game naked

Friday, February 03, 2006

Top 5 Countdown, Day 5

All this week, I'm doing a countdown of what I deem to be the top 5 threats to gaming society in America. If you miss a segment, you can catch it in the links below.

1/30/06 - Threat #5
1/31/06 - Threat #4
2/1/06 - Threat #3
2/2/06 - Threat #2

May I have a drumroll, please...


Papa Rotzi.


It might surprise you to see that the media trumped politicians as my #1 threat against American gamers. The reason is simple enough; the media reaches every single American, and affects their opinions. The danger lies in how they report the news.

Much like there’s an alleged liberal-bias in the media, I propose that there’s an anti-gaming sentiment that permeates all major news organizations. You can see it in all of the sensationalist reporting of a school shooting, or in the recent tragedy in which a couple of teenagers were drag racing and a taxi cab was impacted. No matter the incident, if it involves anyone under the age of 30, the media immediately starts hyping up the possibility that it was somehow related to a video game (or they skip the hype and go straight to blaming game x. Rarely do you see a report covering two sides of such an issue.

For instance, Jack Thompson has been invited to appear on shows like “Dateline” and “60 Minutes” several times, giving him the opportunity to belittle and berate the gaming community as being “depressed” and “[in need of] a life” nearly unopposed. I’ve yet to view one of his interviews where he has a counterpart of equal status to really challenge his twisted views. Of course, he gets invitations to do many of these appearances because he has a very persuasive way of presenting his arguments, so people just readily believe anything he has to say. It doesn’t matter that he misconstrues facts and misquotes psychological studies; when you’re Jack Thompson, if someone doesn’t take your word as irrefutable universe-defining law, then they are prejudiced, ignorant, slanderous, harassing, or a turncoat against your cause.

But it’s not really Jack’s fault; the reporters involved aren’t doing their research like they should. For instance, on occasion I hear about a psychological study or research project that links video games to acts of violence. Having actually researched as many finished studies as I can get my hands on, and being close friends with a leading psychologist in this very field, I can tell you that there have been no studies that could prove that video games cause violence. Definitely, there are plenty of studies that indicate that video games, and any other media portraying violence, can and frequently do elevate aggression levels in their users/viewers. However, higher aggression doesn’t mean a decrease in moral values; it most often translates into a competitive mood, and all of the studies I’ve read show that the effects that video games have on the mind are temporary at best. If reporters were to read the research that they’re reporting on, they’d know this to be true, and it would change their stories. But the media doesn’t seem to want to check itself when it comes to video games and crimes allegedly caused by them. They want their ratings, and if that means conveying a misinterpretation of data as a fact, then they aren’t above it.

Where this gets dangerous, of course, is when that news hits their audience. A large number of people in America don’t play video games, so when they’re told that today’s games are violent “murder simulators,” they understandably react very negatively towards video games. More often than not, they’ll take what they hear on the news as absolute fact (why wouldn’t it be?) and don’t do any more research for themselves. Now these people, victims of disinformation, write to their congressmen and file lawsuits against game developers over things they don’t really know enough about. Parents see these broadcasts and immediately become concerned about what their children are playing, despite the fact that they themselves bought the children’s games to begin with. As I discussed in yesterday’s article, there was a grandmother who filed a suit against Take-Two and Rockstar Games over the disabled content in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas that was re-enabled via the “Hot Coffee” modification. She filed the suit because of the risk that game put her grandchildren in when they played the game. She bought the game for her grandkids in the first place, despite its “M” rating.

And of course, don’t forget that these newly-concerned members of society take the little information and lots of disinformation they’ve been fed, and go straight to the polls to vote for whichever candidate says they’ll fight for our children’s safety from the video game menace.


Read full article...

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Perfect Dark Zero: Review

Perfect Dark: Zero was released as a launch title to the Xbox 360 with some very heavy hype and high expectations. Many were hoping that PDZ would be an adequate substitute for Halo 3, Microsoft was hoping for both a new blockbuster shooter franchise and for a title that would make 360s fly off of shelves. You know, considering the shortage of the consoles didn't do that to begin with. Whereas PDZ is a very enjoyable shooter with some excellent features and good solid gameplay, it does have its shortcomings and pitfalls.

There are a number of things that PDZ has going for it, such as the numerous weapon functions that are sported. Every gun in the game has a secondary function (note: not necessarily a secondary fire mode) and there are a few that even have a tertiary function (which is pretty much limited to silencers, flashlights, etc). This attention to detail is a very nice feature that Rare has included that ads a good degree of depth to the game through functionality. Only real shortcoming with this is that the flashlight is rather useless, as all areas of the game are lit well enough that a flashlight isn't needed. This is true at least on standard definition TVs, however it may be different on HDTVs, since games such as Need for Speed: Most Wanted are noticably darker on an HDTV. Another really big feature that I think is simply excellent is the weapons and inventory system, taking cues from Counter-Strike and Deus Ex. Your character, Joanna Dark, has 4 blocks that are designated for weapons and 4 blocks for inventory items. The way you load Jo up with weaponry depends on what you can fit into these blocks, for example, pistols and handheld items such as grenades, flashbangs and a weapon known as the Hawk Boomerang (a circular blade thrown from a special glove that will bounce off walls and penetrate any enemy in its path until it returns to the glove), while weapons like the automatic rifles, shotgun, superdragon, etc all take up 2 blocks and finally the heavy weaponry such as sniper rifles, rocket launcher and M60 all take up 3 blocks each. This brings a very good means of balance to the weapons that isn't present in many other shooters. For instance, in games such as Unreal Tournament and Quake your character can hold as many guns as he comes across and can stockpile ammo for each.

