Of all the genres of video games, one genre seems to stand out quite a bit from others: the MMO. These games are different than your run of the mill shooter or RPG. They thrive on people working together and playing together. These games are designed and created with completely different goals than that of most other games. If anything, MMO's are at the forefront of listening to the community. Of course, when the word MMO is put out there, the game World of Warcraft is sure to follow. There is no denying that World of Warcraft is the single most accomplished and popular MMO out there. It is almost overwhelming how popular WoW is, with its over 11 million players. The MMO genre is lead by WoW, and most other MMO's are severely crippled in number or just don't do well. So the question pops up: Is there room for another successful MMO? Can a developer create an MMO that is as popular or more popular than World of Warcraft?
First, think of what World of Warcraft has done right. There has to be a reason over 11 million people play this game. WoW is a standard MMO. For someone that isn't experienced with MMO's (like myself), there isn't that big of a learning curve. Now, don't get me wrong. There is quite a bit to learn in the game and it will take a while. The game is instantly playable though. Just create a character and play. The game guides you initially, and shows you the basic structure of the game. After this great technique, it isn't that difficult to learn things. WoW creates enormous accessibility. Just pick a faction, pick a race, pick a class, and jump into the game. The game just fits anybody's style so well. Another great thing WoW did right is make the game not too high on the graphical curve. It sucks not having the graphical capabilities to play a game. This is one of the main reasons people will move towards the console market exclusively. All games work at their highest rate on consoles. No need to keep upgrading your graphics and video cards. WoW is not the most graphically advanced game. It created a style of its own however. The style fits a game of this type. The mystical atmosphere of WoW allowed Blizzard to keep the graphical requirements pretty low, so that the game is accessible to most computers and people. This allows anyone from the person with a 2002 desktop with an integrated video card to an alienware player with a Nvidia graphics card to play WoW.
So why can't other games do this? Warhammer Online implimented very similar things from WoW, yet it has done terribly. WoW is overwhelming in the MMO market. A lot of this has to do with pricing. WoW is not cheap. For a full year, you can pay $120 or more just to play the game. It isn't pretty. But because WoW is worth this for most people, players pay for it consistently. Unfortunately, if another MMO comes out, most people probably won't be willing to purchase and pay for an entirely different MMO for the same prices. WoW has a commanding crowd partially for this pricing strategy. A game like Warhammer would most obviously fail.
How can a developer create a good MMO then? Developers need to do 2 things to stand out, and some of these things have actually been working. First off, developers need to find different ways of pricing. A new immerging concept is that of micro-transactions. Instead of making players pay a monthly fee, the game is free to play for all. Pricing comes in the form of paying for clothing or weapons or things of that sort. This way, most of the money is gained from people if they only want to pay for it, not for playing the entire game. A great example of this is Battlefield Heroes. The game is completely free to play. Spending money only comes in the form of customization for your character. if you want to you can, but if you don't, it doesn't affect the gameplay. Spending money is only there if someone wants to look cool. This of course would never work if the transactions were for things that enhance the gameplay and give the player an edge, of course. Another pricing option that is becoming popular is that of lifetime payment. If players know they like the game and that they will consistently play it, developers can offer a lifetime payment where the player pays a substantial fee to play for the entire existence of the game. This is a great option for hardcore players. Although this may be a steep price for this, if you know you are going to play the game, this will save you money.
Secondly, developers need to create something different. WoW dominates the mythical, orc vs. human type of genre. No MMO will be able to create this same formula and be successful. Devs need to create something different and unique, something that has never been done. Go into genres and scenarios that haven't been made into an MMO before. Don't be afraid to take some risks in branching out to other genres. This will gain attention for being unique, and therefore seperate it from WoW as a new game. Inovation in gameplay is important too. Create new ways to play the game. If that means creating a streamlines user interface, so be it. If that means changing the entire system of questing, so be it. Even if that means making a completely different style of MMO that is radically different but extremely intriguing, so be it. Devs need to make new types of MMO's. This is the only way an MMO will do well with the WoW powerhouse.
Now, there are some games out there that have gotten the right idea. EVE Online, although not as popular, differentiates itself by taking place entirely in spacecrafts and existing in a gigantic space system. It is completely different from WoW. The devs are even making a new console FPS to connect with EVE Online. The console game will influence the events and actions of the online MMO. New techniques like this most certainly pay off. A great game in development that seems to be on the right track is Star Wars: The Old Republic. By capatalizing on the immensely popular Star Wars franchise and the Old Republic series of video games, BioWare is created an interesting MMO. The fact that they have seperate voice actors for every NPC in the game is impressive too, and will attract people.
The MMO market is an interesting one. It almost seems to act independently from the rest of the gaming industry due to its nature. World of Warcraft is the best example of a game well made to suit the player. This idea is a central idea for any type of game, and it will come as no surprise that developers will surely try to make their own successful MMO. But the only way these games will even come close to WoW's success is exactly the opposite: to be different from WoW. By being different and interesting, these new games can gain a crowd. It just takes a little creativity and a lot of hard work.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Adressing the Masses
GASP! It's a bonus blog on Monday! I have been wanting to do a blog like this for a while now, but haven't gotten many readers and comments to do it. I think I finally have enough stuff to talk about however, so I will. This post will be entirely dedicated to addressing comments on all my posts. If there was a comment I felt needed a reply, I saved it for a post like this (that and blogger has no system of replying to comments whatsoever). I am going to try and explain myself in some things, and try to voice some of my opinion along with it. So sick back and relax. You'll probably see a comment or two of yours.
Comments were made in regards of my review system and the various changes that have occured to it. Specifically in regards to my implementation of no rating of the game. Some complaints were made to the final verdict section of my reviews:
Just thinking that you *shouldn't* put a buy/rent/ignore thing... That's a bit of an objective statement, no? The reason you didn't add star ranks and stuff is because its a subjective thing, and the people themselves should decide for themselves whether they would like to buy it, rent it, or ignore it after they read the review...
And people who did want a rating said something:
Like the review system, but do u think u should put in a syatem where you say if people should buy it, rent it or ignore it? Just a thought...
My creed has and will always be that I WILL NOT RATE A GAME. I will not give a game a star rating, a letter grade, or a percentage. I just won't do it. To understand why I would not do this, you have to understand that I believe there is no such thing as an objective review. It just is not possible. When someone plays a video game and reviews it, their opinion will be taken into account. There just in no way to be completely objective. I don't pretend to make my reviews objectively true. My subjective opinion will be in the reviews. I can't help it, and no one else can either. Take note that before I write a review I have already read plenty more professional reviews from places such as GameInformer, IGN, and GameTrailers. I also play the game to fullest extent I can. I try to give the best unbiased review I can. But this doesn't mean my opinions won't leak out.
Now, as to regards of the final verdict. The final verdict is the most opinionated and subjective part of the review. By my feelings I am giving suggestions about what I think people should do if they are interested. This isn't a rating. This is a suggestion. If I say something is a must-buy, I say this because in my opinion it will have mass appeal with a certain group of people. If I say something is worth a try, I feel the things I found in the game were worth a suggestion to try the game for other gamers. DO NOT TAKE THIS AS A RATING. I judge the pros and the cons of the review in the actual review. And, as always, if you disagree with the final verdict, you may. As I have stated, reviews will and always will be subjective.
Another comment was made in regards of my statement that Army of Two: The 40th Day was gaining much improvement, and that I thought it looked completely different and better:
...Though Army of Two make fix the story aspect of the game, as the trailer showed, the horrible and painful one-liners are remaining. What a shame...
Things like the one-liners in Army of Two give the game a bit of personality. Yes, they are cheasy. Yes, you can find yourself thinking why the developers made this dialogue. But it is my opinion that this type of thing should never hold a game down. If the developers are set to make a gameplay experience ten times better, and they succeed,more power to them. If that means keeping those one-liners, so be it. I'll take it if the game overall is better.
A lot of comments were made about my comments on Battle.net, specifically my awe at the number of registered players on Battle.net:
Most WoW players have a battle.net account so this makes sense.
There is no limit on how many you can create, and because this old Bnet system doesn't really have a good system of rankings, or achievements, or a friends list, or anything else, you don't lose much if you "reroll" and make a new account.You could make 100 accounts in 20 minutes. People do it all the time to change their name.
