Bioshock infinite was a game that was critically lauded, and received tons and tons of praise, even from some hardline critics, which was more than enough for me to decide to check it out. †I got it on sale for 40 bucks, and played through it. I only lost my focus a bit later on in a dull section, but I finished the game around august.
After letting this game stew for a while, I find my opinion has worsened from even my lackluster feelings after beating the game.†
Before you begin in with cries of you don't get it or you can't compare it to bioshock, I will bisect those two arguments right here and now. First off, yes, I may have missed bits of the subtext but I understood what was going on and it was a bit of a mess. Being pretentious does not mean being misunderstood, it means pretending to be making points and pretending to be smarter than you are, and this game is not nearly as intelligent or interwoven as it would like you to think it is.†
Secondly, yes I can compare it to Bioshock because itís called Bioshock infinite, has pseudo-plasmids and similar combat and even clearly steals sound assets from the first. The very name invited the comparison and therefore invites criticism regarding that. By naming it and lifting so many elements a comparison must be made, and one must look to what Infinite does differently than the original Bioshock to isolate what it is, and whether or not it is indeed better than its precursor. †Now with that out of the way, no I would not recommend this game at full price, though at a sale price I can recommend it for a play-through at least, to see if it works for you. The game squanders its potential by not focusing on the more interesting bits, like talking to citizens and exploring the town with dull combat, which is infinitely more boring than Bioshock (hah, mother fucking hah). Thereís no real sense of progression, the fights are just long and drawn out, simply making fights more obtuse and more irritating to get through and the abilities are mostly uninteresting or just copies of the original games plasmids. And speaking on that, the vigors are just reskinnned plasmids, just without any of the lore, intrigue or even real relation to the universe that Bioshock and even a game that I consider in some ways to be better, Bioshock 2 had. Thereís no interwoven lore, the world is just there, the physics shit is fucking pretentious and the main villain and city are uninteresting, especially considering Rapture and Andrew Ryan. I don't like how no one took this game to task for its issues, because maybe I am being pretty critical but the game is not as perfect as advertised. It got talked up and talked up and talked up, and even when I tempered expectations I was left disappointed. Itís weaker than Bioshock, lore wise and world building wise and I just don't like it. I also really don't like how a game that did everything better than this one was overshadowed by this one because it was so hyped and deep and shit. Itís not that deep, and when you have a line like "The city doesn't float cause of the balloons, it floats cause physics!!!" you know itís trying to be that game without understanding that by trying and not doing it falls flat.†
While this game is worth a play through, you should beware the hype, as I personally felt it was far weaker than advertised. Go play the much better Bioshock, or even Bioshock 2, or hell, go play Spec ops if you want to play a truly great game, and if you want to see what this game could've been, go play the game it helped push away from the periphery, Metro Last light, because that game for all its flaws actually proves why it deserves it accolades, and doesnít just whisk you away from the people drama, which is quite good in Inifinite when no main characters are involved. Play the game once without listening to literally every conversation, and then do another where you listen to everything, and in that second play through you are going to find that hours of content are added, that could have easily been skipped and ignored. It doesnít force them on you, and it goes the extra mile to make it mean something that you listen to deepen and enrich the world. The metro is interesting, and I just feel like in some ways both games are similar, but Metro shows what Infinite had the potential to be if it unstuck its head from its own ass and tried.†
I mentioned this before briefly, but I want to explain more the mechanical issues I have to further elaborate. Now, at first combat feels fine and goes alright and its actually fun. But as the game progresses the battles are more confined and less dynamic, and simply throw tough, high damage enemies that sap the fun away. Additionally the game has only two gun slots, only a few plasmid slots, no progression at all-which is fair enough- and most irritating though perhaps most petty of all, the guns donít show upgrades, making said upgrades feel ethereal and meaningless. It removes a sense of ownership, and it hurts the combats intensity. It also gets irritating to have to constantly look around for different weapons or be deprived of a favorite weapon because its not in this level, thereís no ammo why would you want to use it, player? Thatís a little petty, but considering the legacy that hangs over it, I donít see why you didnít just leave it in. Maybe to attract the ďgunbroĒ audience, but do you really think that said audience is so afraid of multiple gun slots? Or is that something the industry believes, so it must be true! Because it feels like that. And it makes the combat feel a lot weaker than it should, even if the skyhooks are a somewhat interesting mechanic that are ultimately wasted more on the combat than exploration.†
Ludonarrative Dissonance I have no problem with the level of violence, none whatsoever. The combat is my issue, not the blood and graphic kills, though I can see why some people might have issues. Still itís a nonissue for me, so donít think thatís my problem with anything in the game, because the rest of the game is my problem with the game.
