Green Gamers

Freedom Fighters Review (XBOX)

2007-02-26T08:00:00.000-08:00

I have a bit of a soft spot for games like Freedom Fighters. That is, I enjoy picking up critically acclaimed games that no one's ever heard of. I suppose it makes me feel special - like I know something that no one else does. That, and I don't want good games to go overlooked. In that spirit, I bought Freedom Fighters a while back, and I just recently got a chance to play through it. The critical acclaim is mostly deserved, but I can certainly understand why it wasn't a more high-profile game.

Freedom Fighters is, at its core, a third-person shooter. But soon enough, it becomes apparent that it is actually real-time-strategy-lite at heart. You take control of a plumber named Chris something just as the Russians successfully invade New York. Your brother is kidnapped, while you're swept up in the chaos and end up joining a group of freedom fighters that operate out of the New York sewer system.

From the sewers, you and your A.I. squadmate(s) can recapture or destroy various key locations in order to weaken the Russians' hold on the country. As you complete objectives and heal wounded soldiers, your charisma increases, which allows you to recruit more soldiers at once. By the end of the game, you can command up to twelve soldiers.

Once you're commanding a bunch of soldiers, the RTS-lite gameplay begins to shine through. You can't run and gun through the levels, and there are WAY too many enemies to take on single-handedly. You are forced to command your troops effectively, while laying down gunfire and chucking grenades. This is where the game is at its best. Controlling your troops is effortless because of the limited number of commands at your disposal (hence RTS-lite), yet it's robust enough to offer satisfying choices.

It really is satisfying to hop on a turret while your soldiers protect your back, or to send your men (and women) charging into a fortified enemy position while sneaking around to flank them. The more charisma you accrue, the more the game becomes about making good choices with your commands, rather than making good choices about where to send your own bullets.

You also have to make good choices about which objectives to tackle and in which order. From the sewers, you are shown a map with several areas, each with multiple objectives. You can tackle these areas in any order. Additionally, anytime you find a manhole, you can return to base, go to a different area or quicksave. You're not given much direction as to the order you should take, but you will soon learn that carefully planning your attack is just as important pre-battle as it is during battle.

For example, in one mission, I was having a hell of a time advancing down a particular street towards the power plant that I had to retake. Standing in my way was a bunch of enemies (one of which was wielding a very dangerous rocket launcher) and an attack helicopter, which could shred me in an instant. I backtracked all through the level, procuring the lone rocket to take out the helicopter, only to find that, by the time we got about halfway down the street, a new chopper was in the air, bearing down on us. After many failed attempts, I perfectly coordinated our attack so that I could pick up the enemy's rocket launcher and take out the new chopper. This was exceedingly difficult, but eventually, it worked.

Listening to the briefing for the next area, I found, much to my chagrin, that destroying the helipad in this area would have eliminated the enemy's air presence in my previous mission. Had I known that, I could've taken the power plant in less than half the time, with about a tenth of the frustration. Needless to say, I planned my attacks much more carefully from then on, and to great effect.

I really enjoyed making these types of strategic decisions and carrying them out in the context of an action game. Do I go straight for the main objective (which clears the entire area), or do I collect more charisma by completing all the secondary objectives? Do I charge in, guns blazing, or do I look for an alternate, less exposed path?

There were, however, some things about the game that I didn't enjoy as much. You're endowed with a too generous auto-aim, which I only forgive because Freedom Fighters isn't really a shooter. Well, usually it's not. There are a couple of missions in the middle of the game where you go solo. One of them was pretty fun. Knowing I could only rely upon myself added a nice amount of tension. The other one, however, curiously decided to introduce the strongest enemy in the game, at the end of the level, with no save points. Restarting that mission over and over was more than just a little frustrating.

Since the game is slightly non-linear, there are some spots where you can get yourself into really bad situations. These can be frustrating as well. The art style is kind of bland (especially compared to the sweeping soundtrack), the story is ho-hum (despite an awesome concept), and it lacks the polish of a first-class title.

So, no, Freedom Fighters is not a AAA title. I understand why it was a sleeper. Its kitschy graphics and non-traditional gameplay (and probably its marketing budget) precluded it from being a mainstream hit. But it is a good game. It has its flaws, but if you take it for what it is, you will surely find an enjoyable experience that few others have.

7.5

-Joule

Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath Review

2007-02-26T07:59:00.000-08:00

Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath is a first/third person action game from the no-longer-with-us studio, Oddworld Inhabitants. Typical of an Oddworld game, Stranger is a solid, beautiful and mold-breaking commercial flop. And as bitter as the developers' exit from the games industry was, Stranger's not a bad way to go out.

You play as the Stranger, a beast-like bounty hunter in a world of chicken-like citizens, and dinosaur-goblin thugs. You begin the game by taking bounties, and you soon learn you'll be using the money to get an operation. The nature of the operation is a mystery, but it seems damn important. You capture all the bounties in a town, and then move on to the next one.

Your tools are your animal strength (you can spin attack, head-butt and gallop into enemies in third person) and your crossbow with its live ammo for the first person view. Finally, you can suck up incapacitated enemies in order to collect their bounties (live enemies are worth more than dead ones).

This game oozes imagination, from its cooky creature design to the aforementioned live ammo. The ammo for your crossbow is literally alive. You can buy or capture seven different species of tiny creatures (in addition to zapflies, which are unlimited), two of which can be equipped to your crossbow at any given time. Some creatures serve to incapacitate enemies, some distract them, and some just cause damage. The ammo system is quite deep, although in my opinion, its potential wasn't realized until the last third of the game.

Another interesting mechanic is capturing enemies alive to maximize your profit. In general, you can collect at least twice the price on your main bounty if you capture him alive. This is a really interesting device that I feel never reached its potential. While defeating some bosses involved solving some environmental puzzles, finding out how to capture them alive was simply a matter of trial and error to discover which ammo depleted their stamina faster than their health.

Overall, I felt like the boss battles and a lot of the level design didn't live up to the imagination of the rest of the game. The levels leading up to the bosses were completely linear treks through similar (though beautiful) environments. And while some of the boss fights were cool, most involved simply fighting a more powerful dude along with a swarm of lackeys.

In addition, the structure of a lot of the game is simply: take bounty, find bounty, fight bounty, collect reward, repeat. In between bounties, there's nothing to do in town except buy a small selection of items at the general store and take more bounties at the bounty store. It feels a bit like a chore to finish a bounty and have no choice but to take the next one on the list until you can move onto the next town just to do the same thing.

That said, the gameplay really grew on me. I got into picking off enemies that wandered (or were lured) away from the pack, using my beastly speed to strike at groups and escape quickly, and just plain causing havok with my crossbow. Also, the trial and error in boss fights became much more palatable once I discovered the importance of the liberal use of the quick save feature.

Yet just as I was coming to accept the game for what it was, it became something totally different. The plot, which is simple but layered with subtext, picks up big time, and the game goes into overdrive. The environments become varied and imaginative, the encounters, epic. A couple of key gameplay mechanics are introduced, changed or altogether eliminated, and it actually feels like a separate game. As much as it feels different, its play style nicely complements that of the first part of the game. I'm not going to spoil it, but the last third of the game is simply fantastic.

Some people complained that this game was too short. I thought the beginning was possibly too long. But either way, Stranger offers a beautiful, whimsical adventure through a twisted wild west. It's interesting, imaginative, it addresses issues like corporate greed, environmental destruction and the eradication of native peoples, but above all, it's damn fun.

8

-Joule

Sly 3 Review

2007-02-26T07:58:00.000-08:00

Well, I did indeed beat Sly 3, and only a day or two after that first post. As I said, it was one of those rare games that grabbed me by the nuts and wouldn't let go until I beat it. My initial impressions were pretty right on; this is a damn good game.

But there are some small clarifications I would like to make. I said that the missions were widely varied, but uniformly fun. They were indeed widely varied, but not quite uniformly fun. With such an assortment of missions, I suppose it's inevitable that some would not quite live up to the others. That's not to say that there were any stinkers (I can't remember any bad ones in particular), but some just weren't as inspired as the rest.

I would also like to confirm that my complaint about too much storytelling was indeed confined to the very beginning of the game. Later on, there are longer and multi-part missions that serve to extend the time in between cutscenes.

On further playing the game, I did find one more flaw. Since you spend the bulk of the game trying to recruit members for your gang, each level is centered around some goal you have to complete for them. In each mission, you find out what that character wants, then Bentley (your brainy turtle buddy) sets up a plan to accomplish that goal. You do a bunch of missions, then get a cut-scene where you find out what else you have to do, and then you do a bunch more missions. Eventually, it felt a bit like I was on a treadmill.

But, like everything negative I have to say about this game, there is a definite upside. First, each character you recruit is interesting, both as a character and to play as, so you have a very real incentive to hop on that treadmill. And second, the missions you take on to accomplish that goal are great, so it's hard to mind too much. In particular, the last mission of a given stage is typically a complex operation involving your entire team. These multi-member, multi-part missions tend to be the most interesting, exciting, well-excecuted and memorable moments of the game.

I could go on about the things I loved about this game, but it's really not necessary. The very minor issues I've listed are about the only things that are not perfect. The rest is simply great. This is one of the most well-designed, most imaginative and just plain fun games I've ever played.

8.5

-Joule

Sly 3 Initial Impressions

2007-02-26T07:57:00.000-08:00

I know I'm late on this one. I have quite a back catalogue of games that I've yet to play on the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox. Hell, I even have a couple of 360 games that I haven't played yet. Fortunately (not really), my 360 died two days ago, freeing me up to deal with my plethora of 'last gen' games.

I'm in the middle of Oddworld: Stranger's Wrath on the Xbox, and I didn't really feel like continuing it at the moment, so I popped in Sly 3: Honor Among Theives, a game that I'd really wanted to play for quite a while.

