Merry Christmas to you all! Glad to see that everyone is taking a break from all the presents and food to check in with us. Listmas continues here on UWG, and you need only search for the tag “Listmas” to read the posts we’ve completed since last Friday. Following up on the list I posted on Monday, and holding close the power of positive thinking when it comes to me actually completing a given task, when I get through all the games I need to play in order to clear my conscious and save my bank account, I’ll then be able to move onto all the games I’d like to play, which constitutes the list below. Since I got a little crazy with new (for me) games this past year, there are lots of newer (and older) games that I simply missed or had to pass up. So this isn’t a list of upcoming, next gen titles that I want to play, but rather a list of PS3/360/Wii/Wii U games that I hope to get my hands on next year.
Ever since Sony acquired Gaikai from David Perry back in June of 2012, there has been speculation as to what the consumer electronics giant will do with the streaming service. First thought to be a sort of upgrade to the Playstation 3, then assumed to be a cloud media server for the PS4, Sony’s president has come forth in a recent interview with more details on future plans. Shuhei Yoshida spoke of an, “ultimate goal to bring Playstation games to all devices,” and “going from hardware to something closer to a service, regardless of the device.” He goes on to say that the PS4 would remain the center of their focus, even when considering other hardware avenues.
Sony is certainly not the first company to make a go at streaming games or a cloud-based service. Companies like OnLive and GameTap have been in the business for years. But these comments from Sony’s president could have huge implications for the future of gaming. Just imagine if Sony moves outside of their proprietary consoles and becomes a video game company based mostly on a streaming service. With a robust catalog of titles to pull from, Sony could create a sort of Netflix for video games: a flat monthly fee to play hundreds of classics from the Playstation 1, 2, and 3.
There are plenty of hurdles in such a move. As Microsoft found out earlier this year with the “always online” debacle, not every consumer has access to a hearty internet connection. On top of the headache that is server maintenance and running a smooth streaming service, most of the games that mark Sony’s rise to fame are third-party titles, so negotiations and licenses must be taken into consideration. But if all of these challenges could be met, Sony would make quite an impact on the gaming market, and potentially earn piles of money in the process. The bottom line to consider: just how many players would be interested in such a service and how much are they willing to pay?
Just speaking for the GIMMGP Headquarters, I know of at least two players would pay a good amount to stream dozens of Playstation games.
Part of why I read reviews is to decide whether or not I should play/buy a game. Games cost money and with a regular 9-6 job my time is limited in what I can play. I have to make that count. Also, I like reading reviews! If I’m going to play a game from start to finish and then talk about it, I should also post my own formal review of it. Makes sense, right? But what makes Read on…
It is safe to say that in the year 2000, Resident Evil was riding pretty high. A successful trilogy had been released on the Playstation, the high quality sequel Code Veronica just debuted on the Dreamcast, and a big-budget movie was in the works. To sweeten the deal, a spin-off from the main series had just released in Japan, where the usual third-person perspective was traded for a first-person view. The idea was to create a Resident Evil game that would utilize light gun controllers and (hopefully) steal some thunder from the arcade shooter market. But this idea relies on the actual use of light gun controllers, a feature which was removed from the American release. It also relies on the game not being a terrible pile of crap, which Resident Evil: Survivor most certainly is.
At this point, you may be asking yourself, “How does a game that was developed for a light gun handle with a traditional controller?” Very poorly would be the response. Imagine playing the original Resident Evil, with its delightful tank controls, from the first person. There is no strafe or sidestep, and anytime you draw your gun, the main character stops completely to fire. Simply navigating the game is a frustrating ordeal, since the protagonist constantly gets stuck against any object in his way, and the combat is no better.