Graphics and Aesthetic design The game looks pretty good; itís very pretty and colorful which surprises me. Arenít you afraid bright colors will scare away the ďgunbrosĒ? They canít tolerate anything thatís not brown and gray!!!! Itís odd that this was an excuse for the combat, but not the actually very pretty coloring and nice graphics. Aesthetic wise it looks good too, I do like the 30ís patriotic vibe, though eventually it kind of sweeps this away for fire and chaos, which doesnít serve quite as well but it still feels alright so I can live with it. Enemy design is a bit lazy though, as thereís not a huge amount of troop variety in unit type throughout the game, even if there are some unique concepts. But for the majority of the game itís the same troop subtypes, even if they are different factionally. Also what the hell is up with their eyes? Some have glowing eyes and thatís never explained and that kind of bugs me. Sorry, thatís really nit picky, but yeah overall I like the look and aesthetics. Credit where its due.†
If you let those blacks free, they will burn the city down!
Yeah, guess who tended to think that? Hint: Civil War.
Guess what happens at the end of infinite? Spoiler alert: What the racists thought would happen if said statement was allowed to pass.
This one seems tenuous, perhaps, but the Vox donít just take over Columbia, they burn it to the fucking ground. Or at least try to. And while I can see that as part of the pretentious point that both sides can be corrupted with power, it still comes across leaving a sour taste. Perhaps this one can be interpreted differently by different people, but it seems like immediately making the Vox the villains and making them seem a lot worse than the founders-who didnít burn the city down-comes across as a little unevenly skewed. Might be just me and the person who originally put the thought in my head, but I canít quite shake it.†
So thatís my overall thoughts, finally out for the world to see. Feel free to comment, I would like to know how you feel regardless of disagreement or agreement. It augments my understanding, and hey, maybe I can alter my blog post to be a bit better and provide a better read for more discussion. Hope to discuss soon!
[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]*For now [/font] [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Back again all, and ready to type.†[/font]
As most of you who have seen or heard from the Sony press conference have heard, Sony won. Now I wonít lie and say I havenít always preferred them, but I think itís important to think about why they won, and perhaps examine how Microsoft could step up their game. Competition is good, and Microsoft needs to get its head out of its ass if it wants to ensure we reap the benefits of said competition. I figure the best way to do this, is to examine why Sony is winning in the court of public opinion. Obvious to some, yet still important to try and begin dialogues to see how everyone feels.
Sonyís used game stance This was the most surprising part of the presentation for me, as I expected some form of control, at least on a publisher level but nothing was mentioned right now. That might be to ride the PR wave that has buoyed Sony to this point, or it may be something that will never pop up but I think itís great. By doing this not only does Sony alienate [u]no[/u] core gamers or push away Gamestop, but it actually encourages them and reaps the benefits of that love they will get, when store shelves need stocking.
Now where Microsoft went wrong with this is how blunt they were. I think Sony is playing the long game, slowly making obsolete used games with a better service and fazing them out later, when they have a more comfortable position and can either afford to take the PR blow or when their customers are so much more satisfied with new product they donít want used, though there will always be holdouts. Whatever your opinion on this, itís important to note that by doing this they will sell a good amount of systems, and garner good will, but over the long haul will achieve that goal of killing used. Microsoft jumped too early, and too hard, making it easier for Sony to turn the public against them. Microsoft desired the result now, and instead of being clever they simply bluntly stated they were doing it and provided so much misinformation as to create a worse image of their product. That hurt their image, and on that subjectÖ..