The presentation is really slick. The art is very cartoony and stylized, and the music exudes an Austin Powers-calibur mojo. The cutscenes are done in a sort of animated stills style, and the story-telling overall is very strong.

My biggest complaint with the first couple hours, though, is that there was too much story telling. The missions were so short and as soon as I'd finished, there would be a sizable chunk of dialogue/cutscene. Of course, that's not too damning, considering how well done the dialogue and cutscenes are.

As the missions get a little more difficult, though, the gameplay time and cutscene time begin to balance out. When this balance is achieved, it really allows you to appreciate both the gameplay and the dialogue.

The dialogue is fantastic. I don't laugh out loud (or even inside) with most games, but I've laughed at least three times in the four or five hours that I've played so far. The dialogue, like the characters that deliver it, is perfectly crafted, filled with character, and quite funny.

And of course, I've barely mentioned the gameplay. The gameplay in Sly 3 is very tight, and wonderfully varied. The gameplay structure is elegant as well. You are placed in a level with a handful of missions to take on as several different characters. You can tackle these missions in any order, whenever you feel like it, or you can just sneak around the level, pickpocketing enemies and causing trouble.

But it's the missions that make the game so great. They are widely varied, but uniformly fun. Whether you are jumping from rooftop to rooftop, stalking a mob boss so you can take incriminating photos, participating in an opera contest, or busting heads as the burly pink hippo, Murray, you will have a blast.

Playing as different characters is interesting as well. As Murray, for example, you might miss Sly's ability to scamper across the landscape like a ninja, but you'll appreciate his ability to take out enemies with just a punch or two. Each character has his/her own unique play style, and impressively enough, they're all fun. Moreover, it looks like the game will continue to introduce new characters as I recruit them into my band of theives.

Like I said, I'm only four or five hours into the game, but I'm really impressed so far. This is one of the rare games that I can't stop thinking about. I'll let you know my final impressions when I finish.

-Joule

First One

2006-08-21T13:49:00.001-07:00

Ok this is just a really quick post I'm working on a longer one on gaming history and the importance of new gamers knowing where their games came from, but anyways on with this...

I plugged in my new old NES and popped in Techmo Football and very quickly realized why I played this game non-stop over and over and don't play any modern games. It's the dramatic cut scenes that show players diving or just barely making a catch. But more importantly its the half time show in every game (consisting of poorly pixelated cheerleaders wearing very shirt skirts or if you were at the super bowl you got jets and other awesome stuff.)

The half time show is an integral part of any game and even though games claim to be more realistic each year, there is no halftime show cut scene. I can remeber the first time I played a Next Gen football game being terribly dissapointed by the lack of celebrations after touchdowns (fixed a bit in modern games) but especially there was no thought as to the half time show, as if it didn't go on in post playstation years football.

Now I know your saying, "Batman, you are retarded, so what?" But thats pretty much the point, its a little detail thats in a game that can be stored now on the smallest of storage space and run on less and yet it has a detail thats fun that new games, with the insane amounts of stats and stuff don't. I want my halftime show bitches.

Oh, plus Madden way to well rounded. I want invincble Bo Jackson back and Jerry Rice catching any pass that was thrown to him. Screw realism, touchdowns on every play.

-Batman

Converting the Non-Gamer

2006-06-20T08:59:00.000-07:00

It must be difficult for the average person to get into videogames. The hardcore gamer culture probably seems daunting and inaccessible (and possibly unappealing) to a non-gamer. This very page declares, "Here, we post our thoughts on all things videogaming. If you are not hardcore, turn back now."

Well, perhaps we should revise that, considering the efforts we've made to bring the goodness of gaming to those who would otherwise miss out. As you all know, Asano currently resides in the great nation of Japan. Japan is notorious for periodic xenophobia, and as a reflection of that, it is very difficult for foreign companies to succeed there. Enter Microsoft. Microsoft's Xbox and Xbox 360 consoles have had a difficult time finding a market in Japan. For a more detailed analysis, please read Asano's post on The 360 in Japan.

But there is one thing working in Microsoft's favor in Japan. That thing is Asano. Asano is actively spreading the 360 love, and has already won several converts among the indifferent masses. Bravo, my man.

Asano's own brother, Mei You, has guided his girlfriend on her gaming path. She even beat me in our challenge to finish FFVII first (although she had a big head start). Recently, he was on a quest to find the perfect game to introduce his father to gaming. After a long period of soul and game library searching, he decided on Kingdom Hearts.

I as well have used the Kingdom Hearts. I bought Kingdom Hearts for Laura, who is only down with gaming provided that the controller has two buttons or less. The first time she popped it in, she played it for six hours. That was all she played of it for a long while, until she told me that she had secretly been trying to beat it and was about 30 hours in. That was probably the happiest moment of my life. Well, I guess it might be tied for when she bought a DS. Or when she said she would marry me. I can't decide which.

Another of my proud achievements came about a month ago, when I got voomped with some of my friends who are way into sports and very little into games. They asked for something ridiculous, and I could think of nothing more ridiculous than Katamari Damacy. I thought it might be a little too Japanese for them, but they ate it up. One of them recently asked me if he could 'keep Guitar Hero safe' for me while I'm in Japan.

While Nintendo is creating consoles designed to expand the industry and bring gaming back to non-gamers, it's a good thing that there are people like us, working towards this goal at a grassroots level. It's interesting to note that there are quite a few games out there that are accessible and fun for just about anyone. Or at least everyone is sure to enjoy a game that is right for them. It's just a matter of educating the public as to what those games are.

I believe that it is the duty of all good hardcore gamers to educate and spread the love of great games. Here are some simple, common-sense guidelines to help non-gamers find the way:

1) Pick a good game. Duh.
2) Pick a game that is easy to pick up and understand. There's no better way to alienate someone than to introduce them to a game they can't control. In general, you should avoid FPS's. Music games, on the other hand, are great. The controls are usually simple, and everyone loves music.
3) Pick something that would interest them. Kingdom Hearts, for example, was a no-brainer for Laura (who has just about every Disney film ever).

By following these simple steps and using some good taste, you should be able to convert all but the staunchest anti-gamer to our side. Good luck and God bless.

-Joule

Silent Hill

2006-06-19T11:52:00.000-07:00

This post was intended to go up just after I saw Silent Hill, but I slacked off big time. I enjoyed the Silent Hill movie. It was creepy and interesting, though certainly not a great movie. It did, however, pique my curiosity toward the Silent Hill games, and I've since picked up SH1 and SH3. I'm interested to see what parts of the movie came from the games and also to delve into Silent Hill's sordid history in a little more depth.

Like I said, the movie was enjoyable. It doesn't take long to get going, as the protagonist, Rose, and her daughter end up in Silent Hill within about 10 minutes. Things get creepy almost immediately, and I began to understand what drew people to the Silent Hill series' brand of horror. I think the movie did an admirable job of porting the look and feel of the things (monsters, sounds, ambiance, etc.) that made the games so disturbing.

Certainly, there were parts of the movie that were very disturbing. Basically, any time Rose descended into the 'dark' Silent Hill, things got grotesque. Probably, the worst offense came near the end of the movie, when a character was lifted into the air, suspended by sentient barbed wire, while other wires were driven up between her legs, through her torso before ripping her apart. Meanwhile, a little girl who was essentially the embodiment of the devil danced in the pouring blood as if it were a warm spring rain.

While most of these disturbing bits served to heighten the tension, other disturbing parts took away from the movie. In particular, some of the writing was dubious to say the least. My favorite bad line was when Rose shouts, "Your faith brings DEATH!" You probably have to see it to appreciate how it made me cringe just as much as any gory scene in the movie. Another thing that bothered me is that the bulk of the movie is structured such that Rose finds a clue as to where her daughter is, she sees her daughter (who runs away), then stuff gets evil, then she finds another clue.

That said, from a game-to-movie standpoint, I think Silent Hill was a success. It did a fantastic job of presenting and unraveling the mystery that is the town of Silent Hill, and it was deeply disturbing to boot. It faithfully (I think) recreated the game world and story, and added other small touches (like prerendered-looking environments) from the game, without blatantly shouting "Hey! This is based on a game! Check it out, this is from the game!" As such, the Silent Hill movie stands up well as a film (albeit not a great one), which is a huge accomplishment for a game-to-movie translation.

As for the games, I haven't really delved into them yet. I popped the original SH in for a little while, and I can tell you that the first 10 minutes of the game are recreated almost perfectly in Rose's first 10 minutes in Silent Hill. And despite my earlier groaning about the movie's dialogue, the acting in the game is way worse. The game is definitely creepy and just about as uncomfortable to play as it is to watch the movie. It may be a while before you see my post about the Silent Hill games, cause I'll have to work up a good deal of courage before I go back to them.

-Joule

Nintendo Murder Simulator

2006-06-14T07:40:00.000-07:00

This will be a short post, hopefully. I just wanted to convey a thought I had about some possibly unexpected backlash to Nintendo's new console.

For years the videogame industry has come under fire for violent and sexual content in videogames. Starting with Joe Lieberman and Herb Kohl, and now with Hillary Clinton, Leland Yee, the ranks of "concerned" politicians have grown over the years. Throw in quack attorney and anti-videogame activist, Jack Thompson, and there's virtually a throng of videogame haters.

Now, don't get me wrong. I absolutely believe that some games are really violent for nothing more than shock value. They are gratuitous and usually not good games. Furthermore, they should be kept out of the hands of children. But I do not believe that playing videogames turns you into a killer, as Jack Thompson seems to believe.

