Adressing the Masses THREE!

Yes, it's that time again, folks. Actually, it's a little over that time again. I haven't done one of these since the beginning of December last year, so we got a lot to talk about. So without delay, let's get to your comments. And just a note for change here, I will be referring to commentors by their names, so if you can't remember that you said that, have no fear. Or have fear. Depending on the comment, of course.

Way back in December I asked you guys to tell me your game of the year list. AppleJuiceJones replied with a very hefty list of his games for the year, and while I know much of this may not be true now, some of his reply is worth noting. If you'd like to read his entire comment, you can go to the post here.

360 Game of Year: Modern Warfare 2. Pretty much geared for the 360, MW2 is great for single player, spec ops and multiplayer on xbox live.

Unfortunately, I have to agree, and I actually did in my game of the year awards. MW2 sold 360s and made Microsoft very happy last year. As a flagship title for the MS console, MW2 fits almost perfectly with what the Xbox has to offer. Looking back now after a few months being on the market, however, I believe MW2 has much less staying power than, say, Halo 3. This is somewhat because of the several major glitches in multiplayer, and the fact that for me, MW2 gets old after a while.

Gameplay: A three-way (;D) between AC2 MW2 and Brutal Legend. Oh and Arkham Asylum. God i enjoy too many games...

Lol. Anyway, I agree and disagree. Once again, knowing now what I did not then, MW2 gameplay is not that great. No innovation, and compared to other titles, even the ones you mentioned, MW2 gameplay is nothing special. I have not played Brutal Legend either, so I think I will trust you somewhat on that.

Best Character: Ezio Auditore da Firenze. He is so dynamic more so than any other character this year in games. Reminded me a lot of Niko Bellic.

Great comparison. I really like it. While I think there are some fundamental differences in how the player invests in these characters, I do agree that there is some similarity in how their personalities seem to jump out at you.

By the way, if you'd like to check out AppleJuiceJone's blog, you can at rantwhiteandblue.blogspot.com .

All of you had some very nice words to say about the blog's redesign at the beginning of the year, and I thank you for that. On my opening of the new year blog, I made some predictions for they year. RagnarokO1 has some comments in regards to some of my predictions.

I think BioShock 2 is going to be great, thank you. Who knows, maybe the multiplayer will "advertise" to more people. It could mean Bioshock 2 gets more replayability, and therefore more time in the minds of consumers.

First, let's once again take this comment in the context of when it was written. BioShock 2 is now a major success, and it is yet to be seen whether it will surpass it's predecessor or not. But when I made this prediction, I said that some might be dissapointed with the sequel. Certainly, the second game was in many ways different than the first. For me, it was missing some of the key elements that made BioShock what it was. But in regards to multiplayer, I feel that this multiplayer does not have any lasting effect. You and I both know that BioShock 2 was bought by consumers for the singleplayer. Multiplayer is great, but it isn't necessary, and I don't feel that will garner any replayability past the occassional matchmaking game every couple months. Gamers will turn to much more popular multiplayer games such as Battlefield or Call of Duty, games that have established themselves on multiplayer.

And about Jak, you said The Lost Frontier came out already, and I have yet to play it. But regardless of whether it's good or bad, Jak is dying. The series is losing momentum very quickly. Which is a shame. It took years for The Lost Frontier to come out, and it wasn't even made my NaughtyDog. So... yeah.

The Lost Frontier, in my opinion, was a gimmick. It was a game made to hang on to lost times. Jak represents an era of video games that are slowly evaporating, but not completely gone. Platformers are hard to come by these days, and the only game series that has managed to maintain a foothold in the current market is Ratchet and Clank. But I don't think that a series such as Jak will completely go away. Gamers love series coming back to next-gen consoles. They love to see remakes. Hell, this is why hollywood makes sequels and remakes. They sell the most money because people can be moderately positive that they will like it or not. Naughty Dog, or even another developer, could very easily start Jak up again for the new console generation. But the likelihood of Jak coming back gets less and less everyday, and this is mostly because developers have found goldmines in other IP's. For Naughty Dog, it's uncharted. For Insomniac, it's Resistance. For Sucker Punch, it's inFamous. As good ole' Bob Dylan sang, "The times, they are a'changing".

In another post, AppleJuiceJones remarked on the news that Star Wars: The Old Republic will not be releasing until 2011.

The spring 2011 release date is perfect. Bioware can use the extra year they've given themselves to polish the game till it shines. Not to mention the game won't have to battle WoW: Cataclysm in release (hopefully).

I really don't feel that the release date has anything to do with Cataclysm. SWTOR will surely compete with WoW in the fact that WoW is the main MMO on the market. But SWTOR is a vastly different game, and I would take a stab to say the demographics of people interested in SWTOR are different than WoW players. SWTOR is going to aim much more at a mainstream audience as it is BioWare and it is Star Wars. Pending pricing announcements and other things, SWTOR isn't trying to take away WoW gamers, they are trying to take away everyone else. Spring 2011 allows them plenty of time for marketing, which I think is the main reason for this choice of release. Allowing plenty of time at game conventions and I'm sure plenty of viral marketing, SWTOR should garner lots of popularity, more than it has now.

Emericanheretic26 has a comment about World of Warcraft on my "15 Thing I'm excited for" post.

Really? Cataclysm is so not gonna be the last expansion. The lore behind the game is so vast that they haven't covered it all. WotLK was only the first step in the story. Good post though. Im hella (yes hella) excited.

Yes, I think Cataclysm will be the last major expansion. This isn't to say that Blizzard won't continue to release patches full of awesome free stuff, but I think anything left for WoW will be free. WoW has had a long run, even for MMO's. And while Blizzard will support it and make new things and continue to be awesome, WoW is gonna slow down in the next couple years. Here's why. Blizzard has stated they are hard at work on another MMO. What this is, no one knows. But it's very hard to support two MMO's at once. In fact, Blizzard is already very strained for resources. Starcraft II stopped development for a month because they needed people to work on WoW: Cataclysm and running WoW. The new MMO will need the same attention and care that WoW gets, and this means that WoW will have to be slowed down. Blizzard cares, and they would not make another MMO unless they gave it the full attention they give all their games, and this means slowing WoW down.

GDC sure inciting some comments. The first day brought some nice comments. RagnarokO1 said this:

AND OMG PORTAL OH EM GEE! I am so excited. Altough the "painting walls" to add new physics has me thinking... Portal 1 was amazing because it delivered so much with such a simple idea. I just hope that Portal 2 won't be too "cluttered".

I think the painting wall addition to gameplay is actually continuing with the simplicity that Valve knows how to do so well. Pick up an issue of GameInformer this month with the exclusive article about Portal 2. It really does have some nice insight into what Valve is trying to do. In my opinion, I love that they are taking a risk again, because the last thing I would want is more of the same. One of the things that made Portal such an amazing game was because it was so groundbreaking and it took a gigantic risk. Portal 2 will only be successful if it does the same. The painting walls idea is just another way of taking a risk, which I think is great. I am also sure that this feature will be limited in some respect too, so you won't be able to paint the wall anywhere, kind of like how the actual portal gun was restricted to a certain type of tile in the first game.

