Almost didn’t make it for this month. Well, I’m here now so…
I want to talk a little bit about GameFly for a bit because I have been using it for 5-6 months and feel I can give a somewhat accurate account of it. So, the service operates similarly from Netflix’s delivery service. Make a queue with games instead of movies, wait for them to come in the mail, play as long as you like, pay a monthly fee that varies dependant on how many games you want, and that’s it. I am sure plenty of people out there have used/still use the service, so this will be a retread to many people. For those that haven’t made the leap, the question is, is GameFly worth it?
To me, kinda. Yes overall, but I wouldn’t blame anyone that cancelled it after two months or more.
You see, much like NetFlix, GameFly promises speedy delivery of your games. Difference is, NetFlix deliveries on those promises. GameFly, well, it depends on your definition of speedy. NetFlix movies are all spent via USPS First Class and they have distribution centers in almost every state. GameFly, uses what’s essentially second class, or postage stamp speed, and they only have four distribution centers. So, what NetFlix does in 1 business day (2 days in normal time, 3 on weekends), GameFly does in 5 business days (or pretty much a week).
Something else GameFly is guilty of is actually sending a game on your queue to you in the order that it was placed there. Much like Netflix, they send what ever is in your Queue as fast as it becomes available. GameFly, is short, doesn’t care. Sure, they will follow your queue as best that is possible and dependent on what’s available at their distribution centers, but they will also give “what’s available at the time” or “nothing at all”.
Story time: One time I had a queue full of some high-profile (according to MetaCritic and their sales history) games, and I waited about three weeks to get Batman: Arkam Asylum. GameFly’s excuse when I emailed then about it?
“You list has many games in it that are in high demand and we have just experienced a large influx of new customer whose demands we are also trying to meet. We can only ship out games as soon as they become available in your area.”
So since I live in Florida, my distribution center is in Tampa. They decided that the closest game in my Queue was Batman: AA, and they mailed it from Pittsburgh because I complained. They actually could have done this from the beginning, and I wouldn’t have cared since it came two days later.
That just GameFly not really caring and trying to give me “nothing at all”. An example of them “not caring” would be me putting Prince Of Persia for the Gamecube in my queue at spot #12, and then that being THE VERY NEXT GAME they ship me, ahead of Borderlands, Portal 2, Child of Eden, LA Noire, etc. That is not even good service. Just because it’s in my queue, doesn’t mean I wanted to play it then and there. It wasn’t even like the other games weren’t available or in low levels, they just wanted to limp to me the only game that wasn’t considered high profile.
Ok, that’s enough complaining. Nothing in this life is perfect, especially rental services. GameFly, overall, it’s a good service. Though it does take a bout a whole week to receive my games, none of them are scratched and it’s usually a very consistent week with email updates. I myself, subscribe to the 2 games out a month plan, that way I have a steady flow of games to plow through. Don’t worry, if I want a game bad enough I will buy it, but most are worth playing through just to investigate their design and what they contribute to the industry or my own curiosity…that and they are fun. Also, with the two games a month scenario, I save WAY more money than if I just bought them and traded them in.
It’s kinda my thing nowadays to save money, but still maintain my vices. Since gaming is a very big vice for me, this works well. I say try it, cause if you hate it, you can just cancel and walk away.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Friday, August 12, 2011
King Kong and the 1k EARNED
At work, you know, the gaming store, my co-worker and I were discussing Xbox achievements and how some of them seem just impossible to gain. "Play 1000 matches and win more than half", "Complete over 20 passes in a single game", "Play through the main story 3 times". Most of the achievements seem like they're forcing gamers to play through multiple times to get everything. I've complained about this before. We then got onto the topic of games that are an easy 1k in achievements. Games you simply play once and get them all. Avatar: The Last Airbender, Terminator: Salvation, and of course.... King Kong.
No sooner had we mentioned that fabled game, in which you receive 1k achievements for simply playing the game, than we opened up a shipment to find multiple copies of the game. So we both decided to check out the game, and see if in 4 days we could complete it, and in turn get the 1k.
Needless to say, we both finished the game, both around 4 days, but nothing without our strife.
The game is mediocre at best, it's a fairly simple FPS with the occasional Kong scene which turns into 3rd person. Now this isn't a review of the game, but rather a review of what has to happen to EARN those achievement points.