Battle.net has a gigantic number of registered users. More than World of Warcraft. And WoW has over 11 million players. Saying most WoW players have battle.net accounts is a cop-out. Do not forget that Blizzard had a big number of players internationally with Starcraft WAY before WoW came out. Starcraft was and is a global phenomenon. A statistic stated that over 75% of gamers in Korea play Starcraft. This is why it's a career there to play Starcraft. This global popularity is why Bnet is so popular. And although WoW players may attribute to that, saying that they are responsible for a boost in Bnet users is not correct. In regards to the ease of creating accounts it is the same situation. Saying that this is a reason for Bnet user increase is diminishing the numbers. Some people may take advantage of the situation, but that can't be used for a valid reason. And even if it way, why should that affect numbers? Registration is registration, and if a person has made 100 Bnet accounts, then they made 100 accounts. They chose to do that. They wanted to do that. And that therefore counts as a valid account registration.
Some did not like my choices in the awards I gave for GAMEScon and Blizzcon.
But Fable III as the worst game? Even though it's Fable, it shows that at least Peter Molyneux is commiting to a game (the gap between the first two Fable games was around 4 years) and that depite its flaws it has become a franchise as recognizable as Halo and Call of Duty. Do the right thing and give this one to "Just Dance".
My worst game for GAMEcon was Fable III just because of the way it was handled and the potential lost. Lionhead has not done anything else with Fable for a long while. Many a gamer was waiting for Lionhead to announce something different. And they didn't. It was dissapointing. And on top of that, that was the only thing talked about at the Microsoft Conference. It was upsetting in my opinion, and I don't like it when a developer kills a chance like that. That being said, if my choice was purely from a like/don't like standpoint, I would have picked "Just Dance". But I tried to pick a game that would survey my distaste in regards to the entire show.
You've made good choices. However, having played both World of Warcraft and being a Starcraft player for the past 8 years (about), I think I would consider the Game of the Show SCII. I think if I talk about why I would never stop though... However, Cataclysm comes SO close to SCII.
Again, it was a choice of mine taking into account the entire show, not just what I liked and wanted. I am not a WoW player. I would have picked SCII in a millisecond if I was picking because of my likes and dislikes. But I picked Cataclysm because it just was the reasonable and obvious choice. Blizzard fans wanted this announcement and they got it. Everything they wanted from a new expansion is arriving. That is a big deal. Remember that SCII is not new. It was revealed a while back. And although it still has tons of popularity, that means nothing compared to a new and fresh announcement. Again, SCII is what I want the most, but not the best choice for game of show.
A comment was made on my delayed post:
Very confused you didn't mentioned Duke Nukem Forever, which now may be the only game to receive a "Permenantely Delayed" status.
This game does not deserve a space in my delayed post. It is an entirely unique situation, that has never happened to any other game to date. A 10+ year delay is unique to Duke Nukem Forever. My post was about delay trends. I stated at the beginning of the blog that every delay situation is different and varies for each game. So I wasn't going to make any note of one specific game. This isn't a trend, and therefore I didn't mention it.
Finally, a lot of comments were made about my post on remakes.
Completely agree with all of these. Marathon should be Bungie's next big thing, they've already got everthing they need to start. I was always surprised that one of the greatest games for N64 like Star Fox got a crappy revamp to Gamecube but not to the Wii yet. Goldeneye and FFVII would keep the fanboys at bay, but i'm thinking just in the cockpit for Rogue Squadron. The out-of-cockpit for RS3:Rebel Strike was terrible. Also, can I get a little OCARINA OF TIME please?!?!?!?!?!?
Nintendo would never remake Ocarina of Time. It has too much "video game merit" for Nintendo to warrant a remake any time soon. In my opinion, I would rather Nintendo spend time and resources on creating a new Zelda rather than going back. If you liked Ocarina of Time like I did, I wouldn't want a remake just quite yet. The chance for messing up something is high, especially with a company like Nintendo.
There also was some inter-comment debate about handheld remakes:
I also hope that these possible remakes dont dive into the abyss that is the handheld. ugh. the handheld pretty much killed Final Fantasy remakes and Crisis Core FF7.
Final Fantasy I-VI (with the exception of FFIII since I haven't played it) were remade into the GBA, and they were NOT killed. They were extremely good remakes, with a little extra content in each of them after beating the games.
It is my personal opinion that a console game should never ever be remade into a handheld game. It ruins the feel of that game. That being said, both have good points. On one hand, games like Crisis Core FF7 were terrible for the handheld. Although FFI-VI were pretty good, realize that the original games were so close to handheld games anyway that a transition to handheld was okay. 2D sprite games like this work with handhelds. But when you get to a 3D game like FFVII or Rogue Squadron, a transition to handheld can kill the game. I remember how great the original Star Wars: Battlefront and its sequel were. When they transitioned the title to handhelds, it lost all of its appeal. Handhelds appeal to a different audience that consoles, and the transition, save a few examples like FFI-VI, tends to be really bad.
That is it for now. Thank you all so much for making these comments. It really makes me feel like all the writing I am doing here is being read by others and not just by myself. Keep commenting. I love hearing other opinions and I love that my posts can incite conversation and thought. I hope to keep addressing these comments that I feel need addressing. At least until blogger finds a reply button somewhere....
Comments were made in regards of my review system and the various changes that have occured to it. Specifically in regards to my implementation of no rating of the game. Some complaints were made to the final verdict section of my reviews:
Just thinking that you *shouldn't* put a buy/rent/ignore thing... That's a bit of an objective statement, no? The reason you didn't add star ranks and stuff is because its a subjective thing, and the people themselves should decide for themselves whether they would like to buy it, rent it, or ignore it after they read the review...
And people who did want a rating said something:
Like the review system, but do u think u should put in a syatem where you say if people should buy it, rent it or ignore it? Just a thought...
My creed has and will always be that I WILL NOT RATE A GAME. I will not give a game a star rating, a letter grade, or a percentage. I just won't do it. To understand why I would not do this, you have to understand that I believe there is no such thing as an objective review. It just is not possible. When someone plays a video game and reviews it, their opinion will be taken into account. There just in no way to be completely objective. I don't pretend to make my reviews objectively true. My subjective opinion will be in the reviews. I can't help it, and no one else can either. Take note that before I write a review I have already read plenty more professional reviews from places such as GameInformer, IGN, and GameTrailers. I also play the game to fullest extent I can. I try to give the best unbiased review I can. But this doesn't mean my opinions won't leak out.
Now, as to regards of the final verdict. The final verdict is the most opinionated and subjective part of the review. By my feelings I am giving suggestions about what I think people should do if they are interested. This isn't a rating. This is a suggestion. If I say something is a must-buy, I say this because in my opinion it will have mass appeal with a certain group of people. If I say something is worth a try, I feel the things I found in the game were worth a suggestion to try the game for other gamers. DO NOT TAKE THIS AS A RATING. I judge the pros and the cons of the review in the actual review. And, as always, if you disagree with the final verdict, you may. As I have stated, reviews will and always will be subjective.
Another comment was made in regards of my statement that Army of Two: The 40th Day was gaining much improvement, and that I thought it looked completely different and better:
...Though Army of Two make fix the story aspect of the game, as the trailer showed, the horrible and painful one-liners are remaining. What a shame...
Things like the one-liners in Army of Two give the game a bit of personality. Yes, they are cheasy. Yes, you can find yourself thinking why the developers made this dialogue. But it is my opinion that this type of thing should never hold a game down. If the developers are set to make a gameplay experience ten times better, and they succeed,more power to them. If that means keeping those one-liners, so be it. I'll take it if the game overall is better.
A lot of comments were made about my comments on Battle.net, specifically my awe at the number of registered players on Battle.net:
Most WoW players have a battle.net account so this makes sense.
There is no limit on how many you can create, and because this old Bnet system doesn't really have a good system of rankings, or achievements, or a friends list, or anything else, you don't lose much if you "reroll" and make a new account.You could make 100 accounts in 20 minutes. People do it all the time to change their name.
Battle.net has a gigantic number of registered users. More than World of Warcraft. And WoW has over 11 million players. Saying most WoW players have battle.net accounts is a cop-out. Do not forget that Blizzard had a big number of players internationally with Starcraft WAY before WoW came out. Starcraft was and is a global phenomenon. A statistic stated that over 75% of gamers in Korea play Starcraft. This is why it's a career there to play Starcraft. This global popularity is why Bnet is so popular. And although WoW players may attribute to that, saying that they are responsible for a boost in Bnet users is not correct. In regards to the ease of creating accounts it is the same situation. Saying that this is a reason for Bnet user increase is diminishing the numbers. Some people may take advantage of the situation, but that can't be used for a valid reason. And even if it way, why should that affect numbers? Registration is registration, and if a person has made 100 Bnet accounts, then they made 100 accounts. They chose to do that. They wanted to do that. And that therefore counts as a valid account registration.