There were some comments about the announcement of the Playstation MOVE on my second day of GDC coverage. RagnarokO1 and Pankahku09 had this to say:

Pfft. "Move". That is SUCH a cliché name. Geez. Yet, I have no idea what Natal means... Hmm, I'm confident Natal will hold down the fort nicely. I want to hear news about Natal. I haven't heard anything about it since E3 09.

Awesome, thought the Move isn't original, it will be nice to see it tower over Nintendo at their own design.

You both bring up very good points about Move. First, I agree that the name is stupid, but it seems that names these days don't mean much of anything, as someone actually thought naming a long controller you waggle a "Wii" was a good idea. On a sidenote, Natal will most likely change names too. Natal does not really appeal to the market as much, and it's really only a codename. There's a possibility of it staying Natal, but unlikely. I'd say something like "LIVEmotion" or "motion360". Move seems to be aiming much more at the Wii then at Natal, although both are competitors. While I do agree that the tech behind Move trumps the Wii, it is nowhere near perfect. Demos that have been shown have had a suprising amount of lag, which is upsetting. In terms of Natal, it's hard to compare the two. Natal is a much different type of tech, using no controls whatsoever. Which one become superior is anyone's guess, but I wouldn't go picking a winner yet. Microsoft will unveil Natal to the world on July 13th. One last thing. It's not about the tech. It's about the software. Wii sales for games get lower and lower every month because there simply is no variety of software past Mario and the Wii series of games. What Sony and MS do on this front will determine who wins in the end.

Some cool comments on my three-part post on linearity. RagnarokO1 made me lol.

First.

That's fucking hilarious. Anyway, another interesting comment about the poll that day on favorite gaming weapons. Pankahku said:

I'm slightly pissed that daggers is not an option on your poll, but w/e.. =P

If you're talking in a literal sense, yes, a dagger is a weapon, and I didn't include. But technically, anything can be a weapon. I can kill you with a lamp, a bar of soap, a bottle of water, or anything you can think of. In a gaming sense, I always think of weapons as the thing you carry in your main hand. Daggers, to me, are always sidearms, and therefore not a main weapon. Sorry if I offended you and you're rogue-ness.

Some very awesome comments on Part 2. Blaaarg! said:

Hmm. Well, I like the bioshocky linearity (yes, I'm still in the bioshock "high"). In bioshock two, there was a set path, the only choices the player had was weapons (which most games give as an option), adopting/rescuing and harvesting little sisters, and killing or letting a few characters in the game live. And what was cool is that the overall plot wasn't affected by this, but it was actually "warped" to your actions. Your main goal doesn't change or anything, but the "tone" does. Your actions are reflected in the way Eleanor thinks and acts, and the ending cutscene does change, but in the end, you still think Sofia Lamb is a total female dog, and you still have to save Eleanor, no matter how different eleanor is because of your actions.So in a way, this type of linearity does place you in a deep inmersive story, but the story is mildly personalized for you. Kinda like you said, it places you in the shoes on another and takes you to a different world, but Bioshock 2 gives you the right size of shoes that fit you, the player, just right.

Much of what BioShock 2 fits a very Mass Effect type of design, but in a much simpler way. BioShock 2 stays in the same place, immersing you in one character. This is in no way a game full of choice, in my opinion. But, as I did explain in the post, this game does a great job of "mimicking" choice. You naturally do what you feel is best, and the game sets some things to fit that. There is no obvious path, in my opinion. You have no idea that you are even making a choice that will effect something. Hell, I didn't even figure out my choices on saving or killing people mattered until that achievement popped up on my screen. And I had no idea that Eleanor was changing based upon all my actions until after I finished the game and discovered this fact on the internet. BioShock 2 does what Mass Effect did in a small scale. It doesn't immediately effect the game, but it changes the future. In this way, it mimicks real life. Great point. Kudos.

And finally, we had some awesome inner comment debate. I effing love this. Pankahku09's comment incited a reply from AppleJuiceJones, and I feel I should give my two cents. Here's the comments.

"Many games have shown that a strong narrative can be given in a game, and can immerse players in ways other games cannot."Linearity is important but not too much. Great to follow a storyline but give players more freedom. But if too much freedom is given like in games such as WoW or GTA, then the story losses its importance.

pankahku09 i completely disagree with you, at least on GTA. GTA IV was one of the best games of all time (sorry i sound like Kanye) not only because it had open world gameplay where the city was a living, breathing character, but because it nixed the complete freedom that RPGs like Fallout and Fable gave you. Sure, you could complete missions in a multitude of ways, but there was far less choice than in an RPG. In the end, the story still came to the conclusion Niko wanted, because Rockstar incorporated a deep meaningful story into a sandbox game, forever changing the face of open world gaming.

I have to disagree with a lot that both of you said. First, you forgot to say "Ima let you finish" to pankahku09, AppleJuiceJones. Just kidding. First off, it's worth noting that GTA IV did take a big step out of freedom for the series as whole. The story did take a much bigger importance. But it certainly did not approach any sort of linearity, in my opinion. The core of GTA IV was still the idea that I can do anything when I want, how I want, and where I want. When it comes down to it, GTA IV still gives the player the ability to shoot down hookers, run away from the police, and all those things that make the freedom of the series what it is. Is this a bad thing? No, not at all. In fact, this is a big element of the fun of the game. But unless developers are willing to take bigger risks, a game like this won't ever really approach the nice blend of linearity that much superior games like Mass Effect 2 and Fallout 3 have. This comes in the idea that the developer lessons freedom. One of the key things in my opinion that GTA IV does right is the fact that the player gains an automatic 5 star wanted rating if they go to another part of the island. This is a limiting factor that forces gamers to play through the story. It is an element of linearity. Unfortunately, I feel the follow-through of this was not executed nicely. I have not played the two expansions to GTA IV, but I have heard that they take much more emphasis on story. I feel this is where the series should go.

But to go back to what pankahku09, he is incorrect in my opinion also. If there is one thing that I tried to explain with this three-part post, it's that a success of a game has nothing to do with linearity itself. It is all the parts working together, not one at a time. GTA IV is a great game because although there is a lot of freedom, that freedom aspect is fun, and fits perfectly with gameplay and the story it sets itself around. A game like Crackdown is fun because it doesn't attempt to tell a story. It is just fun, and that's what makes the game valuable. Immersion is a great thing in games, but every game can't do that. Some games need to be that fun, pick up and play experience, or else there would be no variety in games. Final Fantasy and Mass Effect and Assassin's Creed are all great game series that immerse the player, but they don't have what a game like Crackdown has. They are fun in a completely different way. So it's wrong to say that there is something called "too much linearity". If the developer makes a good game with a lot of linearity, so be it. It's how that amount of linearity works with the rest of the game that is going to determine whether the game is worth it or not.

Thanks a lot, guys. As always, it means so much that you take the time to comment. I listen to each and every one of them. As always, enjoy and comment.

Linearity, Part Three

Games have transformed just as the world has. They have gone from complete linearity to expansive environments, and all the way back around. They have gone from simple to complicated. Back in the last post the question was asked "Where should games go with linearity?" How much linearity is needed or wanted to make a good game? Going from the start of games to the current day, linearity is finally at a stand still. Gamers are now at a point where linearity is going to become crucial in the future of video games. For almost two decades, linearity has been tossed and turned on it's side. It's been used for better and for worse. It's been the highlight of games, and the ruin of them. And after all this time, gamers still have no idea what the answers to these questions are. But some games offer the best answer possible.