The full game is about 8 hours, but you'll feel every moment of it dragging along, and the lack of a solid gaming structure it holds. For my co-worker it meant playing for about 3 hours only to find out theres no such thing as an auto-save, but rather an episodic system, in which you still have to save. So sure you got the achievements for those episodes, but to get the achievement for completing the game, you had to play through those 3 hours again.
Win. For myself it was the random clipping. I'd be playing as Kong, climbing up a cliff when suddenly Kong would fall through the mountain and suddenly die. Start-over a good 30 minutes in the past. This happened just about every hour, right on cue. Had the game been built on a solid engine it would have been a breeze, instead it was a multiple hour hassle.
But I shouldn't complain, I got my 1k achievements out of it. The funny part is, once I finished the game, and got all of the points, it suggested that I play through again to unlock additional art samples and renderings of the game. No sir.
I'll keep this short, but basically, if you're looking to boost up that gamer score (and honestly, who isn't? i saw a guy the other day with 80k), King Kong is worth it. You'll be tearing your hair out for a few days, but once it's done, it's still a feeling of accomplishment to say "I've done everything possible in that game", even if it meant just playing through once. Oh yeah, there are no difficulty settings.
No sooner had we mentioned that fabled game, in which you receive 1k achievements for simply playing the game, than we opened up a shipment to find multiple copies of the game. So we both decided to check out the game, and see if in 4 days we could complete it, and in turn get the 1k.
Needless to say, we both finished the game, both around 4 days, but nothing without our strife.
The game is mediocre at best, it's a fairly simple FPS with the occasional Kong scene which turns into 3rd person. Now this isn't a review of the game, but rather a review of what has to happen to EARN those achievement points.
The full game is about 8 hours, but you'll feel every moment of it dragging along, and the lack of a solid gaming structure it holds. For my co-worker it meant playing for about 3 hours only to find out theres no such thing as an auto-save, but rather an episodic system, in which you still have to save. So sure you got the achievements for those episodes, but to get the achievement for completing the game, you had to play through those 3 hours again.
Win. For myself it was the random clipping. I'd be playing as Kong, climbing up a cliff when suddenly Kong would fall through the mountain and suddenly die. Start-over a good 30 minutes in the past. This happened just about every hour, right on cue. Had the game been built on a solid engine it would have been a breeze, instead it was a multiple hour hassle.
But I shouldn't complain, I got my 1k achievements out of it. The funny part is, once I finished the game, and got all of the points, it suggested that I play through again to unlock additional art samples and renderings of the game. No sir.
I'll keep this short, but basically, if you're looking to boost up that gamer score (and honestly, who isn't? i saw a guy the other day with 80k), King Kong is worth it. You'll be tearing your hair out for a few days, but once it's done, it's still a feeling of accomplishment to say "I've done everything possible in that game", even if it meant just playing through once. Oh yeah, there are no difficulty settings.
Monday, July 18, 2011
So...is this the game you wanna play Netflix?
Whelp, Netflix…you have really screwed the pooch this time. Before I begin, let me start with facts and figures.
-Netflix in 2008 charged $8.99 to customer for a one DVD and unlimited streaming plan
-Netflix in 2010 charged $9.99 for the same thing.
-In 2011, Netflix offered a streaming only plan for $7.99 for an unlimited streaming only plan.
-Now, come September 2011, Netflix will charge $15.98 for the one DVD and unlimited streaming plan. The combo $9.99 plan will cease to exist. They are now going to be separated into $7.99 for a single DVD and $7.99 for unlimited streaming.
For preface on my past thoughts of Netflix, read this post I did a while ago. My thoughts currently, well…
When Netflix lifted their streaming restrictions in 2008, it became pretty much the most ubiquitous name over night in movie rental and content streaming. Once it was supported on hardware such as Blu-Rays players and the Xbox 360, it became a household name. Supposedly it has 23 million subscribers. If you base this on the law of averages and let’s pretend every has at least the $9.99 plan of one DVD and unlimited streaming (it honestly being the best deal), then that means Netflix makes about $230 million…a month. That’s a little under 2.76 BILLION DOLLARS ANUALLY, for what’s essentially a latchkey service. Add content to servers with movie studio approval for streaming and keep a somewhat supple supply of DVDs in a warehouse in one or two major cities per state. Oh, and stay on the USPS good side.
