo probably should not get an M rating, but that of a T rating. Comparing Halo to a game such as Call of Duty 3 (with a rating of T), Call of Duty 3 was noted to have intense blood, language, and violence. Halo was noted to have blood and gore and violence, although it contains no human blood, no language, and violence comparible to COD3. Yet it still gained an M rating. COD3 has everything that Halo had plus language, and yet it gains a T rating.
The ESRB has tried to maintain balance with this inconsistency, with their ability to re-rate a game after release. One such example would be the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which was originally rated T and changed to M a year later. Not only does this create problems for retailers due to outdated ratings on the boxes, it cost money to take all of the previous games off the market and introduced newly labeled ones.
As important as a system to rate games is, the ESRB's system in ridiculous. Watching a video of a game is no way to determine if the game is appropriate or not. Playing is the only way to do so. This system also leaves room for publishers to send edited tapes to the ESRB, screening what content they want to show the board to garner a better rating. This is the publisher's fault, yes, but the system is setting itself up for failure. The only way the ESRB can actually be a good and profitably board is if they play the games.
The ESRB also uses its influence in the industry to change video games. This is very evident in the Mortal Combat series, where the original game (which was released in 1992, prior to the creation of the ESRB) is known to be one of the most violent games ever. The titles continued with violence, garnering M ratings along the way. After much pressure for sales, Midway's new title Mortal Combat vs. DC Universe was toned down significantly to get a T rating. Although the ESRB enjoyed this, Midway did not, and MC vs. DC did not sell well at all. Midway would soon go bankrupt, and even though this cannot be the sole reason for Midway's bankruptcy, it is a contributing factor. Publishers cannot be tied down by the ESRB. If a game series such as Mortal Combat is known for its violence, it is the ESRB's job to note the violence, not comment upon it. It has a job to tell people about it, and not prohibit the creation of it. The ESRB is meant to be objective.
I will continue this discussion in my next blog on Tuesday by trying to address the ESRB inconsistency with its "letter" rating system, and try to figure out a solution for their troubles...
The ESRB has become more than just a ratings board. In countless cases, they have become a entity that influences the development of games. If a game is found to be too violent by the company, many publishers will edit and re-do things in their games to get a better rating. The ESRB has misused this influence many times, and in some cases has made "a mountain out of a molehill". This comes along due to their very poor way of rating games. The current technique in rating a game starts with random employees chosen to rate the stated game. The publisher then sends video with the most violent aspects of their game. The ratings board looks over this and rates it as follows. In many cases, no one touches the game at the ESRB until after the game's release. A great example of this very obvious flaw is that of Halo. Microsoft Game Studios released a video with the most violent parts of Halo: Combat Evolved. The ESRB decided to rate the game M for Mature. First hand experience of the game actually reveals that Halo probably should not get an M rating, but that of a T rating. Comparing Halo to a game such as Call of Duty 3 (with a rating of T), Call of Duty 3 was noted to have intense blood, language, and violence. Halo was noted to have blood and gore and violence, although it contains no human blood, no language, and violence comparible to COD3. Yet it still gained an M rating. COD3 has everything that Halo had plus language, and yet it gains a T rating.
The ESRB has tried to maintain balance with this inconsistency, with their ability to re-rate a game after release. One such example would be the Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, which was originally rated T and changed to M a year later. Not only does this create problems for retailers due to outdated ratings on the boxes, it cost money to take all of the previous games off the market and introduced newly labeled ones.
As important as a system to rate games is, the ESRB's system in ridiculous. Watching a video of a game is no way to determine if the game is appropriate or not. Playing is the only way to do so. This system also leaves room for publishers to send edited tapes to the ESRB, screening what content they want to show the board to garner a better rating. This is the publisher's fault, yes, but the system is setting itself up for failure. The only way the ESRB can actually be a good and profitably board is if they play the games.
The ESRB also uses its influence in the industry to change video games. This is very evident in the Mortal Combat series, where the original game (which was released in 1992, prior to the creation of the ESRB) is known to be one of the most violent games ever. The titles continued with violence, garnering M ratings along the way. After much pressure for sales, Midway's new title Mortal Combat vs. DC Universe was toned down significantly to get a T rating. Although the ESRB enjoyed this, Midway did not, and MC vs. DC did not sell well at all. Midway would soon go bankrupt, and even though this cannot be the sole reason for Midway's bankruptcy, it is a contributing factor. Publishers cannot be tied down by the ESRB. If a game series such as Mortal Combat is known for its violence, it is the ESRB's job to note the violence, not comment upon it. It has a job to tell people about it, and not prohibit the creation of it. The ESRB is meant to be objective.