Mass Effect could be the future of linearity in video games. No game series has every brought on itself a bigger task than the possible solution of the linearity problem. For years, linearity and story could not go together. Giving freedom and giving a story looked to be impossible. In fact, only a couple months before the release of the second game in the series, Robert Bowling of Infinity Ward stated that it was impossible to make a good story in a game without set events that the player must be forced to go through. And to a point, he was right. Mass Effect does not eliminate this by any means. Players are made to go through a set story with set events, and this makes for a great and immersive story. In this aspect, players are put in the shoes of a character. Mass Effect realizes the classic elements of good stories in any media require immersion and placement in a setting full of things. But instead of choosing all of the elements in this story, BioWare does something extraordinary. Players are given complete freedom on how they look. They are given complete freedom on moral choices, weapon loadout, character, emotion, and even dialogue. BioWare, in many ways, was the first company to implement human freedom in a game. The freedom we are used to in real life, put into a game.

Mass Effect takes these freedom aspects and puts them in a shell formed by story. Your choices don't determine the story, but effect actions in the story. BioWare realized something everyone is evident in real life. We can't fix what we can't change. Events that are meant to happen will happen. But how we react to these events, how are character responds, how we use what we have to REACT to a situation, are all things that affect the future in a profound way. In short, BioWare discovered a real aspect of freedom without even speaking the word linearity. And while this is a penny in the bank of the first game, it becomes a wealth in the next game. Choices made in the first game, alliances formed, and everything else truly impacted Mass Effect 2. Even though the story of Mass Effect 1 is a constant for the most part, Mass Effect 2 is not. It is built completely and utterly on choices made by the last game. And although it still follows a set story, and that makes the game at the core a masterpiece, it is the freedom of the player having a real effect in the simulated future that gives a feeling no other game can.

But others would disagree with this. Mass Effect is certainly a top example of game excellency, but many games cannot and will not reach this kind of quality. There has to be a solution to the rest of games. Does Mass Effect set a bar, or is it just and example of something done right out of many examples that could be done? Many games have no player freedom whatsoever, and are masterpieces too. Certainly games like Modern Warfare 2 singleplayer and BioShock have shown that freedom would ruin those games. Well, here's the answer to the big question.

There is no correct answer to how much linearity is good or bad. Linearity is just another element like gameplay or design. It is a choice that is made very early in the game making process, and is at it's core part of the blueprint of all games. Linearity works if everything else is working with it. Maybe this is the wrong question. Maybe the correct question gamers should be asking themselves is something like "Does everything else work with the linearity of this game?". It isn't the fact that BioShock is extremely linear that determines that linearity in itself should be done this way in every game. Extreme linearity works here because 2K created such a vivid environment and immersive gameplay that giving freedom would ruin all that the developer made. It is like the difference between Shakespeare and a "choose your own adventure" book. While both are books, one has literary merit, and the setting Shakespeare puts you in is much more entertaining than any type of other book that might have choice in it. A book like that kills itself slowly by taking the reader out to make an irrelevant and unnecessary decision, just for the sake of making a decision. In this example, a developer should make the choice for the gamer, as it just fits with the game better.

But many games have shown that choice can be made in a great way and not ruin a game. Many developers have made meritorious games that go farther away from linearity. Again, this all depends on how all the other elements work around the game. Gamers can explore what the Washington D.C. has to offer and choose missions because Fallout 3 works that way and calls for it. From the outset, Bethesda didn't make a character for me. I was the kid in the vault that escaped to look for my father, so my story could be shaped that way. I could choose what missions I did first, how I looked, what I used, who I talked to, and how my story would be told because it was my story. It wasn't Jack's story in BioShock. It wasn't McTavish's story in Modern Warfare 2. It was my story, and the element of linearity was not important or relevant because it naturally felt that I should be making these decisions.

And many games have failed at implementation of all these elements correctly. They've given freedom where it wasn't needed. Certainly a game like Prototype could have used a much better story and much more refined gameplay rather than a big, open environment. Certainly a game like Wanted could have used a lot bigger of a story and a much larger scope of choice. It all depends on the quality of how all the things work together. Games are just like anything else that is built from scratch. Everything must work together to be recieved well by the public. The question of linearity isn't a question at all, really. It's more of a statement. Linearity is something that will always be in games, and the level of linearity really isn't determined from the outset. A good game will determine how much linearity is good by everything else put in the game, and if the game doesn't make these decisions, then the game probably isn't worth looking at anyway.

Linearity, Part Two

Just as developers learned from the sandbox genre and from the FPS genre, the new millenium brought a convergence of ideas. Games were starting to become commonplace all together. With a few exceptions, most games followed a set formula. No one was willing to take a risk, as that just didn't make any money. The battle of linearity seemed to be at a permanent standstill. It appeared that no one was going to take a risk to make something new. Games were at a disadvantage. One thing was for certain: the existing genres suffered because of this. Sandbox games, because of a lack of innovation, become boring. Every game seemed to have the same basic principles: guns, explosions, and freedom. Even though the surrounding area was boring, the driving mechanics were terrible, the story was non-existent, and many other flaws, developers did what they had to to make money.

This isn't to say the other side of the ring was doing well, either. Games with stories lacked replayability. Making a singleplayer-only game in the early 2000's was suicide. Multiplayer seemed to be the only redeeming quality of non-sandbox games at this time. There just was no place for a game with JUST a good story. Gamers were somewhat addicted to the drug of freedom. Restricting this freedom caused gamers to rebel. This placed developers in a bad spot indeed. Without knowing what type of game gamers really wanted, the overall success of the video game industry was in danger. Someone had to do something. Someone had to take a risk. Ideas needed to be at the frontline if innovation was to survive in the future.

And some very risky developers did just that. Developers went back to the success of the previous years. Some developers realized that complete freedom was, for lack of a better word, a dumb idea. Giving players all the freedom they could have gave the players too much. The great games always made the player something, not give the player something. Great games put the player in the shoes of a person in a situation. If video games were to survive as a viable entertainment medium, they would have to go back to this. Unfortunately, developers also found a great place for freedom and choice. This allowed a personal touch for gamers, and it gave gamers the ability to develop their own game in a way, shaping it how they wanted. These developers realized that you can't lead a horse to the water.

They went back to "mimicking freedom" in a way. This old technique of fabricating choice worked well early on, and it would work now. Games such as Splinter Cell gave the player a set path, but many ways to go about it. Metroid Prime put players in a story and a universe, but gave them many ways and many paths to go about it. Developers literally synthesized linearity with non-linearity. They took complete freedom and combined it with narrative focus. Games began to be focused on a good overall game, and not necessarily just choice. Games began to mature a bit. Sandbox games were toys in comparison to the new games of this day. Focus on great story and immersion with player choice made games better. But this territory was still young. Developers didn't know where they were going. But that was part of the reason it was such a good idea to develop games this way. It was innovation. It was new ideas.

Fast forward to the current generation of consoles, and you'll find what all of this means. Ever since this sythesis of linearity at the beginning of the milennium, games are better than they ever have been. Gamers of all shapes and sizes can find what they want. Many games have shown that a strong narrative can be given in a game, and can immerse players in ways other games cannot. Others have introduced new ways to give complete freedom, and have truly made the player emulate the developer. Once again, games have split. But instead of two sides, game developement has spread much like a treebranch.