Some of these politicians have valid arguments, but I am constantly reminded that, in actuality, they are retards and liars. Basically, they make stuff up. For example, I read a quote in EGM from a politician who posted on his website how you could control breast size in Dead or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball, and you could look at topless girls. That's a blatant lie. Apparently, after the Columbine shooting, there were reports of Eric Harris creating Doom levels to simulate the layout of Columbine, so he could practice killing his classmate. While he did, in fact, create levels, they were not simulations of Columbine. Another blatant lie. And my all-time favorite argument, that I believe completely relegates all politicians of this breed to sub-stupid levels, is the "argument" that when Kentucky teenager Michael Carneal killed three other students, his shooting was, "way above the military standard of expert marksmanship." And that he was, "a kid who never fired a pistol in his life, but because of his obsession with video games he turned himself into an expert marksman."

How dumb do you think I am? Yes, in general, the American public is so dumb that they would believe that clicking a mouse can make you good at firing a gun, but I am not. There's a reason that the military trains with real guns for hours and hours, instead of having all recruits play Doom. I'll let you try to figure out that reason.

And so I come to the point of this post. With the Nintendo Wii on the way with its motion-sensing controllers, Nintendo may inadvertantly make these ultimate morons' point more credible. In a game like Red Steel or Metroid Prime 3, you would aim by pointing the Wii controller at your target. Granted, it is still vastly different than firing a real gun, but to a public that believes that playing Doom makes you a good marksman, the Nintendo Wii will surely be a sign of the coming apocalypse.

It would be a shame for a family-friendly company like Nintendo to come under fire for a console that looks like it will expand and evolve the videogame industry. Here's hoping for a moratorium on stupidity.

-Joule

UPDATE: I just uncovered some rampant stupidity. I'm really worried because one of the authors on this paper was a doctor. This is a paltry attempt to bash videogames under the guise of science. As a holder of two science degrees, I must say this paper is very far from good science. It is riddled with inaccuracies as well as the bias of the authors. But they say it's science, so they must be right. Seriously, they should be ashamed of themselves for their abuse of science. I'm offended as a gamer, but much moreso as someone who loves and respects science. If you're not stupid and don't want to get pissed off, don't click on this link and scroll to the bottom and click on videogames.pdf.

UPDATE 2: So I was just thinking, and I arrived at what I think is a pretty good question. Do you think the Dylan Klebold's and Eric Harris's obsession with Doom cause them to commit murder, or do you think their obsession with Doom was a reflection of them being seriously disturbed? Hmmmmm. While I was pondering, I came across a quote from MIT professor Henry Jenkins, who is the man:

Far from being victims of video games, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had a complex relationship to many forms of popular culture. They consumed music, films, comics, video games, television programs. All of us move nomadically across the media landscape, cobbling together a personal mythology of symbols and stories taken from many different places. We invest those appropriated materials with various personal and subcultural meanings. Harris and Klebold were drawn toward dark and brutal images which they invested with their personal demons, their antisocial impulses, their maladjustment, their desires to hurt those who hurt them.

ANOTHER UPDATE!!! So it turns out, you don't actually point the WiiMote at your target. I can't say all of this for sure, but the way the technology apparently works is based on a sensor strip you put on your TV. It registers your movements rather than where the WiiMote is pointing. This will not, of course, stop morons from proclaiming that you do point the controller at your target and playing videogames turns you into a deranged expert marksman, but it's worth noting anyway.

Episodic Content

2006-05-03T11:56:00.000-07:00

I feel like "Episodic Content" became somewhat of a buzz-word in the game industry several years ago. Services like Valve's Steam promised to deliver games in an entirely new way that would reduce development times and cost. Combined with digital distribution, it seemed like a revolution was coming. This was the next big thing, but we've yet to see it have any real impact. Well, the revolution's almost here.

First of all, digital distribution is now a reality. Steam has been going strong for a while now, and Xbox Live Marketplace has become an absolute success. So the infrastructure for delivering small chunks of gaming goodness is largely in place.

We are finally beginning to see the first signs of episodic content. Half-Life 3 is supposedly going to be episodic. This is great news for fans that want to play it right away (although, they'll have less to play when it first arrives). If there was ever a game that could ignite a phenomenon like episodic games, Half-Life 3 is probably it.

But what really inspired this post is the new Alone in the Dark. It may not be episodic per se, in that the retail version will essentially be the entire "season", but it presents some interesting new ideas. Basically, the structure of Alone in the Dark is based off of shows like Lost and 24. It is broken down into 30-40 minute sequences, complete with story recaps, cliffhanger endings, and upcoming scenes.

This kind of storytelling is a definite departure from the standard game. In many respects, videogames attempt to emulate movies and the two media are often compared (for better or worse). So in its own right, I think it's interesting to see a game emulating TV series. While I'm not a huge fan of TV, I do think this departure is brilliant for two reasons.

The first reason is that Alone in the Dark will be perfectly suited for playing in short bursts. I love playing games for hours at a time, but I don't always have the time. It would be refreshing to have the story recapped for me and then play an "episode". I imagine it would probably be as satisfying as watching a good TV show.

The other reason is that Alone in the Dark will be a complete "season". I don't know about you, but on more than one occasion, I have watched too many hours of TV on DVD, including one all-nighter devoted to watching 11 episodes of The Shield. Those season-long box sets can be really addictive, especially when it's a show with cliffhanger endings like Lost or 24. If the scenarios are well designed and the writing is good, Alone in the Dark could be harder to put down than a rabbit that's superglued to your hands.

Needless to say, it remains to be seen whether or not Alone in the Dark will be a good game or not, but I'm sure that its novel structure will grant it some appeal. The important thing is that we are about to see a change in the industry. No, I don't think everything will be episodic, but it is a drastic change, nonetheless. Imagine that instead of waiting for the next sequel in a beloved franchise (like you might do for a movie), that you were waiting for the next "season".

Like I said, videogames have run parallel to movies for a long time. Now it's time for them to approach TV. Videogaming is an extremely versatile medium that really is only limited by designers' imaginations. Games allow us to "play" movies, and soon, to "play" TV. Some of my favorite games, however, emulate neither and are completely original creations that could only be done as videogames. But I'm excited for all of these types of games. Each new frontier that the industry explores adds to its rich evolution. And that means cooler games. :)

-Joule

UPDATE: Check out this trailer for Alone in the Dark on Gamespot. As always, I am reserving judgement for when the game is actually released, but it looks totally sweet.

UPDATE 2: Okay, so I obviously didn't do much research into episodic stuff. I just went to EBGames.com and the first episode of SiN is coming May 9th. The revolution is at hand!

nintendo: "wii are flippin idiots"

2006-04-27T21:42:00.000-07:00

worst... console... name... ever. thats about all that needs to be said, but i'm going to say just a bit more. in one foul swoop nintendo went from possibly the greatest console name ever (revolution) to the flat out, absolute, no deliberation needed, worst. they were obviously looking for something that encompassed their innovative design philosophy as well as the fact that they are looking to change gaming as we know it, in addition to being bold and catchy. in my opinion, "revolution" did all of these things extraordinarily well. also, "wii" is just plain ridiculous and would be a stupid name for nearly anything meant to be taken seriously. as far as i'm concerned its still called the revolution and i will not respond to any questions or comments made by anyone at anytime that refer to it using that other name. i don't know what they are smoking at nintendo HQ, but hopefully the last big surprise they have in store is that a sample will be included with the revolution...

edit: i in no way believe this stupid new name will negatively affect sales. in fact, the only negative effect it will have will be an increase in the number of immature urine and phallus jokes made about the console by adolescent minded individuals like myself.

the 360 in japan

2006-04-23T22:42:00.000-07:00

alright, it is well past time for someone to explain to all of the people elsewhere why the shelves in japanese department stores have been stocked with 360s since launch day. brace yourselves for the complicated truth... but first a testimonial.

i bought my 360 from the rather small electronics department of my local apita (basically like a mall, but its one store...kind of.) they had plenty to go around, for cheaper than anywhere else in the world, at a time when american consumers were paying 800 dollars and more for systems on ebay. it saddened me to know that all of my gaming brethern across the pacific where being left out in the cold and, in truth, i was angry at both microsoft and japanese consumers for what i perceived as mistakes made by both. now for the truth.

the failure to this point of the 360 in japan is a burden carried by microsoft, japanese consumers, and japanese retailers. they all messed up in some way. microsoft's failings included the library of launch games they offered, the advertising jargon they used, and the general direction they have taken with regard to how gaming is evolving.

first, the launch titles here (from the perspective of a japanese gamer) sucked. there is a reason ridge racer 6 (which is a decidely inferior game when compared to the other 360 racing titles) was the highest seller. the game is crap but it was still the best offering for japanese gamers for reasons that will be explained later. the titles that sold well in the states and established the 360 as next gen were not available here. the most next gen offering available was PDZ, and japanese gamers are notoriously uninterested in fps games. it wasnt until weeks after the launch that doa 4 showed up and offered a good reason to buy the console. so basically you had the gamers who actually bought the console playing unimpressive games like rr6 and fifa rtwc, something which im sure convinced alot of gamers who hadnt purchased it that the console was all hype. for this reason, i think microsoft may have been better off waiting for doa 4 to release. also, they had no rpg's which is a huge failure when trying to do well in this country.

next, they advertised the 360 as ushering in the hd era. this is unfamiliar territory/terminology for most japanese people. while they certainly have their share of big beautiful tvs (here refferred to as hi-vision), they dont have television service providers capable of hd programming and aren't nearly as familiar with the whole concept as americans. (they also seem to not really understand surround sound as well).

last, xbox live is huge for the 360. in my mind it is one of the main selling points. playing online is fantastic, as is live arcade and marketplace. but online gaming is different in japan and is limited mainly to text based computer mmorpgs. they dont talk shit in this country, and they dont want to deal with obnoxious gamers who do. add to this the language barrier and you have one formidably unappealing package. also, they have little to no interest in online fps's (something which get my panties all in a bunch). i won't say they are not twitch based gamers because they love their fighting games (though from my experience dont seem very good at them for all the time they spend playing them), but they certainly seem to prefer less reflexive gameplay. this may be why all japanese rpgs are turn-based or why mah-jong, pachinko, and quiz games are such big business. considering this, it isnt hard to see why the 360 (which relies so heavily on online connectivity and competition) isn't all that appealing.