Some did not like my choices in the awards I gave for GAMEScon and Blizzcon.
But Fable III as the worst game? Even though it's Fable, it shows that at least Peter Molyneux is commiting to a game (the gap between the first two Fable games was around 4 years) and that depite its flaws it has become a franchise as recognizable as Halo and Call of Duty. Do the right thing and give this one to "Just Dance".
My worst game for GAMEcon was Fable III just because of the way it was handled and the potential lost. Lionhead has not done anything else with Fable for a long while. Many a gamer was waiting for Lionhead to announce something different. And they didn't. It was dissapointing. And on top of that, that was the only thing talked about at the Microsoft Conference. It was upsetting in my opinion, and I don't like it when a developer kills a chance like that. That being said, if my choice was purely from a like/don't like standpoint, I would have picked "Just Dance". But I tried to pick a game that would survey my distaste in regards to the entire show.
You've made good choices. However, having played both World of Warcraft and being a Starcraft player for the past 8 years (about), I think I would consider the Game of the Show SCII. I think if I talk about why I would never stop though... However, Cataclysm comes SO close to SCII.
Again, it was a choice of mine taking into account the entire show, not just what I liked and wanted. I am not a WoW player. I would have picked SCII in a millisecond if I was picking because of my likes and dislikes. But I picked Cataclysm because it just was the reasonable and obvious choice. Blizzard fans wanted this announcement and they got it. Everything they wanted from a new expansion is arriving. That is a big deal. Remember that SCII is not new. It was revealed a while back. And although it still has tons of popularity, that means nothing compared to a new and fresh announcement. Again, SCII is what I want the most, but not the best choice for game of show.
A comment was made on my delayed post:
Very confused you didn't mentioned Duke Nukem Forever, which now may be the only game to receive a "Permenantely Delayed" status.
This game does not deserve a space in my delayed post. It is an entirely unique situation, that has never happened to any other game to date. A 10+ year delay is unique to Duke Nukem Forever. My post was about delay trends. I stated at the beginning of the blog that every delay situation is different and varies for each game. So I wasn't going to make any note of one specific game. This isn't a trend, and therefore I didn't mention it.
Finally, a lot of comments were made about my post on remakes.
Completely agree with all of these. Marathon should be Bungie's next big thing, they've already got everthing they need to start. I was always surprised that one of the greatest games for N64 like Star Fox got a crappy revamp to Gamecube but not to the Wii yet. Goldeneye and FFVII would keep the fanboys at bay, but i'm thinking just in the cockpit for Rogue Squadron. The out-of-cockpit for RS3:Rebel Strike was terrible. Also, can I get a little OCARINA OF TIME please?!?!?!?!?!?
Nintendo would never remake Ocarina of Time. It has too much "video game merit" for Nintendo to warrant a remake any time soon. In my opinion, I would rather Nintendo spend time and resources on creating a new Zelda rather than going back. If you liked Ocarina of Time like I did, I wouldn't want a remake just quite yet. The chance for messing up something is high, especially with a company like Nintendo.
There also was some inter-comment debate about handheld remakes:
I also hope that these possible remakes dont dive into the abyss that is the handheld. ugh. the handheld pretty much killed Final Fantasy remakes and Crisis Core FF7.
Final Fantasy I-VI (with the exception of FFIII since I haven't played it) were remade into the GBA, and they were NOT killed. They were extremely good remakes, with a little extra content in each of them after beating the games.
It is my personal opinion that a console game should never ever be remade into a handheld game. It ruins the feel of that game. That being said, both have good points. On one hand, games like Crisis Core FF7 were terrible for the handheld. Although FFI-VI were pretty good, realize that the original games were so close to handheld games anyway that a transition to handheld was okay. 2D sprite games like this work with handhelds. But when you get to a 3D game like FFVII or Rogue Squadron, a transition to handheld can kill the game. I remember how great the original Star Wars: Battlefront and its sequel were. When they transitioned the title to handhelds, it lost all of its appeal. Handhelds appeal to a different audience that consoles, and the transition, save a few examples like FFI-VI, tends to be really bad.
That is it for now. Thank you all so much for making these comments. It really makes me feel like all the writing I am doing here is being read by others and not just by myself. Keep commenting. I love hearing other opinions and I love that my posts can incite conversation and thought. I hope to keep addressing these comments that I feel need addressing. At least until blogger finds a reply button somewhere....
Sunday, September 20, 2009
THE BEATLES: ROCK BAND
First off, I wanted to address the new format for my reviews. I want my reviews to me a lot more conversational. I felt the format and presentation of the old reviews is stiff and uninviting. So I'm changing it up a bit. I'll still cover the good stuff, like gameplay and graphics. But the entire thing will be a lot more cohesive. Instead of categories I am going to condense it into a much better and more conversational post. I'll still keep my creed of not giving a game a letter grade, but I am going to give a verdict based upon my experience. Finally, I am going to do note something truly unique about the game, called "Something You May Have Missed". I hope this review form serves my purposes better, and makes the entire understanding of games from my p.o.v. a lot more helpful. so without further ado, here is the review for THE BEATLES: ROCK BAND.
THE BEATLES: ROCK BAND is definitely unique. Let's face it: there are too many music games out there today. Too many games that ask you to play a cheap plastic guitar or drumset and immitate a band. It gets old after a while. So many games really give the entire genre a generic feel: buy another game, play another 300 songs. Buy another game, play yet another 300 songs. Out of those 300 songs, the average person will probably only really enjoy about half of the songs. THE BEATLES: ROCK BAND is an entirely different experience. It changes all that a person may know about music games. It brings the innovation, quality, and entertainment that is needed for a dilapidated genre of video game. Only a band as legendary as The Beatles could have done this, and do it well.
The greatness comes in the devotion to staying true to The Beatles. Developers promised that they would NOT give the ability to customize the Beatles. They would NOT have World Tour. They would NOT have multiple bands. The old Rock Band songs could NOT be played in the game. Instead, every single aspect of the game would be made as a tribute and true representation to the greatest band of all time. The characters of John, Paul, George and Ringo would be created authentically. Each model was created to look exactly like the actual musician. The models aren't cartoony to make it unrealistic, but they aren't photorealistic to make it look creepy. They have just the right balance to show the real Beatles. Harmonix dedicated their singleplayer to keeping the great Rock Band gameplay but applying it to the Beatles story. This is done by a complete walkthrough of the career of the Beatles, starting from the Cavern Club in Liverpool, England to their eventual last performance on the top of Apple Corp.. The first time anyone plays "Twist and Shout" at the Cavern Club, they will see the dedication of Harmonix. The club is an authentic representation of the actual venue. The crowd is the typical screaming Beatles fans. The Beatles themselves look great, and they are dressed exactly like they were in 1963. There instruments are the same. Start playing, and you realize that the Beatles move like they are supposed to: they jive, dance, and react like the real Beatles did.
Harmonix did a great job with authenticity, hands down. Every aspect makes this game the definitive adaption of the Beatles. It makes sense, too. During the production process, Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Yoko Ono, and Olivia Harrison were all brought in numerous times. The developers showed the progress, and if something didn't look right or wasn't authentic, they changed it. If Paul said his on screen character was moving too much, they make the character move less. In a way, the surviving Beatles and spouses were developers. Every venue recreated is authentic and unique as they were in the 1960's. Shea Stadium has all those screaming girls, some of which get tackled by policemen (an event which actually happened). Budokan Stadium has the trendy "THE BEATLES" sign in the background. But the Beatles quit there touring soon after. Harmonix addressed this by putting the band in Abbey Road studios and creating dreamscapes. These scenes would occur when the band began to play a song. Imaginative scenarios and colors dance upon the screen. Every song in Abbey Road has one of these, and they are the true definition of "groovy". Continuing with oversight by Paul and Ringo, the developers made a dreamscape for every song that would reflect its meaning and what the Beatles were thinking during its writing. From the amazing colors in "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" to the base blur effects in "Come Together" and the underwater getaway in "Yellow Submarine", every dreamscape in an escape into the lyrics and the thoughts of the Beatles. They, more than anything else, immerse the player into the Beatles' songs, not just by playing them, but by showing them. Not many forms of media can show lyrics.