Developers discovered that games do something books and movies cannot. They have the ability to immerse a player in an environment like no other. There is no limit to what the player can do in a game in terms of being immersed and influenced. Developers have begun to discover this, and have gone several different directions with it. Some games create the perfect detailed setting, such as BioShock. Ask any gamer who has played BioShock, and they will tell you without a doubt that the thing that immerses them the most is the city they are in. Rapture stands out from any other environment because it isn't an environment. 2K has successfully made the environment a character. It has personality, emotion, and intelligence. It is one of the most important elements of the game. Other developers have made unforgettable stories, such as the recent Uncharted 2 from Naughty Dog. Each character is important, and some of the best parts of the game are when the player becomes worried for another character. Developers have even gotten rid of gameplay foundations in order to tell a story, such as the deeply impactful "No Russian" mission in Modern Warfare 2, or even a complete game in Heavy Rain.

Developers also discovered great ways of giving players choice. The sandbox genre has matured and transformed into something completely different. No longer is it a priority to give players ultimate freedom, but purposeful freedom. By giving reasons for things, freedom in games become useful. One of the biggest flaws of early sandbox games was their aimlessness. There was no real motivation to do anything. Now, by instilling motivation, freedom and choice is worth it. No better example is there of this than that of the morality system, something that has become popular as of late. By affecting gameplay with moral choice, not only does this freedom have motivation, but it has motivations that are seen in real life. Killing a character in a game now can have a consequence, just like real life. And just as narrative has immersed a player, morality and consequence has immersed the gamer too. A game such as Fallout 3 and Fable II hinge on the choices made. The story changes, the characters change, and the player changes with the choices made.

Here, gamers are at another standstill. Thankfully, this one is less drastic. Games are at a high point in terms of development. All games use linearity in different ways. There are to many examples of this, and each is different from the next. This leads to the question asked at the beginning of this topic: is linearity good or bad? Well, just as games have matured, so should this question: How much linearity is appropriate? It's been proven over time that linearity is not an objectively bad thing. Many games have used it successfully. Many games have also used it sparingly and been successful. Many successful games are combining techniques and finding new ways of linearity, the best examples being the likes of the Mass Effect series and Batman: Arkham Asylum. Where should games go with linearity? What's better?

Answer these questions on the comments section below, and stay tuned for the last part of this topic for my answer to the question.

Linearity

A big question that seems to be coming to developers' minds is that of linearity. This is the idea of taking the player on a very straight path rather than an open one, and whether this is a good thing or not. This is a tough issue. Linearity is a broad term. It could mean a guided story, with many scripted events. It could mean the implementation of stats for a character or not. It could even mean whether the player controlled character is given a name, a face, or even an existence in the story at all. Linearity is a thing all developers must think of when starting to make a game. The question of player choice versus developer creative license spurs a lot of different types of games, and a lot of crossfire over which is better: complete linearity or complete player choice.

Video games started, at their core, as linear. Early on, developers could not give the gamer the option of choice past a couple of weapons. Gamers were taken on a set direction, with not a lot of choices in terms of flow of gameplay and where they wanted to go. However, signs of a focus on choice started as early as one of the most legendary games ever: The Legend of Zelda. Zelda introduced many to the idea of an explorable region, with no set path. Players could take multiple paths to where they wanted to go, and although this is not "real" gameplay openness, it certainly mimicked it. Zelda also gave the options of an inventory with multiple items and weapons. Zelda, of course, was not the first of these games. Over in Japan, a popular RPG by the name of Final Fantasy was setting the foundation for inventory choice, and a turn based combat system that introduced choice in the form of strategy. Combat was difficult, and only through the player's strategy and smart choice did they get through each battle. Item management, spells, and party organization all added to the choice factor in games. But was this real choice? In most cases, the smart option in combat was just that: one option. Smart and efficient players used only one or two ways to get through a battle. It wasn't really choice. It mimicked choice to guide the player. Almost reverse psychology.

This idea of mimicked choice continued for a while. Players were given some choice as to what weapon or what strategy they would use, but the most efficient ways remained linear, and more importantly, no change to the actual story and flow of a game was made. It was still linear. The only sign of a changing flow came in the form of side quests. These optional quests allowed players to go out of the normal story for something extra. These usually resulted in an award, such as experience or a rare item. However, these were optional. The normal flow of a game, the one developers made for the player, remained unchanged. No game approached this idea of complete freedom until the industry started to explore a new genre: sandbox gameplay. Starting in the 90's and peaking in the next decade, sandbox games did just what they said: allowed the player to do anything they wanted in a large area full of things to do.

A great pioneer of this was, of course, Grand Theft Auto III. An entire city open to the player to do basically anything, of course limited to the tech of the current day. Players could ignore any type of campaign and do whatever they wanted. More importantly, the actual gameplay area was explorable to the fullest. Areas that were never explored by developers before were now being put into games. Side quests now took on some purpose, rather than just and add-on. Gamers were now introduced to what seemed to be the future of gaming. For a long while, games that were on a linear path were considered inferior to those that were sandbox in nature. Developers even seemed to become more creative when presented with a sandbox game. Games like Mercenaries explored ideas that no one did before. A linear game could not present the premise of a mercenarie hunting contracts in South Korea. It just was not in the picture at the time.

Linear games felt the pain in this time. Many games fell short of being successful just for the fact that they lacked choice. Was this unfortunate? At the time, yes. But just as sandbox games grew from the "inefficiencies" of linear games, linear games would regroup and grow at this time. No better place is this seen than in the FPS genre. The most successful linear games of this time were first person shooters. Games such as Halo: Combat Evolved, Killzone, Call of Duty, and Medal of Honor succeeded in doing what other linear developed games could not. This was for two reasons. These FPS's has strong stories, for the most part. Instead of focusing on making the player choose everything, FPS's placed the player in the shoes of an individual in a story. Just as novels, TV, and movies had been doing for a while, FPS's created a story all on their own. This approach was drastically different from sandbox games, and it appealed to something completely different. Instead of placing gamers in a room full of choice, the placed gamers in a new story with (at the time) engaging characters and the idea of emotional investment in games.

FPS's also contained a strategy that was aimed directly at the sandbox and choice genre. Every successful FPS of the time contained multiplayer. This idea of multiplayer allowed gamers to have choice with linearity. Multiplayer was a place to have fun with friends, be immersed in the environment the developers made, and still choose. Gamers chose what weapons they wanted, what skills they wanted, what games they wanted to play, where they wanted to play. In many ways, this freedom was much more rewarding than any type of freedom sandbox games could provide. Multiplayer continued to thrive, and soon became a staple of video games. The inclusion of multiplayer and the freedom provided with it even lead the game console developers to make multiplayer clients, the best example of this being Xbox LIVE.

And here is where, at around 2002, game developers found themselves at a standstill. Linearity was split right at the middle. At one end were the games that gave the player an open environment and the option to do everything and anything they wanted, mimicking the freedom of real life. At the other end was the linear games that placed the gamer in imaginative and emotional environments and characters, taking the gamer away from real life.

Stay tuned next week for part 2!

