For the past decade mankind has bathed in the ever developing and intriguing pool of technology. Todays households are a much different place from that of the late 90's. Set top boxes, wireless routers, HDTVs, game consoles, PVRs are some of the most prominent pieces of technology that adorns the average living room in the US and Europe. I'd put a firm bet on 95% of you reading this that sitting under your main TV is at least two pieces of tech. Currently sitting under mine is a Xbox 360, Wii, PVR, and a home theatre receiver. Whilst some of them can do the same thing e.g. play DVDs they still each have their own individual use that is only available to me from that unit. So it got me thinking, will we ever see the day where one box will sit under our TV that does everything we want in terms of entertainment? Is it possible at the current time to only have the one? and would you want to have just one box?

This trail of thought came along after I recently considered picking up a PlayStation 3. My main reason for considering the purchase was that I am a huge Metal Gear Solid fan and MGS4 just gets closer each day. However there is also the fact that the PS3 offers me Blu ray, a big hard drive that I can upgrade, online capability and in the near future I will be able to receive digital TV using the PlayTV attachment. So for £299 I would be getting a lot of functionality from just one device, I could potentially knock my current five device set up down to three or possibly even two boxes. Freeing up real estate under the TV means less wires, less to clean and best of all only 2-3 remotes/controllers.

There is however that single vital flaw in such a proposition: I don't get all the available options I had before. I gain HD disc based movies and lose Video Marketplace, I gain MGS 4 and Uncharted but lose Gears of War and Halo 3, I gain a media center but lose family fun. It comes agonizingly close to realizing the singular box dream for entertainment centers everywhere but falls short by just missing some minor details that can mean a lot.

Personally I would love to have one device that suits all my entertainment needs. A good example that I currently enjoy now is having an iPhone, all possible manor of functionality that I require whilst on the move is right there in the palm of my hand. It's simple to use despite having a large variety of functionality, it saves me space and above all it meets my needs. So how about something like that for the living room?

So I put it to you the Detoid faithful, one box to rule them all? Does putting all your eggs in one basket concern you? Would you be prepared to negate some functionality in favour of others? Have you already cut down on the clutter under your TV? Would love to hear your ideas on the subject.


Lazlow out.

For the past decade mankind has bathed in the ever developing and intriguing pool of technology. Todays households are a much different place from that of the late 90's. Set top boxes, wireless routers, HDTVs, game consoles, PVRs are some of the most prominent pieces of technology that adorn the average living room in the US and Europe. I'd put a firm bet on 95% of you reading this that sitting under your main TV is at least 2 pieces of tech. Currently sitting under mine is an Xbox 360, Wii, PVR, and a home theatre receiver. Whilst some of these can do the same thing e.g. play DVDs they still each have their own individual use that is only available to me from that unit. So it got me thinking, will we ever see the day where one box will sit under our TV that does everything we want in terms of entertainment? Is it possible at the current time to only have one? and would you want to have just one box?

This trail of thought came along after I recently considered picking up a PlayStation 3. My main reason for considering the purchase was that I am a huge Metal Gear Solid fan and MGS4 just gets closer each day. However there is also the fact that the PS3 offers me Blu ray, a big hard drive that I can upgrade, online capability and in the near future I will be able to receive digital TV through it using the PlayTV attachment. So for £299 I would be getting a lot of functionality from just one device, I could potentially knock my current five device set up down to three or possibly even two boxes. Freeing up real estate under the TV means less wires, less to clean and best of all only 2-3 remotes/controllers.

There is however that single vital flaw in such a proposition: I don't get all the available options I had before. I gain HD disc based movies and lose Video Marketplace, I gain MGS 4 and Uncharted but lose Gears of War and Halo 3, I gain a media center but lose family fun. It comes agonizingly close to realizing the singular box dream for entertainment centers everywhere but falls short by just missing some minor details that can mean a lot.

Personally I would love to have one device that suits all my entertainment needs. A good example that I currently enjoy now is having an iPhone, all possible manor of functionality that I require whilst on the move is right there in the palm of my hand. It's simple to use despite having a large variety of functionality, it saves me space and above all it meets my needs. So how about something like that for the living room?

So I put it to you the Detoid faithful, one box to rule them all? Does putting all your eggs in one basket concern you? Would you be prepared to lose some functionality in favour of others? Have you already cut down on the clutter under your TV? Would love to hear your ideas on the subject.


Lazlow out.

For nearly 30 years now millions of people have looked to a Nintendo console for their fill of video game fun. Every year we see Nintendo put out a quality title if not titles for one of it's beloved platforms, as we willfully devour sequel after sequel of it's cherished franchises. In recent times though there has been a staunch change of opinion in the way people perceive Nintendo retreading the same ground over and over. Gamers look forward to the inevitable Zelda and Mario sequel not with the hope of 'more' but of something different. It's gotten to the stage now where people are crying out for the next great thing from Nintendo that doesn't involve their trophy mascots. December 2001 was the last time we saw an original IP from Nintendo and it took the form of the quirky but fun Pikmin. Since then we haven't seen a new mascot standard type franchise on a Nintendo platform.

Why is this?

Well I'll get the obvious out of the way first, milking the franchises is making Nintendo plenty of money as it is. More than enough copies of Mario, Zelda and Metroid Prime sell to warrant them turning up every two or three years. So from Nintendo's standpoint there isn't really any need for them to develop new mascots or IPs, well not at least that appeal to the hardcore gamer.

