It';s been just over a decade. What happened? Where did the genre go?
Whether it was Christopher Blair or a pilot in the Rebel Alliance, the 90's always had some place for you to go in order to get your space-flight fix. It was a great concept when done right. I was never a Wing Commander fan because I never played the games. I was of the X-Wing camp. The last game I played in that series was X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, but nothing worthwhile has come up since. I think the timing is now perfect for a return.
I feel a rant coming on, so let me organize myself by starting at the beginning. Star Raiders was really the first of the genre, and the Atari release had the wow-factor going for it in being the first of its kind. Largely forgotten by the majority of gamers, it would be forgotten for almost fifteen years. In its stead, computers would show off their capabilities through real-world flight sims and jet-fighter games. If you were buying an Apple II, PC, Amiga, or whatever your box choice was, you were bound to be given a joystick for the purpose of flying a 747 or bush-plane. Don't get me wrong, it was astounding to see at the time. Those were amazing graphics, long before we even had the imagination to dream up the Half-Life engine.
Yet, in 1990, Wing Commander was released, to be followed by X-Wing 4 years later. These games changed everything we expected from our PC games. They were high and above the software available at the time because of the way they used things that were already available. In other words, while Mode 7 was still in its infancy, gamers could plop themselves into deep space in relative 3-D and enjoy themselves thoroughly.
We need these games back. It's been quite a long time since anything worthy of X-Wing's reign has come along, and even the genre itself has changed to be more of a console experience. Star Wars : Shadows of the Empire didn't get the magic down, and Rogue Squadron borrowed more from Rebel Assault than anything else. Even away from space and galaxies far far away, we get games like Crimson Skies for flight-combat. Nothing has stepped up. X-Wing was captivating, Wing Commander had a huge following, and nothing else has really ever touched them.
Do we need the style to return? I think it's time to consider it. Every controller is already packed with the ability to, at the very least, fake a flight-stick. Whether it's motion control or the analog sticks, we don't have to go out and buy the hardware just to enjoy the genre, though it's way more rewarding to get behind the real thing.
The games are well suited for the modern gaming climate, flexible to fit into anyone's schedule. The amount of missions available in these games were addictive enough to sucker a gamer in for hours, and with missions of varying depth, a gamer could choose between 10-30 minute battles depending on their schedule. On top of that, we already have the tools that we wanted available back then on our systems now. We all wanted multiplayer as well as headsets, and there's nothing better to fix the Rambo, score-stacking culture than to force players to cooperate and coordinate with their wingmen. Without a wingman, you're dead from the second you leave the fighter bay, and that's exactly what's needed to bring random players together now.
One thing that could be incredibly innovative is to borrow the idea of medals from the original games. By having teammates vote for your ability in flight, players could have their say in determining whether or not somebody just went Leeroy, leaving your team in the dust for personal glory.So, award medal-credits to fellow players. If a pilot does a damn good job at saving teammates, voting him points will literally leave him decorated as a good teammate for the world to see. Clans are replaced with squadrons, an online/offline game of galactic dominance could be a year-long game of Risk....the possibilities are endless. Sure, these ideas could be used in FPS games, but I think this generation forgot how gripping space combat was.
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
May 20, 2010
May 13, 2010
To Kyle Kulyk
Read your article, and I would like to announce to the world some very good news.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Now, before you start drooling in rage, let me rationally let you and the rest of the world know exactly what I mean by "good news". Owners of systems don't have to worry about their systems being broken, antiquated pieces of crap a week after release. If something is broken, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft will fix it, and even better, they will keep adding to the pile of goodies that you can expect with your purchased consoles.
What Mr. Kulyk is trying to say is that because the EULA, which is historically proven to mean very little when it comes to legally protecting anything, would become a one way street. Since you can't remove a feature, you couldn't possibly add one without suffering the same legal backlash. Well....no. That's not what it means at all.
The EULA, TOS, or whatever you want to call it, is generally considered to be a "cover your ass" method of displaying the rules you intend to follow in relation to the law. If Sony were to include a paragraph prohibiting the use of pornographic images as avatars, they could do this. Their servers are a privilege, and for a person to get online flashing junk everywhere is in violation of the standards Sony would like to set for themselves. Legally, Sony may set standards above and beyond what is lawful in a public place, just like private property. If someone sues Sony to allow their junk to be an avatar, they can't cite free speech as a defense, and Sony wins easily.