I will continue this discussion in my next blog on Tuesday by trying to address the ESRB inconsistency with its "letter" rating system, and try to figure out a solution for their troubles...
Friday, July 24, 2009
Bungie: The Most Appropriate Name in the World...
Oh, Bungie. How you make your fans happy at one moment and sad at the next. Up and down. Up and down. Yes, this year's Comic-Con brought some very exciting and sad news on the Halo and Bungie front.
First, Bungie has revealed that they are going to be giving Halo the animation turn. Halo Legends will be a 7 episode anime series set to debut on Xbox Live later this year. It will be made in the same vein as the Animatrix and Batman: Gotham Knight, where famous Japanese animators will make one episode each. This is awesome news, just because the animators have promised a look at the Halo universe that is different, and different is good! Toei Animation will be making an episode that will chronicle 500 years of Halo history. Wow.
Secondly, Bungie announced something called Halo Waypoint. No, this is not a new game, but it is pretty impressive. Halo Waypoint is going to be a portal of sorts on Xbox Live for Bungie and Halo related news, items, games, and videos. It will have a streaming service and plenty of other things. This allows Bungie to have even more of a connection with their community (as if they didn't already have tons) and it allows streaming content. Another awesome announcement.
And just as the excitement came, it left. Bungie continued to talk more, and some of the things were very sad. First, the project known as Halo Chronicles is in development hell. This was to be the first game Wingnut Interactive (a video game studio Peter Jackson has developed) was going to develop, but it seems things are in a bit of a limbo. It is only common sense that a game made by Peter Jackson would have some value. It only makes more sense when that game is a Halo game. Bungie also gave some very sad news. Halo Reach, a newly announced title set for release in 2010, will be their last Halo title. They will be handing over the Halo franchise to 343 Industries, and working on a new IP.
This is a double-edged sword. On one hand, Halo is the house that Bungie built. No one can make a game in the Halo universe like Bungie. They just know it to well. Fortunately, 343 Industries head is a former Bungie employee, so they will not be in the dark completely. Still, it is disappointing to see Halo and Bungie not be on the same package. It is good that Bungie is going to other things, though. Making a good and successful IP that isn't Halo and that isn't and RTS or FPS could put them even more into stardome. That is, if this new IP they are making is actually quality like Halo.
Lots of stuff coming out of SDCC...
First, Bungie has revealed that they are going to be giving Halo the animation turn. Halo Legends will be a 7 episode anime series set to debut on Xbox Live later this year. It will be made in the same vein as the Animatrix and Batman: Gotham Knight, where famous Japanese animators will make one episode each. This is awesome news, just because the animators have promised a look at the Halo universe that is different, and different is good! Toei Animation will be making an episode that will chronicle 500 years of Halo history. Wow.
Secondly, Bungie announced something called Halo Waypoint. No, this is not a new game, but it is pretty impressive. Halo Waypoint is going to be a portal of sorts on Xbox Live for Bungie and Halo related news, items, games, and videos. It will have a streaming service and plenty of other things. This allows Bungie to have even more of a connection with their community (as if they didn't already have tons) and it allows streaming content. Another awesome announcement.
And just as the excitement came, it left. Bungie continued to talk more, and some of the things were very sad. First, the project known as Halo Chronicles is in development hell. This was to be the first game Wingnut Interactive (a video game studio Peter Jackson has developed) was going to develop, but it seems things are in a bit of a limbo. It is only common sense that a game made by Peter Jackson would have some value. It only makes more sense when that game is a Halo game. Bungie also gave some very sad news. Halo Reach, a newly announced title set for release in 2010, will be their last Halo title. They will be handing over the Halo franchise to 343 Industries, and working on a new IP.
This is a double-edged sword. On one hand, Halo is the house that Bungie built. No one can make a game in the Halo universe like Bungie. They just know it to well. Fortunately, 343 Industries head is a former Bungie employee, so they will not be in the dark completely. Still, it is disappointing to see Halo and Bungie not be on the same package. It is good that Bungie is going to other things, though. Making a good and successful IP that isn't Halo and that isn't and RTS or FPS could put them even more into stardome. That is, if this new IP they are making is actually quality like Halo.
Lots of stuff coming out of SDCC...
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Why Activision is the most stupid game company on the planet.