Now, I’m no idiot, I am sure there is more to it than that, and I know that those billions of dollars aren’t pure profit. I am sure when it comes to dealing with movies, there is a ton of overhead. Let me ask you this though, is there really so much overhead that Netflix has decided that it is a good idea to price hike their most popular and basic plan by 60%? What kind of sick battle plan is this? Wax out the competition and then jack up the price? This screams of a potential monopoly.
So, if Netflix decided to add more movies and shows to their streaming site, this wouldn’t be an issue. On the contrary, the benefit of the DVD and streaming plan is to supplement the somewhat small selection in the streaming library. So, let’s say Netflix is having trouble with the movie industry and getting content is costing too much. Ok, someone in their financial department must have said “Why don’t we just charge our customers more money so we can get more money to buy more content?” I am sure somebody said “Brilliant!” (I would actually hope not and that they gave this serious thought…). So, they announce the big bad plan hike. Well, turns out they might lose, according to CNET, thousands upon thousands of customers. Even if you don’t, let’s say some people are actually happy with streaming only and pay $7.99. That means the company just lost $2 in sale, permanently.
How in the world is this a good business practice? Cellphone companies have price hikes and plan changes every 2-3 years, and you know what placates their customer's? It's called "grandfathering your plan". In case you don't know what that means, it's this simple concept where the customer's under a current rate plan (say, the current DVD+ streaming $9.99 plan) get to keep that plan so long as they remain customers and NEVER EVER change their plan. The moment the want to change their plan in anyway, it invites them into having to switch to the current rates. All new customers and returning ones would be subjected to the new rates that you propose. THERE! DONE! This would keep your current, loyal clientele base from leaving in droves and would secure more money from new customers your service will inevitably attract. Telling every single customer, old, new and potential, that your service is getting more expensive with giving a really good reason is asking for some serious, company damaging lash-back.
From the other side of the coin, I could go on and on about how maybe the movie industry is really to blame and maybe Netflix isn't doing as well financially as first impressions would have me perceive, but at the end of the day, I am the consumer. These financial matters with the content dealers should not be a punishment towards me. Maybe Netflix should come out, snarky as hell, and say "We have to raise the price because Sony and Starz, etc are being jerks and demanding more money". If nothing else, what more damage could that possibly do. It would be actually refreshing to see a company say that the reason something is more expensive no is because the supplier is demanding more money.
You know, this wouldn't even be a problem if the streaming plan was even CLOSE to their DVD selection. As such, I have the ability to decide if this is still a good deal or not. As an Amazon Prime member, semi-consistent RedBox customer, and (for some reason) Dish Network service customer, I actually do have some semi attractive options open. but come September…it will be decision time.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Shadows of the Damned
This game is not for you.
Having said that, do you know who Suda51 is? No. Well.. there are other games out there. This game will just make no sense to you. However, for those who are still interested, we'll make it simple.
Suda51 made Killer7 and No More Heroes 1 and 2, among other things. So take his sense of humor, his character design and overall concept. Take the music from Silent Hill, that sad lonely terrifying tone with the occasional upbeat terrifying tone the games known for. Add the combat system from Resident Evil 4. (not 5, only in parts) and you get general idea. Dress it up in a mexican/demon/dia de los muertos atmosphere and you have Shadows.
Is it a good game? Sure, but like most of the late spring/early summer games being released, there just isn't much to it. I find the game hilarious, disgusting, and stylized as it gets, but I also have a terribly dark sense of humor.
You are a demon hunter. No, not you, the video game character. Your girlfriend has been stolen and taken to the land of the dead. You go to get her back. You have a witty sidekick who also acts as your weapon. Your gun shoots demon teeth which are collected off of fallen demons. You can enter the darkness of this evil world to solve puzzles, but be careful, the darkness can also kill you. There are huge boss battles, collectibles and upgrades and a huge cast of characters.
Honestly that's probably 5 paragraphs more than the actual Shadows press-release. Again, it's a good game, just simple and enjoyable.
Part of me is actually really glad that the summer games are simple. inFAMOUS 2, Dungeon Siege, Shadows, Fear. Nothing huge or time consuming, just simple things that are enjoyable to play when you have some free-time.
I still have a stack of deeper games to finish up, so it's nice to be able to jump into a simple act-based game. Controls are simple, aim and shoot. You can turn on a dime, roll to dodge, and side-step. Seriously, it's Resident Evil 4 controls and basically a RE4 engine, but you'll get no complaints about it from me. Any playthough? Not really, it's a good story to finish once, but once that's done, it's time to let it go.