GDC, Day 3

Well, not much today. Sorry. Looks likes this GDC is turning out to be nothing special, but here's hoping the next two days of the event fix this. So, let's get to the daily news. (NOTE: some news is not related to GDC directly, but is a notable event today)

February NPD's
This month's sales numbers for video games and consoles was an interesting one. For the first time in a while, an Xbox 360 game dominated the sales for February, and this game was no other than BioShock 2. Selling 563 thousand copies, the second BioShock has a very good opening month. Interestingly enough, the PS3 version was not seen on the NPD. Modern Warfare continued to inhabit the list, and both versions of Dante's Inferno made it onto the list at #8 and #9. Heavy Rain rounded out the top ten as the only PS3 exclusive on the list. Consoles sales were also a shocker, as the Xbox 360 surprisingly sold more in February than the Wii did, something almost never seen in console sales.
-BioShock 2 sold a lot of copies. A LOT. Including my copy. A well deserved spot indeed, and it just goes to show that gamers love the game and not the idea of shooting people's faces up (Shut up, Robert Bowling). Dante's Inferno was a surprise, as the reviews were less than great, and many figured God of War III in March would cause gamers to save money for that game rather than it's blatant copy. Heavy Rain is also great too. I love this. Gamers actually bought great games in February, and not just what's popular. And the Xbox selling more than the Wii? This goes to show how the console war is shaping up to be a fight to the very finish. PS3 dominates one month, Wii the next, and now the 360. It's open season, my friends.

Epic Games Conference shows off lots of tech and APB, but no Gears of War.
In a very surprising development, Epic Games did not show a new iteration of the Gears of War series at their press conference today at GDC. Many predictions stated that they would reveal Gears of War 3. This wasn't a very off prediction, either; Gears of War was revealed at GDC 06, and Gears of War 2 at GDC 08. The timeframe was correct too, as the two previous games were two years apart. Epic did show off many of the improvements they are making to the Unreal Engine, and have said that they are working on putting the engine on the iPhone and the iPad. The Realtime Worlds MMO APB was shown off also. The grand theft auto style MMO of cops versus robbers was shown a lot more in detail. All in all, a full but very dissapointing conference.
-Bummer. Gears of War III seemed to be the best bet for Epic Games for this year's GDC. Epic Games is known for their very routine nature, and this seemed to be the exact time for them to show it off. I mean, they evened showed off the new Unreal Engine. This is very dissapointing, especially with the big cliffhanger at the end of Gears of War 2. APB looks a bit interesting, but I am afraid that Star Wars: The Old Republic is way more interesting in terms of new MMOs than APB is. It was also kind of ruined once again by the absense of Gears of War 3. Here's hoping there will be an announcement at E3. It could also be that they don't want to compete with Halo: Reach on the 360, but this, in my opinion, is stretching it.

Green Day: Rock Band releasing on June 8.
The new Rock Band game will be coming out in the beginning of summer. The game was announced to be sold in two additions. A standard $60 version and a special $80 version, with the ability to export songs to other Rock Band games and to buy Green Day DLC on Rock Band. What is interesting is that this game is without plastic peripheral, a move that shocked many. The game will also include two person harmonization, a feature first including in last year's title, The Beatles: Rock Band. All songs on the game will be fully exportable to other Rock Band games also.
-There is a lot of great things about this and a lot of iffy things about this. Green Day will surely bring a little more of the current music to Rock Band. The game will follow closely with The Beatles: Rock Band by having around 50 songs and harmonization. This is also very awesome, and I hope to see this feature in Rock Band 3 with all songs. Exportability is also something very nice, and will make many more buy the game. The bad thing about this is that it pushes it more towards a track pack then a game in people's minds, making the $60 price point debatable. The lack of plastic peripheral is a great thing, and it finally confirms that EA is seeing the value in DLC and songs, not stupid plastic guitars.

Battlefield: Bad Company 2 DLC to be released same day as Modern Warfare 2 DLC.
EA today announced their unofficial cure for "Mapathy" with the second map pack for Battlefield: Bad Company 2. The DLC will launch simultaneously on March 30 with Modern Warfare 2 DLC, a move that was not hidden to be a direct strike to Activision's game. EA is pushing the idea that they are the better game, and the competition continues to ensue. There has been no comment by IW or Activision.
-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I love EA. They just take out the middleman. From the start of development for Battlefield: BC 2, DICE and EA stated they want to take MW2 down, and they did not lie. This was completely and utterly intentional, and it is supposed to be a competition. My bet is they probably have had this map pack ready for a while, but were waiting for a release date for MW2 DLC to put their's on the same day. This is very clever and a very ballsy move, but it could hurt them. If MW2 DLC does do well, which it probably will, it might take some players away from Battlefield. On the other hand, the same could be said for MW2. This fight is nowhere near over. Oh, and I pick Battlefield. At least it takes brains to play that game.

BioWare teases a Dragon Age sequel with the release of Dragon Age: Awakening.
The full expansion pack for Dragon Age released today, with a surprising advertisement in the box. The small piece of paper showed the classic red blood dragon, but with the date of 02.01.11. Nothing else was on the advertisement, and considering the fact that BioWare has stated a sequel will be coming sometime between January and March, a true Dragon Age sequel makes sense. The February release date also falls on a Tuesday, the normal release day for full retail games. No comment or news from BioWare, but there is sure to be something soon.
-BioWare seems to be slowly teasing the Dragon Age sequel. All of the pieces fit, and the advertisement just bleeds sequel announcement. This is interesting too, as BioWare has never released a sequel this soon to the original, especially if the original just has a 40 hour expansion pack released this year. I wouldn't be completely surprised if this is another expansion of sorts, but I think it is more likely a sequel is in order. I would love for a sequel to have much better graphics and voice acting however. Dragon Age: Origins, to me, felt too much like the old RPGs of BioWare and less like the new ones, namely the godsend of Mass Effect. I would love Dragon Age to gain a little more polish. Other than that, a sequel would be a great thing, and it would certainly sell well.

And the rest of the news.
-John Cleese of Monty Python fame to voice the player's butler in Fable III.
-Monkey Island 2: Special Edition to be released on Xbox Live and PSN with fully upgraded graphics.
-New Mass Effect 2 DLC is slated for release on April 6th, with a new character and new story missions.
-Epic Games announces a partnership with Valve to deliver Unreal Engine games on Steam.
-Sony is apparently "considering" God of War III DLC.

That's all for today. As always, stay tuned. Here's hoping the news gets better. Remember to comment on which small news you want me to feature in a small news post. Enjoy the rest of your night/day/afternoon/life.

GDC, Day 2

Second day and boy was it a good one. Let's get the smaller news out of the way, and then talk about SONY. Because they basically ruled the news today.

OnLive to launch in the US on June 17.
The new way of gaming is coming this summer with the OnLive system. OnLive was announced at last year's GDC. It was revolutionary as it is the first gaming service to offer full console like games at full graphical capacity without the need of a graphics card through cloud computing. OnLive will work through any PC, and people can also buy a seperate box and controller to play OnLive on a television. The service will cost $14.95 a month, plus other fees for rental and purchase of new games, the details of which were not revealed today.
-OnLive impressed me last year, and it is definitely something to keep your eyes on. The most interesting thing is the fact that most computers in the last 10 years can use this service. Cloud computing is giving people who can't afford high quality graphics to enjoy new games. The lack of no details on game pricing worries me, though. As it is the first of its kind, I wouldn't be surprised if it is a little pricey. But I think OnLive is definitely something to check out.