Don't worry, it is still a Rock Band game. There is still the five notes on the screen that go down in a rhythmic way. Harmonix wanted to add the Beatles flare here, too. Instead of focusing just on rhythm, the notes are organized in a way where the hands movements of the guitar mirror the movements of a real guitar. The chord changes in "Good Morning, Good Morning" and the solo in "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" mimic the hand shifts and finger positions that are used to play them on a real guitar. This is the same for bass and drums. I can't say how often I felt like George Harrison, expecially when I knew my hand and arm was moving with the notes like George on the screen. Harmonix also included a robust vocal harmonization system. After all, the Beatles harmonized like no other, and Harmonix didn't want to keep that out. Up to 3 mics can be attached, and the lyrics are divided amongst the three. One for Paul, one for George, and one for John. This way, the player can experience the awesome harmonization of songs like "Yellow Submarine" and "Hey, Bulldog!". Of course though, if players don't have 2 other friends or just want to sing the lyrics, they can. The game rewards for correct harmonization, but it never punishes, which created quite the rewarding experience. With a setlist of 45 of some of the best Beatles songs, and downloadable content in the form of full album on their way, The robust catalogue of the Beatles is being utilized to the fullest.
But THE BEATLES: ROCK BAND really shines in multiplayer. I have never had so much fun as I have had with friends playing this game. It is fun to be the Beatles. Harmonix created the ultimate atom bomb of fun with this game. They took the party appeal of Rock Band and the immersiveness and awesomeness of the Beatles and morphed them into the most immersive, rewarding, and quality multiplayer music game. No one sits out in a session of this game. With the harmonizing option for vocals, three people can now sing. This brings more people into the actual game, and just gets parties started. Songs like "Day Tripper" are just meant to be played with friends. People just seem to get into the game and the music. I have a friend that never was much of a Beatles fan. After he had played the game for about an hour, he was in love with the game. Not only that, but he had found a liking to the Beatles. How many games can not only create fun, but create fans? Not many. Multiplayer in this game is where it shines, and whether you like to play drums or sing, you will have a good time.
Harmonix put tons of goodies into this game. Hundreds of photos, some of which have never been seen can be unlocked in the game. The pictures also give some great insightful trivia that even some veteran Beatles fans may find themselves surprised at. After unlocked a certain number of pics, videos can also be unlocked. These are authentic videos ripped from the Abbey Road vault. They really add the the authenticity of the game, and add a great reward for those who are willing to appreciate the Beatles.
It is hard to talk about anything bad about this game. Harmonix payed attention to everything in this game. Unfortunately, there are some people out there who aren't Beatles fans (yeah. the entire 2 of them.). They might get a little discouraged by the Beatles focus and its differentiation from other band titles like Guitar Hero: Aerosmith. Some fans might also get discouraged that there are only 45 songs on the disc. Understand that this game was dedicated to quality over quantity. Harmonix wanted to create a tribute to the Beatles, and they did. No other music was needed nor was it wanted. Although some may find this a sacrifice, the game actually does a lot better this way. The 45 songs are meant to appeal to a broad crowd. Harmonix stated very clearly that they wanted to introduce people that may not be familiar to the Beatles. These 45 songs showcase the very long career of the Beatles. And although the Beatles have quite the robust catalogue, putting too many songs on the disc would have ruled out downloadable content, which is a staple for a company like Harmonix, and wanted by the player.
Thing you may have missed: The wammy bar is functional in the game, but only to the extent of gaining points. The wa-wa effect was removed in order to keep the music of the Beatles authentic and original. No one wanted wammy bar affects with the Beatles songs, which is probably a really wise choice!
THE FINAL VERDICT
THE BEATLES: ROCK BAND is the best music video game ever created. No game has ever had so much quality put into it for its namesake. The Beatles were legendary. There music is resounding, and they truly are the best rock band ever. Harmonix dedicated themselves to replicating this, and creating a great tribute to them. They wanted authenticity and truthfulness, even if that meant cutting things and introducing new things. This decision created the best music video game. All Beatles fans must buy this game. You are missing out on possibly one of the best experiences you will have in your life. All music fans should buy this game. The quality is not to be underestimated, and the fine details make this a great immersion into music. If you aren't the biggest Beatles fan though, you might find yourself liking the game for its party appeal, and like my friend, you may find an affinity to the Beatles yourself. And if you aren't a big music gamer, give this game a try anyway: you'll find that it is a greatly crafted experience, and is a great collection to a gaming library.
picture courtesy wikipedia.org
Sunday, September 13, 2009
So it is is written, so it shall be REMADE!
A common thing in the entertainment industry is to remake things. It's been a practice in the movie industry for a while now, and is just starting to become popular in the gaming market. With big remakes such as The Treasure of Monkey Island from LucasArts to an upcoming remake of the Castlevania franchise from Kojima Productions, remakes are exciting. What other games should be given this chance, though? There are plenty of immortalized and treasured gaming classics that gamers would love to have a next-gen copy of; but not everything can be remade. Some things just don't work in today's market. What does? Well, let me give 5 examples of games that definitely should get a remake/re-imagining somewhere along the line...
MARATHON
This just has the setup for a great next-generation game. Although a minority of people think Halo is a remake of Marathon (which is stupid. Really stupid.), a real remake would be awesome. Bungie originally made this first person shooter in 1994. It became an instant cult classic, and turned into a trilogy. It also put Bungie in the forefront for Mac development, a move which would lead them to a project called Halo. Marathon is oozing with science fiction mythos. It has a rich backstory with great scenarios and vistas. A developer could use all of these things and create one hell of a good next-gen FPS. Developers should stick with the lore, but make apply to a more modern setting. The idea of inter-galactic security guards is way better and less used that space marines, so developers should stay away from a military setting. Applying a similar look and feel like Halo would work well, but developers should differentiate it in some way. Either way, a Marathon remake would be awesome, and the potential for sequels is high.
STARFOX 64
I can't remember how many hours I spent on this game. It is truly a classic of the N64 era. It deserves a remake for the next-gen. Star Fox is a very appealing franchise. The characters are all unique and have their own personalities, which is saying something for a game where the characters never got out of their aircrafts. Being that Star Fox is a Nintendo property, I would hope that Nintendo may opt for something similar to Metriod: Other M. The best and most proper thing to do would be to team up with a high-end developer. A developer like Gearbox or Konami would fit Star Fox like a glove. Make the game like the original: stick to the plane. Past attempts at giving Star Fox TPS elements have failed. Star Fox is a great aircraft shooter, and should stay as such. Give it the best graphics possible, and redesign things here and there to give it a remade touch. Make the story an instant classic, something that could contend with Zelda or Metroid. Making the story a bit grittier would be great also. All these things put together could make a solid game.
GOLDENEYE 007
Before anyone says anything, the 2004 Gamecube game Goldeneye: Rogue Agent, was not a real remake. The only similarity between these two gamers was the name. That was it. Goldeneye was the first FPS to truly have multiplayer appeal. It wasn't the singleplayer that people wanted out of this game. The multiplayer was fun, and kept my friend and I occupied for many hours on end. A remake would be great and nostalgic. With a game like this however, developers should not opt to make a full retail remake. A game like this would be much better suited on PSN or XBL Arcade. Make the game similar in premise to Battlefield 1943. A multiplayer only game for Arcade priced smartly would sell buckets. Graphically update the game to look top notch. Keep every single weapon from the old game, because that is what gave it half of its appeal. Other than these things, nothing else needs to be done. Keep the same fun formula with updated graphics, and you have a great game. A remake of this game would be great for downloadable content too.
STAR WARS: ROGUE SQUADRON
Another great aricraft shooter that should be remade. Unlike Star Fox however, this has tons of potential to expand. Rogue Squadron was an arcade shooter down to the core. It was entertaining, and gave the great feeling of being in the Star Wars universe that so many games try to do and fail. Expanding upon this arcade principle, LucasArts (as I am sure no one else is going to do a Star Wars game!) should create a free-roam premise. Imagine having the same great arcade gameplay, but having the ability to fly in a gigantic map, working on a main objective while keeping in mind other secondary objectives. A map that would go from space to the surface of the planet in one transition would be amazing. Keep the formula, but make the scope and scale larger, much like the controlled free roam of Mass Effect. Have a little out-of-the-cockpit gameplay too, such as the ability to go back to the rogues' base and do things there. As with everything else, a graphical update would have to be done. Other than those things however, a remake of this great classic is due.