What those agreements can't do is break an already existing law. You may absolutely state that you have a higher expectation of a consumer than a law will allow, but you absolutely cannot break the law while doing so. Removal of a purchased feature is like an auto-maker saying that they have the right to come and strip the paint off your car. Certain things are illegal. Theft is illegal. Now, the question is whether or not Other OS was an advertised feature, and that argument is one that Sony is probably going to lose. The reason is that Sony made a profit using these unique feature to separate themselves from the XBox 360. If one person purchases a PS3 knowing that the Other OS was a feature, then Sony made money off that.
What bothers me is that the suing seems amateur. I read the dates that someone wants compensation for, March 27th 2010, I think, was the closing date. Slim PS3's that have been on the shelf for months have never had the Other OS feature, and should not be a part of the lawsuit at all. Trying to make the argument that gamers are intelligent about their purchases while not being intelligent about what systems are in the mix doesn't sound like a great place to start building a reputation.
So, Kyle Kulyk, you are wrong. The lawsuits are there to protect you, not take things away from you. The EULA is something that needs to be fought against. It's called precedent. If they take away features now and no one legally stops them, then they COULD, in theory, take away the Blu-Ray player that came with the system by locking it out. If there was a security hole in the Other OS, that's what needed to be fixed. The hole. An EULA can never, ever break an already existing law. Theft is against the law, and Sony is guilty of that. They are absolutely allowed to modify, add, and remove things, but a paid feature being removed is theft. If they took Facebook away, they are allowed to. If they add Twitter, they are allowed to. You're saying that if they can't remove Other OS then they can't add Twitter or update their Facebook functionality, and I'm sorry to say that you're completely mis-informed. Please don't post anything on this topic again. It's all wrong. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Now, before you start drooling in rage, let me rationally let you and the rest of the world know exactly what I mean by "good news". Owners of systems don't have to worry about their systems being broken, antiquated pieces of crap a week after release. If something is broken, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft will fix it, and even better, they will keep adding to the pile of goodies that you can expect with your purchased consoles.
What Mr. Kulyk is trying to say is that because the EULA, which is historically proven to mean very little when it comes to legally protecting anything, would become a one way street. Since you can't remove a feature, you couldn't possibly add one without suffering the same legal backlash. Well....no. That's not what it means at all.
The EULA, TOS, or whatever you want to call it, is generally considered to be a "cover your ass" method of displaying the rules you intend to follow in relation to the law. If Sony were to include a paragraph prohibiting the use of pornographic images as avatars, they could do this. Their servers are a privilege, and for a person to get online flashing junk everywhere is in violation of the standards Sony would like to set for themselves. Legally, Sony may set standards above and beyond what is lawful in a public place, just like private property. If someone sues Sony to allow their junk to be an avatar, they can't cite free speech as a defense, and Sony wins easily.
What those agreements can't do is break an already existing law. You may absolutely state that you have a higher expectation of a consumer than a law will allow, but you absolutely cannot break the law while doing so. Removal of a purchased feature is like an auto-maker saying that they have the right to come and strip the paint off your car. Certain things are illegal. Theft is illegal. Now, the question is whether or not Other OS was an advertised feature, and that argument is one that Sony is probably going to lose. The reason is that Sony made a profit using these unique feature to separate themselves from the XBox 360. If one person purchases a PS3 knowing that the Other OS was a feature, then Sony made money off that.
What bothers me is that the suing seems amateur. I read the dates that someone wants compensation for, March 27th 2010, I think, was the closing date. Slim PS3's that have been on the shelf for months have never had the Other OS feature, and should not be a part of the lawsuit at all. Trying to make the argument that gamers are intelligent about their purchases while not being intelligent about what systems are in the mix doesn't sound like a great place to start building a reputation.