Shadows and Fear will be traded towards Skyrim. Speaking of games that will consume my life.
Another week-long adventure, but that's just fine with me on a hot summer day.
Having said that, do you know who Suda51 is? No. Well.. there are other games out there. This game will just make no sense to you. However, for those who are still interested, we'll make it simple.
Suda51 made Killer7 and No More Heroes 1 and 2, among other things. So take his sense of humor, his character design and overall concept. Take the music from Silent Hill, that sad lonely terrifying tone with the occasional upbeat terrifying tone the games known for. Add the combat system from Resident Evil 4. (not 5, only in parts) and you get general idea. Dress it up in a mexican/demon/dia de los muertos atmosphere and you have Shadows.
Is it a good game? Sure, but like most of the late spring/early summer games being released, there just isn't much to it. I find the game hilarious, disgusting, and stylized as it gets, but I also have a terribly dark sense of humor.
You are a demon hunter. No, not you, the video game character. Your girlfriend has been stolen and taken to the land of the dead. You go to get her back. You have a witty sidekick who also acts as your weapon. Your gun shoots demon teeth which are collected off of fallen demons. You can enter the darkness of this evil world to solve puzzles, but be careful, the darkness can also kill you. There are huge boss battles, collectibles and upgrades and a huge cast of characters.
Honestly that's probably 5 paragraphs more than the actual Shadows press-release. Again, it's a good game, just simple and enjoyable.
Part of me is actually really glad that the summer games are simple. inFAMOUS 2, Dungeon Siege, Shadows, Fear. Nothing huge or time consuming, just simple things that are enjoyable to play when you have some free-time.
I still have a stack of deeper games to finish up, so it's nice to be able to jump into a simple act-based game. Controls are simple, aim and shoot. You can turn on a dime, roll to dodge, and side-step. Seriously, it's Resident Evil 4 controls and basically a RE4 engine, but you'll get no complaints about it from me. Any playthough? Not really, it's a good story to finish once, but once that's done, it's time to let it go.
Shadows and Fear will be traded towards Skyrim. Speaking of games that will consume my life.
Another week-long adventure, but that's just fine with me on a hot summer day.
F3AR E
So so many games. I'm sorry I've left you. I'm back. All is well.
Fear 3! The little game that.... well tried.
Let's do some backstory, yeah? Fear the first was a game that came out on the PC, in a dying age of PC shooters. It did alright, got some recognition for some sassy elements. You could sorta slow time, the storyline was dark, but it all seemed very run of the mill. Scary sure, but not super terrifying. You were a super solider, you were fighting evil. Sound familiar? Of course it does, you're probably playing one of those games right now. Then they ported it over to the consoles, and it got the same resounding "meh" from everyone. A decent shooter, but that's about it. Know how they call some movies "Sunday Afternoon"or "Rainy Afternoon" movies? They have those for games, they're called average. Duke Nukem Forever, Shadows of the Damned, Perfect Dark, games that don't require much of you expect to be a responsive meat-popsicle. Easy to play and not much depth, but sometimes that just hits the spot.
The Fear series scratches that same itch. Nothing big, just a decent 8 hour single player. You hear me Fear??? A DECENT SINGLE PLAYER.
You see, someone once said that Fear 2 had a really awesome multiplay, and Fear took them serious. So they added and hyped their multiplay into Fear 3. Brilliantly they added a solid co-op system, but you have to play basically like you're online and wanting to be captain of the leaderboard. Look Fear, it's nothing against you, but like I'm always griping, unless you're Battlefield or COD just leave multiplay alone. It's not that they are the best multi shooters ever, it's that they know what they are doing, have the server support, and don't try to make both a good single and multi shooter.
So Fear went on super sale and ended up being $40. So did a lot of games, but that makes Fear more of a realistic pick. I happened to get a pre-owned copy so I managed to go home with it for about $25 not a bad price for an average game.
So wassamatta with it you ask? Well nothing really. It's a straightforward shooter, there are some Bulletstorm-esque challenges to accomplish, some fancy bullet-time elements and a ""scary"" storyline. It's scary like Paranormal Activity was. If you were terrified of it, you'll be terrified of Fear. If you though Paranormal Activity was lame...well.... hope you enjoy shooters.