Sony vs. Microsoft in the sphere of hardcore gamers Ah yes, anyone who pays attention to games at all hated what Microsoft was doing, on different levels obviously, but it was the way they did it they pissed us off. This attitude of we need to force you to do because its ultimately good for you permeates Microsoftís corporate culture from windows 8 to the Xbone, and itís not earning them goodwill. But their mistake was not doing all this per se, it was doing it so ham handedly while alienating those who tuned into their conferences.†
Their pre-E3 conference was all about cable, TV, bullshit we donít care about when we tune in. And it was mainly us tuning in, because what casual audience tunes in to a middle of the day conference from a gaming company? No this was their chance to woo gamers, but they spent it on non-game stuff and made it seem as if this game system wasnít for us, and that made it all the more unattractive. Additionally Microsoftís frankly shocking lack of information or indeed misinformation spread and made the system look even worse than it is, and itís already a very unappealing system. That conference foreshadowed the main issue with Microsoft philosophy, namely that
Sony was all about the games Yeah, there was a bit in the Sony E3 conference about media other than games. It took five-ten minutes.
Let that sink in, while thinking about Sonyís E3 last year, regarding a certain WONDERBOOK.
See the issue wasnít a lack of supply of these features, it just pissed us off that while at the Sony pre-E3 was all about games, and the Microsoft pre was not. And when gamers tune in, we want to know about the games. And Sony delivered, and delivered again while Microsoft talked only about cable and sports tracking at its pre. And while these are actually not terrible, in fact some could be very cool, they shouldíve released this as a press release, not as an event that only gamers would ever watch, pissing off gamers even more when they didnít get enough games. Microsoft mishandled its info and only presented features that while nice werenít what we came to see. And that lost them some goodwill, even though these features might be useful. Its messaging came off as schizophrenic and that really hurt them, allowing Sony to ride the wave of love that came in even though they didnít release all that much info about their own system, which had the potential to be worse. And Sony used that to their advantage, not even having to put out all that much PR, and indeed mocking the Xbone at their own conference, firing direct shots and not even trying to disguise it.
Simcity. Simcity is a lesson in not learning your lesson, a lesson that Diablo III taught before even that, and one that Microsoft fails to see which will be to its detriment. If its servers ever fail, it will mean not only will online multiplayer be disabled, but unlike the PS3 outage crisis, games will be disabled as well. The system has to check in every 24 hours, or no games for you. And considering the shitty internet a lot of the main demographic of America has, that means it will be a no go for those without internet. Yes, some will say we all have internet nowadays, but some of it is sporadic and some of it doesnít work.†
If you buy a PS4, however, you can play offline, and the PS+ benefits you wouldnít get anyway wonít allow you to play multiplayer you couldnít play anyway. But thatís optional, and considering the fact that Microsoft hasnít even brought up Microsoft live yet, which you will have to pay for most likely, that should worry those who like to play, even when the internet goes down or Microsoftís servers break.† And speaking of that Xbox live, and PS+, those are added onto the cost of a system. This is yet another problem for Microsoft, consideringÖ.
Price difference How things have flipped. With the Xbox One at 500 dollars and the PS4 at 400 dollars we see an interesting flip in perspective.†
Yet this doesnít include the multiplayer fee, which brings PS4 to 460, and the Xbox one toÖ..no one knows. And since they arenít bringing this up, that means you may be paying upwards of 500 dollars for something that canít play games if the servers die or if you lose internet for more than 24 hours. And thatís going to be a hard sell
What to do? Microsoft needs to act, and it needs to act fast. I like the competition it provides, hell it made Sony give us rainbows and Easter eggs when alone it wouldíve been a far grimmer market, but they need to start changing their approach. It needs to be all about the games, which they may have started to do, and they should really consider cutting some of the online requirements, at least for now. But if they donít do that, they need good bundles, cheap or free Xbox live, and they need to get their shit sorted out, or risk taking a painful kick to the groin, because though I believe the system will sell well, perhaps better than the PS4 which would be tragic considering how pro gamer it is, it must always remember it couldíve done better. And them not doing well is no good for any of us. And thatís why unless they step up their game in other areas, things may be a bit bleaker ahead for the industry, though collapse is not something I predicate on a wide or small scale.
Share your opinion in the comments; I would like to hear opposing perspectives, things I may have left out, or possible avenues for either company to take, for good or for bad.†
I look forward to the sparring match.
