Pardon the interruption

Last night, just like every weekend night, I was listening to ESPN Radio. I'm sort of in an entertainment-less environment on the weekends, so the radio is really all I have. As with all forms of entertainment, I have an opinion on it, and my opinion is that I generally don't like the weekend's night programming. The V Show is a bit old-fashioned for me, Ryen Russillo left for the earlier (and better, good for him) Scott Van Pelt Show, Amy Lawrence just drives me insane when she fills in for everyone at night, and I rarely hear Freddie Coleman's steady, composed voice anymore.

Plus, I'm stuck with John Seibel. Yet, I've come to love GameNight because I am starting to kind of love rooting against him. I don't hate him, but his opinions are generally a bit...half assed. He's the kind of person that would say, “I'm not racist, but...”, so I love it when he's forced to eat his own words. Of course, he's a radio personality put on the air entirely for one purpose: to incite people, to stimulate, and to poke at sensitive topics. Now, if he's really trying to be neutral, then he's a complete failure. So, naturally, when I heard him open his mouth about Madden 2010 and gamers altogether, I smirked the victorious smirk when listeners hammered him for making a stupid mistake.

First, I hate football, so I was tempted to turn the radio off for about the twentieth time this baseball season when 90% of the show was devoted to football (half of that was Favre/Vick talk, I should mention). Once he said “Madden”, I let it go for a bit to see where he was going. He spoke about how he didn't understand the people that waited in line to get these new games, nor people who do Black Friday or things like movies on opening night. After saying this, he turned it up a notch and started bashing these fans. He then proceeded to stick his foot in his mouth by saying that these people wasted their time since Michael Vick just signed with the Eagles, and therefore these people are stuck with an absolete version of the game. Clearly, in his opinion, EA would be at fault if they did not offer a refund to these people and recall every copy currently on the shelves.

Now, “Sportsnation” went on to throw insults at him to do his homework and get with the times, because all of those people wasting their time in line would have to do is download the free roster update. On top of that, sports is his field of “study”. Go figure.

Finally, he gave credit to someone who more politely messaged him this info, but not before calling the “facepalm/WTF” crowd that blitzed his text box a bunch of basement dwelling losers who don't have lives and clearly need to get out and experience the sunlight and reality. Basically, gamers are jobless, useless losers, in his words. Simmer on that, “GameNation”.

Regardless of what his opinion may be, the topic of midnight releases was brought up, and I gotta say, it's not hard to figure out the allure. Ever since Diablo 2, pre-ordering games has been pretty commonplace for me. If there is a game that I am completely sold on before it's released, I'll go ahead and slap down $5 to get on the “will get” list. Diablo 2, the Wii, Super Smash Bros, Fallout 3, Persona 4, Ghostbusters...those are things that I wanted when they were released because it was an experience. Games are so glutted these days, just like movies, that it's hard to get truly excited about a game even if you do buy it brand new off the shelves. It's fun, yeah, but that itchy feeling you get when you're the first in line to try out something you've been waiting a year for...it's different.

Midnight releases is just the natural extension of that. It's exactly the same as a midnight release of a blockbuster movie. Yes, you're wasting a few hours of a good night's sleep to go out and experience something that will be waiting for you the next day in your free time, but it is simply not the same. Just like in the movies, when you go to a midnight release, you are surrounded by people just as excited about their gaming/game as you are. The vibe is better. It makes you more twitchy about having the game in your hand. There's people around to chat with about the game or to collectively bash the exact store you're standing in, tournaments going on for applicable games, and old friends bumping into you. It's all about the game, but it's also about the experience. I've never regretted going to a midnight release of a game or movie (except Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull). It seems that Mr. Seibel forgot the social part of these gatherings.

Clearly, however, this is just the sentiment of a pale reject still living in his mother's basement: a gamer. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Number crunching

Eventually I'll get to an actual design of this blog, but for now, I'm thinking numbers.