but its not all microsofts fault. a huge part of it is that japanese gamers would resist the 360 even if it offered everything they could possibly want. its simply a brand thing. they identify with sony and nintendo because these brands are home grown. average people here can tell you about the lives of sony and nintendo execs, about where they were born and how their companies rose to fame and fortune. these people and the companies they represent are pseudo-heroes here, so of course they aren't going to like the idea of a foreign company (especially one like microsoft) trying to muscle in on the territory of their idols.

also, they just dont have much interest in foreign games here. they are quite content with what their country offers them. and while there are plenty of innovative and fresh ideas coming out of this country, there are also about 16 mech games being put out by bandai every year. basically, japanese gamers get alot of games we dont, but they are also limited in ways american gamers arent. so, while they get alot of kooky or rehash games that will never be seen stateside, they have also missed out on a few very big genres that gamers elsewhere enjoy regularly. its not that they dislike these types of games (i have had japanese gamers play halo 2 with me and love it), its just that they are kind of isolated from the rest of the gaming universe. this isolation is the result of their own brand loyalty and of simple availability issues, and because of it they are limited in the genres they can choose from. hence the reason they are known for loving their rpgs so much, there just aren't that many other genres really available so they tend to be fanatically devoted to the ones that are. of course the issue is alot more complex than this, but for the purposes of this expose suffice it to say that for pretty dumb reasons, japanese gamers aren't into alot of the 360s mainstay genres.

finally, gaming is just perceived differently here. its more a part of the normal, everyday world (they sell games at convenience stores and girls play games on a much more regular basis than elsewhere). but, while it is more recognized and accepted by the general populace, the hardcore fan base seems somewhat lacking. average people are likely to have a playstation 2 and a few games and younger kids almost always have ds's, but i have yet to see anyone with a serious collection or a sweet setup used primarily for gaming. because of this, it is easy to see why the number of people willing to shell out for a 360 (which has a very hardcore gaming image thanks to the original xbox) is severely limited. there just isnt the customer base for it here.

and the last of the contributors to the 360's failure are the retailers. the demo 360 and the beautiful hd toshiba screen it came with were on display in the electronics department where i bought my console for about 2 weeks before the 360s went on sale. the day they started selling the console, the demo was gone and replaced by a second ps2 (both of which were playing mech games). this seemed a bit strange to me. i would have normally assumed that having a 360 available for the customers to try out, especially when new games catering to the japanese audience, like doa 4 and n3, came out would help persuade people to buy one. how can retailers expect to sell consoles if the only thing people have to go on is what the box looks like and all of the negative connotations they associate with microsoft? well, i would like to contend that they never really intended to try their best to sell their consoles. and while this makes no sense from a business perspective, it makes near complete sense from a japanese perspective. i am inclined to think most retailers would have been happier not getting 360s at all so they wouldn't have to waste shelf space on them. their attitude seemed to be that the console was stillborn, a failure from conception even, and that no matter what they tried, it would never sell in japan... so why should they even try?

so, with these three contributors in mind it is easy to see why there are so many 360s languishing on store shelves, going to waste when they could be fulfilling the gaming dreams and facillitating the happiness of multitudes of people. it really is a sad thing to see, and i try not to go into electronics departments anymore. also, i don't really see microsoft being able to turn this failure around. it's already too late in the game for them to make the right impression. it might have made a difference around launch time, but everyday the launches of the ps3 and the revolution grow closer giving brand loyal, non-hardcore japanese consumers less and less of a reason to shell out for a 360. sorry microsoft, i guess it just wasn't meant to be.

if you like games, don't get oblivion

2006-04-20T18:42:00.000-07:00

no, that wasn't a typo. i am here to tell all hardcore gamers the reasons why they shouldn't buy oblivion, and there are about 200 hours worth.

i am currently suffering from a crippling addiction to this game. how is it crippling you ask... well besides the anti-social behavior that results from any game addiction (or just being a gamer in general), i am having to deal with the inability to play any other games. i have only unlocked about half of the cars in burnout revenge and normally this would weigh heavily on my mind. under normal circumstances, being the unlockable whore that i am, i would feel that aching, undeniable need to earn the next one until there were no more left. but burnout hasn't seen the inside of my 360 since oblivion arrived. the same goes for GRAW. i love playing online, but i have only engaged in a total of 5 matches online with this superb title, something which can only be considered a grave injustice done to a game that deserves so much more. and i wouldn't have even played those matches if oblivion offered online play.

so what am i getting at? well, suffice it to say that oblivion is a greedy game. it will take over all of your gaming time and not be satisfied. it starts with the inability to turn it off when you know you should go to sleep or eat something (because you haven't all day). next you will be sneaking out of work early to play it, and even when you're not playing it, you'll be thinking about playing it. then, your mood will start to be affected by the in-game weather and you'll begin thinking about realworld social interactions as a minigame. and while i have no first hand experience with what the really advanced stages of this addiction are like, its a safe bet they are ugly and depraved.

i do not intend to suggest that oblivion doesn't deserve every minute spent with it as it is simply sublime. its just that there are so many good games out there that deserve to be played and enjoyed... is it really fair to let one monopolize your life for so long? so my advice to everyone who has a backlog of games they still need to play, or who wants to spend some more time with the games they are already familiar with, or even those who think that sometime in the next 4 months a game will come out that they will want to play is this: don't get oblivion yet. wait until the day youre tired of everything you have and theyve stopped making any new good games... that way you can spend the rest of your life playing it without feeling guilty.
-Asano

Can I get a game ending here?

2006-04-19T13:28:00.000-07:00

So I read the review of Dreamfall: The Longest Journey on Gamespot today and it got me thinking. Let me first say that I'm excited about the game because it's the sequel to The Longest Journey, which is considered to be one of the best point-and-click adventures ever. I know the genre is pretty much dead, but a great game is a great game, and we gamers don't get to experience the same awesome level of story telling in many other genres.

Greg Kasavin's Dreamfall review got me thinking because he pointed out that the ending was a let down. This reminded me of another great adventure game that I played, Indigo Prophecy. Incidentally, I just posted a review for it on Gamespot, so check it out. In any case, Indigo Prophecy's ending seemed rushed and therefore, anticlimactic, just like Dreamfall's. Other great games like Halo 2 and Psi-ops ended abruptly on unsatisfying cliffhangers. So what I'm wondering is: is it really so hard to make a good ending?

I think it is. I think the ending of any story is challenging. Without proper planning, it can be difficult to tie up all the "loose ends", neatly or otherwise. But I think it can be particularly difficult with games for a couple of reasons. If a game is particularly long (like 50-100 hours), it can be a challenge to conclude the game in a manner that feels suitably epic. Or if a game has a plot with mysteries that slowly unfold, you don't want the player to be disappointed when they find out the truth behind the mystery. The bottom line is, when a game does a good job of weaving a story, it must do a better job ending it.

I don't really know where I'm going with this, or if anybody would even agree that good game endings are hard to come by. It just seems to me that I've seen too many games that really rush the ending. Even Xenogears, which for a long time held the honor of being my favorite game of all time, seemed rushed on its last disc. Please post comments and let me know if you agree/disagree and give notable examples and counterexamples. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

-Joule

Reader Reviews and More!

2006-04-18T07:57:00.000-07:00

So I've been fairly active with my account on Gamespot.com recently. You can actually do some pretty impressive stuff like listing your game collection, tracking games, making blog posts and reader reviews. It's also kind of addicting because you can gain levels by doing things like posting in forums and making friends with other Gamespot users.

Last week, I posted my 100+ game collection, although I didn't post all of my PS1 games and I didn't post any of my SNES, Super Famicon, Japanese Dreamcast or Neo Geo Pocket Color games. The coolest thing happened after I posted my collection. This icon showed up under my profile, and, well, check it out for yourself (it's the picture of wine and lobster). I take tremendous pride in this icon and it was very cool to discover it.

I'm planning on reviewing all of the games I have beaten (or played for a significant amount of time) on GS. The reviews that I write are conveniently displayed in my profile, so I'm going to add a link to my profile in the link section of this site. I'll probably write a post here any time I finish a review, but if you want to check out my collection, the games I'm playing, my Xbox Live gamer card, or anything else, click on the link. Also, I'd encourage any and all of you to make an account on GS (it's free) and send me a friend request. On top of all the cool community features, being friends will probably help me level up :)

There's already a review up for Geometry Wars. I love Geometry Wars so much, and I've been planning on posting about it here, but for now you can read my review.

-Joule

P.S. There's now a review for X-men Legends up on my profile. Also, I just wanted to say that I saw the Doom movie over the weekend and it was sooooo bad. Of course, I loved it. One of the best parts had to be when a crazy, mutating doctor ripped off his own ear, and his assistant tends to the wound, saying, "He needs a medkit!" Oh, man! The movie was so like the videogame that I knew the director must play videogames all the time *dripping sarcasm*.