Violence in games is nothing new, but with new technology we are able to render in gruesome detail what was merely the psychotic fever dream of a very.....lets say interesting few. Now we can not just visualize it, but we can see a video game character get his throat torn out, or see a man torn asunder by a horror beyond description. Even back before these graphics, games like fallout let you blow peoples chest cavities out. Violence has been embedded in our games DNA since their inception, with the violent slaughter of countless blocks in Block breaker, or the horrible treatment of one innocent pixel ball in Pong. Yet this raises the specter of whether or not violence is truly something we want associated with our increasingly scrutinized industry, as more and more forces look upon the worst and see a nightmare where we see monotony. Violence is not bad, even if there are cases where it is stupid. Allow me to extrapolate your mind out.
Violence with meaning Nothing is more heartwrenching than watching someone you have grown to love or at least care about be devoured in the most horrible way possible. The Walking Dead adventure game shows this off beautifully, as we watch characters we have grown to care about be violently ripped apart This is not done only to shock the player, but to dishearten and bring true sadness. Here violence is appropriate because it hits home how horrifying this new world is and that no one is truly safe. Violence is an efficient tool to deliver brutality, moreso than any words could ever be. Violence is a tool, and like any tool when used properly it can augment a great experience, but when used badly it may result in hurting the overall product, like a chainsaw to the groin. When the violence means something it can be a very useful aspect indeed. Deep experiences use this to their advantage, such as Spec Ops:The Line's horrific kills as the game progresses, hammering home the point that you are no hero but a monster who uses violence to try and solve his problems, but only causes yet more pain and suffering. Hotline Miami ties killing to points, with horrible violence hidden behind a cartoonish facade that slowly unravels as you characters sanity drains away, showing the consequences of violence against ones fellow man. The original Bioshock played around with the idea of player agency, revealing at the end of a twisting journey how many people you had killed at the behest of someone asking nicely, putting into perspective your more loathsome acts as those performed not out of necessity but hunger for more violence and more tools to inflict that violence. Fallout 3 has you blowing the heads off of raiders, sometimes horrifically dismembering your enemies as their bloody stumps let fly arms, legs and eyes. That drives home the brutal world you inhabit, one where you are just as brutal as your enemies in your attempt to survive this violent, cold world. Yet there are many more games out there that have violence for the sake of violence, and those are-
Violence without meaning Fallout 3 also pops up here again, because incidently those scenes are awesome. Perhaps that sounds juvenile, but there's something enthralling about blowing off a super-mutants head and watching it fly across the room. Violence is also cathartic, and for some reason we seem to be attracted to it, even if just in video games. God of War and Dead Space are both dripping with gore, in some ways literally, with limbs being shorn off, heads being torn off, and one particularly violent scene wherein you beat a man to death using a door. This is done for the sake of violence, and while in the case of GOW it weakens the story a bit because it is done for its own sake, it is also enjoyable and visceral to do these things.It is engrossing to see just what line will be crossed next, and it is darkly enjoyable to partake in the violence. And while it does get to a point where it disgusts or annoys rather than enthralls, most games can toe the line between fun and morally reprehensible, like beating defenseless people or killing womens and being rewarded with a trophy. Man did not survive for thousands of years by being nice, and video games could be seen as being close to a gladiatorial combat thing. We like outlets to dispense our rage and latent instincts at, something to let us vent or be the badasses we long to be, in a similar method to post apocalypse games. We enjoy the blood-sport, but ultimately that brings me to the main point which is that-
Violence in games is no bad
When I play a violent game like God of War 3, I may cringe but I never really get disgusted. No, that happens when I watch a TV show and someone gets their fingernail ripped off, a scene that didn't bother me nearly as much in GOW3. And herein lies the difference. Fallout 3 and all the other games that fall into category 2 are almost cartoonish in their violence, and we can immediately tell the difference between this and reality. And therein lies the key. See, we like the catharsis of playing as kratos, but if someone said "here, take this murderer rapist who is also downloads music illegally and beat him to death with you bare fists" I like to believe most of us wouldn't do it, because that's real life. With the exception of some of the mentally ill, we can tell the difference between reality and games, and that is why it doesn't monstrously impact our day to day lives. Perhaps it does to a small degree, but it also doesn't cause us to go out and beat people to death with clubs. Violence in games is something that can be used effectively or entertainingly for a player, but it does not change who we are in the end, and only serves to entertain. Violence is not bad in games, but it should serve a purpose, whether to drive along the story or to be entertaining to that sick part of our minds that enjoy the blood. Violence should be a part of games, because using it we can blow off some steam, but more importantly we can explore the deepest regions of our minds, and question deeply held beliefs or be emotionally impacted. A video game world without violence would be a cleaner, nicer place. But the world is not a place like that, which is what can make games so compelling. Not all games need violence, but it is foolish to argue that not all games should not have violence as well. Because video games are a reflection of us, and violence is as much a part of as as artistry or music, and we must explore that, whether it leads to hunger for more or a hunger of evolving beyond it. Leave comments below and tell me what you think! I look forward to agreeing and discussing or disagreeing culminating in me TAKING YOU DOWN TO PAIN TOWN!!!!!