Modern Warfare 2 DLC called "Stimulus Package", release on March 30.
360 owners will be receiving the first of many DLC maps for Modern Warfare 2 in March. Infinity Ward announced that MW2: Stimulus Package will be releasing in March to cure what they call the terrible epidemic of "Mapathy". Through some small viral marketing, IW states the new maps will cure the tiresome tasks of having to play the same maps for too long.
-I'm sure this DLC will sell a shitload. IW could call it "Shit Package" and it would sell tons. The Mapathy thing is amusing, however. Does IW have a cure for "This-game-has-too-many-glitche"-itis? How about "Why-is-everyone-in-this-game-an-idiot"-enza?

Tiger Woods 11 to have a first-person mode.
After the surprising announcements of yesterday, EA Sports surprises with yet another announcement. Tiger Woods will be the first golf game to have first-person golfing. This will primarily be used by the motion software for the Wii and PS3, but can be used with a traditional controller. The mode is all that you would expect from a first-person golfing perspective, but it is interesting.
-This is actually kinda cool. EA Sports actually innovating is a gigantic surprise to me. It's nice to see that a sports game like this isn't getting left out in terms of new and engaging ways to play. I hate sports games, but this mode might actually get me to try Tiger Woods 11 out. Not purchase. Hells no. But I'll try it. EA Sports surprises deserve that much from me.

John Schappert of EA comments on the Infinity Ward/Activision scandal.
Today at GDC, John Schappert made some comments about the IW scandal, stating that the entire situation is dissapointing. Pointing out the firing of West and Zampella, Schappert says that the idea that "they're going to [be] spending their future dealing with litigation and lawyers rather than crafting the next great experience [is not] a win for them, I don't think that's a win for our industry. I think that's disappointment." Schappert continued to say that the Modern Warfare franchise is great, and it is sad to see the franchise not getting the creative ability that sent it into fame in the first place. He finished with saying that he feels "no one has won".
-First off, John Schappert is a very smart guy. His work at Xbox was second to none, and he is part of the reason the 360 is so successful. That being said, he is completely correct with these statements, and although he could have used the issue to push his company on a pedestal and smash their biggest rival, he didn't. He, just like any gamer, is sad to see some of the best developers go. Schappert's comment on how "no one has won" is spot on. West and Zampalla are out of a job. Activision has just stuck their head into something stupid, again. Gamers are left with a broken franchise and two less from the great amount of talented developers. Activision sucks, you know that?

Now, on to Sony. Sony held a big press conference today, and most speculation was that this conference was to reveal their new motion system. Well, that speculation was correct. Sony today showed off their motion system in full, finally giving it a name: "Move". The Playstation Move is the motion controller we all saw at E3 this year, and a particular emphasis was made that Move will be sold by itself, with a Playstation Eye with which it does not work without, and with a PS3 itself. Move at the conference seemed to be a big focus for Sony's strategy right out of the gate. Starting off with the peripheral itself, the controller looks like a very sleak WiiMote type of device. The device even has a nunchuck like attachment, called the "sub-controller", that has an analog stick and many other buttons. Of note, the controller has many more buttons that a WiiMote, and it appears that all buttons from a Dualshock, minus the second analog stick, have been implemented into the Move.
Sony also focused a lot on software for the device, making sure to do something Nintendo had not. Sony showed off tons of software for the device. This included a Wii Sports type of game, with table tennis and other sports. This showed off the basic functions of the device, and Sony made sure to point out that this controller has 1:1 sensitivity. Sony continued to go more and more hardcore with the device, showing that the device is not a device for the casual, but for all Sony players. A Street-Fighter like game was shown off, showing the devices accuracy with pinpointing punches. An RPG game was shown with a sword and shield mechanic. Sony even showed how existing games can be implemented with Move, as they showed off LittleBigPlanet with the Move. The game was in co-op, with one player using a traditional controller and the other using the Move to move pieces.
But not other software reveal was bigger than that of SOCOM 4. Sony revealed that SOCOM will be fully playable with Move. With the attached sub-controller, gamers can use the Move to issue commands, shoot, and do everything else in SOCOM 4. This was so surprising, and it shows Sony's commitment to making Move a hardcore device as well as a casual device. At the end of the conference, as Sony is always dedicated to the people, A demo PS3 with Move was set right in front of the conference for all attendies to try.
-I was sceptical about Sony's controller at first, but this conference proved to me that this might be a gigantic competitor to not only the Wii but to Natal. Although it is pretty blatant that Sony has copied Nintendo in many ways, it appears they have refined and fixed what Nintendo could not do. The controller itself and the sub-controller seem to be very hi-tech versions of a WiiMote, and are much more fluid in design and implementation. The fact that the face buttons are the same as a Dualshock make the controller better, too. By far the most interesting fact about the controller is the 1:1 functionality. Nintendo could not do this when they started, and it was a good 2 years before they created WiiMotion Plus to add a mimicked version of 1:1. Move seems to have true 1:1, which means that every movement done will translate EXACTLY on screen. The software definitely was the best for me, however. The fact that Sony is trying to push this as a hardcore thing as much as a casual thing is great. The fighting game and the RPG look like great ideas, and it actually shows that a gamer doesn't have to sacrifice great classic gaming because it is with motion control. SOCOM 4 is impressive. The fact that they are pushing a long awaited and cherished franchise sequel with their new motion control is super risky, but if it pays off, it could be the thing that pushes Sony over Microsoft or even Nintendo to console supremacy. Of course, I can't say much until I see SOCOM 4 with Move in action, but the motion controller war has started off hot.

Other news of the day:
-LEGO Universe begins it's closed beta today.
-EA Sports announces EA Sports Active 2.0 for the Wii, DS, and the iPhone.
-Gran Turismo 5 is confirmed for a release this year. (Interestingly enough, when crowd members heard this at the Sony Conf today, they laughed)
-Happy Wars is announced to be released on XBL by developer Toylogic, who assisted on Super Smash Bros. Brawl.
-Blue Dragon: Awakening Shadow is announced.
-Final Fantasy XIV to be set in setting of "sci-fi meets fantasy".

That's it for today, fellow gamers. Man, did GDC heat up today. Stay tuned for the next couple days. Oh, and I forgot to mention this. The small topics that I don't dedicate a response to will be coming back. I want you readers to pick what little stories you want me to elaborate more on, and I'll dedicate a whole blog on these small posts. So look at the ones in this post, check back on yesterday's, and continue to check on the next couple GDC blogs.

Bye.

GDC, Day 1

It's the first official day of the Game Developers Conference. And although this day is known for being a bit slow, there were some big announcements and surprises today. As a reminder, these posts consist of the news for that day, a description of that news, and my personal response. So without further crap, let's get to it.