Fight Night Re-review

2006-04-05T18:48:00.000-07:00

since this blog is about all things gaming, i figure reviews are fair game. but that's not quite what this is. rather, i am simply going to address some of the issues other reviewers have brought up about Fight Night Round 3 for the 360.

from what i have read there were two main complaints about this game that, after playing it, seem unfair. these were the AI and the in game advertising. personally, i haven't found either one to be a problem and here is why.

before i got the game i read about how easy it was and that the single player experience was a cakewalk because the AI was so unaggressive. well for anyone who cares, this is not true. granted my fighter's record is something like 28-4-1 with 23 ko's, so its not like the game has the most punishing difficulty ever conceived. it does, however, make you work for your wins. in fact, going into the whole experience i expected much more of a knockout fest. i figured the game would be rife with huge punches and big knockdowns if for no other reason than the developers wanting to show off how good they look. i'm sure by now we've all seen clips of the face destroying moments in the game, and they are glorious to be sure, i just thought they would be easier to achieve. instead, against most opponents (and those from about the midpoint of the career mode) you have to play a very tactical game of cat and mouse. winning fights means not engaging in a slugfest, but darting in and out using your jab to wear down and frustrate your opponent. you have to make him miss to hit him hard because if you just start swinging big, he will counter you with utterly frustrating frequency and make you pay nearly every time. even when you can feel that you have the fight in hand, caution must be maintained because one big counter can change everything. also, you have to mix up what you're doing fairly often because the AI tends to catch on after about the third time you do the same thing. and if you stick with it after that, it'll mean a layover in counter city before you reach your final destination of the mat with a nice view of the ceiling.

i appreciate the difficulty of the game. the matches that go the distance are actually quite trying as they require your attention at all times. and every once in awhile you'll be granted an idiot to fight which provides a great change of pace. these guys just take big swing after big swing, and it's these matches that really make you feel like the king pimp as you deftly bait and avoid your opponent only to drill him when the time is right. but even in these matches you can never become too comfortable.

the difficulty and AI provides a good mix of challenging and instantly gratifying matches. you'll go up against stupidly aggressive bulls and frustratingly defensive counter-masters and this ensures that you have to keep responding to the game and changing your own style.

as for the marketing, i have heard alot of bitching and moaning about how if you pay 60 dollars for a game, it shouldnt be full of advertising. and i agree that in-game marketing can be taken too far (when kameo starts hawking coke in game or burnout starts trying to convince me that geico is the way to go since i keep crashing, itll be too much). but in the case of FN3, the marketing ranges from suitable to acceptable to funny, without ever getting in the way of the experience. sure the camera focuses on a dodge car before the dodge sponsored event kicks off, but im not bothered by this. it actually seems fitting and only adds to the realism of the event. part of the thrill of your first big fight, your first time at madison square garden, is how much like a real broadcast it is. its rewarding to have brought your fighter so far and to have reached the big time and the advertising helps this feeling. after all, you've become a big enough name with enough popularity to make it worthwhile for these companies to sponsor your fight.

the same goes for the licensed apparel. i would rather outfit my character with everlast shorts and an under armor jock strap than something generic and made up.

and as for the king, ever since i unlocked him as a trainer, he has been my go to guy. not just for hilarity's sake, but because he's free and gives you a bonus that the other free guy doesn't. because of the king, my fighter has a better heart attribute than anyone else (which i guess suggests that burger king is, in fact, good for your heart and you should eat it as much as possible). the only problem i have with him is that his in ring banter uses the same voice as the other trainers, and i'm pretty sure the king doesn't sound like an old black man (though i'm not certain as all he ever does in the commercials is stand there and look creepy). for me, his inclusion is more than anything amusing and while it has given me an undeniable craving for BK, i can't be angry with him or whoever is responsible.

so there you go. fight night has its flaws for sure (if only you could turn off the announcers), but the two things that reviewers seemed to harp on aren't its problems. the AI is good as is the difficulty, and the advertising usually feels right at home and, in general, helps to make the experience feel more authentic. if you like boxing, sports in general, or punching dudes in the face real hard then i recommend this game.

-Asano

A Reader Review

2006-03-31T08:57:00.000-08:00

So I don't know if game reviews are beyond the scope of this site or not, but I posted a reader review on Gamespot and I figured I'd add a link to it. The game is Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories for the GBA. Yeah, it's not a new game or anything, but I suppose it's sort of appropriate given Kingdom Hearts II's release. Also, I think it's worth mentioning that I started playing it because Laura bought it along with her DS -- fuck yeah. Just a note, I misspelled "sleight" in the review. Please forgive me.

Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories Review

-Joule

Jizzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

2006-03-20T08:10:00.000-08:00

That is what I do when I am overwhelmed by videogaming goodness. That's exactly what happened to me last weekend. With a relatively free weekend, I planned on binging on Final Fantasy VII. I'm finally playing through it because it is required gaming, but I'm also engaged in a challenge with Asano's brother's girlfriend to beat the game first. She was on disc 2 before I even started, and I had several false starts, so this weekend was especially important for catching up.

Unfortunately, I had played Kameo: Elements of Power the night before while chatting with Asano. I got about 3 1/2 hours in, and I have to say I'm hooked. The audio-visual presentation is nothing short of stellar. The first thing I noticed was the gorgeous music. This is important to me because the first thing that hit me in others of my favorite games (Beyond Good and Evil and FFVII to name a few) was the music. As for the visuals, I have to give Rare a lot of credit. Many times when a game is delayed across 3 platforms, it ends up looking like a relic (Galleon is a perfect example). But Kameo looks stunning. Furthermore, the look and sound combine synergistically to create a feel that is perhaps best described as lush. It reminded me a lot of how Fable combined beautiful sound and graphics to create a world that felt alive.

Suffice it to say, the game just feels great. On top of that, the gameplay holds up really well. Granted, I haven't played much of it yet, but I really enjoyed it all. The levels are inventive and make good use of the fluid element-switching mechanic. Also, you can do optional side-quests and decipher puzzles to earn Elemental Fruit, which you can use to upgrade your elemental warriors. While you are encouraged to collect things (Elemental Fruit and cold, hard cash) they are actually useful for purchasing upgrades, which gives you incentive to collect them. I've long held the belief that there is no harm in collecting in platform games as long as there is some utility to it. Kameo doesn't bog down the experience with useless collect-a-thon-ing.

Aside from all the gushing I've done so far, the single biggest compliment I can pay Kameo is that, despite the fact that I had to play FFVII, despite the fact that I love FFVII, I was genuinely tempted to play it instead. After I successfully fought off the temptation, I was then tempted to write this post about how good Kameo must be based on that temptaion. I avoided that feeling as well when I realized that it, too, would preclude my playing of FFVII.

So I finally booted up FFVII, and that's when I made the mess referred to in the title of this post. So.... Much..... Gaming.... Goodness.... I had an absolute blast playing FFVII for about 6 hours (and then another 5 or 6 on Sunday). I'm about 44 hours in now, and it's already one of my favorite games of all time. In fact, it may just be good enough to take the long-empty throne as my #1 favorite game of all time. I'd just like to thank my girlfriend for making and hanging up signs compelling me to play FFVII, because without them, I just might have given in to the temptation that is Kameo.

-Joule

Microsoft's Timing

2006-03-17T11:55:00.000-08:00

Asano and I have discussed and debated the merits and pitfalls of the Xbox 360's early release several times, and we've generally come to the same conclusion. Our conclusion is basically that, despite the risks and drawbacks, the early release is Microsoft's best move.

Essentially, in the current generation, they are building momentum and a strong reputation, but they are losing money. And as Asano pointed out in his post about innovation, the 360 and the PS3 are both attempting to be the core of consumer entertainment and most consumers don't need to buy both. The Xbox is already trailing the PS2 in terms of market share, so to capitalize on their momentum, to avoid the expensive competition, and to level the playing field, the 360 almost had to launch first.

My point, however, is that I just read an article on 1up.com that presents some information that I hadn't considered. Basically the author argues that Microsoft's strategy was sound, but it still shot itself in the foot with the early launch. Check it out.

-Joule

Can a Computer Make You Cry?

2006-03-01T06:11:00.000-08:00

Many hardcore gamers will recognize the title of this article. It comes straight out of a print ad campaign that EA ran back when it was called Electronic Arts and had a soul. At the time of these ads, videogames were much more primitive, and it wasn't likely that one would make you cry.

But technology has progressed, so much so that I assumed the answer to be 'yes'. Why not? I consider videogames to be a valid medium for expression. In other words, I believe that games can be art (though many are not). But in thinking about it, I don't think a videogame has ever made me cry.

Does this mean that videogaming lags behind other arts in its capacity to convey emotion? I think the answer is yes. And no. I recently read an article in Game Informer that I thought was brilliant. The article was inspired by Jack Thompson's tomfoolery. But the article didn't simply bash Thompson and say that videogames could not be blamed for any of society's ills. Instead, it presented a level-headed argument saying that Thompson was wrong, but we, as videogamers, are wrong to counter him with similarly slanted statistics and vehement cries of videogames' infallibility. That would be to lower ourselves to his level. The author suggested that the real danger in violent videogames is not in that it drives gamers to kill, but rather that it could lead to the stagnation of the art form. In other words, I believe the artistic aspect of videogaming has been stunted to a degree by the violence-for-the-sake-of-violence games.

Another phenomenon that has held gaming back is the quick cash-in game. You know what I'm talking about - the Grand Theft Auto clones, the Halo clones, the anything clones. It's a sad fact that the videogame industry is, in fact, an industry and with that comes corporate decision-making that tends to favor the safe bet in the hot genre.

But I don't mean to paint such a bleak picture of the videogame industry. I simply want to point out that there are, indeed, several factors that slow videogaming's progress as an art form. There is, on the other hand, a minority of developers and publishers that take some risks. And out of those risks we get games like Shadow of the Colossus, Katamari Damacy and Indigo Prophecy that drive the medium forwards. And with the next generation of gaming already here (see my last post), developers now have the ability to create more immersive worlds and characters to elicit strong emotional connections with players.

Certainly, as technology improves, developers will have a greater ability to express and elicit emotion. But with or without technology, videogames have an inherent edge over other art forms in terms of expressing emotion. That advantage is interactivity. Players naturally invest emotion into a game because they are in control of the character(s). In the case of a game in the first-person perspective, the gamer is the character. Also, games tend to last for at least 6 hours, which gives players time to become emotionally tied to the characters.