So, Kyle Kulyk, you are wrong. The lawsuits are there to protect you, not take things away from you. The EULA is something that needs to be fought against. It's called precedent. If they take away features now and no one legally stops them, then they COULD, in theory, take away the Blu-Ray player that came with the system by locking it out. If there was a security hole in the Other OS, that's what needed to be fixed. The hole. An EULA can never, ever break an already existing law. Theft is against the law, and Sony is guilty of that. They are absolutely allowed to modify, add, and remove things, but a paid feature being removed is theft. If they took Facebook away, they are allowed to. If they add Twitter, they are allowed to. You're saying that if they can't remove Other OS then they can't add Twitter or update their Facebook functionality, and I'm sorry to say that you're completely mis-informed. Please don't post anything on this topic again. It's all wrong. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
May 12, 2010
Summertime.
Contrary to what the blog suggests, I do have a summertime life that is quite different from how I live in the winter. Living in Alaska, it's a cycle of polarity. You're either outside soaking in as much as possible, or you're inside hiding from the cold and entertaining yourself with anything electronic. At least that's how is is for the majority of the people I know, because unless snowboarding gets brought up, there's really no reason for a human being to subject themselves to -30 and worse on a daily basis.
So that means I don't play games nearly as much as I used to, and with the exception of firing up a freeware copy of Privateer, there hasn't been much gaming going on here. A $20 used purchase of Farcry 2 was so disappointing that it's a wonder I even bother trying to get back into the swing of things. All that will change later when I pick up 3D Dot Game Heroes, because I have little doubt that there will be entertainment value in that title.
Many articles have sprung up in my mind, but sadly, I have to resort to an opinion piece on the direction EA has decided to go with their Ten Dollar business model. It's been mentioned before in the blog, but never head-on, and my recent decision to blacklist EA products from anything I may buy in the future makes me feel as if I need to justify my decision in length.
The Ten Dollar model that EA rolled out in the past few months is a response to used game sales, or at least that's the way it feels. There are rising costs all across the board when it comes to gaming, but that's not really any gamer's fault, so I'm hesitant to say that EA has any reason whatsoever to be pushing this revenue plan for any other reason. When a game is published, such as the latest Madden title, it's purchased at full price by...we'll go with a million people $60 has been pushed out the door, but a hundred thousand people aren't happy with their purchase or have had their fill, so they send it back to Gamestop and get some store credit for it. Gamestop turns and sells that game back to players for $45 a pop, so $4.5 million is on the table that EA gets no part of. EA wants to make some sort of profit on that turnover, especially when those people will be using servers to play online or benefiting from roster updates. They also understand that there is zero value in their game after a year goes by, and a trip to Gamestop will show you a Madden lineup full of $7 or less titles.
Also, say that you owned Madden 11 and your friend wanted to "share" the copy with you, using her/her own profile to take on other players without sullying your record. In fact, this is quite common with roommates and college students. Money is tight, and there's no reason to have two copies of something that already includes local multiplayer. Well, EA wants each person in those situations to purchase a $10 pass that will allow them to use the online components, too. Basically, it's a one time MMO character fee.
There are benefits to this, but I'm not sure if EA and I are on the same page when I say that. If a person is to pay the extra $10 fee to get into this online "club", then it damn sure better be a club. It would be akin to joining a fantasy baseball team and paying the entry fee to reward the winner and buy the physical goods needed to run it. So if EA is asking me to pay $10 to join this club, then I expect a world of extra content outside of the basics. Everything that has ever been in a Madden game should be available from the very get go. Rosters should be up to date as soon as opening kickoff at no cost to the consumer. Online play should be a function.
Outside of that, the extra costs should involve detailed league creators and maintenance tools and uncharged extra content such as special teams, players, and rosters. The kind of things that you would dump an extra $10 on in the way of bonus DLC should be included in the pass. It would be like getting a VIP pass to an amusement park. You pay a little more, but you get a lot of little extra bonuses that make it worth your time. For a Madden 11 fan, this might make that title worth it and valuable to them until Madden 13 comes out. The pass should also include guest privileges that you can include in the pass, instantly covering your roommates, friends, or fans who would never buy the game. It would help EA, because that would give incentive for newcomers to try out the game with a world of new content that they would receive when they buy into the EA pass.
So it could very well be a benefit. But it won't be.
EA is supposed to be a company of artists, hence the name, Electronic Arts. If you only have so much money to work with, then put the money you have to the best and most artistic uses possible. There is zero justification for a $10 extra charge on top of the full sticker price that never seems to drop year to year for the same old Madden bag of crap. You're paying $70 a year for what 2K Games has proven is only worth $20-30. Suckering more money out of people because you can't think of better ways to flush your Madden budget undermines the development skill you're supposed to have. You're not doing your job. You're not creatin a game, you're creating a self-described black hole for cash.