FINAL FANTASY VII
Who doesn't want this? Arguably the best RPG of all time, FFVII deserves a remake more than any other game. The game is still played avidly today. It was a giant of innovation when it first came out for the Playstation. A remake could do the same. Square Enix should definitely return to this game. Final Fantasy XIII shows the new technology that Square has been developing. The graphical capabilities are blurring the lines of cutscene and gameplay. The new combat system is garnering rave reviews. These things implemented in a FFVII remake would be the best thing ever. It would be so easy, too. The story, sidemissions, and characters are already done. No improvement, besides graphical, needs to be done in these areas. The story is so good that it still fits in today's gaming world. A FFVII remake would sell hotcakes. Voice acting for Cloud? Aerith's death in next-gen? Sephiroth turning into a scary-as-shit bat thing? What more can you ask for in a next-gen title? A FFVII could rejuvinate the Japanese RPG scene. More importantly, a FFVII remake could content with the best of western RPGs.
Are the chances of any of these games getting remade possible? Well, anything is possible. Developers always have 2-3 projects they are working on that you never hear about until a year into development. And then 2-3 more projects take their place. So some of these games may already be in development. As with games, though, somethings will just never see the light of day. The only thing that a gamer can do is sit and watch and play.
Did I miss any? Let me know.
MARATHON
This just has the setup for a great next-generation game. Although a minority of people think Halo is a remake of Marathon (which is stupid. Really stupid.), a real remake would be awesome. Bungie originally made this first person shooter in 1994. It became an instant cult classic, and turned into a trilogy. It also put Bungie in the forefront for Mac development, a move which would lead them to a project called Halo. Marathon is oozing with science fiction mythos. It has a rich backstory with great scenarios and vistas. A developer could use all of these things and create one hell of a good next-gen FPS. Developers should stick with the lore, but make apply to a more modern setting. The idea of inter-galactic security guards is way better and less used that space marines, so developers should stay away from a military setting. Applying a similar look and feel like Halo would work well, but developers should differentiate it in some way. Either way, a Marathon remake would be awesome, and the potential for sequels is high.
STARFOX 64
I can't remember how many hours I spent on this game. It is truly a classic of the N64 era. It deserves a remake for the next-gen. Star Fox is a very appealing franchise. The characters are all unique and have their own personalities, which is saying something for a game where the characters never got out of their aircrafts. Being that Star Fox is a Nintendo property, I would hope that Nintendo may opt for something similar to Metriod: Other M. The best and most proper thing to do would be to team up with a high-end developer. A developer like Gearbox or Konami would fit Star Fox like a glove. Make the game like the original: stick to the plane. Past attempts at giving Star Fox TPS elements have failed. Star Fox is a great aircraft shooter, and should stay as such. Give it the best graphics possible, and redesign things here and there to give it a remade touch. Make the story an instant classic, something that could contend with Zelda or Metroid. Making the story a bit grittier would be great also. All these things put together could make a solid game.
GOLDENEYE 007
Before anyone says anything, the 2004 Gamecube game Goldeneye: Rogue Agent, was not a real remake. The only similarity between these two gamers was the name. That was it. Goldeneye was the first FPS to truly have multiplayer appeal. It wasn't the singleplayer that people wanted out of this game. The multiplayer was fun, and kept my friend and I occupied for many hours on end. A remake would be great and nostalgic. With a game like this however, developers should not opt to make a full retail remake. A game like this would be much better suited on PSN or XBL Arcade. Make the game similar in premise to Battlefield 1943. A multiplayer only game for Arcade priced smartly would sell buckets. Graphically update the game to look top notch. Keep every single weapon from the old game, because that is what gave it half of its appeal. Other than these things, nothing else needs to be done. Keep the same fun formula with updated graphics, and you have a great game. A remake of this game would be great for downloadable content too.
STAR WARS: ROGUE SQUADRON
Another great aricraft shooter that should be remade. Unlike Star Fox however, this has tons of potential to expand. Rogue Squadron was an arcade shooter down to the core. It was entertaining, and gave the great feeling of being in the Star Wars universe that so many games try to do and fail. Expanding upon this arcade principle, LucasArts (as I am sure no one else is going to do a Star Wars game!) should create a free-roam premise. Imagine having the same great arcade gameplay, but having the ability to fly in a gigantic map, working on a main objective while keeping in mind other secondary objectives. A map that would go from space to the surface of the planet in one transition would be amazing. Keep the formula, but make the scope and scale larger, much like the controlled free roam of Mass Effect. Have a little out-of-the-cockpit gameplay too, such as the ability to go back to the rogues' base and do things there. As with everything else, a graphical update would have to be done. Other than those things however, a remake of this great classic is due.
FINAL FANTASY VII
Who doesn't want this? Arguably the best RPG of all time, FFVII deserves a remake more than any other game. The game is still played avidly today. It was a giant of innovation when it first came out for the Playstation. A remake could do the same. Square Enix should definitely return to this game. Final Fantasy XIII shows the new technology that Square has been developing. The graphical capabilities are blurring the lines of cutscene and gameplay. The new combat system is garnering rave reviews. These things implemented in a FFVII remake would be the best thing ever. It would be so easy, too. The story, sidemissions, and characters are already done. No improvement, besides graphical, needs to be done in these areas. The story is so good that it still fits in today's gaming world. A FFVII remake would sell hotcakes. Voice acting for Cloud? Aerith's death in next-gen? Sephiroth turning into a scary-as-shit bat thing? What more can you ask for in a next-gen title? A FFVII could rejuvinate the Japanese RPG scene. More importantly, a FFVII remake could content with the best of western RPGs.
Are the chances of any of these games getting remade possible? Well, anything is possible. Developers always have 2-3 projects they are working on that you never hear about until a year into development. And then 2-3 more projects take their place. So some of these games may already be in development. As with games, though, somethings will just never see the light of day. The only thing that a gamer can do is sit and watch and play.
Did I miss any? Let me know.
Monday, September 7, 2009
Don't Worry, They'll Come Out Eventually...
It is a tragedy in the gaming world when a highly anticipated game, or any game for that matter, is delayed. And yet, it happens so often that there must be an explanation. Well, I thought I would offer my two cents as to why games get delayed, and try to calm the angered masses who won't be getting their BioShock or Splinter Cell on this year.
WHY GAMES GET DELAYED
There is no one absolute reason a game will get delayed. Nine times out of ten, it is completely unique to that game's development. There are several trends among game delays however. Some are quite easy to accept and are actually quite understandable. Others are pretty stupid in reasoning. Let me run down some trends that seem to happen the most...
-A game can get delayed due to the developers not meeting their deadline. It is a common fact in the development of games that there is a hell of a lot of work to be done. Think of the entire process. Someone comes up with the idea, markets it, people start the design element and the story, designers come in to do levels, characters, weapons, and everything else, and then 3D designers come and render that into the video game, that is if the engine is up and running. That is just the design element. Games take a long time to make, and deadlines are pretty much the working standard for developers. It is no surprise that the work can catch up to them more often than not. Remember: most game developers work upwards of 50-80 hours a week. Deadlines can be reset and missed. Back to the actual delay, developers may realize a week before that they are way behind. Moving the game back is the only thing they can do so that the game can continue to be a quality work. That is pretty much the reason for this: quality. Think if a developer rushed the last couple months of development. The story and gameplay could be terrible, the graphics could be shotty, and there would be a ginormous amount of bugs. Setting a later deadline is the only thing a developer can do to maintain quality and therefore get the consumer to buy their product. A great example of this is Starcraft II. Originally planned for release in early 2009, it then got pushed to late 2009 due to all of the developers working on WoW. They just couldn't meet deadlines with the amount of people they had at the time. The game is now scheduled for a release in 2010. Hopefully.