So why then, has a computer not made me cry? Cause I lied. I have been playing Final Fantasy VII because, duh, it's required gaming. My party's dune buggy had just died outside of Cosmo Canyon, Red XIII's hometown. Red XII thought his father was a coward, because he had run off when Cosmo Canyon was under attack by the ferocious Gi tribe. So, Red's grandfather, Bugenhagen, led us through some treacherous caves behind the town, where we fought the spirits of the fallen Gi warriors. When we finally exited the cave, Bugenhagen told us the story of the lone warrior who had fought off the Gi in these very caverns. He managed to seal the caves, saving the town, but in the process was turned to stone by the Gi's poisonous spears. As the music swells, the camera pans up the cliffs to show Red's father, Seto. He looks positively fierce, with arrows sticking out of his back like a porcupine's quills and a growl etched on his stone face. And that's when I started crying.

Many gamers have cried because of Final Fantasy VII, and the game is nearly ten years old. Games have long had the ability to evoke such strong emotions from gamers, and with improving technology, we will see even stonger emotional connections. Regardless, the game must have a soul. Final Fantasy VII has it in spades. But many games do not. In order for the videogame medium to progress as an art form, we need to see more games like Final Fantasy. The too-violent and corporate-designed games are only holding all that back.

-Joule

Nintendo's Innovation

2006-02-28T20:22:00.000-08:00

recently, i believe at CES, Reggie Fils-Aime (nintendo's vp in charge of marketing in the US) basically challenged nintendo's competitors by claiming that in the video-game industry the credo is "innovate or die." this was coupled with what i found to be a rather bold assertion: that in the coming generation, nintendo is the only company really innovating, the others are just giving you more of the same. i found this comment very interesting and would like to discuss nintendo's next-gen plans and how they relate to innovation as well as to the plans of their competitors.

let me preface all that i am going to say with this statement: i have great respect for nintendo, for all they have done for the industry, for the innovations they have brought, for their constant pursuit of excellence. i want them to succeed on the next-gen stage and i want developers to embrace the revolution and its controller in order to bring us some truly innovative experiences. it is only us, the gamers, that will benefit.

i also need to say that i realize it may not be true that Reggie thinks nintendo is the only company innovating. it is his job to make it sound like nintendo is the only company doing anything right. but just this once, i am going to hold a marketing representative responsible for their claims and see what comes of it.

now for my take on the situation.

i think there are three ways in which nintendo is attempting to innovate and thereby draw in both new and old customers: they are bucking the industry trend of assuming the next-generation of games (and therefore conosles) have to be represent a huge leap graphically and auditorily. their console will be a great deal less powerful than either the 360 or ps3. i read on game daily the opinion that the latter two will be neck and neck in terms of graphics whereas the revolution will seem like a ps2 being compared to an xbox. this seems a highly generous evaluation of the revolution's power as the 360 is in most ways 4 times as powerful as the original xbox while the revolution will only be about 2 times as powerful as the gamecube (and according to sony, the ps3 will be 32 times as powerful as the ps2...but we all already knew that when sony lies, they like to lie big). given this, i think we can expect to see beautiful games on the revolution, but for those of us who really want to experience the beauty possible during the coming generation, one of the other two consoles will be the way to go.

nintendo made the decision that the revolution would be markedly less powerful than its competitors so that they could also sell it for less. in doing so, they are attempting to appeal to the people who think video gaming is becoming too expensive.

in addition to this strategy, nintendo's focus seems to be less on improving the presentation of games and more on changing the way we interact with games. this is where the new controller and the next innovation comes in. nintendo is attempting to appeal to those people who typically aren't gamers and to those who enjoyed games when there was a d-pad and two buttons, but who got lost along the way and now suffer from spasms of interface anxiety everytime they look at a modern controller. the revolution controller is an exciting idea that could really change the way games are played and something which (if successful) may end up being copied by everyone else.

and finally, nintendo is making available through online downloads the games from nes, snes, and n64.

now, the question we must ask is not how innovative is all this, but in what way is it innovative?

i think the problem with nintendo's approach is that they assume both that innovation really is all that important in this industry and that what the other companies are doing isn't innovative. the former: people don't necessarily crave something new and fresh all the time. in fact the general public is much more likely to embrace what is old and familiar. they just want bigger, better, louder. look at the movie industry and how many carbon copy movies it puts out that still do well. sure it has been hitting some difficulties lately, but it would be hard to deny it was a strong run. likewise, people will eventually get tired of the same game being released year after year with minor improvements, but not before that franchise sells a hell of alot of games (cough...madden). i'm sure nintendo is quite aware of the power of familiarity considering the extent to which they use (or overuse) mascots like mario. i'm certainly not encouraging a lack of innovation or the overuse of successful formulas, simply pointing out that the options aren't as clear cut as "innovate or die."

the latter: just because the advancements made by the other companies seem less bold and striking (or maybe just less touted as being the next big innovation), it does not mean they are not innovative. microsoft does a great job of recognizing which technologies will be embraced and successful. they know that these technologies will continue moving forward and advancing, all the while becoming more ubiquitous, more a part of our daily lives. they gambled big on xbox live, but how much of a gamble was it really. they knew online gaming had a big market, and they were pretty damn sure broadband connections were going to become increasingly common as the internet evolved into a consistent undercurrent of modern life. their foresight definitely paid off and now xbox live is a huge selling point for the 360. as for nintendo, they were of the opinion that people didn't want to play online but, instead, wanted to hook their gameboys up to their consoles (good call nintendo). this time around microsoft is guessing that HDTVs (and to a lesser extent surround sound) are going to become more common, so a big part of getting the most out your 360 is having these technologies available to you. sony is making the same bet and even upping the ante by including a built in blu-ray player in the ps3. sure its going to be absurdly expensive, but it'll be the cheapest b-r player around and you can bet that's a selling point (just like the dvd capabilities of the ps2). nintendo, on the other hand, is not offering a console designed to take advantage of the recent advances in home entertainment. the revolution is not a monster graphics and sound rig (or even one that plays regular dvd's), because nintendo doesn't think the average person has the money to afford (or willingness to buy) all of extra technology required to really appreciate the capabilities of the other consoles. well, i hope that works out for you nintendo, but i dont think it's looking good.

of course, they are correct in thinking that only the hardcore gaming crowd will shell out the cash for an HDTV and surround sound just to enjoy the best possible gaming experience. and nintendo is trying to return gaming to the masses, so they don't want to appeal only to this crowd. the thing they don't seem to realize is that people (in general) aren't buying HDTVs and surround sound so that they can play games. they are buying them because people interested in home entertainment will always want to get the next great thing (and those not interested in it won't be buying any video game consoles anyway). it is not only gamers that are making HDTVs into a successful new technology, it's everyone. technologies like these are only going to become more and more a part of our lives (the same way tvs, and computers did). i have read that HDTVs are the biggest advance in television since colorization. well, if that is the case, then lets construct a hypothetical situation using this knowledge.

it's sometime around the mid 1950's. game consoles have been around for awhile, but have been playing in black and white only (because color tvs are just starting to become popular). despite this, nintendo's gameplan for the next-generation is to release a console (meant to stay on the market for around 5 years) that is heavily targeted towards use on black and white tvs because thats what people have now and because they don't think people are interested enough in gaming to buy a color tv. little do they know that they are right, most people aren't that interested in games. they are, however, definitely that interested in owning color tvs.

now, this plan doesn't exactly sound like progressive thinking to me. in fact, it seems to assume that the present state of home entertainment technology will remain stagnant in the coming years, and this is a gross miscalculation. as much as nintendo can claim to be the masters of innovation, i believe there weakness is their apparent inability to recognize how progress and innovations made in the general technological realm can be used to drive the progress of their own product. they used cartridges when cds were a better choice, little disks that made it impossible to use the gamecube as a dvd player, didn't offer even the possibility of internet connectivity, and now they are denying the increasing prevalence of HD as a product supported by the average consumer. at times it seems like they make these choices just to be different from everyone else, just to be the weird artsy kid who is strangely intruiging but who isn't very popular because the other guys on the block are bigger, stronger, better looking and more sociable. but from a business perspective, this isn't an enviable persona to embody. or maybe they just live in what can be referred to as the nintendo bubble, a magical land where it will forever be the mid to late 80's, where kids never grow up and mature, and where the same character can be reused in 60% of your first-party games over a span of 20 years without becoming tiresome. in this place the proliferation of technologies like computers and the internet is a fairy tale and tvs will never advance beyond the color zenith with the massive rear end squatting in the corner. nintendo is phenomenal at innovating within this bubble, at coming up with ways to keep things fresh despite the technological constraints. but these innovations lack a sense of what's really going on with technology. unfortunately in the real world, nintendo's competitors understand the trends behind technological evolution and how to take advantage of them in order to appeal to the best possible cross-section of consumers. and i submit this is (at least a large part of) why nintendo is now trapped in a corner, forced to watch as the console war it used to dominate plays out beyond its reach. but its not all bad... at least their little corner has fairy dust and magic mushrooms to keep them entertained.

lets just take a breather now and remember that i respect nintendo alot and will be buying a revolution. its just that i don't agree with many of their decisions. and on that note...