Tiger Woods 11 announced, with PS3 motion controller functionality and a new cover athlete.
The very successful golf game is getting another sequel. Many were wondering where this series would go due to the Tiger Woods controversy of recent news. It appears that EA Sports is keeping the name but focussing much more on the sport itself than the athlete. The game will focus on the Ryder Cup, and will apparently involve more athletes. The game will also be one of the first games to be PS3 motion controller able. It is interesting to note that Tiger Woods 11 comes out in the summer while the PS3 "Wand" is slated for a fall release. Also, for the first time, Tiger will be sharing the cover with another athlete, Rory McIroy, another sign of the focus on the Ryder Cup.
-Just because EA Sports sticks by their man Tiger doesn't mean they can't be affected by the media and the public. Although they are keeping the name, the fact that the game has another cover athlete, is focused on the Ryder cup, and will focus more on other athletes all show me EA Sports want to seperate themselves a bit from Tiger Woods. All of these things indicate to me that they are slowly trying to put themselves in a good situation. If Tiger does come back to golf and the controversy blows over, they still have the name. If he doesn't, they have started to set up enough to let go of the name. This is just smart. PS3 Motion controller is neat too, but as we all saw with the WiiMotion Plus functionality in Tiger Woods 10, this does not sell games.

Battlestar Gallactica Online is announced.
NBC, SyFy channel, and Bigpoint games have announced a new browser-based MMO based on Battlestar Gallactica. The game will draw from the successful show, and the game will be released initially on the SyFy channel website. After 30 days, a new website will be created. The game promises to be a "tactical adventure" with missions, combat, and exploration. It is currently slated for this fall.
-Meh. I'm not a big Battlestar fan myself, but I guess this is cool news. The interesting thing is that it is completely browser-based. This could be the chance for a developer to actually make a good browser-based MMO, because Free Realms and Runescape suck. I wouldn't hold my breath, though. The fact that it is slated the year it was announced and it is being published by a TV channel leads me to believe the standard of quality might be strained or non-existent. Time will tell.

Rock Band 3 is announced.
The extremely successful series of music games from Harmonix and EA is coming back this year with the third iteration in the Rock Band series. Not many details were given on the actual game besides the announcement and general release, but Harmonix has promised more details are to come this week. Rock Band 3 will continue to "innovate the music genre" in some way. No word on backwards compatibility with DLC, peripherals, or music in the game.
-I like this news. Although I really hate the way music games are going, Rock Band is definitely the exception to the rule. RB has stuck with an aggressive DLC strategy, and this has brought them tons of money and made the overall game a much more enjoyable and replayable experience. In order for me to really fall in line, Rock Band 3 needs to have a couple things. First, I need to be able to play all my songs from RB1 and RB2, DLC and disc. Second, I either need to see a valid reason to buy another peripheral or I need my peripherals to work completely. Third, I need to see innovation. Harmonix should deliver on most of these, in my opinion. My best guess? Rock Band 3 will have some type of tool to teach you how to play music. And I mean notes, tablature, and actual instrument training. This would be so cool. Instant buy for me if this is true.

World Series MVP Curt Schilling's new gaming studio, 38 Studios, announces a new "fantasy RPG" that will be developed with Todd McFarlane and R.A. Salvatore.
Codenamed "Project Mercury", this game will be the first for 38 studios. 38 Studios has also announced they will be joining EA Partners, the highly successful internal publishing conglomerate that consists of great studios such as Double Fine and BioWare. The biggest news to come from this is the two names attached to it. Todd McFarlane will be adding his numerous years of artistic mastery to the game, and the legendary fantasy author R.A. Salvatore will be writing and producing for the game. The game will also be headed by Ken Rolsten, the previous head of the last two Elder Scrolls games. More news should come later this week about the game.
-EPIC. This has so much potential. 38 Studios is taking everyone they can to make the best game they can. And my God, do they have a team. Todd McFarlane is legendary, and the thought of his artistic abilities going into a game is awesome. Ken Rolsten heading this game also guarantees the experience factor, as he knows his RPGs. But by far, the biggest thing about this announcement is R.A. Salvatore. His books are what some games use as inspiration. It's comparable to The Beatles returning to music or something. This is gigantic as R.A. Salvatore is a proven fantasy god.

Final Fantasy XIII PS3 owners will get exclusive "gifts" for Final Fantasy XIV.
Although this was not elaborated on much, PS3 owners who purchase FFXIII will get some perks for FFXIV. There is nothing known as to what this could be, but it sure is great news for PS3 owners. Speculation is that it could be either a beta key to FFXIV, a demo of some type, or exclusive in game items or rewards.
-Damn you PS3 owners. I'm just kidding. This is no surprise to me, as Square Enix loves to do this stuff with their games (Kindgom Hearts, anyone?). It certainly is a kick in the pants for 360 owners, though. This probably wasn't intentional, though, as FFXIV is being developed only for the PS3. I'm sure if it was being developed for 360, it would be in the 360 version too.

Portal 2 details surface.
Lots of new details have emerged about Portal 2, even before Gabe Newell's speech on the 11th. The biggest news is that the game will take place hundreds of years after Portal, with a damaged and forest infested Aperture Science. Interestingly enough, the protagonist of the first game will return as the protagonist in this game somehow. The game will also contain a completely seperate co-op campaign and new physics puzzles, including the ability to "paint" some surfaces different colors to add new physics effects, such as super speed.
-AWESOME. I have nothing else to say. If you aren't exciting about this game, something is drastically wrong with you.

A new music game is announced with some very interesting features.
Seven45 Studios has announced "Power Gig: The Rise of the Six String". This game will have a fully functional electric guitar as the controller. The controller will have six strings and a full fretboard. The game aims to not only be fun but to truly teach people how to play the guitar. Apparently, many artists have already signed up to be included in the game. The controller can be used in other music games, and other controllers can also be used to play this game's lowest difficulty. As stated, the controller can be plugged into an amp and used like a real electric guitar. Nothing further than this besides a tentative release date of this fall.
-This is pretty cool, and it was inevitable that a game would go to this step. Many people, and many bands, have stated that they would love games to really teach how to play guitar, and this game seems to be directly aimed at that. The guitar controller is quite awesome, and in my opinion, should not be classified as a peripheral, especially if it can be used as a real guitar. I am still sceptical, however. Pulling something like this off, especially from a new developer, can be super risky. But hey, Rocksteady did it with Batman, so why not?

Batman: Arkham Asylum 2 rumored to include Robin.
Many rumors have surfaced out of GDC that Robin will be included in the next Batman game. This report comes from a cast listing of the game, naming an actor for the role of Robin. What this means, or even the validity of it, is unknown. Rocksteady has commented that they have no idea where this comes from and do not confirm it is true. GDC should reveal some more about this.
-Let's remember a couple things, guys. First, let's trust Rocksteady. They made the first good superhero game, and they should be trusted with whatever the hell they want to do. They've earned that much from us. Secondly, Robin doesn't have to suck. There are many examples in the comics and even in the animated series that Robin can be done correctly and respectfully. Third, this really doesn't say anything. This could range from a playable Robin in a co-op game or even just the voice of Robin like Oracle in the first game. Lastly, this is all rumor, and nothing is confirmed, so take it with a gigantic grain of salt. One last thing however. I'm not hearing a no on this one, Rocksteady. What does that mean?