The logical upgrade that would come from a first-person view would be the ability to better target zombies’ vital bits (read: head and knees). A player can certainly aim at these weak spots, but it makes no difference within the game. Shooting a zombie’s head deals out no greater damage than a straight shot to the finger (which makes no sense in any sort of world, video game or otherwise). To further complicate things, the speed at which shots may be fired is limited. For some strange reason, there is a rate-of-fire limit in Survivor; sort of cooldown between every single shot from a gun. So be prepared to take plenty of time dispatching each frustrating enemy in this turd.
Even the creatures in this game look terrible. The original Resident Evil knew that the processing power of the Playstation had its limits, so the developers relied on clever lighting and camera angles to compensate. Survivor does not have such luxuries, so every bland and jagged zombie looks terrible against the plain and pixelated backgrounds. The audio is just as bad, with buggy sound effects and schlocky voice acting in every cutscene.
The story is blessedly non-canon, with a tale of some random amnesiac surviving a plane crash on the Umbrella Corporation’s private island, which is (of course) filled with biological horrors. But even within the realm of spin-offs, which normally change up the traditional story and experiment with details, Survivor sticks to a rather bland RE formula. Hero enters town, zombies are present, hero finds out Umbrella makes biological weapons (no duh), bigger zombies show up, some civilians need saving, Tyrant boss, rocket launcher, self destruct sequence, cut to credits.
When my brother and I rented Survivor from our local Blockbuster Video back in the Autumn of 2000, we were so excited to have another Resident Evil game to play. Within just two hours, we felt bamboozled by our beloved Capcom. With its terrible controls, bland story, and bizarre combat restrictions, there were no redeeming factors for this awful game. At least the lack of interesting plot developments means the average player can just skip this RE entry. So for those of you who enjoy the Resident Evil series (or survival horror in general) do yourself a favor and avoid Survivor. And avoid Operation Raccoon City while your at it. Honestly, it’s a toss-up as to which game is worse.
Dlc, if you have dabbled in gaming at all during this generation you know what this is. This is the 40-80 dollars you spend after your initial purchase of a video game. We may hate ourselves for it, but we get excited when it’s announced, froth at the mouth and ready our wallets for it’s beautiful release. A forbidden pleasure.
What is dlc really? In some cases, I’m sure it is probably exactly what they tell us it is, added content to expand our enjoyment of the original game. I don’t believe for a second, though, that this is always the case. In most cases, especially in day one dlc, or dlc released within the first week, It is just a way for game producers to milk us a tad more for a game we just bought. I can’t blame them completely, I know as well as anyone that video games are a business as well as a pastime, but I feel like there should be a limit or a basic set of rules to how they can do this.
I remember the old days, before consoles were connected to the internet. Games back then were complete the day you bought them, they didn’t need dlc. When you bought a game it was either a deep and compelling game that was worthy of your investment, or it was a horrible waste of your time, and you used it for target practice. There was no dlc, you got what you payed for, and you knew what you were buying yourself into. Games back then it seemed like were just made better than the games of today.
Nowadays, I feel like games are released incomplete on purpose. Sure, you can complete the story, save the damsel in distress, whatever. The games, though, don’t always feel complete without the dlc. Honestly, I’d rather just pay an extra amount on my initial purchase and feel like I bought a completed game. Dlc is an infection, and we the consumers (myself included) continue to buy into it. The worst kind of dlc isn’t even the expansion style dlc, which some is totally worth your money, It’s weapon skins and character outfits, this dlc is truly money-grubbing and just plain stupid.
I think the moral to my story here, is that we as gamers should evaluate the content we decide to pay extra money for. If it’s an expansion that you will blow through in 3 hours, don’t buy it, because that’s exactly what they want from us. The only exception to this, is if they offer you a bacon weapon skin, in that case you should buy it because bacon is amazing. Anyways happy nerding, hope to hear back from you guys!
Like so many others at the start of a new year, I made a short list of resolutions with the ultimate goal of getting my life in order. At the top of the agenda: clean out my stuff from the parents’ basement. The task was meant to be a sort of gift to my mother, who I am sure is tired of looking at piles of junk covering an otherwise-serviceable living space. Granted, I tend to keep my assets meticulously organized and well-maintained, but they remain massive piles of junk in the basement, nonetheless.