nintendo also decided the revolution would not include any media functions other than gaming. bad idea. the pure functionality of the 360 is damn fine innovation if you ask me. i use it all the time for things other than playing games (if you care, read joule's 360 post to find out more). i don't even watch tv anymore because the 360 is always on. even if i dont feel like playing one of the games i bought (which is rarely) there are so many other things i can do. the 360 is my stereo, movie player, online store, telephone, chat room, etc... its not just about gaming. its about functionality. e.g. i plug my i-pod into the 360, make a playlist, and then make myself dinner to a kick-ass soundtrack playing beautifully through my surround sound setup. then, while eating, i'll watch some episodes of family guy or the game/movie trailer i just downloaded. and when i'm finished i play a game or two of geometry wars before doing the dishes. when alone and not intellectually inclined or horny, the 360 is how i entertain myself, period. and with the inclusion of an i-tunes like service, and any other online download services that will be available in the future for the ps3 (and maybe the 360 as well), this trend towards increased functionality will only continue. i know nintendo realizes that increased functionality is good innovation as soon the ds will be able to browse the web in addition to acting as a language tutor and a cookbook. it may just be that nintendo thinks people dont want to do the aforementioned 360 things with their consoles (trust me, they do). or they may just think such pledian innovation is below them. but, the most likely culprit is that they realize people will only need one of these highly functional consoles and don't want to go head-to-head with the big boys. but whatever nintendo's reasons for shunning an innovative approach to the roles consoles can play in our lives, the truth is that in the next-generation and those to follow, consoles will become more and more the center of our entertainment universe. and that, in my humble opinion, is fuckin innovation baby.

thankfully, foregoing any changes in how we interact with our consoles and deciding to make a machine that is only good for playing games(?!?) isn't nintendo's only innovation. the other reasons the company feels justified in criticizing microsoft and sony for their lack of fresh ideas, are the revolution's controller and its classic games library. i personally fail to see how the latter (offering 20 year old games for a price when they can easily be played for free on an emulator) is innovative at all. nintendo has kept itself going for a long time by using its tried and true franchises (mario, zelda,...) and i will be the first the say that they put out quality games making use of these franchises. but you better believe that it is because these games are consistently good that people stay true to them and keep coming back for more. if all of the mario games that nintendo put out (and that's alot of games) began to suck, you can bet people would lose their fondness for mario pretty quickly. e.g. nobody but the most diehard fanboys or the terribly uninformed buy sonic games anymore. sure they would fondly remember the old days of mario and when they got to play one of the older mario games it would be a nostalgic thrill.... for about 5 minutes, at which point they would realize how much better games have become and these so called "classic" games would feel like playing an abashed game of doctor when you could be having sex.

my point is this, franchise loyalty is based on the continuing quality of that franchise, not on nostalgia. even though they may talk about how fantastic the original super mario brothers is (was), people won't enjoy it the way they did when they were kids. nostalgia can make you think a game is incredible, but it is the quality of the game that keeps you playing. these classic games were fantastic for their time, but it's no longer their time and when compared to what we have now it becomes obvious that their only appeal is a nostalgic one, making them not much more than a distraction. so yeah, people will want to play these old games, and people will be excited by them, and all of my friends who dont play games anymore will be stoked that they can play the only games they seem to have respect for (the ones that entertained them when they were 10). but, having experienced what we have, and knowing what is possible in gaming, these games will lose their nostalgic appeal very quickly. count on it. and while everyone is spending their time finding this out, trying to decide whether to run left or right on their scrolling screen, i'll be relishing the startling intensity and realism of COD2 or the white-knuckle, heart-pounding thrill ride that is burnout revenge. come see me when you realize the truth.

so who exactly does this appeal to? surely not the kids of today who have grown up with their own set of classic games. the adult gamers of now? yeah, but the appeal is severely limited for all but an extremely select group. non-gamers? they'll be excited about it, but will soon realize that, like so many other things they did when they were young, these games used to seem a whole lot bigger and better. and then maybe all those people who lost touch with games somewhere along the way will realize just how fantastic a beautiful, simple to control game like geometry wars really is. all the benefits of modern gaming with no interface anxiety.

now for the controller. yes, it is damn innovative. i think alot of incredible things will be done with it. i think it will be copied by the other game companies (sony already has plans to use something similar for the ps2, and rumor has it the webcam for the 360 will be able to judge distance and movement). i think the changes it brings will allow non-gamers to enjoy modern games again because they won't have to deal with all the buttons and can interact much more intuitively. but do i think it is the greatest innovation of this coming generation? no. that honor belongs to all of the ways in which the 360 and the ps3 will invade my life and make everything more convenient, more accessible, and more about the way i want it (not to mention a buttload prettier and better sounding). the revolution is innovative as hell (because of its controller), but so are the 360 and the ps3. that being so, i feel it is safe to say that the revolution is poised to change the way we game, but the 360 has already changed the way i live. so Reggie, i guess we will have to wait and see whose innovation pays off, and whose just ends up getting ripped off.

how will these "innovations" affect sales you ask? here's my opinion.

will the lower price be a selling point: probably. nintendo fanboys will buy one regardless of cost, but the price will probably be a big reason i buy one. the lower price won't persuade non-gamers because of the console's lack of non-gaming functionality and because, unlike the also innovative ds, the revolution is not a handheld, play anytime, distraction that allows you to play with cute puppies. you cannot play the revolution during your commute, or while standing in line. it is an actual console and in order to play it you must use time you could spend doing something else. this is a scary and foreign concept to non-gamers (and the difference between how the ds and the revolution will succeed with this market is evidence that nintendo just has a knack for handhelds that they lack for consoles). gamers will buy the revolution, but only gamers who have enough money for both a revolution and one of the big two (because they will want to be able to play the better looking/sounding versions of multiplatform games), and only if it has some (really) good exclusives. it may sell very well with the half-gamer crowd, but who cares about them....they're just lame.

will the classic games be a selling point: only for fanboys who would have bought the console anyway. regular gamers will realize that if you really want to play these games you can use an emulator making the purchase of a console a silly expenditure. and though the thought of playing goldeneye online makes even my cold heart flutter with warm excitement, after a short time with it i'm pretty sure most people will simply realize how good some of the more recent online fps's are as well as recognizing the massive strides the genre has made since... and they will come crawling back, tail bewteen there legs, ashamed for having ever doubted the newer generation. in short, i feel bad for any regular gamers who get sucked into buying a revolution for its classic games. i just hope for their sake that alot of good new games will come out for the console so they don't end up thinking it was a waste of money. nongamers will be happy that the games are available (until they get bored), but not happy enough to spend the money or risk being labelled a video gamer.

will the controller be a selling point: only if it is used well, and only for gamers. non-gamers will like that it makes games accessible and will probably enjoy alot of the titles more than most other recent games, but not enough to warrant a console puchase. theyll just mooch off their gaming friends. but, if sucessful, the controller idea will spread and you can bet it will be copied. this, however, will probably just lead to nintendo taking a big hit it terms of sales because once their product is copied, it will probably also be improved, or at the very least the 360 and ps3 versions will offer the same versatility with more technologically advanced games. this would make the revolution a pretty tough sell.

-Asano

why they can keep their mice

2006-02-22T21:17:00.000-08:00

so, i have read on a number of gaming sites (typically in the form of a somewhat offhand comment) that the keyboard and mouse is universally accepted as the preffered control method for first person shooters. this is usually brought up in the context of a game developer trying to port or otherwise convert a pc shooter to a console, which then inevitably raises the concern that it won't control well because of the inherent shortcomings of all console controllers. well, if it's true that everyone else loves the keyboard mouse combo so much, then good riddance. that just means more console controllers for me.

now, its not that i dont enjoy the aiming precision afforded by the use of mouse.... actually, thats exactly what i don't enjoy. other than preferring to pull a trigger rather than click a button (which provides a kind of interactivity that makes the experience more visceral), and enjoying the ability to pass the controls to a friend without vacating my seat, i simply enjoy the ease of mouse aiming less than the more difficult aiming of analog sticks. i have always found that pc gamers who try to use console controllers get frustrated very quickly with the apparent lack of precision. but let the record show that this is by no means a fault of the controller (though it may have something to do with the particular game), but that more often the fault lies with the gamer. the controller only seems imprecise because you are unskilled at using it.

learning to be good with console controllers is a skill that must be developed. it takes practice. it is not as intuitive or as pick up and play as mouse aiming because it requires greater delicacy and a more developed feel for how the game will react to your inputs. chances are, mouse aiming is so much easier and more intuitive not just because of the actual instruments, but because people are in general more accustomed to using a mouse than a thumbstick. but just because it requires more developed skill and more practice to become good with a controller, does not mean a mouse and keyboard are better. after all, if the world ever needs someone to perform an important activity requiring rapid, deft, and sensitive thumb movements, you can bet they won't be looking up the names of pc gamers.

the reality of aiming and firing a gun at a target is this: it isn't easy. becoming accurate requires practice and i tend to believe that this is more accurately reflected by the analog sticks of a controller precisely because it is more difficult to get them to do what you want. in my mind, this difficulty only increases the importance of skill and rewards those willing to put in the time. i consider myself a pretty fast and accurate manipulator of fps's, but there are some people out there who are ungodly good, and i have alot of respect for them. i think alot of this is lost when you transition to a mouse. there is a sort of elitist charm about being able to consistently get headshots using a controller whereas accomplishing the same thing with a mouse is virtually commonplace.

let me provide and example to illustrate my point. i used to play unreal tournament on the pc. i didnt play it very much, but when i did i loved to load the opposing towers map (you know which one i'm talking about). on this map, i would just get to the top of one of the towers where there was conveniently located a sniper rifle. from this point on i would just get headshot after headshot, racking up monster kills... in a game i barely played. granted this wasn't against humans as i didn't have the means to play online at the time, but the point remains. this was my first mouse controlled fps, and it was almost absurdly easy to get headshots. by comparison, headshot sniping in a game like halo 2 (even with the autoaim) is a great deal more challenging despite the fact that i have played that game for countless hours. getting a headshot snipe in halo 2 feels like an accomplishment every time, and i think it should. realistically, it is not easy to shoot a moving target in the head with a sniper rife (actual snipers are taught not to aim for headshots), and it shouldnt be in videogames either.

now, the point of this is not to deride pc shooters/gamers for making use of the easiest means of being accurate. if everyone is using the same controls, then the playing field is level and skills such as map knowledge, tactical ability, and reflexes (all of which i have the deepest respect for) determine the winner. i mean only to suggest that controllers are not inferior to mice. instead, i would like to suggest that they simply appeal to a different kind of gamer personality. i personally prefer the rewarding feeling i get when my aim is spot on, despite my more challenging controls. becoming a good shot using analog sticks is something you can always improve at, something you can always practice more and something that will reward you in a way mouse aiming cannot precisely because it is more of a challenge. there is nothing like being able to witness your own progress as you go from stuggling to hit the opponent, to having the reticule obey your every whim without hesitation. for those of us who really consider ourselves gamers, lets take a moment to appreciate the glorious difficulty of analog stick aiming, as well as how far each of use has come through our own individual efforts, to overcoming that difficulty. and finally let us recognize that there is no end to how much better we can become through practice and the continual pursuit of perfection.

also, you dont have to worry about running out of room on the mouse pad or table when repeatedly spinning in circles.