That's it for the big stuff of the day. Here's some smaller stuff that just take a line or two. That or I just don't have anything to say about it.
-Bodycount is announced by Codemasters as the spiritual successor to the popular last-gen shooter, Black.
-Microsoft has announced that all Fallout 3 DLC will be discounted from 800 to 400 MS points each.
-Lady Gaga will be heading to Rock Band DLC with a four pack.
-Windows Phone 7 games will include achievements, gamertag integration, and gamerscore.
-PS3 motion control rumored to include a nunchuck attachment, much like the WiiMote.
-The new CryEngine is set to be shown at GDC this week, inevitable with Crysis 2.

That's all for today, folks. Hope I didn't wear you out. Stay tuned for continued coverage of the event as the biggest announcements are (hopefully) still to come!

GDC Preview

Ah, the Game Developers Conference. This conference marks the beginning of a crapload of announcements to come. It also marks the beginning of the guesses and the speculation. Who is going to announce a new game? What will that new game be? Most importantly, who is going to start the year off strong? GDC more than any other conference is a great measurement of each company's strategy for the year. Some will want to be strong in from the get go, while others might spread their announcements throughout the year. What do I think? Here is some of my best predictions for GDC this year.

Valve: It is no coincidence that Valve started teasing the sequel to Portal a week before GDC. By gaining a lot of hype and announcing the actual game in the most read gaming magazine in America (Game Informer), Valve has already garnered a lot of eyes towards what they are up to. Portal 2 is going to surprise and stun everyone, and Valve knows the shock-and-awe factor they have with this game. I would not be surprised one bit if Valve shows off Portal 2 a bit or even just shows a trailer or something along those lines. Gabe Newell (head of Valve) will also be receiving an award at GDC, and he has been known to give details at events like these. I also wouldn't be surprised if we heard something else about what Valve is working on. Although this prediction is stretching it, there might me some word of Half-Life 2: Episode 3. It is about time they unveiled something about it, and if there isn't work on it at GDC, there is almost certainly going to be some at E3.

Activision: Activision is in trouble going into 2010. They have failed to make an extremely successful new IP, and Bobby Kottick has decided that all Activision needs in Call of Duty, Guitar Hero, and World of Warcraft to succeed. Looks like they are already having problems with this strategy. The Infinity Ward scandal of this past week is not a good sign for the Call of Duty franchise. Activision seems to be undermining their developers (no surprise there. They do it all the time.), refusing to compensate them justly and actually treating them as valued individuals. Kottick's warped vision of money over creativity is kicking him in the ass, and the Infinity Ward issue isn't going to go away. This is also an "off-year" for the franchise, as it is Treyarch's turn to make a game. It is known that Infinity Ward does not like Treyarch making CoD games, so this could be a problem too. I expect Activision to downplay all of this at GDC, but as far as announcements go, I don't see anything relevent until E3. Treyarch may tease some of their new game, but CoD game reveals are almost always exclusive to the E3 Microsoft Conference.

EA: Polarly opposite, EA has had a great past year, and actually goes into 2010 very strong. EA is pointing directly at taking down Activision, and this was blatant since last year. Many of the games they have published have directly competed with Activision games, and have either weakened the Activision game or beat it all together. Skate killed Tony Hawk. Rock Band is killing Guitar Hero slowly. EA's new IP's have made much more money than Activision's. And for 2010, we already have Battlefield: Bad Company 2 most certainly weakening Modern Warfare 2. Oh, and let's not forget that EA is publishing the most successful RPG's on the market right now, Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins, both of which seem to have beaten FFXIII for RPG supremacy so far. Both these games will be getting announcements, and a lot of them. EA should grapple on to their new Medal of Honor, and I expect some announcements from the MoH team. They will also talk some strong other games, such as Dead Space 2, Crysis 2, Command and Conquer 4, and Skate 3. I wouldn't be surprised either if we saw some moderately successful IP's getting sequels. Mirror's Edge 2, anyone?

Microsoft: Oh boy. This year is make or break for MS. They are in a risky position right now, mostly thanks to Sony. They could lose their console supremacy with the hardcore if they are not careful this year. This means lots of announcements, powerful announcements, and meaningful announcements. Natal will definitely be at GDC in some way. MS will want to start the year strong by showing their new tech, and definitely showing off some of it's hardware. Although most of this will be done at E3, GDC should serve as a jumping platform for a crap-ton of announcements. MS will be showing off Halo: Reach at GDC, maybe with a new VidDoc. GDC will be a time for teasing for Microsoft. They want to go in the strongest possible to E3, and GDC will be their time to show that they are ready for a good year.

Sony: Oh boy. This year is make or break for Sony. Sony came back into prominence last year, and this year could be the springboard they need to show they are supreme once again. Sony may have fixed their hardware and software need last year, but 2010 needs to be the year they show gamers they can continue to deliver with software. Starting off strong with God of War III unfortunately means that Sony probably won't do much in terms of earth-shaking announcements. The major thing they should be showing off will be SOCOM 4. This highly anticipated sequel is making people foam at the mouth. Like MS, Sony will use GDC to tease gamers. And also just like MS, expect Sony to shake the world at E3.

Nintendo: GDC might actually not suck for the guys at Nintendo. The recently announced release dates of Metroid: Other M and Super Mario Galaxy 2 have people wondering why these games are coming out so early. Given Nintendo's track record, you would think that they would try to spread what is most likely to be their most successful titles across the year. This could mean one of two things. Nintendo has no idea what they are doing and just want money immediately, or they are planning to make some announcements this year. GDC might serve them well if the second option is true. GDC will focus on Red Steel 2 and the two previously mentioned games. The DSi will also be shown, and will most definitely focus on abilities like hi-res photo storage, video, and e-reading. All things that the iPad will have to. It's no coincidence that the DSi comes out a week before the iPad, folks.

See you next week as the GDC starts off. be sure to check every evening of the event for my daily response blog, as well as a couple other surprises in the week. Comment and enjoy!

Long Time No See, Huh?

Hello there. Been a while. Without going into explanation, the motivation to write a blog has been a little low over the last month. But that motivation is back for now, and I intend to enjoy it while it lasts. Unfortunately, I don't have much for you today. Ironic, isn't it?

For the first item of business, I want to bring to your attention that the Game Developers Conference is taking place next week from the 9th to the 13th. This is one of the biggest gaming conferences of the year, and it is the year opener for announcements and surprises. Just like GAMEScon and TGS, I intend to fully cover the event. This time however, I am giving you some of the choice. Let me know in the comments what you'd like me to cover. Whether that's general news of the day, big announcements, press event rundowns, or even random stuff, it's something I want to bring to you. I will of course rundown every day of the event, so if you did like my previous coverage, don't worry. It'll still be there.

Secondly, I'd like to branch out a bit into other mediums. A blog is a great thing, but I have been considering doing a video blog, a recording, a podcast, and many other things. And as always, I want your feedback. Would you enjoy a vlog or a podcast? Let me make it clear: this blog will still be the main vessel for my insight. But I think it might be interesting to experiment, if you will.

Thirdly, I have something big to ask of you. This blog needs some exposure. Although the small (really small) reading group I have is great, I'd really like to make it bigger and get a much broader audience. So here's what I'd like for you to do. If you play and online game, tell them about my blog. If you have friends that like video games, mention my blog. Anything you can do to help me expose this blog a bit more would be so helpful.

That's all for now. Just as a heads up, a preview blog of GDC should be up this weekend. Enjoy the rest of the week!