NHL games and the topic of simulation gaming

I own NHL 09 on ps3 and 360. I own NHL 10 on the ps3 and 360. I do not own NHL 11, and probably won't for a while.

I do own Gran Turismo 2-5.

I think I've owned one basketball game in my life, and the last football game I owned was NFL Quarterback Club 98.

What's all this got to do with anything? Well, I was playing NHL 10 and comparing it to 09. For those in the know, 09 is way better than 10. And from what I've read way better than 11 as well.

The problem with the games is realism. I can have the same teams, with the same settings, on the same system....k? On NHL 10 the comp scores on me 4 or 5 times in a row, on 09? They don't even have a chance. So what's the difference? Realism. They make it harder to do things with 10, and even harder with 11 for the sake of realism. Looser puck controls, harder defense, more tricky checking.

Does this make a game better? Eh. When you're playing a hockey video game, or any sports game for that matter, you should be well aware that you actually aren't playing the sport. Take the best NBA2k gamer on the planet and put him against any basketball player, chances are you'll see video games are completely different from the actual sport. So why make a game more realistic if you know you're going to lose customers? (The NHL games have consistently gotten lower scores since 09).

Especially in such a niche market as a hockey video game. It's not that big of a seller, so why ruin what your customers want? Hardcore hockey fans want to play hockey games, not spend half their time setting up plays and team management.

Sorry, there's a reason NFL Head Coach and NFL Tour existed. The demand for a stronger sense of customization and management. There's also a reason those games hardly exist anymore, gamers don't want that. A realistic sports game is along the same lines as an RTS on a console. No one wants to sit down and team manage for 3 hours, and get 10 minutes of stick time, or floor time, or turf time.
At least make an arcade mode and a simulation mode.

You mean.... like the Gran Turismo series? Bingo.

They do it right. They know there are two types of people out there who play GT games. The hardcore car enthusiast who will spend more time in the customization shop, turning their car and working towards better parts. Then there are the people who just want to race a realistic racer and collect cars and money.

(I suppose there are 3 types of people, the third being people who want to just race, those kids have Burnout and Flatout to depend on).

If you just want to race a car, and you don't care about customization, you'll play GT's arcade mode. It gives you a select amount of cars and tracks, but it's still a solid racer. If you want more swag, you go into swagger mode- Simulation/ GT Mode.

There's a fairly obvious difference between the arcade mode and the simulation mode. The drivers, in arcade mode it feels like a computer, in simulation mode it feels like a person driving next to you.

Logitech makes a $300 steering wheel for Gran Turismo. I've seen pictures and video of multiple peoples "in house car" setups for GT5. 3 screens, a steering wheel, pedals and a shift knob, and a car seat. More than a few of these exist.

That's because the people who play GT are simulation gamers. They want what feels real. GT delivers a realistic feeling and has the globes to give you want you want, no matter your realism demands. Force feedback? Yep. Rumble and wheel pull? Yep. Pedals with varying resistance? Yessir. The game has features for all of that. It makes me feel kinda stupid for playing with a controller. Like I'm missing the bigger picture. Like Steel Battalion being played with only a keyboard.

Does NHL have that level of sophistication and swag? No. So why fatigue my guy realistically as he's sitting off the side of the bench if he's been checked too many times? Why add aggression levels to the players (THAT HASN'T WORKED SINCE NHL 99.) Sorry. It was the last great hockey game I played, you know, a decade ago. They had a feature where if your guy got into more fights, chances are he'd check more. Adaptive AI, it was sketchy and glitchy, but they tried it. The trick was, it was optional. You could turn it off.

I just want to play a sports game. Not manage a league. If that means bringing back NHL Hitz, I'd be all for it. The way I see it you're creating realism, but destroying gaming enjoyment. And with your sales numbers EA Sports, is that something you want to risk?

Wha? Too Soon?

So, Elder Scrolls 5 and Mass Effect 3 were announced.

Here's my problem. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood was good (see below), and they took what we loved from AC2 and improved it.

So, I liked Mass Effect 2. Liked. I never said loved. It was a good story, good gameplay. The DLC's made it seem very "beaten-horse-esque", but it was a good experience. Had it only been a year since I last experienced Mass Effects ways, would I have said I liked it as much? Probably not.

That's to say that sometimes too much of a good thing is too much, and too much of an ok thing is horrible.

Now, Elder Scrolls 5? Of course it will be wonderful. It's been long enough that it deems another go around. Especially when the heavies are sayin they won't come out with a next-gen system for another 5 or 6 years.

It's time.

Below are a list of games that don't need a sequel just yet.