It doesn't stop at Madden, either. Mass Effect 2 came out with an extra packed into the game only available to people who originally bought the game, or else they would be subjected to spending the extra $10 to acquire said content. Granted, the content wasn't an integral part of the game and could be subject to the "pre-order bonus" that retailers love so much. I'm a firm believer that a game should be complete on release. Even if you're going to throw down on some DLC, I think that it should not be integral to the experience. In EA's case, they are treading that line. The Cerberus Network was on the disk. It should have been part of the product.
So EA now joins Activision and Ubisoft as developers I will not buy from due to bad business decisions. They are trying to change the definition of what a game is into something that I just can't appreciate. It's like knowing a mechanic that will not see you as a well of money and as a genuine customer. These are not those type of businesses. They are the ones that see you as a paycheck and nothing more. Sony is also on this list due to their ineptness in handling their consumer base. They had ample opportunity to build that relationship, and they spat on the customers every chance they got. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
So that means I don't play games nearly as much as I used to, and with the exception of firing up a freeware copy of Privateer, there hasn't been much gaming going on here. A $20 used purchase of Farcry 2 was so disappointing that it's a wonder I even bother trying to get back into the swing of things. All that will change later when I pick up 3D Dot Game Heroes, because I have little doubt that there will be entertainment value in that title.
Many articles have sprung up in my mind, but sadly, I have to resort to an opinion piece on the direction EA has decided to go with their Ten Dollar business model. It's been mentioned before in the blog, but never head-on, and my recent decision to blacklist EA products from anything I may buy in the future makes me feel as if I need to justify my decision in length.
The Ten Dollar model that EA rolled out in the past few months is a response to used game sales, or at least that's the way it feels. There are rising costs all across the board when it comes to gaming, but that's not really any gamer's fault, so I'm hesitant to say that EA has any reason whatsoever to be pushing this revenue plan for any other reason. When a game is published, such as the latest Madden title, it's purchased at full price by...we'll go with a million people $60 has been pushed out the door, but a hundred thousand people aren't happy with their purchase or have had their fill, so they send it back to Gamestop and get some store credit for it. Gamestop turns and sells that game back to players for $45 a pop, so $4.5 million is on the table that EA gets no part of. EA wants to make some sort of profit on that turnover, especially when those people will be using servers to play online or benefiting from roster updates. They also understand that there is zero value in their game after a year goes by, and a trip to Gamestop will show you a Madden lineup full of $7 or less titles.
Also, say that you owned Madden 11 and your friend wanted to "share" the copy with you, using her/her own profile to take on other players without sullying your record. In fact, this is quite common with roommates and college students. Money is tight, and there's no reason to have two copies of something that already includes local multiplayer. Well, EA wants each person in those situations to purchase a $10 pass that will allow them to use the online components, too. Basically, it's a one time MMO character fee.
There are benefits to this, but I'm not sure if EA and I are on the same page when I say that. If a person is to pay the extra $10 fee to get into this online "club", then it damn sure better be a club. It would be akin to joining a fantasy baseball team and paying the entry fee to reward the winner and buy the physical goods needed to run it. So if EA is asking me to pay $10 to join this club, then I expect a world of extra content outside of the basics. Everything that has ever been in a Madden game should be available from the very get go. Rosters should be up to date as soon as opening kickoff at no cost to the consumer. Online play should be a function.
Outside of that, the extra costs should involve detailed league creators and maintenance tools and uncharged extra content such as special teams, players, and rosters. The kind of things that you would dump an extra $10 on in the way of bonus DLC should be included in the pass. It would be like getting a VIP pass to an amusement park. You pay a little more, but you get a lot of little extra bonuses that make it worth your time. For a Madden 11 fan, this might make that title worth it and valuable to them until Madden 13 comes out. The pass should also include guest privileges that you can include in the pass, instantly covering your roommates, friends, or fans who would never buy the game. It would help EA, because that would give incentive for newcomers to try out the game with a world of new content that they would receive when they buy into the EA pass.
So it could very well be a benefit. But it won't be.