Here are some numbers that won't come across as shocking to anyone:

Sega Saturn - 9.5 million

Sega Dreamcast - 10.6 million

TurboGrafx 16/PC-Engine - 10 million

Microsoft Xbox - 24 million

NES/Famicom - 61.91 million

Super Nintendo - 49.1 million

Nintendo 64 - 32.93 million

Sega Genesis/MegaDrive - 29 million

Playstation - 102.49 million

Playstaion 2 - 136 million

If you want to see what the top selling consoles of all time are, check this out at VGChartz. The trouble with these stats is that none of them are correct by any means. The company will give a higher number or leak a higher number out to get good press, and analysts will only get so much information, so their number usually lacks. Add in older generations of consoles that weren't documented nearly as well, and it leaves some pretty gaping holes in the gap. I did the lazy thing and pulled my numbers from Wikipedia, and at least VGChartz backs most of it up.

Take a look, and take a long look, because I'm about to throw another three numbers at you:

360 - 30.2

PS3 - 23.8

Wii - 52.62

Yes, the Wii has sold about the same as Nintendo's competitors put together, but that's a route already dealt with. System survival, now there's the question. This relates to the "war", so pay attention.

First, let's spin each console.

The Wii is playing to the casual crowd, and it offered a system that is $250 rather than the $400-600 offerings their competitors had. Wii Sports, Wii Fit, and Wii Sports Resort are huge selling points for the console, and the latter they just got out the doors. The chances of this console being paired with another is pretty high, so you shouldn't read that number as 100% dominance over another. Games that historical gamers want just aren't offered on that console, so you're almost looking at an overlap of a target audience. Yes, Lego Indiana Jones is offered on all consoles, but the upcoming Batman: Arkham Asylum is not. Yet, for every Halo or God of War, there will be a Mario, Zelda, or Metroid to meet the challenge.

The downside to this, at least logically, is that if the casual crowd isn't hooked by Wii Sports Resort, then there aren't many more "must-have" titles in the near future for Nintendo. They've flaunted everything so far, and while they realize E3 was a bust, I still think they're missing the point. This "horse" idea they have floating around right now sounds a bit too much. Sure, imagine Panzer Dragoon in a full fledged Wii-room, but Natal has a chance to blow that out of the water with a successful launch - minus the extra hardware.

Give Nintendo until the end of this holiday season, because there will be a price drop, and the fringe-gamers from the casual side will jump in. After that, start looking for things to level off, but I don't expect sales to look bleak. It's like an iPhone, at this point. You can get it elsewhere, and cheaper, but the name lends itself to shopping by recognition.

On Microsoft's end, you have the "hardcore" crowd...supposedly. It is the standard "safe' console that will have everything you want, and they're even getting RPG's into the mix with their hightened focus on Japan. This is a balanced console with three major things going for it. They "could" drop Live pricing altogether, there's Project Natal, and they are the most prepared to take the price hit when the drops start coming. They also have a good lineup coming so far, and anything that Sony is going to do, they will match it in some way.

System sales will go up steadily. This will probably be the most steady rise you're going to see. The Xbox 360 has everything it needs to continue with plenty of good games coming in the next couple of years. Microsoft is also trying to get a branding idea going on, with Windows Live, Zune, and Xbox brands linking in scope. This becomes really dangerous to the other two in the next generation, but the big X-factor is Project Natal.

This will be the defining moment of the console. Success is not something that's measurable by a working design. It works, supposedly, and it can only work better in the future or they would've just released it. The trouble is implementation. Every gaming company is guilty of having a good idea get thrown to the wolves with no one really caring to back it up. Hell, Nintendo only JUST gave us 1:1, so even a successful idea can still be left to rot for a few years before really getting a deserved push. If Natal works and is backed strongly, the Xbox 360 and whatever the NextBox will be are going to get more sales and cement themselves into the fight for a while.