An average shooter. You'll finish up in 8 hours or so. You can play through as two different people if you'd like, so that'll get you 16 hours-ish. Any glaring problems? Eh. Nothing unmanageable except.... well.... the bullettime mode is set to the Y/Triangle button. Which is normally used for weapon switching. Can you re-map it? Nope. So instead of switching weapons I often used bullettime. No big deal, the thing recharges over time anyway. If I play another shooter, I just need to remember that the only game that used the shoulder button to switch weapons was Fear. Shoulder buttons for most shooters are the grenades. That could be lulzy I suppose.
Moral of the story? Don't expect much from Fear 3. The achievements are mostly online multiplay or require you to play through multiple times. (Kill 2500 things a certain way? ummm.)
Perfect for GameFly, decent for a rental, buy if it's used or you already have the other 3. (FEAR, FEAR Files, and FEAR 2). It's just an average shooter with no problems or benefits. Give it a whirl if you're looking for a summer week event?
Fear 3! The little game that.... well tried.
Let's do some backstory, yeah? Fear the first was a game that came out on the PC, in a dying age of PC shooters. It did alright, got some recognition for some sassy elements. You could sorta slow time, the storyline was dark, but it all seemed very run of the mill. Scary sure, but not super terrifying. You were a super solider, you were fighting evil. Sound familiar? Of course it does, you're probably playing one of those games right now. Then they ported it over to the consoles, and it got the same resounding "meh" from everyone. A decent shooter, but that's about it. Know how they call some movies "Sunday Afternoon"or "Rainy Afternoon" movies? They have those for games, they're called average. Duke Nukem Forever, Shadows of the Damned, Perfect Dark, games that don't require much of you expect to be a responsive meat-popsicle. Easy to play and not much depth, but sometimes that just hits the spot.
The Fear series scratches that same itch. Nothing big, just a decent 8 hour single player. You hear me Fear??? A DECENT SINGLE PLAYER.
You see, someone once said that Fear 2 had a really awesome multiplay, and Fear took them serious. So they added and hyped their multiplay into Fear 3. Brilliantly they added a solid co-op system, but you have to play basically like you're online and wanting to be captain of the leaderboard. Look Fear, it's nothing against you, but like I'm always griping, unless you're Battlefield or COD just leave multiplay alone. It's not that they are the best multi shooters ever, it's that they know what they are doing, have the server support, and don't try to make both a good single and multi shooter.
So Fear went on super sale and ended up being $40. So did a lot of games, but that makes Fear more of a realistic pick. I happened to get a pre-owned copy so I managed to go home with it for about $25 not a bad price for an average game.
So wassamatta with it you ask? Well nothing really. It's a straightforward shooter, there are some Bulletstorm-esque challenges to accomplish, some fancy bullet-time elements and a ""scary"" storyline. It's scary like Paranormal Activity was. If you were terrified of it, you'll be terrified of Fear. If you though Paranormal Activity was lame...well.... hope you enjoy shooters.
An average shooter. You'll finish up in 8 hours or so. You can play through as two different people if you'd like, so that'll get you 16 hours-ish. Any glaring problems? Eh. Nothing unmanageable except.... well.... the bullettime mode is set to the Y/Triangle button. Which is normally used for weapon switching. Can you re-map it? Nope. So instead of switching weapons I often used bullettime. No big deal, the thing recharges over time anyway. If I play another shooter, I just need to remember that the only game that used the shoulder button to switch weapons was Fear. Shoulder buttons for most shooters are the grenades. That could be lulzy I suppose.
Moral of the story? Don't expect much from Fear 3. The achievements are mostly online multiplay or require you to play through multiple times. (Kill 2500 things a certain way? ummm.)
Perfect for GameFly, decent for a rental, buy if it's used or you already have the other 3. (FEAR, FEAR Files, and FEAR 2). It's just an average shooter with no problems or benefits. Give it a whirl if you're looking for a summer week event?
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Game Journalism: Scores for Dollars
OK, I haven’t had time write up a proper blog, and technically I don’t have time now, but dammit this has been bugging me for months.