-A reason similar to deadlines but different is ambition. Sometimes goals may change during development. A developer may see the need for some extra levels or a multiplayer component. These plans were not in the original plan, so deadlines and the process can get mixed up a bit. A good way to think of it is that video game companies number one priority is for the consumer to buy their game. By adding a component like this, they feel that more people will buy the game. Which is very likely. Developers may also want to repolish a bit, or do something similar to the movie industry called cutting. This may be the exclusion of levels or weapons. Many developers see the final product and either wish something else was in it or something was not in it. By delaying a game this gives the developer a final period to look over and add or delete things. The problem with this delay comes in quality. Sometimes, a developer will delay the game to add a new component, but still feel rushed, and theirfore do a crappy job with that component. Other times, development companies can take their time to add tons of new features, but in the process make the consumer lose interest or make the game too overwhelming. It takes a balance between the two. BioShock 2 is the prime example of this. 2K Marin wanted to create a quality sequel, and are pumping everything up to the 5th power. The delay comes in the addition of multiplayer. 2K wants to create a multiplayer similar to the Call of Duty and Halo franchises, with customization and a unique flair to it. They had to hire a completely different developer to work on it due to their commitment to a robust singleplayer. Due to their extremely high level of quality, this resulted in a push to 2010.
-A very popular trend is that of marketing and sales. This delay is caused more by the publisher than the developer. As a game is being developed, publishers are paying attention to what other games will be coming out in their game's release window. They will see if these games are similar in genre and target audience, and more importantly if they are an existing successful franchise. Publishers may opt to push a game to a later date in order to avoid competition with a juggernaut game that is sure to sell. They may be concerned that the target audience will go over to that game instead of theirs if the games are similar. More often, they will be concerned about the released games as a whole, and may think that there are many alternatives to buying their game. Other times, it may just be that the publisher feels that the game can sell better at a different date. Either way, competion is a main factor in this decision. This is especially the case for new IPs. A publisher will most certainly be concerned if their new IP is going against a successful franchise. This IP has a much higher chance of not selling at all. Publishers try to weigh the pros and cons of a release window, and judge sales according to that. Bayonetta is a prime example of this. This is a risky new IP that was originally set to release next to Modern Warfare 2 and Assassin's Creed 2. It would not have sold at all if it were put here, so the developer moved it to 2010 to sell better.
WHAT GAMERS SHOULD THINK
Gamers need to realize that development companies always have a good reason to delay a game. It may not seem that way to you the consumer, but it is that way. Think of it logically. Knowing that over half of all games made fail in sales, why would a publisher want to push a game to a later date to delay selling the game if they didn't have a good reason? Development costs tons of money, and marketing for a game for the consumer to even notice the game costs more. Developers want to give you the game. Pushing it is always for a good reason. Sometimes however, publishers and developers like everyone else can make a bad call. Their previous judgment could result in actually hurting sales or reviews of the game. Of course, there is no way to tell this until after the release. For games that get pushed for deadlines, be respectful of the developers. They work tons of hours to give this game to you. If they can't make a deadline, be a little understanding. Now, if they can't make a deadline for three times in a row, then you can be a little pissed. For games that get delayed due to more ambition, think positively. The developer is making the game better, and wants to take the time to get it right. Let them take their time to give you the best game possible. Of course, there is that possibility that they passed over quality for more features, so be mindful of that. For games that get pushed due to sales, remember that they just want you to buy it and enjoy it. Think of it as a possibility to play Modern Warfare 2 and Halo 3: ODST fully before going to that new IP. The only reason you should be mad at this is if the call was a stupid call, and the game would have sold well anyway.
DELAYS TO BE OKAY ABOUT
-BioShock II: It pissed me off at first, but I realize that all they want to do is make the best game possible. BioShock was one of the most well made games ever. They want to keep that quality for singleplayer, and they want to introduce that same quality into multiplayer. It is understandable that this ambitious project would take long. I don't want a shotty BioShock experience. Let them take their time. The game will still do phenominal in sales.
-Heavy Rain: Games like these that aren't really games but cinematic experiences always take a long time to make. Delays are just the sacrifice a gamer has to make for a new experience like this. Mirror's Edge was a great new experience, but in the end felt like it was a bit rushed. Can you imagine if it got pushed to make it a bit better? I guarantee a little more time for some quality control would have made it better.
-StarCraft II: First off, this game was going to come out in 2010 anyway. Everyone expected it. Blizzard is a really busy company, and a big part of their staff overlooks World of Warcraft. And why not? That is their best selling game. They really want to make SCII a great game, and one that will become as good and as resounding as the first. Another reason is that they decided to split this game into a game and two expansion packs, so the developers had to work around that. Be thankful for that, though. Instead of one game, you get three now.
DELAYS TO BE PISSED ABOUT
-Dark Void: This game has been in development so long that it has lost a lot of its interest. Initially, Gears of War type vertical cover sounded cool, but now doesn't. Initially flying in a jetpack and stealing UFOs sounded cool, but now doesn't. Dark Void better be 50 hours long, because if it only lasts 8 WITH NO MULTIPLAYER, then this was a gigantic waste of time and money.
-Red Steel 2: This game looked great at E3, and could have been Nintendo's one big seller for Fall 2009. Now that this has been pushed, Wii owners have nothing. This not only hurts the developers of Red Steel 2, it hurts Nintendo as a whole. With all the games coming out in 2009 for Xbox 360 and PS3, many Wii ownes will probably go buy one of those. Not a good choice at all.
-Splinter Cell: Conviction: After being delayed countless times in order to completely revamp the game, Ubisoft shows off the awesomeness of this game at E3. Everyone took away their hate for the numerous delays and said thank you to Ubisoft for making a great kickass experience. And what does Ubisoft do? THEY DELAY IT AGAIN. I'll admit. I was super pissed about this. I wanted this for Christmas. Unfortunately, Ubisoft delayed it to early 2010 saying that they wanted to polish it off a bit more. How much more polish do you need after 4 FRICKIN' YEARS? This was a push so that they could gain more sales. They think sales would have been hurt due to Halo 3: ODST, Modern Warfare 2, and Assassin's Creed 2. For Splinter Cell, a franchise that was one of the best selling franchises on the original Xbox? It would have sold fine. Cheap delay. Be pissed.
So there is our friend, the delay. So next time your favorite game gets delayed to next year, remember, it is for the best. Unless it is a cheap sellout like Splinter Cell. Then you can throw your Wiimotes through the TV.
WHY GAMES GET DELAYED
There is no one absolute reason a game will get delayed. Nine times out of ten, it is completely unique to that game's development. There are several trends among game delays however. Some are quite easy to accept and are actually quite understandable. Others are pretty stupid in reasoning. Let me run down some trends that seem to happen the most...
-A game can get delayed due to the developers not meeting their deadline. It is a common fact in the development of games that there is a hell of a lot of work to be done. Think of the entire process. Someone comes up with the idea, markets it, people start the design element and the story, designers come in to do levels, characters, weapons, and everything else, and then 3D designers come and render that into the video game, that is if the engine is up and running. That is just the design element. Games take a long time to make, and deadlines are pretty much the working standard for developers. It is no surprise that the work can catch up to them more often than not. Remember: most game developers work upwards of 50-80 hours a week. Deadlines can be reset and missed. Back to the actual delay, developers may realize a week before that they are way behind. Moving the game back is the only thing they can do so that the game can continue to be a quality work. That is pretty much the reason for this: quality. Think if a developer rushed the last couple months of development. The story and gameplay could be terrible, the graphics could be shotty, and there would be a ginormous amount of bugs. Setting a later deadline is the only thing a developer can do to maintain quality and therefore get the consumer to buy their product. A great example of this is Starcraft II. Originally planned for release in early 2009, it then got pushed to late 2009 due to all of the developers working on WoW. They just couldn't meet deadlines with the amount of people they had at the time. The game is now scheduled for a release in 2010. Hopefully.
-A reason similar to deadlines but different is ambition. Sometimes goals may change during development. A developer may see the need for some extra levels or a multiplayer component. These plans were not in the original plan, so deadlines and the process can get mixed up a bit. A good way to think of it is that video game companies number one priority is for the consumer to buy their game. By adding a component like this, they feel that more people will buy the game. Which is very likely. Developers may also want to repolish a bit, or do something similar to the movie industry called cutting. This may be the exclusion of levels or weapons. Many developers see the final product and either wish something else was in it or something was not in it. By delaying a game this gives the developer a final period to look over and add or delete things. The problem with this delay comes in quality. Sometimes, a developer will delay the game to add a new component, but still feel rushed, and theirfore do a crappy job with that component. Other times, development companies can take their time to add tons of new features, but in the process make the consumer lose interest or make the game too overwhelming. It takes a balance between the two. BioShock 2 is the prime example of this. 2K Marin wanted to create a quality sequel, and are pumping everything up to the 5th power. The delay comes in the addition of multiplayer. 2K wants to create a multiplayer similar to the Call of Duty and Halo franchises, with customization and a unique flair to it. They had to hire a completely different developer to work on it due to their commitment to a robust singleplayer. Due to their extremely high level of quality, this resulted in a push to 2010.