Sony is the black sheep, and I don't just mean the color. What they have given the public is a system that can pretty much do anything. Its feature set is still not realized, and firmware updates will prove that. Even it's feature set pales in comparison to what its hardware will be able to do. Trouble is, the game library is...slim. There is a future in the console, so it's not going to die off, but it is lacking in the sales and developers aren't developing on its strengths for monetary reasons. If the PS3 sold like the Wii did, then do you honestly think Resident Evil 5 would have been released on both consoles at the same time?

It's expensive, but there's a huge beacon of hope. First, as mentioned, it's not dying. There is a library of games on the way, and the one thing Sony hasn't had yet is coming: Final Fantasy XIII. No, I'm not exactly thinking of buying it because Squeenix sort of ruined FF for me, but system sales will jump on that week. Pair that up with the price drop that HAS to come before the holiday season, and you have the sleekest piece of tech on the market waiting to make a leap back into the fray. As for future sustainability, all these guys really have to do is put up a fight with the motion controls the other two are going to have. Just a fight. Mind you, I don't mean throwing a gimmick out like the EyeToy, but actually trying to put something out there that will equal Wii Sports. The magic wand is probably not going to work, but the pair-up with the PS Eye might just do the trick. If I can get my own batting stance into a baseball game, then the concept will have worked enough to get some casuals on board.

All that said, each console is going to be fine. I put up those numbers earlier to show something off, and that is that there is no conceivable way that any of the current consoles will "lose" the fight. Sure, the install base is higher. You can see why the moderately successful TurboGrafx looks like a failure when paired up with an actual failure like the Dreamcast that actually sold more consoles. The industry has grown that much, and continues to grow. The PS3 has pretty much matched the old Xbox sales totals already with plenty of room to grow, so no one should worry about their system.

One console will always dominate the rest for some reason or another. The NES popularized gaming. The SNES was a continuation of the popularity and support. The Playstation scored coups early and frequently and grabbed CD-based gaming by the horns. The Playstation 2 followed that up the same way the SNES did. This gen, Nintendo really nailed it...and I wonder if they can follow it up.

That's a rant for another day.

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Bring back the arcade

There have been so many references to the "arcade" in the modern console gen that, statistically, someone should have accidentally stumbled across the correct definition. Looking at each major offering from the big three, the only "arcade" concept that they want to get across is that they managed to snag the rights to actual arcade games from decades ago. While this is all well and good, these aren't actually helping advance the idea of a gaming arcade, and there's a gold mine waiting to be had if someone actually thought about what made money-making arcades in the old days.

"Quarter-munching" is a term that has become extinct. Even console games these days allow you to play through with infinite lives. I had to slap myself out of absurd behavior when I realized Duck Tales for the NES had approximately zero continues to help the player out. Not that I am lobbying for the return of cheap greed tactics on behalf of the arcade developers ala Ikari Warriors 3, but getting good at an arcade game that no one really owned demanded an attention span. Games demanded technique. Not all of them, but a good amount.

Also, arcades were in malls. I'm not going to bore you with "back in my day" stories, because those are worthless opinions that change with the times. Just because I don't generally like to run into crying emo kids that looked like they crawled out of a dumpster with burnt Crisco on their heads doesn't mean I'm equating arcades with age groups. They aren't equal. In arcades in the 80's and 90's, it did not matter what group you were. What mattered was that Mortal Kombat had arrived, and you were either going to kick ass or get it handed to you regardless of what hair the opponent was wearing. Games brought kids together, period. In arcades, you left it all behind.

Now, arcades barely have a grasp on culture and don't have many good games in them if you did stumble across one. At home, the arcade concept has been reduced to talking immense amounts of shit without respecting the person on the other end because, well, you're talking to your TV screen. Super Smash Bros. Brawl got nailed by so many people because it was a "simple" game, but that "simple" game brought everyone into the living room regardless of skill levels. So did the arcades. Your dad would wonder what was going on with you and then find himself playing the old Star Wars arcade cabinet while you blasted things on Smash T.V., and while you were waiting for your mother to show up you would play skee-ball.