Controversial! Yes, I know the title sounds like I am nuts. Let me give some facts as to why I have come to this very accurate and dangerous conclusion:
REASON #1: Activision is primarily a publishing company, but they are in denial. There aren't many games these days that are made in house by Activision. Most of the time, one of their developing partners will make the game and they will publish it. Unfortunately, Activision apparently does not know this themselves. They still feel that they have a big developer influence. There is a balance between developer and publisher. Publishers do NOT make the game. They plan advertising and marketing. This is important, but it isn't game development. Activision continues to try and influence developers into making a game that they would prefer. This is ridiculous. It cramps up developers from getting their jobs done and it prevents creativeness. For example, the great developer Infinity Ward, known for the first few Medal of Honors and of course the Modern Warfare series, is a partner with Activision. They keep relative distance from the publisher in terms of influence, which is a good thing. This keeps them from being tied down by things such as marketing and release date, which in turn actually makes them more able to push out a game every 2 years. Now look at a company like Neversoft. Tony Hawk was a successful franchise until EA's heavyweight Skate came out. An obvious influence came upon Neversoft to push a game out every year, and they just continued to get worse and worse to the point where the Tony Hawk franchise was taken away from them and put into the hands of Robomodo, who are now making Tony Hawk Ride (which I'll get to later). Neversoft is a good company. Developers can't make games every year and make each game quality.
REASON #2: Activision seems to think gamers need a peripheral every second. Why in the world does every game need to have a plastic thing to go with it? In a game such as Guitar Hero, this makes sense. You need that plastic guitar. That is the controller. It makes sense because the game is meant for that. But every Guitar Hero now has a completely different set of instruments. No one needs to buy a new instrument set every year. I bought Rock Band 2 years ago. I love music games. That is all I need, though. I don't need a new instrument set every year. My old one works fine. It is understandable that some people like the new instruments, and that is great. Sell the instrument seperately, and don't uprgrade them every time a new game comes out. Put them on a different development cycle, not related to the game. It is ridiculous that Guitar Hero 4 and Guitar Hero 5 drums look THE SAME because they are THE SAME. Activision apparently finds this to be a solution to bad games, too. They take Tony Hawk away for 2 years, just to come back with what looks to be the same Tony Hawk, except there is now a skateboard peripheral. Does this enhance the gameplay, or is it just something that is supposed to be cool due to its peripheral?
REASON #3: Activision has one hell of a big mouth. This company has a big ego, and thinks that they can say or do whatever they want in the industry. None of the things they do say are constructive either. Over the last 5 years Activision has been trying to raise the RRP (Registered Retail Price) of video games higher and higher. This goes along with their peripheral obsession. In England, Modern Warfare 2 currently has a RRP of £54.99, which converts to about $80.00 in America. $30 over RRP. There is no explanation for this either. Modern Warfare 2 has no peripheral attached to it (excluding the ridiculous Prestige edition of MW2, which has night vision goggles. Look, another plastic thing!). It is just a regular game, and they want to pump up the price $30? Trying to push the RRP of one game sets off other game publishers into pumping up their RRP for their games to keep up with competition and sales. Activision also thinks in can intimidate people. Activision's current president, Bobby Kotick, stated that "if we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony. When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console [PS3]." This of course created a stir. Activision, one of the richest game companies out there was not going to support Sony unless they drop the price. Basically, Sony's CEO, Sir Howard Stringer, stated this was crap. Activision was trying to intimidate Sony into dropping the PS3 price so Activision could sell more games on the PS3. Ridiculous.
SOLUTIONS! Here is my solutions for Activisions troubles. First, stop trying to be a development and a publishing company. Activision has so much more success in publishing and so much support from developers link Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Vicarious Visions, Bizarre Creations, Neversoft, and Blizzard that they do not have to even think about in house development. Secondly, be more like EA. EA is Activisions #1 competitor, and EA is winning. This is because EA is getting more support from developers and shying away from creating any new IP's by themselves. EA also has an entire section of the company (EA Partners) dedicated to the support of their development companies. Lastly, settle down a bit. Activision with its flaws has pushed out some great games. Now that they have a partnership with Blizzard, start thinking about creating and publishing good games. There is no need to intimidate anyone or raise prices. Activision is the top US publisher to date. They have no problems with money. There is no need to push RRP up, sell useless and stupid peripherals, and intimidate bigger companies.
There's my rant for the day. Enjoy and comment...