So, gaming magazines. It used to be getting the latest Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM) was something to look forward to. Every month, when it came in the mail, it took all I had to not exclaiming like a little schoolgirl on Christmas. EGM used to be (please notice the “used to be”) a gaming magazine with journalists like no other. They were brutally honest about video games, not just giving a bad game a low score, but explaining in meticulous detail about WHY a game deserved such a low score. There definition of a low score wasn’t a “5” or a “6”, either, as is the norm nowadays (more on that in a bit). EGM wasn’t too proud to give games “0.0” or “1” and explain in technical detail why (“the bump mapping is terrible, the clipping is off, the hit detection is horrid). This was a gaming magazine companies fear/loved to give advance copies to, because if it sucked, they would rip it to shreds AND make calls backs in repeated issues as to how bad it was. For instance, in Turok Evolution, the main antagonist is an 1800’s military officer designed like General Custer. He is the end boss named Tobias Bruckner, and he rides a T-Rex with rocket launchers and shotguns strapped to its back.
Please take a solid minute to imagine this.
Can’t? Then here, look below. It’s that funny.
EGM made an entire award called the “Tobias Bruckner Award”, given to games with incredibly bad design choices. GENIUS! EGM has even had industry changing jokes that became reality. Their April Fools jokes involved things like “Unlocking Sonic in Smash Bros. Melee” or “Unlock Ryu and Ken’s trainer Gouken in Street Fighter II”. Years later, these jokes became reality, because gamers truly wanted these jokes to be real. No other gaming magazine has had this kind of impact in the community. Then, as if by some kind of reverse karma, all the beautiful honesty in journalism that the game industry needed stopped, and something terrible happened. EGM closed its doors. That’s right, as if by some malevolent curse, the economy hit their publisher Ziff Davis Media and EGM was on the chopping block. February 2008…. a sad month indeed.
Now EGM is back…..and everything is changed. The 20-30 plus pages dedicated to reviews? GONE! The snarky reviews of games that don’ live up to their expectations? GONE! How about multiple reviewers for a nice control as to how multiple people thought of the game? GONE! Fantastic, industry changing April’s Fool’s Jokes? Nothing yet so, GONE! This month, they reviewed eight games. Eight. To EGM’s credit though, they still have an extensive regular departments section in their magazine with interviews, previewed titles, and the ilk.
Is it reliable anymore for game reviews? Shamefully, no. No game, but no game, got below a 6.5 this month. That should mean that everything they played was either great or at least above passable. What about in the last two months? Well Dissidia 012:FF got a 5.0. Why? No, seriously, WHY? According to Metacritic, this game sits pretty with a 78. EGM’s reasoning was “The game is all fan service and it’s a bit of a complex fighting system”. (Sigh). When someone says that a fighting game is complex and it placates to the audience that wants to play it, I really have a hard time understanding the issue. What, would it have been better if it were a mainstream fighting game that just HAPPENED to have Final Fantasy characters? Better yet, should it have been more of a Smash Bros. clone, because an original fighting engine is too scary and hard to learn? I seriously have no patience for ignorance of this magnitude. Of course it’s a fan game! Only the die-hard fans are playing Final Fantasy games anymore anyways, since Square doesn’t know what the hell a good combat system has looked like since FFX (and yes, I realize that last comment is up for debate, but I stand behind it). So of course the fighting system has a learning curve. This is the same magazine that praised Pokémon Black/White with a 9.5, which is the same game that came out 13 years ago except now the box art is different, and yet they thrash a game because “it really only appeases to it’s fans with it’s aethstetic levels of older FF games and semi-complex fighting system.” Seriously, a reviewer who says a game was bad because it does exactly what its core audience wants is just insulting, not only to the audience, but to even potential fans of the series.
Rage subsiding.
How about Game Informer? Is Game Informer a better magazine to throw down for $15 a year? Pfft. They can’t even get their Game of the Month award right. This month, L.A. Noire got game of the month with an 8.75, but The Witcher 2 scored higher with a 9.25, probably because they thought it was a better game. So, they divided the categories and put The Witcher 2 in a PC slot, giving it PC game of the month. My problem with that is it was THE ONLY PC GAME THEY FU**ING REVIEWED! That not withstanding, Infamous 2 and Dirt 3 scored just as high (8.75), and The Legend of Zelda for the 3DS scored even higher (9.25), so why give GotM to L.A. Noire? I will tell you why, and this is what I have been leading to.
Gaming magazines scores are based on the highest bidder.