-Asano

why look inversion isn't wrong

2006-02-22T16:49:00.000-08:00

this is just a notice to everyone who makes the fatally flawed argument that inverted makes no sense because pressing up on the analog stick should make you look up instead of down. you are not pressing up on the analog stick, you are pressing forward. if i am incorrect and you do happen to be pressing up then you must be holding your controller vertically, possibly in front of your face. it seems to me this would be the most nonsensical and/or uncomfortable manner in which one could hold a controller, so i will assume that the rest of us, the sensible ones whose opinions may have some credence, are holding their controllers horizontally around waisthigh, thereby avoided interference with vision and/or discomfort and strain of the wrists.

in this case you are in fact pressing forward on the right analog stick. with this in mind, and based upon the knowledge that pressing forward on the left analog stick makes you walk forward (left,left, right,right, and so on), we can only assume the locus of the analog sticks in relation to your character is the top of the head. if this is true, then pressing forward (ie moving the top of your head forward) should imply looking down. anyone who looks up when they move their head forward has either experienced severe neck trauma in the past or belongs in the same terrifyingly uncomfortable/unsensible camp as the people who hold their controllers in front of their faces, and whose opinions i have long since decided to disregard as a function of apparent mental instability.

given this, only if the stick represented the front of the characters face would pushing forward suggest looking up. this is certainly not impossible, though this case suggests the left and right analog sticks must be operating disparately from one another with one bearing a certain relationship to the character and the other working based upon a quite seperate relationship. this must be the conclusion we reach based upon the knowledge that it is, in fact, impossible to customize your controller (in any game i am aware of) in such a way that pressing forward on the left analog stick makes you jump, pressing back makes you crouch, and pressing left and right have the same effect they have when set to default.

basically, if the default setting makes sense then the two sticks must be operating based upon indepent relationships to the character. while this undermines the consistency i prefer in my control scheme, we have no necessary reason to value such consistency. even granting this, however, does nothing to suggest that default is any more correct or sensible as the analog control scheme is rendered arbitrary by the inconsistency between analog sticks. if there is no reason to assume they should have the same relationship to the character, then there is no reason to assume they shouldnt. put differently, if we have no reason to value consistency, then we have no reason to value inconsistency either. objectively, both are equally valuable.

now, it might be argued that because most in most games the default setting is non-inverted, that they are meant to be played that way. but this is flawed in a number of ways. first, we must assume that either the game maker's decision to make this the default was based on something objective, or that it was arbitrary. obviously there is no higher authority with objective knowledge about proper control schemes, and if you happen to believe in one then you'll have to excuse my saying that you are probably a raving lunatic or a religious fanatic of a magnitude sufficient to qualify you for the former category. some might argue that the higher authority is the effectiveness of the control schemes relative to one another, but i have no reason to believe, and sincerely doubt one is in fact better than the other. this really only depends on what you are used to. so if we accept that there is no higher authority on control schemes, then the game maker's decision was arbitrary and we have no reason to abide by it based purely upon the idea of authority.

but none of this is even necessary as the simple fact that the game makers made non-inverted the default implies nothing about their real intentions since we are, in fact, given a choice in the matter. they may have decided on non-inverted simply because they assumed it was what most people thought was more sensible, and looking at the present results of a poll taken on bungie.net (64% to 36% in favor of non-inverted) this certainly seems like a possibility.

the point of all this is that the argument against inverted based upon the premise that it is nonsensical because when you press up you should look up (or as i have so often encountered it, it's an fps, not a flight sim) relies upon the flawed assumptions that you are in fact pushing up on the analog stick, something that i know i at least am not doing, and that a control scheme making logical sense even matters in the first place (in which case inverted would obviously be superior).

bear in mind i harbor no ill will towards people who use default controllers, whatever you want to play with is fine, i couldnt care less. this argument is directed only at those people who claim that inverted makes no sense (coupled generally with the belief that it is somehow inferior). it does make sense, in fact it makes more sense, but neither one is better or worse. its all about what youre used to. i dont play inverted because i think its sensible, but only because its what i got used to playing back in the halcyon days of goldeneye. please feel free to offer thoughts or counter-arguments of the well thought out variety ("u suck u n00b, ill pwnz u" doesn't count).

-Asano

Is the Xbox 360 truly "Next-Gen"? Yes!

2006-02-22T13:48:00.000-08:00

Ever since the Xbox 360 launched last Novermber, critics have been slamming its launch titles, saying that they don't look "next-gen" enough. This often extends to assertions that the 360 launched too early or that, in one way or another, the 360 falls short of being next-gen.

Some titles, especially multiplatform titles like Gun and Tony Hawk's American Wasteland show almost no graphical leap over the previous generation. Others, like many of EASports' games, shipped with updated graphics, but pared-down gameplay options. Madden, for example, looks nice (though not as nice as the target renders shown before launch) but lacks many modes that are available in the Xbox version. Tiger Woods '06, another offender, has about half as many course as the Xbox version.

So is the next generation really about marginally improved graphics and fewer gameplay options, all with a $60 price tag? Of course not. Neither is the 360.

The games described above are unfortunate victims of launch. The multiplatform games appeared because the current consoles are still viable. Multiplatform games, by their very nature, tend to cater to the lowest common denominator in terms of technology. Naturally, the 360 versions just aren't that impressive. A prettied-up version of a current generation title would have to be damn pretty to be considered next-gen anyway. The sports games and the others that just aren't worth $60 were most likely rushed to meet the 360's launch. This is inevitable and happens with every console, regardless of the timing of its release.

Simply releasing a title on next-gen hardware does not necessarily make a game next-gen. Neither, though, does releasing a sub-next-gen game suggest that the console itself is sub-next-gen.

Games like Project Gotham Racing 3 and Call of Duty 2, for example, clearly demonstrate that the 360 is capable of next-gen graphics. In fact, CoD2 in particular, shows that the next generation isn't just about hot new graphics. The incredible sound, artificial intelligence that's actually intelligent, sweet physics and huge set-piece battles contribute to an immersive experience that screams next-gen. Games like this aptly demonstrate that the weaker 360 titles should not disqualify the 360 from being considered the next generation of consoles.

CoD2 shows us that graphics are just a small part of the picture. We are going to see a more substantial leap in visuals as the console ages anyway, but there's another aspect where the 360 is already clearly next-gen - online. Xbox Live on the original Xbox was ahead of its time and far superior to anything on the consoles. The improved Live on the 360 is far and away the best online gaming service there is. In fact, I would argue that the leap between Xbox Live iterations is at least as big as any generational leap that we've seen.

I had read about the improved online capabilities of the 360, but I didn't really grasp how great they were until I actually got one. Actually, I should say until Asano and I both got one. My single favorite upgrade is the private chat option. While private chatting, Asano (who lives in Japan) and I (who lives in America) can talk pretty much no matter what we're doing. We can play the same game or we can play different games; we can even watch movies or download content. It's really cool that we can talk to each other while not playing together, just like when we used to play different games on our adjacent TV's. With the wireless controller, we don't even have to be in front of the TV- we can grab a beer, take a piss... I even went outside once.

Private chat is just one of a panopoly of awesome upgrades that make the 360 Dashboard a pervasive and compelling environment, rather than a stupid menu that you have to look at before you can play a game. The Dashboard has fundamentally changed the way I game. Never before have I spent so much time not playing retail games. There is so much to do on the Dashboard like downloading Xbox Live Arcade games, demos of retail games, trailers, themes and icons; playing demos or Arcade games; customizing my system (like making my controls inverted for all FPS's); and listening to ripped music. Honestly, there is just so much good stuff on the Dashboard that I don't even use it all, nor do I have time to even list it here.

Gamercards are another upgrade that sounded ho-hum, but in practice are awesome. Having a custom profile that lists your achievements in games is a fantastic idea. Achievements add a more tangible incentive to attempting hardcore feats. Not only do you have the satisfaction of completing a difficult taks, but your achievements are listed on your gamercard for everyone to see. This really resonates with me, because I want to be rewarded for completing difficult tasks in games. It therefore encourages me to reach for higher scores or beat games on additional difficulty levels, which both extends and intensifies my gaming enjoyment. By virtue of adding achievements, Microsoft has essentially added replayabilty to any game, which is welcome when they cost an extra 10 dollars. I sure as shit wouldn't be constantly playing Geometry Wars (as awesome as it is) just to get a higher score. If I get a high score, I want that shit on my gamercard. That goes for all games from now on.

I could probably go on, but I think you get the point. Good graphics or no good graphics, the Xbox 360 has changed the way I play and view games. The Xbox Dashboard and its integrated Live capabilities represent a vast leap (even vaster that Asano's mom's vagina) over anything we've seen before. This alone is enough to consider the 360 to represent the next generation of console gaming. And anyway, soon enough, games for the 360 will make our eyes bleed with how goddamn gorgeous they are. Maybe not enough of them looked good enough at launch, but I don't care. I'll be over here, playing Geometry Wars.

-Joule