In games such as Halo your character can only hold 2 weapons, but they can be a combination of any 2 weapons, leaving someone able to carry the sniper rifle and the rocket launcher and still be able to throw grenades. What this bin system creates is a situation where you can't just select the most powerful weapons in the game, but instead have to weigh the facts such as what map you're going to be playing in, what you can expect in a certain level, etc when planning your layout. You're able to grab the rocket launcher and a pistol, however if you're going to be playing a level that has a lot of snipers in it with a good deal of armor you're going to be more or less screwed. This keeps people from having too much of an unfair advantage, as you can't take the rocket launcher for close-quarters quick kills and a sniper rifle for all distance kills as you could in Halo. You can still use 2 automatic weapons, which are decently powerful, but you need to keep in mind that each weapon is contained within a category like 'Pistols,' 'Handhelds,' 'SMG,' 'Assault,' 'Close Combat' and 'Heavy' and if you select 2 weapons from the same category (with the exceptions of 'Heavy' and 'Handheld') they will both use the same ammunition supply and you could be left with no weapons very quickly.

Perfect Dark: Zero sports a feature that doesn't appear much in first person shooter titles: a cover system. When Jo approaches a wall, a visual cue shows that she is able to take cover against that wall and the camera will shift to a third person view, allowing you to peer around corners, over the top of a short wall, etc. This allows you to be able to see any advancing enemies, security cameras, etc, and be able to step out from cover and begin shooting while still in third person view. This makes the game a great deal easier than it'd be otherwise, especially since, for the most part, you don't have the risk of bodily harm while in cover to see how enemies are advancing on your position and see how security cameras are moving about. After playing PDZ for a fair amount of time, you'll very well be attempting to take cover in any other FPS game.

Another feature that PDZ has is the roll, where the camera will once again shift into a third person view while Jo dives and rolls on the ground. The purpose of this is to help in evading enemy fire, as the game explains, it makes it harder for the bad guys to lock on to you. Certainly has its advantages, but the part where it really shines is in the final boss battle. The roll is a substitute for jumping, which is absent from PDZ. Developers have stated that it was a conscious decision to help balance the dynamic of gameplay, hoping to keep players out of areas they aren't supposed to be able to get to in multiplay, as well as avoid having players bouncing around to avoid enemy fire. Some say a majority of the reason why jumping is not an option is because the game is rushed. Only the developers know for sure. The third person view is also taken when Jo goes up or down a ladder or takes a zipline to a new location. Similarly to taking cover, when a ladder or zipline is within reach, a visual cue will appear to let the player know. The cue for taking a ladder is much nicer than the walk up to it solution of so many other shooter games where it can be all too easy to interact with the ladder incorrectly and either have a difficult time getting down or managing to fall to your death. You are shown when you are allowed to interact with each when “Press 'A' to Use *x*” (*x* being replaced with whatever you are interacting with) appears on your screen and when you are climbing down a ladder you can hold 'A' to slide down the ladder, which is quite slick and a very nice game detail.

A nice new dynamic that has been added to the world of Perfect Dark is the ability that has previously been found in classic titles such as The Secret of Monkey Island, Loom, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, etc, which is being able to talk to certain enemies, what you say influencing what happens next. For instance, when facing off against the first boss briefly when your objective is to disable his jet before facing him for the last time later in the level, he will yell something at you and you are given the ability to choose between 1 of 3 categories for response: “Insult,” “Taunt,” and “Intimidate”, to which he'll reply in suit and continue to shoot at you. That part is fun, but what's better is later in the game when you attempt to infiltrate a safeguarded mansion and you kill a security guard and attempt to use his radio to convince people inside to shut down radio coms. At that point, activating the radio your voice pattern is remapped with a male's via a high-tech choker that Jo is wearing and a voice at the other end comes on, asking a question or making a statement and you have to figure out which out of the options of “Bluff,” “Charm” or “Threaten” is the correct response to get that person to shut down the coms. Definitely a nice throwback to a dynamic that was used long ago and a nice element to the story.

PDZ also features an inventive health system that borrows from the now all-but-standard Halo shield system but isn't 100% similar. Jo has a health bar that's encased by another bar that shows how much armor you have. The armor is fairly standard, when you get shot the level of shielding you have gets lower, but the health bar is where things get creative. Damage isn't simply taking away from your health, but you also don't have regenerating health in the true sense of the word. Most of the damage that occurs is known as “shock damage”, where your health will decrease, but not all of it is permanent. For example, if you fall off of a balcony and hit the ground, your green bar of health will go down but there will be a white bar that is either at the 'full' level or slightly close to full and if you don't get shot or fall off any other balconies in a certain amount of time your green health bar will refill to that spot. In certain firefights you can get shot a fair amount and still go back to full health if you are able to get to some cover and heal yourself for a few moments before attacking again. The harder the difficulty the longer your health takes to recharge and the less shock damage you take and the more permanent damage you take. It's a very interesting dynamic that is a welcome break from the norm.