-A very popular trend is that of marketing and sales. This delay is caused more by the publisher than the developer. As a game is being developed, publishers are paying attention to what other games will be coming out in their game's release window. They will see if these games are similar in genre and target audience, and more importantly if they are an existing successful franchise. Publishers may opt to push a game to a later date in order to avoid competition with a juggernaut game that is sure to sell. They may be concerned that the target audience will go over to that game instead of theirs if the games are similar. More often, they will be concerned about the released games as a whole, and may think that there are many alternatives to buying their game. Other times, it may just be that the publisher feels that the game can sell better at a different date. Either way, competion is a main factor in this decision. This is especially the case for new IPs. A publisher will most certainly be concerned if their new IP is going against a successful franchise. This IP has a much higher chance of not selling at all. Publishers try to weigh the pros and cons of a release window, and judge sales according to that. Bayonetta is a prime example of this. This is a risky new IP that was originally set to release next to Modern Warfare 2 and Assassin's Creed 2. It would not have sold at all if it were put here, so the developer moved it to 2010 to sell better.
WHAT GAMERS SHOULD THINK
Gamers need to realize that development companies always have a good reason to delay a game. It may not seem that way to you the consumer, but it is that way. Think of it logically. Knowing that over half of all games made fail in sales, why would a publisher want to push a game to a later date to delay selling the game if they didn't have a good reason? Development costs tons of money, and marketing for a game for the consumer to even notice the game costs more. Developers want to give you the game. Pushing it is always for a good reason. Sometimes however, publishers and developers like everyone else can make a bad call. Their previous judgment could result in actually hurting sales or reviews of the game. Of course, there is no way to tell this until after the release. For games that get pushed for deadlines, be respectful of the developers. They work tons of hours to give this game to you. If they can't make a deadline, be a little understanding. Now, if they can't make a deadline for three times in a row, then you can be a little pissed. For games that get delayed due to more ambition, think positively. The developer is making the game better, and wants to take the time to get it right. Let them take their time to give you the best game possible. Of course, there is that possibility that they passed over quality for more features, so be mindful of that. For games that get pushed due to sales, remember that they just want you to buy it and enjoy it. Think of it as a possibility to play Modern Warfare 2 and Halo 3: ODST fully before going to that new IP. The only reason you should be mad at this is if the call was a stupid call, and the game would have sold well anyway.
DELAYS TO BE OKAY ABOUT
-BioShock II: It pissed me off at first, but I realize that all they want to do is make the best game possible. BioShock was one of the most well made games ever. They want to keep that quality for singleplayer, and they want to introduce that same quality into multiplayer. It is understandable that this ambitious project would take long. I don't want a shotty BioShock experience. Let them take their time. The game will still do phenominal in sales.
-Heavy Rain: Games like these that aren't really games but cinematic experiences always take a long time to make. Delays are just the sacrifice a gamer has to make for a new experience like this. Mirror's Edge was a great new experience, but in the end felt like it was a bit rushed. Can you imagine if it got pushed to make it a bit better? I guarantee a little more time for some quality control would have made it better.
-StarCraft II: First off, this game was going to come out in 2010 anyway. Everyone expected it. Blizzard is a really busy company, and a big part of their staff overlooks World of Warcraft. And why not? That is their best selling game. They really want to make SCII a great game, and one that will become as good and as resounding as the first. Another reason is that they decided to split this game into a game and two expansion packs, so the developers had to work around that. Be thankful for that, though. Instead of one game, you get three now.
DELAYS TO BE PISSED ABOUT
-Dark Void: This game has been in development so long that it has lost a lot of its interest. Initially, Gears of War type vertical cover sounded cool, but now doesn't. Initially flying in a jetpack and stealing UFOs sounded cool, but now doesn't. Dark Void better be 50 hours long, because if it only lasts 8 WITH NO MULTIPLAYER, then this was a gigantic waste of time and money.
-Red Steel 2: This game looked great at E3, and could have been Nintendo's one big seller for Fall 2009. Now that this has been pushed, Wii owners have nothing. This not only hurts the developers of Red Steel 2, it hurts Nintendo as a whole. With all the games coming out in 2009 for Xbox 360 and PS3, many Wii ownes will probably go buy one of those. Not a good choice at all.
-Splinter Cell: Conviction: After being delayed countless times in order to completely revamp the game, Ubisoft shows off the awesomeness of this game at E3. Everyone took away their hate for the numerous delays and said thank you to Ubisoft for making a great kickass experience. And what does Ubisoft do? THEY DELAY IT AGAIN. I'll admit. I was super pissed about this. I wanted this for Christmas. Unfortunately, Ubisoft delayed it to early 2010 saying that they wanted to polish it off a bit more. How much more polish do you need after 4 FRICKIN' YEARS? This was a push so that they could gain more sales. They think sales would have been hurt due to Halo 3: ODST, Modern Warfare 2, and Assassin's Creed 2. For Splinter Cell, a franchise that was one of the best selling franchises on the original Xbox? It would have sold fine. Cheap delay. Be pissed.
So there is our friend, the delay. So next time your favorite game gets delayed to next year, remember, it is for the best. Unless it is a cheap sellout like Splinter Cell. Then you can throw your Wiimotes through the TV.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Ezio is the new black.
I love Assassin's Creed. Anyone who knows me knows that this is one of my favorite games by far. Anyone who knows me also knows Assassin's Creed II is my most anticipated game this year. It seems like I froth at the mouth every time I see a gameplay trailer or I read news about the game. I won't bore you with how this game is going to be the best game ever made in the history of mankind and that even the likes of Halo and Call of Duty can't take down this behemoth of a virtual experience, I would like to make some predictions about the next game's story. I have been thinking about what I would want to happen and what I think has a good chance of happening for a while. WARNING! Spoilers abound on this post. I will talk a lot about the end of Assassin's Creed and its story. So if you haven't played it, don't read this (WHY HAVE YOU NOT PLAYED ASSASSIN'S CREED? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU?). Here we go!
First I will delve into what is surely to be covered quite a bit in AC2: the pieces of Eden. This cool device was first seen with Al-Mualim in the final battle of AC1. This device is said to have the ability to control minds. Al-Mualim states that this device was used by many famous historical figures (several e-mails refer to the "Christ-figure" as having used the device, meaning the templars figure Jesus used the piece of Eden to bend people to his will). This device is said to have been the apple in the Garden of Eden, and what men used to create the religions of the world. In a nutshell, the templars believe that the pieces of Eden prove that there is no God. They believe that what the "apple" is is the gift of free will. The templars want to use the device to control everyone's mind. They want to create a peaceful world, but in a very twisted and mad way. Your classic world domination. This is the entire basis for why Desmond even controls Altair. He is looking for the historical thrid piece of Eden.
In the mythos, there are three pieces. One was destroyed in the little talked about "Philidelphia Incident". This is the piece Desmond is trying to find through Altair, as each piece has a map of other pieces. It isn't that simple however. Close examination of e-mails in the backroom of Desmond's holding cell reveal that Abstergo, modern day Templars, are trying to find other religious artifacts. It seems that they have found the crystal skulls and have made them work (in real life, the 13 ancient crystal skulls are the only one of their kind. They are rumored to have give the owner the ability to skry, or telepathically communicate). They have also in their posession something that can bend space and time, but have yielded to using it as they have no idea how to use it.
Interestingly enough, one e-mail states that Abstergo is yielding the search for the "Grail" as they feel it is not worth looking for, and should have no affect on their current plans on finding a piece of Eden, sending it into space through a satellite on the 12th of December (Mayan calendar armaggedon), and controlling all people. They are looking for other religious artifacts due to a sneaking suspicion that many people may have the ability to withstand the power of a piece of Eden, a power that Altair seemed to have had at the end of AC1.
There, you should be somewhat up to speed as to my knowledge. If you haven't taken a look at the wall and the floor after AC1, you should take a look back at that also. I will start my predictions by talking about Desmond and the current day story. Then I will talk about Ezio's story, and then I will talk about the overall story.