Dave & Busters is a relatively foreign concept to Alaskans, but on a trip to the lower 48 I managed to get myself into one. A few hundred inebriated people in their mid-20's were giggling to themselves with a pint in one hand and the joystick in the other. Looking all around, I would see girlfriends cheering their boyfriends on, already knowing which stuffed animal they wanted. I would see some kid dressed up in your classic ghetto gear pounding away at a fighting game, and to his right I would see one of the geekiest corporate recruits to ever wear a tucked in polo shirt. They were both laughing and enjoying themselves. That's what gaming is about.

When I heard that Nintendo decided to launch its own Arcade section, I just hung my head and sighed. Is this what we really need? Another company rereleasing old arcade games in the name of home convenience? That's great, but that's not an Arcade. That's a game, release "in arcades" first.

So here's an idea. Get a real arcade. Make good, simple, fun games that don't involve 200 megs of hard drive space. Get them on a "channel" or something, but make them available for everyone. Credits cost 10 cents. If the game itself costs $10, then each credit is true credit towards purchase. 100 plays=ownership.

This is a win-all situation. If a million people just try the game out one time, then the developer just scored itself $100,000 just for releasing the game. On top of that, players went to the arcade to play games they loved and to try new ones. Nowadays, people (including myself) brag about their home gaming setup and flaunt it to everyone they know. Why not turn these people into hosts that can actually make some friends off of this by bringing everyone over to try out some arcade gaming? Playing through a selection of 20 different games (good launch number, I think) not only scores the gaming industry some dough, it also sounds like a recipe for controller passing fun.

The last thing that could be revived with this concept is the idea of a high score. It used to be that your local mall would have an arcade stained in the initials of a select few. That was the mark of excellence. Nobody actually remembered the initials, but the focus went from the arcade to the entire world in the snap of a finger. Bring back the high score. Make it local and regional, as well as worldwide. Give gamers a chance to see the small picture before thrusting them into a room full of level 70's in Korea.

Just bring back the real arcade feeling, is all I'm sayin'.

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

A little less conversation

Yahoo! and MSN are two different entities when it comes to the entertainment world. As much as you'd love to be the first to bash MSN for mainstream stories, at least they don't employ relative idiots into their company like the former. There has never been a Yahoo! entertainment highlight that I have felt intrigued about. I generally get the sense that they let high school yearbook clubs do the work for them, and the Playback series specifically reeks of...well, hackery. It's extremly bad stuff, and I even get the sense every other "feature" that they are targeting parents who don't know anything about gaming. That may be true, but it's sort of insulting to...well...me. I know games, and they don't.

MSN, however, generally keeps in touch with multiple levels of the industry, usually citing a good combination of gamers, the industry, and the hard numbers to back up anything they write. A little slacked, of course, but nothing I would ever slam them on. Recently, they did a bit on motion controls and a decent list of remakes that could be done with them. I appreciated the scope of their idea, especially when it came to Pilotwings. Sadly, it just makes me wish for a VR helmet.

I'll be the first to say that going forward with an advanced idea too early is suicidally stupid from a business and reputation standpoint. Look at the overpowered Jaguar and Saturn. Both had complex ideas in a very absurdly confusing box that developers didn't want to touch. The VR idea worked rarely, and it's scope was limited to game shows, technology features, and amusement parks. No practical gaming use was made from that tech, and no one has dared touch it since in any serious fashion. Yet, here I am, about to say what I firmly believe should not happen.

Bring back VR.

Look, I know that you have every right to lynch me for saying that, but there are facts that can vindicate me. No one is going to get VR right, and we're at least 5 years from doing it the slightest bit of justice, but we can take a step backwards. You heard me. Rewind our tech five years to match a new tech. It's like a maturity match. You'd hate for your 16 year old daughter to scrog a 35 year old, but 18 wouldn't be as bad. So why not bring Goldeneye back with the VR helmet?