REASON #1: Activision is primarily a publishing company, but they are in denial. There aren't many games these days that are made in house by Activision. Most of the time, one of their developing partners will make the game and they will publish it. Unfortunately, Activision apparently does not know this themselves. They still feel that they have a big developer influence. There is a balance between developer and publisher. Publishers do NOT make the game. They plan advertising and marketing. This is important, but it isn't game development. Activision continues to try and influence developers into making a game that they would prefer. This is ridiculous. It cramps up developers from getting their jobs done and it prevents creativeness. For example, the great developer Infinity Ward, known for the first few Medal of Honors and of course the Modern Warfare series, is a partner with Activision. They keep relative distance from the publisher in terms of influence, which is a good thing. This keeps them from being tied down by things such as marketing and release date, which in turn actually makes them more able to push out a game every 2 years. Now look at a company like Neversoft. Tony Hawk was a successful franchise until EA's heavyweight Skate came out. An obvious influence came upon Neversoft to push a game out every year, and they just continued to get worse and worse to the point where the Tony Hawk franchise was taken away from them and put into the hands of Robomodo, who are now making Tony Hawk Ride (which I'll get to later). Neversoft is a good company. Developers can't make games every year and make each game quality.
REASON #2: Activision seems to think gamers need a peripheral every second. Why in the world does every game need to have a plastic thing to go with it? In a game such as Guitar Hero, this makes sense. You need that plastic guitar. That is the controller. It makes sense because the game is meant for that. But every Guitar Hero now has a completely different set of instruments. No one needs to buy a new instrument set every year. I bought Rock Band 2 years ago. I love music games. That is all I need, though. I don't need a new instrument set every year. My old one works fine. It is understandable that some people like the new instruments, and that is great. Sell the instrument seperately, and don't uprgrade them every time a new game comes out. Put them on a different development cycle, not related to the game. It is ridiculous that Guitar Hero 4 and Guitar Hero 5 drums look THE SAME because they are THE SAME. Activision apparently finds this to be a solution to bad games, too. They take Tony Hawk away for 2 years, just to come back with what looks to be the same Tony Hawk, except there is now a skateboard peripheral. Does this enhance the gameplay, or is it just something that is supposed to be cool due to its peripheral?
REASON #3: Activision has one hell of a big mouth. This company has a big ego, and thinks that they can say or do whatever they want in the industry. None of the things they do say are constructive either. Over the last 5 years Activision has been trying to raise the RRP (Registered Retail Price) of video games higher and higher. This goes along with their peripheral obsession. In England, Modern Warfare 2 currently has a RRP of £54.99, which converts to about $80.00 in America. $30 over RRP. There is no explanation for this either. Modern Warfare 2 has no peripheral attached to it (excluding the ridiculous Prestige edition of MW2, which has night vision goggles. Look, another plastic thing!). It is just a regular game, and they want to pump up the price $30? Trying to push the RRP of one game sets off other game publishers into pumping up their RRP for their games to keep up with competition and sales. Activision also thinks in can intimidate people. Activision's current president, Bobby Kotick, stated that "if we are being realistic, we might have to stop supporting Sony. When we look at 2010 and 2011, we might want to consider if we support the console [PS3]." This of course created a stir. Activision, one of the richest game companies out there was not going to support Sony unless they drop the price. Basically, Sony's CEO, Sir Howard Stringer, stated this was crap. Activision was trying to intimidate Sony into dropping the PS3 price so Activision could sell more games on the PS3. Ridiculous.
SOLUTIONS! Here is my solutions for Activisions troubles. First, stop trying to be a development and a publishing company. Activision has so much more success in publishing and so much support from developers link Infinity Ward, Treyarch, Vicarious Visions, Bizarre Creations, Neversoft, and Blizzard that they do not have to even think about in house development. Secondly, be more like EA. EA is Activisions #1 competitor, and EA is winning. This is because EA is getting more support from developers and shying away from creating any new IP's by themselves. EA also has an entire section of the company (EA Partners) dedicated to the support of their development companies. Lastly, settle down a bit. Activision with its flaws has pushed out some great games. Now that they have a partnership with Blizzard, start thinking about creating and publishing good games. There is no need to intimidate anyone or raise prices. Activision is the top US publisher to date. They have no problems with money. There is no need to push RRP up, sell useless and stupid peripherals, and intimidate bigger companies.
There's my rant for the day. Enjoy and comment...
Monday, July 20, 2009
Why I now have a blog...
So, you may or may not be asking yourself this question: "Why is some loser writing a blog about gaming?" Well, I have an answer. I want to.
Yes, I have been pondering doing a gaming blog for a while. You see, in my opinion, gaming is starting to change a bit. Not a drastic change. Just a bit. As the gaming industry starts to become more successful in many ways, its consumers are beginning to become more involved. What I mean is that the consumers aren't just playing the games anymore. They are making their own games, talking about existing ones, studying in college to go into the industry later, and just trying to be more involved in the process. And why not? It's a fun process. Many magazines in the last 5 years have stated that the most popular career in the United States is that of software developer. When it comes down to it, video game makers are software engineers.