Army of Two
Bayonetta
Red Dead
Just Cause
Resident Evil
Lost Planet

Ok, so what's this? It's a list of games that I'm pretty sure at least one will be turned into a new game in the coming years. They're all games that existed in one form or another before the current title, but the most recent current title isn't making huge enough waves to warrant a sequel.

So what does this all mean?
Well, Mass Effect 3 will go over like Unleashed 2 or Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. It'll be good, but it won't be earth shattering.

Should a gaming company make a new game every year? No. Should they wait a certain amount of time between titles before they release another one? Not necessarily.

You either rush and end up with Unleashed 2 and Fable 3, or you delay and you get Gothic 4 and Duke Nukem: Forever.

No, now that I think of it.

Fable 3
Gothic 4
Duke Nukem Forever
Medal of Honor
Dead Rising 2
Crackdown 2


Whats this? These are all games that may or may not have had enough time between titles, but still flopped. Yeah, flopped. DN:F will flop.

Should games be an epic release? Anticipated for years and planned for for months and months? No. That's annoying. Should they be released annually? Sure, if they're good.

But I have a stack of Madden 09 next to a stack of Madden 10 that would disagree. And if you don't like the sports analogy, I have the same size stack of Modern Warfare 1 and 2.

Go back, and play Mass Effect 2 again, enjoy it? Probably not. It's a one-time event, after you play each of the classes. Think in under a year you'll be ready to play through it again? Probably not.

But they don't care. It'll sell like crazy, I'll buy a copy.

Games like Batman, Bioshock and Dead Space, from companies who are openly admitting the things they didn't like about the original games? Those are sequels I'm excited for.

Improve the game, don't just expect I loved the first one so much that I'll buy up the next. Give me a reason to want to suffer through what I know the next game will contain. Mass Effects combat is something I see quite often, from the same company. Elder Scrolls is a time-tested combat system that's enjoyable and fresh each time you play.


For some games, it's hard to not think of them as the same song and dance, just a year later.
This ain't twilight, this is resource mining, and I'm already bored with it.

Xbox 360's Assassin's Creed Brotherhood

I... feel like I just played this game.

Ugh. Here we go again. Yeah yeah, recap the last game. Ahuh, I'm desmond.... yeah yeah, Templars.

Here's the long and short of Assassins' Creed as a game


But now take that..... and give it a year to grow and mature, and become GORGEOUS. They didn't mess with the core elements of what the Assassin's Creed games are known for, they simply added to it.

What have they added?

Larger maps
More backstory
More weapons
Different types of attacks/kills
Different types of enemies (never seen before)
Collectibles
3 Side-quest storylines
Tons of money to be made
More buildings/ cities to renovate

oh, and Multiplay.

Supe up the graphics, add multiplay, and about 5000 different customizable elements/ places, and you have Brotherhood.


Oh, probably the biggest part for all you non-online people. You hire other assassins and can send them out to do your dirtywork. Or have an organized strike on a building.

Here's the coolest part of the whole game. An entire building covered by your own assassins. You're standing on a corner of the building. Each assassin is assigned a guard on the roof to target. You drop your hand and the strike commences. It's a nice and interesting element that works. It doesn't require RTS-esque planning, just a few commands and you're on your way. I love seeing games try new things to modify what we already enjoy, and Brotherhood does it up nicely.

Rent or own? I'd honestly say own. It's the most complete Assassin's Creed so far, tons and tons of reasons to replay, and a good 50+ hours to do everything.

Go get your assassinate on.

PS3- Folklore

So a pile of games has been stacking up, so I figure I better review them and send them on their way.

First up, Folklore. A rare sort of game that was released on the PS3 way back. You play as either a girl or boy, they're Irish but we won't hold it against them. The girl is searching for her mother after receiving a letter instructing her to travel to a mysterious island town of the dead.

The man, an editor for an occult magazine, receives a mysterious phone call also instructing him to travel to the same town. The two meet and the adventure begins, with A MURDER. They both come across a dead woman.

So here's the long and short, the town at night becomes a doorway to the netherworld, and you can travel back and forth between our world and the world of the dead. You can follow the story of the girl, or the boy, or play a bit of each one and watch the story interweave.

The character designs, musical elements and environment are top notch. Think fairy tale creatures, mixed with the dead, with a bit of Disgaea for good measure. Each character has a tour guide of such, helping you being the game. The girl is attempting to find her mother, and the reporter boy is trying to solve the murder and get a good story.

Come to think of it, it all feels very Disgaea inspired, but like combine that with "Where the wild things are" and Pan's Labyrinth. It's a neat storyline/atmosphere regardless.