EA is supposed to be a company of artists, hence the name, Electronic Arts. If you only have so much money to work with, then put the money you have to the best and most artistic uses possible. There is zero justification for a $10 extra charge on top of the full sticker price that never seems to drop year to year for the same old Madden bag of crap. You're paying $70 a year for what 2K Games has proven is only worth $20-30. Suckering more money out of people because you can't think of better ways to flush your Madden budget undermines the development skill you're supposed to have. You're not doing your job. You're not creatin a game, you're creating a self-described black hole for cash.
It doesn't stop at Madden, either. Mass Effect 2 came out with an extra packed into the game only available to people who originally bought the game, or else they would be subjected to spending the extra $10 to acquire said content. Granted, the content wasn't an integral part of the game and could be subject to the "pre-order bonus" that retailers love so much. I'm a firm believer that a game should be complete on release. Even if you're going to throw down on some DLC, I think that it should not be integral to the experience. In EA's case, they are treading that line. The Cerberus Network was on the disk. It should have been part of the product.
So EA now joins Activision and Ubisoft as developers I will not buy from due to bad business decisions. They are trying to change the definition of what a game is into something that I just can't appreciate. It's like knowing a mechanic that will not see you as a well of money and as a genuine customer. These are not those type of businesses. They are the ones that see you as a paycheck and nothing more. Sony is also on this list due to their ineptness in handling their consumer base. They had ample opportunity to build that relationship, and they spat on the customers every chance they got. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit
May 2, 2010
There's no crying in baseball!
You won't find me buying sports games brand new off the shelf every year like most people, but I like to have a game or two in my possession at any given time. It's all about imagination for me. Being able to experience the biggest moments in sports from the comfort of my living room has a lot to do with it, but influencing those moments is what sells it. It's not enough to just slap a league license onto a title and call it good, no matter how realistic that game may be. We're talking about video games, here, where anything is possible. So why are there no women in these games?
It all sounds a bit random at first, because with games like FIFA 10 and MLB: The Show '10 out, I can see why some people may think I'm nuts for complaining. So hear me out.
I picked up a copy of NBA 07 at Wal-Mart for $1. That's right, a dollar. Why? Well, my first thought is that a game with Kobe on the front is clearly a worthless piece of crap. My second thought was that selling an '07 version of any sports game is stupid to have lying on shelves in the first place. It made sense. I picked it up anyway since it was less than a Coke, and it would give me the opportunity to see what the Sony NBA line had to offer. With NBA2K and NBA Live taking the crown each year, I wonder if Sony could even hold a candle.
Much to my surprise, I found out that there was no create-a-player option. The first thing that I do in any game is create a player for fun, just to see what's possible and how easy it is to accomplish. Some games are way too complicated but heavy on detail, and some are way too simple and never respond quite the way you'd like them to. Realism is a completely different story, but I look for that, too. Nothing was to be found in this game, as far as I could tell, that would let me create a player. If there is, I'd love to know, because there's almost no way I'm going to bother playing the game without the option.
Yet, what bothered me the most was that after thinking long and hard about it, I don't remember a game that lets you create a woman to play the sport. I may be wrong here about EVERY game ignoring the gender entirely, but the vast majority don't allow it. That's....stupid.
I feel that I'm completely allowed to nitpick, because I'm not really nitpicking. Sure, no woman has ever played in the MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, or EPL. If realism is the goal, then yes, shutting women out is realistic. However, making an 8 footer and maxing out all the stats pretty much makes for an impossible player in any league, doesn't it? We're in the world of video games, and while video games are starting to pride themselves in their realism, they seem to forget that that they are still video games. Video games are meant to be fantastical in some ways. Even if MLB: The Show '11 came out and was picture perfect, comparable to a TV broadcast (it isn't out of the question, either)...it would still miss some of the point.
What message is this sending to women who love sports? If you have a 7 year old daughter that is crazy about sports and follows a team religiously, why are we not sending a better message with our games? Even if there will never be a woman that can play the sport as well as the men (and I do not believe this at all), why are we not allowed to put that imagination into our games to allow for something to happen that otherwise wouldn't? I'm not 8 foot, nor do I sink 3-pointers 90% of the time, but I am allowed that fantasy in my video games. Why can't a woman get the same feeling?
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)