The trouble is that all the tech points to this being the final destination. We first arrived at VR only to scrub it in an effort to get everything else right first. Now we have photo-realism and nothing to evolve with in a gameplay sense. Nintendo made the "rumble" feature standard, Sony joined with them on the motion control front, and Natal is promising that we don't even need a controller to enjoy games. Even nVidia, Sony, and HD set makers are offering up future versions of 3-D gaming with or without a set of glasses. Everything is pointing right back at VR.

The good: we've learned from our mistakes. You simply cannot force an advanced idea into the mainstream. We are fully capable of getting VR chambers with terrific graphics on several processors combined with wind, temperature, force feedback, etc...but we don't. It costs too much. No one will back it. Developers for these things are too clumsy and careless. We have baby stepped our way towards even uttering the phrase "virtual reality" for at least a decade, and no one has said it since in a serious light.

The bad: We're dodging it at this point. 3-D glasses restrict you more than anything. The player is still confined to the POV allowed by a television set. Project Natal is great, but how is a player going to turn around in an FPS? How is a player going to aim? There will obviously be sidesteps like the Wii's bounding box, but that's only a sidestep. The Wii has proven, if anything, that the great idea of free-motion is nothing without focus. IGN once had an idea back in the day of what the Revolution's control scheme was actually going to be, and their ideas blew the Wiimote out of the water, mainly because they understood that anything free-motion was going to demand a focus. The focus a gamer has right now is the TV set, and while HD has broadened the focus, it's only been expanded in width...nothing else.

VR is a concept that should happen again, but I'm not entirely sure when it should happen. The later it happens, the more consumers will pay for technology that is only adaquate. As a community, we will literally be taken for granted. The sooner it happens, the less games we can actually expect and the less support it will bring. There's also a far greater chance of a second failure and another decade long delay.

All of the signs point towards VR, but I'm interested in when the industry will admit this. 3-D television sets or goggles don't impress me. VR would...and I'm willing to take the graphical hit to attain it.

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Staying dead

In case you hadn't heard, this little piece of info was dropped just over a week ago. I hadn't heard it myself until last night, but it's interesting nonetheless. Apparently, Wesker is dead. I thought I knew that already, considering I killed him. As much as I let out a very loud "Noooooo!!!" when Capcom axed my favorite jackass of all time, I'm very happy that they might be following through with this.

It's getting old. The whole thing. It takes a television series 13 episodes, maybe 24, to complete a story arc that looms overhead. Capcom managed to take 13 years to maybe finish theirs. This reboot idea they tossed out is just bothering me, because as far as the story goes, I think I'm tired of it for the moment. They really should just leave the original cast alone for a while and go explore the rest of their universe without dragging S.T.A.R.S. back into it. Leon, I don't mind so much, because we had an original go with him and one hell of a ride in Resident Evil 4 that's hard to forget, but at least he is now in a "non-zombie hunting" role in the world. I'd like to see that get explored in a game, and I thought that Capcom might have been on to something. Resident Evil 4 seemed to do a good job in establishing a universe, and I kind of saw Leon as becoming something of a persistent fixer after that and his movie. You know, kind of like Doctor Who, except instead of time-traveling there were just biohazards everywhere. Yeah, I know, it's a stretch.

Capcom just needs to learn to let it go, no matter what people say. Yes, we always piss and moan as fans, but all of their series are based off of repetition and changing as little as possible when it comes to the story. Kill off another character if you have to, but do something. It's a big world, and I'm sure that there's something else going on. B.S.A.A. isn't just S.T.A.R.S. 2.0... surely something else must have happened in the world to spark its creation. I'm seriously beginning to think that Raccoon City residents are actually the real plague in their world, because trouble only seems to find them.

Don't reboot...just find another story to tell. Taking down Umbrella was a great step in letting go, and Wesker is just as important, but you've still got a few steps of recovery before you can avoid the "over-saturated" tag, Capcom. At least they're admitting their addiction. That's the most important step.

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit