I'm making a new semi-regular article about comparing both the SD (Wii, PS2) and HD (360, PS3) versions of the same game and going into detail whether pretty graphics and a nice presentation make the better game. Or fundamentally different controls and a streamlined interface are what make a better game

For my first SD vs. HD segment, I will be reviewing Ghostbusters: The Video Game. Dtoid has already reviewed both the Wii and the Xbox 360 versions. But I want to give a side-by-side comparison between the two.

graphics

As you folks may have already seen, the graphics on Ghostbusters are very different between the two versions. The HD version (for those who want to know I'm reviewing the Xbox 360 version) is more realistic, with the characters looking they their real life counterparts circa 1991 (in which the game takes place). The environments are rich with detail and look fantastic from a technical perspective. The ghosts and particle effects all look authentic as well. The animation can be a little stiff and overemphasized at times. Overall there was a lot of care into making the game look and feel like an authentic Ghostbusters experience.

The SD version looks like a cartoon, with the characters looking like goofy caricatures of themselves (In particular your character looks like Daniel Craig). The environments are all varied and colorful. They're obviously not as detailed as the HD version, but they hold up on their own merits. The character animation is just as wacky as the models themselves. One thing I did like over the HD version was the lip syncing and animation. It simply worked better with cartoon characters where as the HD lip syncing and animation came off as a bit robotic. Overall it works for what the Wii has to offer.

Overall which versions graphics are better is really a matter of taste. The SD version is more like a new CGI Ghostbusters cartoon, where as the HD version is more like Ghostbusters 3: The Movie.

Here's a quick summary:

[HD]
+ movie-like presentation
+ stunning environments
+ impressive particle effects
+ cool looking ghosts
- stiff, robotic animation
- framerate can take a dive

[SD]
+ fun, wacky character models
+ better lip syncing and animation than HD version
- weak particle effects
- BIG framerate drops when action get heavy

Winner: HD

gameplay

The HD version plays off more like an authentic Ghostbusters experience. You use your proton cannon to stun the ghosts, you smack them around the room, you lay your trap and capture the ghost. It seems needlessly complicated at first, but with a little bit of practice it can be an absolute blast. The HD version makes great use of physics. You earn money where you can purchase upgardes for use in both single and multiplayer. There is one big issue with the HD version though, there are ghosts that knock you back and stun you for a few seconds. This happens more and more as the game goes on and can really get frustrating. Multiplayer is exclusively cooperative. There are a few game types, like campaign, survival and defend the relic which are all fun and give the game a little more lasting power. One fatal flaw however, is a complete lack of local Co-op. And with a multiplayer that is solely co-op, that is a huge party foul.

The SD version is far more streamlined, with an almost arcadey feel. The SD version omit anything that may complicate thing like upgrades, needing to pick up your trap, collect PKE data etc. This makes the game more simplistic and therefore may turn off some people. There are no enemies that stun you so a lot of the frustration from the HD version is absent here. There is no dedicated multiplayer mode but the campaign can be played locally with another player. With the SD versions simpler approach, a 2-player local co-op game makes it that much more enjoyable.

another quick summary:

[HD]
+ really fun "busting" action
+ great use of physics engine
+ great multiplayer
- frustrating knockbacks
- no local multiplayer
- somewhat steep learning curve

[SD]
+ fun arcadey gameplay
+ far less frustrating than HD vesion (no knockback move)
+ local co-op[/color]
- may be too simplistic for some
- weak as a single player game

Winner: SD

The story for the game is the same on both versions. And if your a Ghostbusters fan, the story and dialogue alone are worth the price of admission. I prefer the HD version slightly over the SD version since it's more like how Ghostbusters 3 should have been if it were a movie. But to any fan of Ghostbusters, you can't go wrong with either version.

I had just read the news about 30 minutes ago that Turtles in Time Re-shelled will now be $10 instead of the original $15. While this is great news, it got me thinking about how we justify our purchases. Is $5 really THAT much money? Does cutting down the price of the game really make it worth it? I'm gonna be looking at some players' spending habits analyze this myself.

My brother is very picky about games. He refuses to play any FPSs claiming they're "all the same thing". He won't touch anything Wii. He told me it's not his thing. While I can understand this. But some things I noticed were kinda strange. He plays World of Warcraft on-and-off; he'll play for a few months, then hell stop for a few month etc. I showed him Geometry Wars on LIVE a while back, he liked it but said he didn't want it. He won't spend $5 on Geometry Wars but he'll shell out $15/month on WoW. His tastes are obviously different than mine, but somehow that just seems incredibly weird.

Another example I find even more strange. There is a game called N+ on Xbox LIVE arcade. It's essentially an Xbox version of a flash game you can get for free on your computer. N+ is an "enhanced" version (1080p, new levels etc.), but it's $10 where the flash version is completely free. And it's not like it bombed, it's under "Most popular" which means people are buying it. Which leads me to my first though. Why is there such a big stink about Turtles in Tim Re-shelled being $5 more than it should when People are buying N+ for $10 more than it's PC brethren? And I don't get me started on collector's editions ( I have a few myself), and retail hard copies vs. digital copies.

Anyway I'm just thinking aloud here. People will buy whatever they feel it's worth. If they think Turtles in Time is too expensive, they shouldn't buy it. If they want N+ enough to pay $10 then by God they'll do it. But is a $5 price difference really THAT big a deal? I just think it's weird how people justify prices.

The term hardcore vs. casual debate is currently a HUGE hot button issue in the gaming community. On one end of the spectrum, you have the "hardcore" players who despise anything that doesn't have guns, girls, and gore. They demonize the Wii as the bane of video games, stating that it "ruined it for all of us". On the other end of the spectrum, you have the "casuals" who demand that they be spoon fed everything during the course of the game. They dismiss anything that can't be beaten over the course of a weekend. This includes any strategy game, tactical action game, any RPG (except Fable II), and pretty much anything else that requires improvised thought. Did you notice anything missing in these two sides?

Yeah you did, because fun factor has been all but cut from the equation. It's now all about either "Wow, look at his Gamertag, he's really hardcore", or "I wanna get through this with as few obstacles as possible". Hardcore gamers won't give World of Goo a second look but will submit themselves to the likes of Grand Theft Auto, only to bitch about it online. If they don't enjoy this series, why do they still buy them? inFAMOUS also comes to mind here. I've never played it (I don't have a PS3) but from what I've heard, so many others have and with nothing good to say about it. It's not about having fun anymore, it's about playing hardcore games because their fragile gamer egos can't handle anything deemed casual. Word to these people, try Peggle, sure it's casual, but it's enjoyable. Trust me.

Then you got the casuals. They're not nearly as bitter the hardcore crowd, but anything involving trial & error, cognitive thought, or any game that you can "lose" and they'll refuse to play it. These people hate Splinter Cell because it requires careful timing and precision. They piss on tactical shooters because taking cover is too realistic and they don't want to invest the time to plan their COA (that means course of action). Anything that requires reading is too much for them to handle. READING for Christ's sake. And yet, all I hear from them is how boring MySims, Wii Fit and Prince of Persia are. But anything that tests their skills is too much for their fragile egos to handle. My advice to these gamers, try a strategy game (I recommend Medieval II: Total War, I haven't tried Empire yet, so I don't want to give it my seal of approval yet). Or invest in a heavy-duty RPG like Neverwinter Nights, learn to play it. Trust me, it'll be fun.

Now I know that what is fun to me might not be to someone else, but there is a reason why they're called video games. Games are meant to be fun, It should be about being hardcore and inflating your Gamerscore or playing for playing's sake. It should be about having fun and if both parties simply broaden their horizons, we'll all have more fun

This is a short entry. I just wanted to give an update on current events. Last week I purchased a Wii with Super Mario Galaxy. I grew up with Nintendo and my girlfriend never had a Nintendo console (never played any of the important games either). And I wanted to introduce her to Ninty's back catalog.

Plus there are cool games amidst all the shovelware. And I still have 33 Gamecube games I want to still play.

That is all.

I've been playing video games for many years. Almost 20 years actually (I turn 24 in October). I have had some cool moments throughout my gaming career. But one I specifically remember was at the end boss of Final Fantasy VII.

In my main party were Cloud, Barret and Tifa. with Cid, Vincent and Red XIII in the other While fighting Bizzaro Sephiroth. I think I had reached around level 80-something (It was in 1999-2000 we got our Playstation late in its cycle). I had tried to save my summons for the next fight. I beat this boss fairly easy.

Now this is were it got epic. On Safer Sephiroth, I had immediately used my strongest summons at the beginning of the fight. I didn't have Knights of the Round, but I used Bahamut ZERO and Hades to get his health down quite a bit. He had injured my guys, especially Cloud, and then he used Supernova on us. Cloud and Barret were both died shortly after with Tifa at about 3 HP and her Limit break full. It was my turn I had Final Heaven for Tifa and got the first five or so slot tumblers to YEAH! were as the rest of them I was able to get hit. Since this was my last shot at beating him I wanted to get as many hit as possible, I had weakened Sephiroth quite a bit beforehand, but I wasn't sure if this was going to work or not. So Tifa started to do her thing and Sephiroth still wasn't dead, I started to get discouraged over whether or not this was going to work. Tifa was getting into her more powerful limit break attacks. Still not dead yet. Finally Final Heaven hit him and Tifa's turn was up, I immediately thought "dammit, it didn't work". But then I heard a grumbling noise and Sephiroth blew up, or however he dies. It was a while ago.

I cheered. I had beaten him with a mere 3 health points left. And thought right there "This will probably be the greatest gaming moment I'll ever have." I've had a few great moments after that, but nothing can compare to this one.

Rock Band 2 is currently one of my favorite games this generation. There is something about those little plastic instruments that bring me such joy. I got all decked out with the new instrument set: The RB2 Stratocaster, the Mad Catz Precision Bass controller, the RB2 drum kit complete with cymbals (I even made a custom hi-hat stand for it) and a mic w/ stand. A little excessive I know, but it's all part of the fun.

Anyway I had unlocked the Endless Setlist 2 a while ago, but I was never brave enough to attempt it, until now. It was the very last thing I needed to complete on World Tour. So I had plenty of time on my hands today and I started this little endurance test at approx 10:30am this morning. I managed to finished it at 5:06pm today with the "Vinyl Artist" and "The Bladder of Steel Award" achievements (I only played Medium so that I could get Bladder of Steel. But don't think that it was any less grueling). I haven't played that long of a session in years. I fell like I'm pushing myself when I play for more than 2 hours.

I wasn't all bad tough. I did manage to rekindle my love for some forgotten songs. I pretty much forgot all about "Cool for Cats" and "Rob the Prez-O-dent". I have over 250 songs total so it's easy for a song to get lost.

But needless to say, I'll be putting away Rock Band 2 for a while. I'll pick it back up eventually. Maybe when The Beatles: Rock Band comes out I'll get the urge to play it again.

That is all.