The single-player campaign is a good enjoyable time, however multiplayer is where PDZ really shines. Not only is there the standard local, system link and Live multiplayer events such as Killcount (Deathmatch), Team Killcount, a territorial gain mode and Capture the Flag, there are some other modes such as an assault-like game known as Dark Ops, which has a few different modes to it: Eradication, Infection, Sabotage and Onslaught, each of which is supposed to support up to 32 players and up to 15 bots. The inclusion of bots is absolutely fantastic and a feature that is missing from way too many shooters these days. There has obviously been a good deal of effort put into the multiplayer aspect. Eradication is basically Last Man Standing from Unreal Tournament, Infection plays a great deal like the Virus mode in Timesplitters: Future Perfect where you try to be the last person to be infected, Sabotage is where your primary goal is to cause as much damage to the enemy's base as possible, and then there's Onslaught, in which your objective is to make an assault upon the enemy base to fulfill a particular objective.

Unfortunately, there are a number of negative things that can be said about PDZ and areas that can be addressed where it simply falls short of the rather sizable potential it had for being a fantastic shooter. Even more unfortunate is the fact that some of the things that make it a really good game are the very things that make it rather frustrating for one reason or another. The throwback of being able to taunt, charm, bluff, etc your enemies is very interesting, but when it comes to the point in time when you're expected to use the radio to have the comms shut down to make your infiltration of the mansion easier and soon after to get the person to open the main door to let you into the mansion it can be quite difficult because you can choose the wrong option of the 3 and the correct answer isn't always obvious so you can end up replaying the level a number of times in order to get it right (there are multiple things you have to respond to, so the one you had last time will be different next time) and in the harder difficulties when it takes quite a bit of effort to get to those points to begin with it can be very frustrating if you think you're going to say the right thing and you don't and have a tactical squad sent after you to “help”, as they say over the comms. What's especially annoying is in the 'Perfect Agent' difficulty (Hard), at the very end you need to use a voice recognizer in order to finish the first part of the level before facing off in a boss battle and if you do that wrong you fail the mission and have to play the entire thing over again. Frustrating barely covers it.

One area that's not particularly negative, just an opportunity missed, deals with the cover system. It's a nice feature and really proves to be invaluable, but it's slightly bugged and not all that it could've been. For instance, when you sneak up to the left edge of a metal crate to take cover and check to see where the enemies are located, sometimes your character will take cover on the right side instead of the left and there are other times where Jo will even take cover on the right side of the other face of the crate so that you're standing out in the open and any hopes of covert operations have been shot (no pun intended). It'd be nice if those little bugs had been cleaned up, but what would've really been nice is if cover mode was more interactive and the player had been given a greater deal of control. It would have been excellent if you could press yourself against a wall at any location on the wall and then slide alongside it to the edge to peek out and shoot or duck down, slide along a low flower planter and stand up at a location of choice to take some shots before ducking down again and moving to a new location and repeat.

Having such carefully and concretely scripted cover locations really limits a player and can also create problems since it's not like an enemy doesn't know where you're taking cover and it's pretty hard to take them out in later levels where there are swarms of them all shooting on your location at once. Furthermore, it's not like it isn't possible to make Jo able to slide along a wall in cover, such as in the games WinBack and Kill.Switch, both are third person games that depended a great deal on such maneuvers in order to take out enemies and remain alive, and this was back in January of 2001. There are other games that allow you to slide along walls and peek out to open fire on enemies and we will be seeing it again in the game Gears of War, an upcoming title for the Xbox 360. This isn't a new concept and it just goes to show the game was a wee bit rushed in its lack of a really robust cover system.

An interesting feature of PDZ that is a new twist on an old concept lay in the method of zooming in with a scoped weapon. Instead of having a click-style graduated scope as is in Halo / Halo 2 of zooming in one stop per button press, the scope will zoom in to each step depending on how far in the trigger is held. Each scoped weapon has 4 steps of scoping capability, so when the trigger is held at 1/4 of the way in the scope will go to 2x zoom, at 1/2 it will be at 4x (or 3x, depending on the weapon) and 3/4 is 8x (or 6x). It's an interesting concept, however if you are under heavy fire from multiple enemies the last thing you want to have to worry about is concentrating really hard on how you're pulling the trigger to zoom in for a headshot. Perhaps a better solution may have been to have the left joystick button zoom in and the right zoom out, but to each his own. It also would have been more effective if the trigger had a click stop of sorts to it, giving sensory feedback to what step of the scope you are on, making it less of a conscious thought and more of a reactive action.

Another giveaway that the final build of the game probably isn't the shining example of all it could've been comes in the shadow effects. A fair amount of the time that you see Jo's shadow, it looks like it's composed of pixels roughly 1" squared. In the rooftops level in a co-op game, the person who plays Jack has to enter a building and run up 3 flights of stairs, each has a hallway from one staircase to another and while in these hallways, the shadows of the enemies in the floor above can be seen on the walls.
The biggest pitfalls of the game have to do with the difficulty levels. It was excellent that like in the original Nintendo 64 game Perfect Dark the amount of objectives Joanna has to do increases depending on what difficulty it is, however in PDZ there is maybe one more objective and it's more of a side objective. There could've been a number of other objectives that could've been added, the storyline could've taken a bit of a detour to add a new objective, such as using a datathief to access a mainframe to track down a particular character in the building only to find out that your contact or contract or whoever is being escorted out of the building and you need to quickly figure out how to get there and stop the evacuation, etc. Another opportunity missed.

Also relating to the difficulty level is the difficulty curve that comes with it. Unfortunately, the harder the difficulty is set to, the harder it is to kill your enemies. This makes sense to a degree, as making characters harder to kill increases the difficulty of the game and forces a player to take more cover and be more strategic and less run-and-gun, but when it requires 8 headshots to remove a helmet and *then* be able to get a headshot kill, things are starting to be a little ridiculous, especially considering that starting weapons have a maximum of 3 clips or so. It would've been a more intelligent solution for the game to simply generate more opponents rather than have those that already exist end up being extraordinarily hard to kill at times. As is typical with many other shooters, the harder the difficulty is, the easier Joanna dies in combat. This is especially true when it comes to armor-piercing rounds of sorts, such as from a sniper rifle or a magnum that will only take up to 3 shots in order to put your character down. When there are 3 or more enemies on the screen, your chances of survival nearly flatline to nothing. More or less, the harder the difficulty gets the more you have to rely on taking cover and simply waiting for them to stop firing to attempt a headshot (unless they're wearing helmets). In the earlier levels this is mostly a minor annoyance, however in later levels it becomes quite aggravating, such as in the rooftops level when you must cover Jack. Jack does not seem to believe in cover and therefore you must put down anyone shooting at him exceptionally quickly or he will die from running into a room, firing his magnum blindly while multiple enemies unload on him, which segways in to the next point, AI.

Overall, the AI of PDZ is decent, but certainly not as good as we've seen in other games. The aforementioned point of Jack failing to ever take any sort of cover (with the exception of a cutscene or two, but that doesn't at all matter) makes the game unnecessarily difficult when you are forced to cover him from several enemies, half of which have sniper rifles. Without cover, he tends to die in a few seconds if you aren't quick enough. If you happen to be close to the end of a level and he dies, you'd better hope you have a good system going because you will be starting over. Another pitfall of PDZ is the lack of semi-frequent checkpoints, forcing a significant amount of whole level restarts. It would've been nice if Jack were given the enemy AI, as they tend to take cover fairly often and have decently coordinated attacks. They also have exceptional accuracy, making for another annoyance when it gets to the point that the only time you can take a shot at people is when no one happens to be shooting at you because in hard mode they *will* hit you and you will suffer significant damage. This obviously creates a real problem should you be in the aforementioned infiltration mission and fail to figure out which response you should have for the guard over the radio and a squad is sent out to nullify you. there are a couple checkpoints that are available to help thin their numbers, but with limited ammo allotted to you for the mission it's a pretty bad situation to be in at all.

As is typical of a majority of first person shooter titles nowadays, there are vehicles in PDZ. However, there are only 2 vehicles, a hovercraft and a personal-sized walker that is able to spread some wings and take flight. The hovercraft has a mounted turret that a second player can take control of and handles alright, however the walker / flyer is a little easier to use, however the only single-play level it appears in is a jungle level, which makes the enemies almost impossible to see from the air, typically leading to them gunning you down. A downside of the walker / flyer is that it's fairly weak and doesn't take a lot of damage. Some bad programming on the developer's parts is a welt in the eye of PDZ when you realize that if you are to very carefully snipe an enemy out of a flyer, you are unable to use their perfectly fine vehicle yourself, you can only use it in that one jungle level when you come across one that's unoccupied, and that's very close to the end as well, making it pretty much a worthless vehicle that probably shouldn't have even been in it.

The multiplayer of PDZ is quite good, especially the co-op play, that can be done on local, system link and Xbox Live. The maps in the game are scalable, depending on how many people are involved the maps can get larger or smaller, and these things really help contribute to the funfactor and replayability of the game. Headshots are a little too easy to have, though, and the bot skill is fairly high, even on the lowest difficulty. Another interesting aspect is that the game seems to move at a slower pace in multiplay than it does in single play. Not really a bad thing, just slightly disappointing. It is quite nice that up to 32 players can be in a single arena simultaneously, that makes for some heated, exciting battles.

Ultimately, PDZ is a very enjoyable game with a great deal of replay value, both from the multiplayer (deathmatch and co-op) and from the single player campaign, definitely a good title for rental if you are a fan of first person shooters or purchase if you have a tendency to love them all, however there are a fair amount of areas that could've been improved upon and some areas that show just how rushed the game was. As always, play for yourself to see whether or not you personally enjoy it.



Technorati Tags: , , , , ,


Read full article...

Top 5 Countdown, Day 4

All this week, I'm doing a countdown of what I deem to be the top 5 threats to gaming society in America. If you miss a segment, you can catch it in the links below.

1/30/06 - Threat #5
1/31/06 - Threat #4
2/1/06 - Threat #3

And now to continue...


Next on the Agenda: People with Agendas

Politicians are infamous for trying to control aspects of our lives that we feel should be in our own hands. They're particularly notorious for trying to gain popularity (and votes) by latching onto a fad issue and making as big a fuss over it as possible. Ladies and gentlemen, allow me to introduce #2 on the countdown, today's threat -- Politicians.

We've all heard about it in the news: politicians trying to make a name for themselves have been very quick to make a stand against video games. Senators Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT) have been leading the "war" on our lifestyle, but others have been doing their part as well; you may recall my recent article on Texas governor-hopeful Star Locke. These people care very little about whether a game gets banned or its age rating heightened; they claim they're taking a stand for our safety, but in fact are only publicly denouncing video games because they think its what America wants. Well, that and the fact that many (if not all) of them only know what they've been told about games, and haven't actually sat down and personally played them.

For instance, take Clinton; here is a senator with aspirations for the presidency. The current scapegoat for any and every crime committed is the influence of video games; she teams up with another democrat and spearheads an initiative to hold game developers and retailers responsible for consumers' actions. By speaking out loud and proud about the evils of the digital world, she's trying to garner support from essentially anyone that isn't a gamer (the voting constituency she's aiming for is voters 35 and older, and younger females). I don't blame her for trying; it would be thrilling to have a woman take office. Hell, it would be nice to just have a change in office. I just don't approve of the use of slander in order to gain political power on false pretenses. At least its got one thing going for it; its one of the very few things that both sides of our bipartisan system agrees on.

Then there's folks like Jack Thompson, the anti-game lawyer from Miami, FL. He's not in any political office, nor has he ever publicly stated that he intends to run for anything. He's obviously trying to make a name for himself by targetting games, however, and is actually succceeding quite nicely (it doesn't hurt that he's becoming sickeningly rich off of all the people he's suckering into his never-ending string of lawsuits against the gaming industry). It can't be said that he doesn't try, though; he's filed more lawsuits against Rockstar Games and Take-Two Interactive than I can even keep track of, all on behalf of families who've lost loved ones to crimes that he blames on the Grand Theft Auto games and others, or families who feel their children are being corrupted by the content in those M-rated titles.

Hmm, there's that "children who somehow have M-rated games" thing again...

The thing we should be wary of with Jack Thompson is that he isn't the friendly-but-concerned 3rd-party, trying to fight for your right to not take responsibility for your own offspring. Jack Thompson is just a greedy lawyer, the greediest of lawyers. If you're not aware of what a typical lawyer's fees are, they usually take a percentage of whatever you win in a lawsuit. The more prestigious the lawyer, the higher his fees usually are. Jack Thompson excels at artificially inflating his prestige by being the go-to "video game expert" for the news media. Of course, he shows his ignorance in the field time and time again, but he's very charismatic, and the media just eats up him. He's gotten his name everywhere, and for that kind of publicity, he gets to charge as much as he wants (I expect the usual fee of 50% for high-profile attorneys). See, he'll fight to get you as much as possible, but his concern is how much of your award money he can take from you. Suddenly, Mr. Thompson doesn't seem so noble, does he?

Just remember the saying "the people who deserve to be the president would never run." The people we see in high positions in government aren't always the people we think we voted for; they are usually quite unscrupulous in their rise to power, and only tell us what they think we want to hear in order to get there. Likewise, be wary of people who stand to make vast fortunes off of tragedies; they typically care much less about the tragedy and much more for the money they can make off of you while you're feeling vulnerable.


Read full article...

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Top 5 Countdown, Day 3

All this week, I'm doing a countdown of what I deem to be the top 5 threats to gaming society in America. If you miss a segment, you can catch it in the links below.

1/30/06 - Threat #5
1/31/06 - Threat #4

And now to continue...


When Bigger Isn't Better

Its a common belief that, with most things in life, bigger is better. Your bankroll, your office at work, your home, your Apple Cinema Display; as they say, "the more, the merrier." Unfortunately, the old adage doesn't necessarily hold true when it comes to the corporate world and its business models.

#3 on my list of "Top 5 Threats to Gamers" this week is Conglomerate Game Studios. We all know who they are, and we've seen both the good and bad they're capable of. For example, EA Games is known for the amazing variety of games it publishes, franchises like Command & Conquer, Medal of Honor, and the huge array of sports franchises under the "EA Sports" label.

What you may or may not be aware of, however, is the working conditions that developers work with when working for a publisher such as EA. Just in the past year, there has been public attention drawn to the blog of an EA employee. His blog details the horrible time constraints, unrelenting pressure, and lack of downtime between projects that--as it turns out--is practically the industry standard. Of course, that isn't to say that only the big game farms push their employees thusly; one of my old college buddies took a game design job with a small company, and he left the job only months later after being driven to the point that he never wants to work in the industry again. What made it worse was that he went to college to do that kind of work.

Putting working conditions aside, the game development industry is something that most gamers follow pretty closely; after all, what they do impacts our personal (and frequently professional) lives. What really makes the big-name development studios so bad isn't how hard they push their employees, but the effect that such a big entity has on its own products, and on the rest of the industry.