So, cool environment, strange storyline, amazing music, interesting character development..... this has got to be a RPG, yes?

Oddly enough, no.

It's a... fighting/ collecting game?... like a.... Zelda crossed with

You collect souls from your fallen enemies and use them as weapons. So like Persona with Zelda.

Basically, you hit a button to use an attack, depending on how much power you have, or you use a different ability to kill your enemy to gain more souls to get the attack command back. Makes sense? Nah, I knew it wouldn't.

Screw it, it's an adventure game with attacks.


Honestly, I was somewhat hesitant to actually play the game until I got into the story. Then I figured I'd play through it even though it was an RPG simply because it was an amazingly crafted environment. Then when I found out it wasn't an RPG I knew I had stumbled onto something.

It's a good game, I'm currently finishing up the girls storyline. Should you get it? Sure


if you can find it. I opened up a shipment yesterday at work, and sitting on top was a copy. We haven't had a copy of this game come past our counters in months. The last one we did have was picked up the same day we put it out by a guy who talked about how amazing it was.

So if you can find it, give it a whirl. I picked mine up for like $17, and I'll be getting my moneys worth. Don't be swayed by the age of the game, or the reviews, or the cover-art. This is an enjoyable storyline and tons of fun to play and experience.

Lots of bits I talk about... mostly things to avoid.

I have yet to post anything negatively about a game, and HERE I GO.

*all of the opinions hereafter are based on the demo/trial versions of the games mentioned.  I tried the demos, and I didn't like what I saw.

Super Meat Boy - okay i get that it's supposed to be cute and everything, but I don't get it.  So you are this hunk of meat with a face, and you're trying to save your girlfriend (who is shaped like a hunk of meat also but is actually made of... Band-aids?) because she got kidnapped by some kind of brain thing I think?  Umm... why?  As if any of this is actually funny or something?  No real interesting dynamic in the gameplay, and the story is boring.  2D puzzle platformer?  There are others of your kind that do it better.  NEXT!

Bloody Good Time - um isn't this basically what that one game The Ship was supposed to be sort of?  Run around some weird location and kill people in weird ways!  IT'S WEIRD, GET IT?  yeah.  So, there's some sort of film director, who wants to make horror movies or something by getting "actors" (i.e. you) to kill eachother for real on film.  Like slaughterfest style.  I didn't like the ship back then very much, and I don't like this bastardized new version either.  BOOOOO.

Faery:  Legends of Avalon - What year is it?  I feel like the first Gothic game had better graphics than this, or even Goldeneye (and their hands were triangles).  So... you're some fairy (not going to spell it like they did because it doesn't deserve it) and you wake up from like a thousand years sleeping in a crystal or something, and then you fly around trying to learn about magic or something... I don't know!  It was boring and not interesting or fun so don't waste your time, even if you love FAIRYS.

Unbound Saga - So you're a tough guy type character in a comic book.  Think Wolverine except no blades, no regenerative properties, no adamantium skeleton, no crazy hair, basically that.  Like a guy who Wolverine would beat up.  And I guess... you go on some rampage to save someone?  Through the comic book?  To be honest I didn't pay much attention as the first ten minutes of the demo are all a cutscene.  And then when you finally get to play, the gameplay is awful.  It's set up like an old arcade fighting game where it's sort of in 2D but you can walk across the street as well as down it, only it's hard to actually hit people and fight.  The most redeeming thing about that game is the girl that fights alongside you because she has a big rack.  And if you want to see a big rack, there's plenty of other places to do that.  CAPITALIZED WORD HERE.

The Deep Cave - this indie game falls extremely short in most aspects of what makes a game interesting.  With it's 8-bit style graphics to help lure you in to a sense of nostalgia, you are rudely awoken by a game whose physics seem to run at hyperspeed for no real reason.  You control this character who you make fall into a cave down 3 or 4 panels until he finally says, "oh no, i'm in a cave help me get out?"  Um, sure I thought that was the point?  And so now you have to navigate this cave, you 8-bit wonder who seems to jump up and fall faster than any reasonable semblance of gravity would allow.  OH no there's bad guys down there!  good luck avoiding them because they seem to move freakishly fast as well.  I get the feeling there was something very wrong with this game.  It played like the Xbox was too fast of a processor for itself.  However, shame on the Devs if they made this deliberately fast.  Basically the speed of a person jumping up and down was standardized over time.  If everything moves faster than the first super mario brothers, you fucked up.

That's all for now, I have to hold a few close for next time!

p.s.  Crazy Taxi just came out on the Xbox.  Not as fun as I remember.  Disappointing : (