I’m sorry, but you are a damn fool if you believe otherwise. Unless the gaming community as a whole hates it, or unless it has more negative word of mouth than the Hot Coffee mod, than the game will score unnecessarily high. L.A. Noire could have been a buggy and broken mess, but it had a ton a press and Rockstar probably greased some palms, so it was destined to get at least a 7.0 on a 10-point scale. Fair enough, but now this game doesn’t get an honest review. But HEY! At least it got game of the month even though according to Game Informer’s grading scale Zelda should have kicked it’s ass. Oh wait? Did you decide to give L.A. Noire GotM because it’s “fresh, and new” and totally isn’t Grand Theft Auto with detectives? To this, I say bull. If Zelda scored higher, give it the award. It should be a testament to how good one game can be if, 13 years later, it’s repackaged with some minor changes here and there and it can still be a more fun game to play than L.A. Noire.
My only reason for being so flippantly caustic about this is because I freaking hate what has become of gaming magazines as a whole. It used to be that a 10 point scale was reliable, in that a “0” meant avoid at all cost and hope the developer goes belly-up for not really trying, a “5” meant the game was playable, but only rentable, and a “10” meant add it to your collection today. Now, a “5” is the new “0” and a “10” goes to either an earnestly good game or whoever paid the most to the magazine/publisher. We are now at the point in game journalism were a five point scale (1 -5) is now more trustworthy because 7 has become the new mediocre score.
Now, I’m not an idiot (so far as I have been told) and I know game reviews are a matter of pure subjective opinion as opposed to fact. This is the end point for EGM though, their reviews were full of such technical analysis and supporting justification it almost seemed like fact. That didn’t just say a game was good because of the “graphics were good”, but instead go into the lighting detail or the polygon detail and/or the attention to texturing.
Is it unfair of me to have such an acidic tone, accusing the game journalism industry of trying to warp us out of our money towards games that truly may not deserve it? Probably. Having never worked in the game industry myself, my comments would be considered of a layman, taking only my knowledge of over 20 years as a gamer and 3 years in game design and development schools.
Allow me to close and venture you this thought. What’s the difference between a game player and a modern day game journalist? Answer: An associate’s degree in journalism and/or creative writing. That’s not a purposefully scathing remark, either. Next time you fold open a gaming magazine, and you want a review for a game, ask you self a couple questions before you take that review for its face value:
-Have any of the journalists ever helped CREATE a video game or worked in the game industry?
-Is it a requirement for this magazine to have technical understanding of video games before you start writing reviews for them?
-Magazines companies need money, and does this company need to do what it takes to make sure they stay on the PR good side (padding reviews, giving false awards) to score more dough?
-Finally, when all that is considered, what honestly makes a professional game reviewer more reliable than anyone on this or really any other blog?
The final one has an answer: I have nothing to gain by saying how I feel about games and media on this site, whether it is good or bad. I say again, nothing.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Music while I game.
Whatever happened to the ability to play Last.FM while playing a game on Xbox? It used to exist! Sure you can still play music from a flashdrive or music installed on your system while you game, but getting to that point is nothing short of a hassle.
I got 100% of Oblivion completed, and probably only listened to about 1/8th of the game. I also managed to watch the first 3 seasons of Deadliest Catch while playing Oblivion. How you ask? Well, I had Oblivion on one screen, and Deadliest Catch coming through the headphones from my computer. Made time fly. I got to the errands and collection quests of Oblivion and knew I didn't need to hear anything, so I listened to something else.
Even today I listen to podcasts while playing games that lack strong audio like Borderlands and Brink. Both are fine games, but the in-game music, and occasional dialogue cues often make me wonder why I'm even listening to anything in-game. It's partially killing two birds with one stone (I have thousands of podcasts still to listen to) and it makes the errands and boring travel in the game seem less.... boring. Nothing against any of the games, and most of them have excellent audio... they're just missing something.
Fallout 3 spoiled me. Three-Dog and his interruptions to the radio to announce things that my character was or was not influencing were brilliant. Assassin's Creed did the same thing, sort of. You could hear people talk about my recent exploits and adventures. Maybe it's come from years of playing games in a silent apartment or room, but hearing just the music is sometimes unsettling.
If this were 15 years ago, I'd probably be going insane. Games back then rarely had in-game voiced dialogue, and even if it did it was usually just during cut-scenes.