I'm going to pick on EA Games again (sorry guys, its nothing personal; I really do love your work), or rather EA Sports. Take their NBA Live franchise: there's a line of games that effectively never changes. Certainly, you don't want it to change too wildly; the idea behind the game's development is to make it as authentic as possible. However, each iteration of sees very little change over its predecessor. With the exception of console changes, these games saw very little improvement in graphics, literally no change in gameplay mechanics, and no innovation. The only real changes the average gamer ever saw was updates to the team rosters to reflect those currently in the NBA. Even their Medal of Honor franchise has seen little improvement since it first hit the original PlayStation. Certainly, the graphics have improved, but little else has improved. Of course, I'll be the first to stand up and say that Medal of Honor: Allied Assault was and remains to be one of my favorite FPS games, but that's because of all the fun I had playing the multiplayer mode.

Companies like EA operate like this: they develop a few games on their own, but most of their product line comes from other developers that they've "acquired" (bought up). This is how the Command & Conquer line came to be an EA title; Westwood Studios was devoured into the greater beast that was EA. Its a two-edged sword, and not at all unlike playing the game Monopoly; on the one hand, the larger publisher/studio can secure their financial placement in the industry by owning more intellectual properties (IPs). However, with so many "properties" to oversee and invest in, the parent company is less compelled to take risks. This lack of ingenuity leads to a track record of sequels (as mentioned before, look at all the sports game franchises under EA Sports; a new version is released every year) and very few new innovations to the franchise or genre as a whole. Of course, when they do decide to take a risk and invest in something new and unique, they don't finance it as well as they do their "tried and true" franchises. The results are games like Psychonauts from Double-Fine Productions and published by Majesco. Psychonauts was a game that was really inventive and fresh, but lacked the marketing budget to properly spread the word, and its sales reflected that. Sadly, too many games end up overlooked because of their lack of support from their own publisher.

All of the above only really reflects how a publisher's desire to be big forces them into a very small corner. The problem is, a company's decisions can also adversely affect the gaming industry in its entirety. For example, EA Sports bought the exclusive rights to develop games for pro athletics. Yes; that means that EA Sports and only EA Sports can develop officially licensed games for the NBA and NFL. This is why you see games like Midway's Blitz: The League. Because Midway couldn't make a game truly representative of the NFL, they made games that are terrible, unauthentic (the "league" can't be the NFL), and actually have very little to do with even playing football. And because EA owns the rights to make the official games--which forces their competitors to make crappy knock-offs--EA doesn't feel any pressure from competitors, so it doesn't strive to make its games genuinely better. The same applies to 2k Sports and their exclusive rights to MLB games.

When companies strive to become bigger and better, they invariably narrow their outlook and inventiveness. Sure, its a safer way to invest your money, but you can't contribute to the health and longevity of a franchise, genre, or even the industry if you refuse to think outside the box and take a few risks. The gaming industry needs risk-takers, inventive thinkers to help keep our shelves stocked with refreshing new ways to play. Besides, who wants to play yet another Doom when you could be playing the next Psychonauts?


Read full article...

Review: TimeShift Demo

As I reported on a couple of days ago, Atari released the single-player demo for their upcoming game TimeShift. I picked it up from FilePlanet and got it installed late last night, so I took the time this morning to play through it.

The first thing I really noticed was the graphics. After playing games like Doom 3, F.E.A.R., FarCry, and even Half-Life 2, the graphics seen in TimeShift (or rather, its demo) are pretty lack-luster. It had its moments, but in general I felt that the graphics were awfully pixelated, the fire effects were only slightly better than those in Unreal Tournament 2004, and the player models weren't nearly as detailed as I would have hoped. This normally is of little concern to me, as I feel that gameplay is what truly defines a gaming experience (and trust me, I'm getting to the good stuff). I'm just slightly concerned about how TimeShift is shaping up, graphically speaking, when its supposed to be released for the Xbox 360 as well as the Xbox and PC.

Once starting up the level featured in the demo, I had very little concern for the graphics; you start off within several yards of two enemy agents, and they see you. You don't really get enough time to check out your weapons before-hand, nor do you have much time to think about using your time-shifting options. Equiped with my "knuckle duster" (a pistol with a spiked handguard for a brutal melee attack), I immediately lept into action and perforated the chests and heads of my new-found foes. Then, with my immediate area secure, I set about checking out my 3 weapons and my 3 timeshift options. Once I figured out that I wanted to sport my machine gun for whatever I might face next, I started trying to find my way out of the demolished subway station I was in (my boss was on the horn, yelling at me to get a move on and get to my next obstacle). As I approached a burning pile of debris, my HUD prompted me to use my ability to stop time to walk through fire without getting burned. Although I accidentally hit my "reverse time" function, I managed to walk through the blaze unscathed.

From there, I managed to climb up some rubble to the city sidewalk above. I found myself along a fence, which ran the perimeter of the "Imperial Building" which I was expected to infiltrate. I crouched down and snuck up on the front gate, which was armed with 3 or 4 automated machine gun turrets. My HUD prompted me to "use [my] timeshift powers" to bypass the turrets. Vague, but still pretty simple. Anyone with any imagination at all can figure out how to slip past security like that when you can manipulate the fabric of time itself.