You see, I have a tiny habit of being a packrat. A more accurate description of my character would reveal that I am a hoarder who keeps nearly every item that enters my possession. But after two trips home this year, I have made my way through half of my treasure stores. Thanks to the efforts of my wife, I have parted with several items: old school papers and receipts have been recycled, unneeded clothes and furniture were donated, I have even managed to gift or Ebay some of my massive collection of gaming memorabilia. But no matter what anyone says or offers, I cannot get rid of a single video game that I own; the games of my past are simply too precious to throw away.
Many people have tried to reason with me on this matter. “When was the last time you played your NES? Do you really need all of this stuff? Can’t you play this on your computer?” All of these are valid comments. It has been quite a while since I hooked up my old Nintendo; the old girl cannot even run on a modern television without a conversion cable. Certainly I do not need any of my old games. I have piles of newer titles that I have not even started, so I am in no short supply of entertainment. And of course I have emulated much of my older collection for the sake of convenience. In spite of all these criticisms, I will not budge.
Let’s look at this from another angle. Now that all the hullabaloo of E3 has died down, it has become clear that yet another console generation will abandon backwards compatibility with the previous systems. All of the games I purchased for the Xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 will only run on their parent consoles. On top of that, my digital purchases for the Live Arcade and Playstation Network will not carry over, so these titles are tethered to my current consoles until the end of time (or when they break down, whichever comes first). Despite all of the technological marvels displayed at the latest E3, it seems that even going back even one console generation is proving too much for Microsoft and Sony.
What about Nintendo and the potential of the Virtual Console? At this time, there are 27 titles available to download on the Wii-U eShop, most of which are licensed Nintendo properties. Combined with the games available on the Wii eShop, which covers eight different consoles from several companies, players have roughly 450 titles available to purchase. While this is a great library of games to choose from, these offerings are hardly comprehensive. Just looking at the games I have stored away reveals dozens of titles that are not included on the eShop, and probably never will be (sorry, Monster Party).
How about buying older items from your local used game store? Earlier this year, GameStop voided all Playstation 2 transactions, which limits their products to only current gen offerings and smart phones. This relegates all previous consoles and their games to Goodwill, flea markets, and online dealers. Oh sure, some of the more fondly remembered classics will get re-releases and bundle packaged, but so many great games are getting tossed out the moment something shiny and new comes along to be sold (and resold) by GameStop.
This leaves the argument of simply emulating all of my old games and pitching the physical copies. After all, I could make a pretty penny off of some of the more beloved titles in my collection, and keeping my games in a digital format would free up some space. But there is something lost when playing hunched over a computer screen with the cold embrace of a keyboard. Call it nostalgia sickness, but playing older console games just isn’t the same without a controller in hand and sitting on a comfy couch. I am the sort who would prefer to pay for an ideal gaming experience as opposed to piracy or emulation. But if no one is offering, what choice do I have?
It seems that for the near future, I will be keeping my old games and consoles. I want to preserve these games and the unique experiences offered by each one, so I can share them with new friends and loved ones. Besides, no one really uses the basement anymore; Mom can handle the clutter.
(The Duck currently has a bunch of posts started but incomplete. My brain is feeling lethargic today. So I am posting below a recent post from my own blog until I get these posts done. I have been writing different topics from the 100 theme challenge, and this is #6. Behold!)
Okay, today’s 100 theme challenge topic is Break Away. What in the world is that supposed to even mean? When I think of those two words, I think of, well, breaking something. Or possibly being in the grips of a kidnapper and breaking out of their hands with your swift, ninja skills! Which luckily has not happened to me, but that is strangely on my mind when I think of this topic. But, neither of those are good topics. I don’t break things, and as I said, I haven’t had to “break away” from a kidnapper. Or a duck-napper, either. Continue reading 100 Theme Challenge No. 6: Break Away→