CURRENT DAY
-Desmond will be spared by Abstergo from the intercession of Lucy at the end of AC1. They will see that he has potential, and that he can be a useful tool in finding the other two pieces. They will also use him for finding other artifacts.
-Desmond will become more rebellious against Abstergo. He and Lucy will definitely do some planning.
-Desmond won't be in Abstergo's hands for the entire game. He will either be rescued by the Assassins, or he will be on the run.
-Desmond will gain another ancestral power other than Eagle Eye. My guess is that he will gain some free-running abilities.
-Desmond should meet another current Assassin in the game.
-We will see the outside.
-As the developers have stated Desmond will do more than looking for clues in the game, my guess is that he might do a small free-run section, maybe an escape/chase scenario.
-Something similar to the DIA and Philidelphia events will take place.
-Lucy will become even more heavily involved in the Assassins.
ITALY
-Ezio will serve as the example for an apprentice Assassin, and will be a cornerstone in the strength and development of the current day Assassins.
-Leonardo DaVinci will be a mysterious and gigantically important character. I would take a stab and say that he has major connections with the Assassins.
-DaVinci paintings and sculptures will contain clues to artifacts and other things, ala DaVinci Code.
-DaVinci will be an omniscient character. He will know everything about the real truth of the pieces and know the ins and outs of the templars and the Assassins.
-The templars will become more of a secret society. This can only be assumed as the existence of the Templars becomes quite scarce in Renaissance Italy.
-Catacombs under locations will serve as hiding places for artifacts.
-Ezio will encounter the Holy Grail, although it what form I cannot guess.
-Ezio will have major problems with the Medici family.
-The grand master of the Templars should be shown.
-The Church will play a role in the story, although to what extent I cannot guess.
-Rome will be a playable area.
-The Pope will have influence on the Templars.
OVERALL STORY
-The neglect of Abstergo to look for the Holy Grail will be a major plot device. The Assassins, through Lucy and other ways, will learn that Abstergo isn't paying attention to it. They will look for it, and it will have some amazing counter-active power. This will setup how the Assassins can stop the Templars.
-The pieces of Eden will be revealed to be different than Abstergo assumes. Although I doubt this will be blantantly revealed, I believe there will be rumors and hints that the pieces actually claim the opposite that the Templars believe. Instead of a device that has the power to enslave minds to hide the truth that God is fake and all religion and belief is fake, I think the device actually is meant to hide a bigger truth. The piece (or maybe the Grail) could prove the existence of God. It is possible that historical figures like Jesus used the device to gain people's faith and not give them proof out of nowhere.
-Atlantis will have some outer connection in the story. Many things on the walls of AC1 point to a lost city and artifacts lost there.
-Another piece will be destroyed in some way, leading Abstergo only one possible piece.
-More cultural stories will come into play, possibly Abstergo making assumptions that people like Buddha and Mohammad used a piece of Eden.
-Many things in AC1 point to an oriental setting. We will hear more about this.
-A gigantic battle along the lines of the DIA and the Philidelphia incidents will occur.
-The game will be even more open ended at the end than AC1.
That is all the predictions I have. I have pretty good faith in some of them. Of course, knowing the twists that AC1 had, I wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong about every single things. If you have a prediction please voice it.
First I will delve into what is surely to be covered quite a bit in AC2: the pieces of Eden. This cool device was first seen with Al-Mualim in the final battle of AC1. This device is said to have the ability to control minds. Al-Mualim states that this device was used by many famous historical figures (several e-mails refer to the "Christ-figure" as having used the device, meaning the templars figure Jesus used the piece of Eden to bend people to his will). This device is said to have been the apple in the Garden of Eden, and what men used to create the religions of the world. In a nutshell, the templars believe that the pieces of Eden prove that there is no God. They believe that what the "apple" is is the gift of free will. The templars want to use the device to control everyone's mind. They want to create a peaceful world, but in a very twisted and mad way. Your classic world domination. This is the entire basis for why Desmond even controls Altair. He is looking for the historical thrid piece of Eden.
In the mythos, there are three pieces. One was destroyed in the little talked about "Philidelphia Incident". This is the piece Desmond is trying to find through Altair, as each piece has a map of other pieces. It isn't that simple however. Close examination of e-mails in the backroom of Desmond's holding cell reveal that Abstergo, modern day Templars, are trying to find other religious artifacts. It seems that they have found the crystal skulls and have made them work (in real life, the 13 ancient crystal skulls are the only one of their kind. They are rumored to have give the owner the ability to skry, or telepathically communicate). They have also in their posession something that can bend space and time, but have yielded to using it as they have no idea how to use it.
Interestingly enough, one e-mail states that Abstergo is yielding the search for the "Grail" as they feel it is not worth looking for, and should have no affect on their current plans on finding a piece of Eden, sending it into space through a satellite on the 12th of December (Mayan calendar armaggedon), and controlling all people. They are looking for other religious artifacts due to a sneaking suspicion that many people may have the ability to withstand the power of a piece of Eden, a power that Altair seemed to have had at the end of AC1.
There, you should be somewhat up to speed as to my knowledge. If you haven't taken a look at the wall and the floor after AC1, you should take a look back at that also. I will start my predictions by talking about Desmond and the current day story. Then I will talk about Ezio's story, and then I will talk about the overall story.
CURRENT DAY
-Desmond will be spared by Abstergo from the intercession of Lucy at the end of AC1. They will see that he has potential, and that he can be a useful tool in finding the other two pieces. They will also use him for finding other artifacts.
-Desmond will become more rebellious against Abstergo. He and Lucy will definitely do some planning.
-Desmond won't be in Abstergo's hands for the entire game. He will either be rescued by the Assassins, or he will be on the run.
-Desmond will gain another ancestral power other than Eagle Eye. My guess is that he will gain some free-running abilities.
-Desmond should meet another current Assassin in the game.
-We will see the outside.
-As the developers have stated Desmond will do more than looking for clues in the game, my guess is that he might do a small free-run section, maybe an escape/chase scenario.
-Something similar to the DIA and Philidelphia events will take place.
-Lucy will become even more heavily involved in the Assassins.
ITALY
-Ezio will serve as the example for an apprentice Assassin, and will be a cornerstone in the strength and development of the current day Assassins.
-Leonardo DaVinci will be a mysterious and gigantically important character. I would take a stab and say that he has major connections with the Assassins.
-DaVinci paintings and sculptures will contain clues to artifacts and other things, ala DaVinci Code.
-DaVinci will be an omniscient character. He will know everything about the real truth of the pieces and know the ins and outs of the templars and the Assassins.
-The templars will become more of a secret society. This can only be assumed as the existence of the Templars becomes quite scarce in Renaissance Italy.
-Catacombs under locations will serve as hiding places for artifacts.
-Ezio will encounter the Holy Grail, although it what form I cannot guess.
-Ezio will have major problems with the Medici family.
-The grand master of the Templars should be shown.
-The Church will play a role in the story, although to what extent I cannot guess.
-Rome will be a playable area.
-The Pope will have influence on the Templars.
OVERALL STORY
-The neglect of Abstergo to look for the Holy Grail will be a major plot device. The Assassins, through Lucy and other ways, will learn that Abstergo isn't paying attention to it. They will look for it, and it will have some amazing counter-active power. This will setup how the Assassins can stop the Templars.
-The pieces of Eden will be revealed to be different than Abstergo assumes. Although I doubt this will be blantantly revealed, I believe there will be rumors and hints that the pieces actually claim the opposite that the Templars believe. Instead of a device that has the power to enslave minds to hide the truth that God is fake and all religion and belief is fake, I think the device actually is meant to hide a bigger truth. The piece (or maybe the Grail) could prove the existence of God. It is possible that historical figures like Jesus used the device to gain people's faith and not give them proof out of nowhere.
-Atlantis will have some outer connection in the story. Many things on the walls of AC1 point to a lost city and artifacts lost there.
-Another piece will be destroyed in some way, leading Abstergo only one possible piece.
-More cultural stories will come into play, possibly Abstergo making assumptions that people like Buddha and Mohammad used a piece of Eden.
-Many things in AC1 point to an oriental setting. We will hear more about this.
-A gigantic battle along the lines of the DIA and the Philidelphia incidents will occur.
-The game will be even more open ended at the end than AC1.
That is all the predictions I have. I have pretty good faith in some of them. Of course, knowing the twists that AC1 had, I wouldn't be surprised if I am wrong about every single things. If you have a prediction please voice it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)