I moved on, and found that I had to get through an energy barrier to infiltrate the front courtyard. Using my timeshift options, I froze time and stole the firearm right out of the hands of the guard posted there, and killed him before time could resume. Poor sap. As I inspected the guard house there, my HUD prompted me again, this time telling me to flip the switch that would disable the barrier. I did, and wasn't surprised to see that the shield quickly re-activated. Hmm... can I give myself more time? Of course! I flipped the switch again, and quickly froze time. I was able to walk right through before the barrier closed again.

From there, I simply had to make a quick run across the courtyard and make my way into the underground garage for the building. I decided to slow time so that the manned machine gun turrets couldn't keep up with my progress, and I simply bolted as quickly as I could across the yard and down the ramp to the garage. Figuring in the slowed time, I had to have been running at 2-3 times as fast as your typical freeway speed.

See? See how much I focused on what I experienced in the game? I seriously couldn't tell you how much detail was put into the agents I so ruthlessly (and instantaneously) killed, partly because of how each timeshift ability distorts the player's view of the environment around him. I didn't even focus on that very much, sadly, as I was having far too much time playing with security guards as if they were a video in my VCR; I'd watch them walk by, then "rewind" them and watch it again, trying to find my best option for sneaking past them undetected (I typically ended up just blowing everyone away for good measure). It was particularly nice to rewind time if I got caught, as I could just "undo" the guards' awareness of my presense, and find a better place to hide in the process.

The hype for the game offers sweet promises of aerial, indoor, outdoor, and urban environments, vehicles you can drive, turrets you can man, and of course, time you can shift. If the previews are to be believed, you can even expect a 16-player multiplayer mode, which will include some sort of timeshift weapons (or something). The demo only really demonstrated the timeshifting aspect, but what I saw I liked. Sadly, it was an incredibly short level, and the only level in the demo.

Based on my short-lived experience with the TimeShift demo, I'll have to give this game a rating of about 70%. The graphics really need to improve before it hits the Xbox360 or PC, the levels need to be much longer, but I think that Saber Interactive and Atari have really hit upon something big with this new spin on the first-person shooter. The demo left a lot to be desired if this game is going to reach its full potential, but I still have high hopes for TimeShift, as it brings something extra to the bloated FPS genre. I'll most likely re-review this game based on its retail release, and I expect that it will get a much higher rating at that time.


Read full article...

Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Top 5 Countdown, Day 2

All this week, I'm doing a countdown of what I deem to be the top 5 threats to gaming society in America. If you miss a segment, you can catch it in the links below.

1/30/06 - Threat #5

And now to continue...


Parents, Don't let your kids grow up to be you...

#4 in my week-long countdown is the Irresponsible Parent. Generally speaking, an irresponsible parent is a bad thing, and I firmly believe that there are plenty of people out there who should never procreate. They simply lack the maturity and sense of responsibility that should be requisite of someone who's responsible for the care and raising of another human being.

However, many otherwise wonderful parents fall short when it comes to their kids and video games. We hear all too often of some lawyer going after a game developer/studio/publisher because a parent felt that a game their child played was too violent. I know I'm not the only person who sees the problem with this situation. I ask one simple question: "Who bought the game for the kid in the first place?" Its the underlying problem that's frequently being overlooked; the kid had to get the game from somewhere, and someone had to have bought it for him/her.

Its becoming increasingly commonplace for people to blame everyone they possibly can, except themselves. The Irresponsible Parent epitomizes this fad in gaming society. How many minors have an income aside from the paltry weekly or monthly allowance? Not too many. So when I read or hear about a parent who's aghast at the violent video game their child has been exposed to, the only one who's truly at fault in my book is the parent. After all, they're the one who supplied the greenbacks to buy the game in the first place.

Now, that still leaves two possible ways that things could have played out in the store. When I worked retail at a store that sold video games, the most common scenario was as follows: the parent and child came into the store, the kid picked out a game, and the parent just took it to the cashier and paid for it. They never once paid attention to the icon in one of the two bottom corners of the game packaging that explicitly states the game's ESRB rating. That rating, had the unaware mother or father paid attention to it, would have told them that the game was rated to be appropriate for an audience little Timmy wouldn't be a part of for at least another half a decade.

The other frequent case, and again something I encountered personally when working retail, is that an aloof parent will simply give their kid the money to get the game they want. The parent lets the kid shop on their own (with the parent looking in another department, or sitting out in the car), so the kid purchases the game on their own. This is when you can start blaming the retailer a bit, because they're technically responsible to verify the age of a customer before selling age-limited products. Wal-Mart's PoS terminals actually prompt the cashier to verify a customer's ID when they ring up tobacco, alcohol, R-rated or unrated films, and video games that aren't rated E (for Everyone), and many other national chains are following suit. The store I worked for (which shall remain nameless) had no such system in place, but I tried to enforce a similar policy at the store level in hopes that it might become a chain-wide policy. Still, the parent is not involving him or herself with their child enough to know what their child is being exposed to, so the majority of blame still rests squarely on their shoulders.