More to the point though, games like Fallout and Oblivion have excellent in-game music. Games like L.A. Noire have amazing in-game dialogue and meaningless conversations. It's sad to see games like Borderlands where it completely lacks any strong musical cues. Gearbox knows in-game music. Black Mesa had awesome musical cues. But this isn't to bash Borderlands, they're just the first example I could think of where the lack of any sort of audio seemed prominent.
I get their artistic choice to have little music. They're trying to create a desolate and deserted atmosphere. I can totally dig that. Your first few hours in the vast stretches make you think you're the only one around. Problem is ,Borderlands, after a while you're forcing me to run errands. I don't mind it, I know it'll pay off in the end. I just would like to hear some music while I work. So instead I silence the in-game audio and listen to podcasts, or Pandora or what have you.
The Xbox still has the feature to play music off of a flash-drive, but I'm surprised to see they haven't really changed/improved it since that. Of course if I had a Zune I could link my music. But how many people do you know have Zunes? I know of 3. GameStop used to sell them. If I had a Windows PC I could stream my music to my Xbox. But if I had a Windows PC I would be complaining about a lot more than lack of in-game music. (Zing).
Dungeon Siege is coming out soon. Dungeon crawling at it's best. The demos out too. You'll see what I mean. From years of playing D2, Baldurs Gate, and Torchlight I know how boring it can get without some interesting musical cues. I might just have to make a dungeon crawling playlist. I made one for UT2K4. Of course UT2K4 had an in-game music player that would search your computer for all of your music. Now that was a music player you could hang your hat on.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to listen to/yell at this weeks "This American Life" while I search for more badges and film reels in 1940's LA.
I got 100% of Oblivion completed, and probably only listened to about 1/8th of the game. I also managed to watch the first 3 seasons of Deadliest Catch while playing Oblivion. How you ask? Well, I had Oblivion on one screen, and Deadliest Catch coming through the headphones from my computer. Made time fly. I got to the errands and collection quests of Oblivion and knew I didn't need to hear anything, so I listened to something else.
Even today I listen to podcasts while playing games that lack strong audio like Borderlands and Brink. Both are fine games, but the in-game music, and occasional dialogue cues often make me wonder why I'm even listening to anything in-game. It's partially killing two birds with one stone (I have thousands of podcasts still to listen to) and it makes the errands and boring travel in the game seem less.... boring. Nothing against any of the games, and most of them have excellent audio... they're just missing something.
Fallout 3 spoiled me. Three-Dog and his interruptions to the radio to announce things that my character was or was not influencing were brilliant. Assassin's Creed did the same thing, sort of. You could hear people talk about my recent exploits and adventures. Maybe it's come from years of playing games in a silent apartment or room, but hearing just the music is sometimes unsettling.
If this were 15 years ago, I'd probably be going insane. Games back then rarely had in-game voiced dialogue, and even if it did it was usually just during cut-scenes.
More to the point though, games like Fallout and Oblivion have excellent in-game music. Games like L.A. Noire have amazing in-game dialogue and meaningless conversations. It's sad to see games like Borderlands where it completely lacks any strong musical cues. Gearbox knows in-game music. Black Mesa had awesome musical cues. But this isn't to bash Borderlands, they're just the first example I could think of where the lack of any sort of audio seemed prominent.
I get their artistic choice to have little music. They're trying to create a desolate and deserted atmosphere. I can totally dig that. Your first few hours in the vast stretches make you think you're the only one around. Problem is ,Borderlands, after a while you're forcing me to run errands. I don't mind it, I know it'll pay off in the end. I just would like to hear some music while I work. So instead I silence the in-game audio and listen to podcasts, or Pandora or what have you.
The Xbox still has the feature to play music off of a flash-drive, but I'm surprised to see they haven't really changed/improved it since that. Of course if I had a Zune I could link my music. But how many people do you know have Zunes? I know of 3. GameStop used to sell them. If I had a Windows PC I could stream my music to my Xbox. But if I had a Windows PC I would be complaining about a lot more than lack of in-game music. (Zing).
Dungeon Siege is coming out soon. Dungeon crawling at it's best. The demos out too. You'll see what I mean. From years of playing D2, Baldurs Gate, and Torchlight I know how boring it can get without some interesting musical cues. I might just have to make a dungeon crawling playlist. I made one for UT2K4. Of course UT2K4 had an in-game music player that would search your computer for all of your music. Now that was a music player you could hang your hat on.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to listen to/yell at this weeks "This American Life" while I search for more badges and film reels in 1940's LA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)