The Indie gaming scene is pretty big right now on PC, as anyone with any semblance of knowledge of the gaming community is probably aware of. Indie gaming is an interesting endeavor, due to its need of unique or original game-play/hooks to enthrall the player in a hypnotic trance that gets them to buy the game. Not all are great, but I do like how the market has a tendency of ferreting those out while praising the great ones.
Hey, wasn't this supposed to be about the Vita's salvation, or some other random thought bubble? Well yep. It is. See the biggest issue one finds with the Vita is that issue all of us Vita owners are painfully aware of: that moment when you boot up the system, and go "huh, guess there's nothing to really play on here" and throw it back into its lonely little position, waiting for something substantial to come out. Yet the release flow has been slow, and many lament the systems lack of games as a major factor of why people don't get to use it as much as they want. Its a gorgeous machine, but it needs games to feed it, and keep us playing between the blockbuster hits that may or may not hit it out of the park, with some being spectacular failures. So how do these two ideas link together?
Indie games on Vita. This hasn't really been too big before now, but many indie games are migrating to the platform, and this represents the Vita's best hope for a better gaming library. Not only that, but it also represents an opportunity to get indie games into the hands of those who don't really PC game, and that will win Sony tremendous favor if they can keep up this indie support. And based on Jonathon Blows presence at the PS4 unveiling, I believe that's what we will be getting.
Limbo. Retro City Rampage. Thomas was Alone. Guacamelee. Hotline Miami. Mutant Blobs attack. All of these games are Indie, all are pretty well acclaimed or at least generating excitement in the case of Guacamelee, and all are coming to Vita. Already we have these great games coming to a system desperately in need of them and we see that Indie support is a master stroke if Sony can truly ride the wave and keep it up. While Xbox Lives archaic rules and regulations are seen more and more as a barrier to entry and, more dangerously for small studios, money, Sony has courted these developers and offers them more freedom and an easier system to get their games out and make money. Many developers have complained of this Microsoft attitude, Ala team meat and Retro City Rampage, as well as Valves issues getting free DLC to its customers. This is a terrible move by Microsoft, but in the end, who cares? They still have Halo, they still have Gears of War, they are going to still have blockbusters, alongside those Indie developers who choose to stay, like the twisted Pixel. Yet, so does Sony, yet this move helps them seem as the champion of the small developer, even while Sony's big franchise pull in major cash. But you know what lacks majorly acclaimed games and a larger library?
The Vita. The system and indie gaming, should the relationship flourish, can help the Vita grow stronger, become the go to platform for those looking for portable Indie games, and an easier way for Indies to find commercial success beyond the PC. And the Vita can have more games to play, and hopefully bring up the sales numbers or at least reward the faithful for their patience for bigger games, though even those may be eclipsed by the Indie successes. And as all of us with Vita's know, that's something we desperately want-and hopefully will soon have, wherever we choose to play.
Recently, EA commented on their disgusting comment that all future EA games would have microtransactions.
ALL OF THEM.
However, one of the creatures in EA's backtracking department slithered down and said that their games possibly could all have them, not will technically. Whew. Crysis averted!
However, after reading comments, I saw more than a few people whining about gamers whining, or asking why it's such a big deal. I felt that a blog was required, to pour out my feelings on the matter and tell those people WHY it's such a BIG FRACKIN' DEAL.