One kind of Irresponsible Parent that seems to be increasing in numbers is what I like to refer to as the Opportunist. For example, there was a grandmother in the news recently who filed a lawsuit against Take Two and Rockstar Games after hearing about the "Hot Coffee" mod scandal surrounding Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. She had purchased the game (rated M for Mature) for her grandson, and then was appalled when she found out that the "Hot Coffee" mod existed. I won't even go into the fact that a company shouldn't be held responsible when a 3rd-party reverse-engineers their product to release something like "Hot Coffee," as hacking/reverse-engineering a game violates a game's End-User License Agreement (EULA).

Obviously, some reform should happen at the retail level to help prevent young children from buying games like Doom 3. Stores need to start verifying the ages of the customers on video games just as they're supposed to do with movies and explicit music. However, all the lawsuits in the world won't change that the gaming industry is protected by 1st amendment rights, and have every right to produce that bloody, violent shooter game. Its the parents, above all else, that need to become more vigilant in what they allow their kids to be exposed to. If you think that GTA:SA is going to turn your kid into a criminal, don't buy it for them in the first place.


Read full article...

Monday, January 30, 2006

Xbox360 Update Available

Hot off the presses at Microsoft and Major Nelson's blog, your Xbox 360 is now patiently awaiting an automatic update for the Dashboard via Xbox Live.

This update provides the following improvements:
  • Improvements to the Xbox Guide
  • Option to retain your saved games when you delete a profile
  • Increased accuracy of "Last time played"
  • Network configuration improvements for Xbox Live members in the Netherlands
  • More detailed messaging for unreadable disk or region errors
So its lacking all of the improvements we were really hoping for, like the ability to have background downloads, or the heavily rumored web cam support. Still, "Improvements to the Xbox Guide" is awfully vague, and could contain all sorts of goodies not specifically listed by MS.


Read full article...

TimeShift Demo hits 'Net

Many of you may not have heard about the upcoming FPS from Atari and Saber Interactive, titled TimeShift. In it, you play the part of a test pilot who tests a new technology that allows you to alter the regular flow of time; you can slow, stop, and even reverse time. The game features timeshifting challenges to progress through the game, an alternate time stream, and in general lots of what should be great gameplay. Its due to hit shelves on March 21.

GameSpot just released the world-premier of the single-player demo to subscribers, and you can be sure that the demo will be available on sites such as FilePlanet, FileCloud, and others. As I don't have a subscription with GameSpot, I'll be waiting until tomorrow to see about getting it from FilePlanet. Once I've got it, I'll be sure to post a review of the demo gameplay!


Read full article...

Weeklong Countdown - Top 5 Threats to Gamers

This week, I decided I'd take the blog into a different direction (temporarily). I just got done reading about two different car accidents, and each of them are being blamed on one of my favorite new games for the Xbox 360: Need For Speed: Most Wanted. The apparent ignorance of the media's claims overwhelmed me, but it made me think, "what threats do we as gamers face in America today?" So this week, I'm doing a countdown of the top 5 threats I perceive American gamers facing in today's world of "Blame first, understand later." With the help of Luke from Game Naked, I hope to not only open the eyes of gamers, but to better educate non-gamers as to what is going on in our world, and hopefully eliminate some of the misconceptions floating around about our little corner of society.

#5 on my list of threats to gamers and gamedom in general is "game zealots." By "zealot," I'm not referring to the console-specific fanboys; as annoying as they can be, the only threat they really pose to the gaming community is to our sanity. No, the infamous Game Zealot makes himself known all-too-well when gaming hits the mainstream news.

Allow me to provide an example situation in which you might have run into a Game Zealot (all quotes are fictional, although the general scenario may be taken from real life).

News Article: "Today, Miami-based attorney Jack Thompson issued a statement regarding the recent suicide of a 'gamer.' From Thompson, (insert a quote here)."

Game Zealot: "That is ridiculous. So because I play games, I'm depressed and want to commit suicide? How about this, Jack? I'm going to hunt you down and kill you."

A Game Zealot may not even be that well-spoken. His e-threat may also come out a little something like this: "Jack Thomson is a n00b. Hes st00pid and I will pWn h1m liek teh n00b he si. Ur gonna die Jack Tompson!"

At first glimpse, the rabid rantings of a Game Zealot may seem like just heated, over-emotional responses to... anything. However, this type of gamer poses a very real threat to the rest of us, those of us who are completely normal, level-headed, and productive members of society.

The problem they pose is simple: they are quick to display an open aggression/hostility towards something they disagree with. Its that quick temper and public threat of hostility that only feeds non-gamers' view that we as gamers are made more violent by our frequent video game playing. How can we, as a community, refute claims that games can cause people to become physically violent while gamers are quick to hop on the internet and threaten people with their very lives? Sure, we're talking about the internet, where nothing can or should be taken at face value, but that doesn't change the fact that the gaming community has to effectively battle an internal struggle. We can't make any progress because some of us are refuting the claims that we're all homicidal/suicidal/irresponsible, while just as many gamers are displaying the exact behavior that they say we all exhibit.

Sure, we as gamers get painted in a bad light nearly every day, but we all need to learn to curb any irrational reactions we may have to these baseless accusations, stand up, and show the rest of the world that they're wrong.


Read full article...