Back to the point. I myself am a very hardcore video game player and enthusiast. I myself want to be a software engineer. Video games are part of me, and I have very high opinions and viewpoints about video games and the industry that surrounds them. There is another aspect of the industry that seems to be gaining more foothold, and that is video game journalism. As video games become more popular, the news surrounding them does as well. Places such as IGN, gamespot, and 1up have internet influence on gaming. Hell, there is even a video game channel on TV: G4. What's even more interesting: places such as CNN and MSNBC have had bits of video game reports, and it increases every year, whether it be reports from E3 or some middle aged reporter playing MotorStorm on a CNN big screen.
There comes a point when someone like me who enjoys all of this feels he must be part of it. Unfortunately, I am no IGN or CNN. I am just a person. A person with views and opinions. I was reading a game review on the game Assassin's Creed a while back. What I realized as I was reading it was that I agreed with about 50% or it, and the rest was absolutely, irrefutably, undeniably WRONG. Wrong for me, that is. Reviews for games are ridiculous. Everyone has different tastes and different preferences. And while some things like graphics and such can be reviewed, enjoyability and replayability cannot be reviewed. This is the same with news in the video game world. Everyone has different views.
Simply, I want my views out in the open. I don't care if I get read by just my friends, not any of my friends, a lot of people, or no people at all. I feel that I should be entitled to write about my views on gaming news, review the games I want to review, and just talk about video games. Because as it says on the top of my blog, gaming is a community thing. One of the best selling video games, World of Warcraft, is an MMO. Strictly multiplayer. Games don't get exposure or interest if people don't talk. Word of mouth is just as important as a press release or the back of a video game box.
Feel free to comment, leave links, or whatever you want. I am not afraid of trash talk or an opposing opinion. I love to debate. I also love to talk to people with similar viewpoints. I love to converse. Finally, I encourage anyone who has similar interests or just want to talk about their views, games or anything, to write a blog. It is a great way to let steam off and talk around the internet watercooler.
Yes, I have been pondering doing a gaming blog for a while. You see, in my opinion, gaming is starting to change a bit. Not a drastic change. Just a bit. As the gaming industry starts to become more successful in many ways, its consumers are beginning to become more involved. What I mean is that the consumers aren't just playing the games anymore. They are making their own games, talking about existing ones, studying in college to go into the industry later, and just trying to be more involved in the process. And why not? It's a fun process. Many magazines in the last 5 years have stated that the most popular career in the United States is that of software developer. When it comes down to it, video game makers are software engineers.
Back to the point. I myself am a very hardcore video game player and enthusiast. I myself want to be a software engineer. Video games are part of me, and I have very high opinions and viewpoints about video games and the industry that surrounds them. There is another aspect of the industry that seems to be gaining more foothold, and that is video game journalism. As video games become more popular, the news surrounding them does as well. Places such as IGN, gamespot, and 1up have internet influence on gaming. Hell, there is even a video game channel on TV: G4. What's even more interesting: places such as CNN and MSNBC have had bits of video game reports, and it increases every year, whether it be reports from E3 or some middle aged reporter playing MotorStorm on a CNN big screen.
There comes a point when someone like me who enjoys all of this feels he must be part of it. Unfortunately, I am no IGN or CNN. I am just a person. A person with views and opinions. I was reading a game review on the game Assassin's Creed a while back. What I realized as I was reading it was that I agreed with about 50% or it, and the rest was absolutely, irrefutably, undeniably WRONG. Wrong for me, that is. Reviews for games are ridiculous. Everyone has different tastes and different preferences. And while some things like graphics and such can be reviewed, enjoyability and replayability cannot be reviewed. This is the same with news in the video game world. Everyone has different views.
Simply, I want my views out in the open. I don't care if I get read by just my friends, not any of my friends, a lot of people, or no people at all. I feel that I should be entitled to write about my views on gaming news, review the games I want to review, and just talk about video games. Because as it says on the top of my blog, gaming is a community thing. One of the best selling video games, World of Warcraft, is an MMO. Strictly multiplayer. Games don't get exposure or interest if people don't talk. Word of mouth is just as important as a press release or the back of a video game box.
Feel free to comment, leave links, or whatever you want. I am not afraid of trash talk or an opposing opinion. I love to debate. I also love to talk to people with similar viewpoints. I love to converse. Finally, I encourage anyone who has similar interests or just want to talk about their views, games or anything, to write a blog. It is a great way to let steam off and talk around the internet watercooler.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)