EA is a terrible company
I think we all remember that astounding announcement that to make its money back, Dead Space 3 would need to sell 5 million copies. Yeah, and you may also remember that Dead space 2 had only sold 2 million up to that point. This was something of an issue, as it also was released with EA full well knowing about the microtransactions system, which makes me wonder how badly they mishandled their finances on that. But ok, surely this situation isn't that bad, they can't be that terrible of a company to...
Oh, how interesting. Apparently the guys who developed the Devils Cartel all got laid off, before the freakin' thing came out. How fair of them. Do you see the problem here, or do I need another example of their terrible practices? Ok, how about that new iOS racing game, the one that requires 500 dollars in cash to get through and get a significant amount of actual content? But hey, at least it was free!
Games are still expensive as hell
60 dollars used to get you a full game. Then DLC came along, but rather than add more to a good game for a price, ala Skyrim and Fallout 3, games that needed no DLC but had it as a welcome companion, they did something else. Which is to say they hacked off cool gear and weapons from some sort of bonuses menu or extras, and charged money for it. Now that's not too bad in and of itself, except they charged exorbitant prices for this content. Stupid, but still at least it was sitting in the store, not shoving itself in your face, just sitting there to buy if you wanted to. The games lost a little something, but nothing huge. That is, until they pulled an even worse DLC practice into the light and showed it off like proud parents. Which is day one DLC, like the prothean DLC, which added quite an interesting and eye opening element to Mass Effect-but you had to pay 10 dollars for an incredibly important part of the games lore, something that by its existence takes something critical away from the game.
And now we have this. Microtransactions, which not only rear their ugly heads in the game world-including DS3 a game previously praised for its immersive and intuitive HUD system that made the game infinitely more immersive. This severely damaged the games atmosphere, and despite positive reviews for the most part, was noted as nothing more than an immersion breaking irritation. Mass Effect 3 had these as well, but they were only in the multiplayer and didn't pop up at all in the single player, leaving the player alone so they wouldn't be disturbed on their interstellar journey. And its only going to get worse, as the two combine and publishers like EA start stripping the game of content to add as irritating microtransactions, and then not even having a price cut, claiming that their crappy business practices justify their need for money from us, resulting in games being even more expensive for less content. And if you think that even if they do pester you, you can just ignore it and let it be, come on. Do you really think they will put in a system like that and simply let it sit in the background? Look at the microtransactions games they hold in such high esteem. What do they do to squeeze more money out of you? Make the game's best items incredibly hard to obtain with in game points and ramp up the difficulty, both of which are apparently nestled firmly in DS3. And it will only get worse. Imagine having huge chunks of a 60 dollar game, cordoned off until you spend even more money. Think it's ridiculous? Consider how quickly that whole DLC thing came into popularity the minute it seemed it would work. But wait, what's that I hear in the background?
If we don't complain, if we shut up as so many people seem to think we should, we get steamrolled over. If gamers hadn't whined about ME3's ending so much, we wouldn't have gotten a better resolution to it and the game would've been left with that weak ending it was stuck with before. If we don't complain, companies will continue to push their crap down our throats, and we will be left with subpar product that we have no say in to change. If we don't complain, nothing changes, no one listens, and ultimately we are stuck with inferiority, rather than what could be. Not all complaining is good, but we need to fight the crap-otherwise we will be swimming in it.
Thanks for reading, and feel free to chime in below. Perhaps I could say more, but you came here to read a decent sized blog, not a thesis paper. I'd like to hear what you have to say, and discuss why you feel that way. Hope to complain with you soon![img][/img]
Sometimes you have to work for it, sometimes......sometimes they just give it to you. For those of you buried under several rocks, EA recently released SIMCITY, a poplular continuation of the popular series. And as of today, 3/08/13, about 3 days after launch the game is basically unplayable. Due to its horrible DRM, one that pulls a Diablo 3 and doesnt allow offline play, few are able to connect, the game is literally being stripped of features to try and fix the issue. Surprise, Surprise, It didn't work. EA has also shown why they cannot be trusted with the issues above, because they have refused refunds, and threatened one customer with Origin banning should he dare try and prevent his money from going to buy a broken game they wouldn't let him return. EA has offered no reason why they didn't have enough servers for a massively popular game, that was expected to be massively popular. And this is that whole "shitty practices crippling games" thing that I was talking about. If there was any hope EA could find a way to pull off microtransactions, or hell, even DRM, this proves they deserve no faith. And their response over the last couple of days-silence-has just gone to show that they don't care if their customers are getting screwed. All they care about is that their little systems get into the game, no matter how broken, no matter how out of place. And if they can't even handle DRM, something thats been around for years, then whats going to happen when they try to heavily pump microtransactions into their games? I think you know the answer. Sound off in the comments, thanks for reading.
Hello. You are receiving this blog from the past! Technically. I will basically be posting my blogs from my main blog site to here, and see if anything sticks. Hope you enjoy!
As one of the five people in the US who owns a Vita, I admit I was excited for the new Killzone game. I wasn't really ever invested in the series, though I enjoyed the second one a great deal, good looking as it was. And with its dual-stick nature, one would think the Vita would be a great platform for Fps's and third person shooters. But while Sony Bend showed us that 3rd persons shooters could work well, even if sporting some irritating flaws (golden abyss) no FPS has risen to the challenge. Yet I have hope that this may be the game to finally showcase the power of the vita-its running off the killzone 3 engine for Helghans sake- and that it may be a good shooter. Here's why you should, like me, be cautiously hopeful for a kick-ass shooter.
We can only hope
1. Its not being made by Nihilistic software
Nihilistic software is, if their track record is any indication, a horrible developer. So bad, in fact, that they now exclusively make digital games, which I have a feeling no one will be rushing to buy. Their first game that was known to a wide audience was the Ratchet and Clank game all 4 one, also known as the one reviewers called mediocre. But they had the chance to bring Resistance: Burning skies to vita, and like Sony Bend (creators of the best resistance game, Retribution) add an incredible game to the franchise, because insomniac obviously doesn't give a *** about their shooter franchise anymore, so the bar was set pretty low-though expectations were high. But rather than clear it and create a decent game, its been critically panned as awful and failed to create not only an interesting shooter but another worthy title to add to the resistance library-and now it must sit out in the trash bin alongside Resistance 2. Because if you enjoyed that pile of garbage, then you need to stop and play 1 and 3 along with Retribution to understand why you shouldn't have.
Instead this new one is being made by another team, but this is an internal Sony team, with direct aid from the guys who made the originals. And while they are untested as well, I think we can trust them a bit more because.....
2. Its been stewing much longer than COD: Declassified
Oh hello again Nihilistic software! Whats that? You have another game coming out, a mere 6 months after your first, horrible game? Great! And you also say that not only was it not complete enough to make something for 2012's E3-the same year it came out- but it ended up being a horrible, short, AI brain-dead snore of a game?
Perhaps therein we find the issue with these games, because obviously they didn't take enough time to make sure they got the love and time they deserved. I blame Sony a bit for this, for being stupid enough to offer one, small, unproven studio all this stuff at once, and I blame them for being stupid enough to do it. I also blame Activision, for not saying "hey lets make sure we give this to a good studio so we can make even more money than all the money in the pockets of gamers during COD season!" though perhaps the explanation is in the quoted, not completely real, statement. Sony seems to be learning though, because this game sounds and looks like its been in development for a while, and with its existence known since may of last year and a due date the same as GTA V-perhaps not the wisest decision-Sep 17, they'll have plenty of time to finish up and hopefully at least give us a competent shooter. Additionally the game play they showed looks good,and wasn't released one month before it released and 5 minutes after it was done.
3.Whatever happens, it looks gorgeous
Maybe its not uniform, but this game looks great. Time will tell if it craps itself and messes that up, but until then hold out a little flicker of hope. And if not, hey, at least you will have GTA V to console yourself with as you deal with a beautiful but crap vita game.
Hey....Uhhh....looks pretty good. Huh.
And that's a pretty good consolation prize.
And that's....well basically it really. Theres not much more known about this game, but I am optimistic from what I have seen so far. Hopefully Sony doesn't mess it up, and hopefully this starts off a successful line of great vita games across the gameplay map. But if not, well...... lets hope some third parties start hauling ass. Also go try Oddworld, Strangers Wrath. It'll give you something to do with your vita and its a great game.