So why from a gamers standpoint do we not need to see new IP but just refreshes of current franchises? Well todays games industry is a very different landscape to what it was 10 even 5 years ago. We are spoilt in terms of the wealth of games available to us. They range all genres and cross all game types that we could possibly be after. The quality bar is also a lot higher now than it has been in previous years. What does this have to do with Nintendo producing new IP? We no longer need Nintendo to deliver quality titles at a ridiculously fast rate. We can get a quality game from near enough any 3rd party developer/publisher. If you look at the release calendar for the past two or three years you will notice that each month is filled with at least one high caliber game.

I'll take Mario Galaxy as an example for my next point. This is an amazing title which lives up to the standard set by other Mario titles. Essentially though, it's exactly the same as Mario Sunshine before it and Mario 64 before that. 10 years of separation and the fat little plumber hasn't changed in a remarkable way at all. Despite that I will still herald the game as one of the best games of the past 5 years. So why am I content to wade through Mario 64 again? It's pretty simple really, since Mario Sunshine I have been through 20+ games across different platforms, some bad games but the majority being on the scale of good to great. So when the time comes that I get to play a game that excels in every aspect possible, then the quality itself surpasses the fact that the game is sort of similar to it's previous incarnations. I have the same feeling for pretty much every Nintendo franchise, sure I see it once in a blue moon and I may have seen the sights before but I know that every time I get to experience it I always have the best of times.

I won't get ahead of myself, I wouldn't mind seeing a fresh, new game from Nintendo that meets their usual standard. Right now though in an industry full of triple A titles I don't need to rely on the big N to bring me my gaming goodness all of the time.

Lazlow out.

Towards the end of last week there were rumblings of another SKU for the PlayStation 3, rumored to feature a 120-160GB HDD. Shortly before that Nintendo also let slip there would be a new color SKU for the DS lite and it wasn't long ago that the Xbox 360 went through a SKU reshuffle. Now hopefully my repetitive use of the word 'SKU' throughout this opening paragraph is a clear indication of where this blog post is heading.

I hate SKUs with a passion, console SKUs in particular have become a recent sticking point. So far this generation of consoles we have been subject to 11 console variations across all platforms. When did this idea of multiple system configurations become accepted as a good idea? It is quite clear that different SKUs are not what the consumer wants. Each of the inferior options available for each console has fallen miserably on it's face and been laughed at by the gaming community. Technology SKUs do not make any sense what so ever and marketing need to get it out of their heads that it is a good idea. They say they want to 'empower the consumer' and let them choose but all they really do is confuse people.

The problem with this trail of thought is that this is the wrong strategy for a technology driven market. People who follow any sort of technology crave the latest and greatest, when given the option people tend to lean heavily towards the more equipped unit. This was proven with the launches of both the PS3 and Xbox 360, no one brought the lesser SKU if they were interested in games in any capacity and thus they faded into non-existence. So if these options aren't for the hardcore user then who are they meant for? Ah yes, the casual user, the holy grail of any company, if you can grab hold of the mainstream then success will occur. Does this work in said situation? No. These SKUs are meant to give the people who don't follow technology an option when they purchase. OK....this is logically redundant at ever level. Why would you want to offer more features and variety to the person who is confused by the very notion of technology? It's flat out stupid really.

Sony recently posted an announcement that they had made a profit on their games division. Finally they had reached a level where they were making some sort of money out of the PS3. I wonder how many months earlier they would have made such a profit if they weren't messing around with how they wanted to ship their product. Packaging, Printing, Hardware, production line changes, all this costs money and has proven to be a complete waste of time.

So why the rant about SKUs you ask, well I am currently in the market for a PS3. I'm a huge Metal Gear fan and I can't wait for MGS 4. I've got a 360 but I don't want to wait a year or so for the inevitable port that will occur. So I'm stuck wondering do I try and grab a 80GB, 40GB PS3 or wait for this possible new SKU? Do I want half baked backwards compatibility? full compatability? 4 USB? the list goes on. I'll probably wait until the actual launch of MGS 4 and pick up the best suited unit then. In the mean time I would love to play through Ratchet and Clank, Uncharted, Resistance but I don't want to be one of those people who buys a product only to have a newer one launch the next week. I can deal with jumping the gun by a couple of months but not days.

At least Nintendo gets it right, sure they milk my wallet every two years but hey they make some of the best games in the world, I wont argue with them.

So whats your take on SKUs? Anyone waiting for a specific SKU on a console before they purchase? Anyone regret buying one type instead of the other?

I recently picked up Rainbow Six: Vegas again so as to get more familiar with the game style before Vegas 2 came around. I jumped into the single player campaign as I recalled enjoying it the first time through. I did the whole duck and cover, pop and shot routine necessary to get you through the various levels. That was a safe strategy until one of my intelligent team members decided to fight bullets with his face. Naturally I run over and administer the magical shot of life to bring my buddy back into the action. I love the mechanic of being able to pick up your team members, it gives you the reassurance that if you fellow man should wonder aimlessly and meet his maker then it isn't game over for you. However after dying numerous times myself I realized that this is fundamentally flawed on the very basic level. Why is my team incapable of resurrecting me when I'm the one bleeding on the floor? There have been a lot of high caliber and successful games that have for some bizarre reason followed this route recently. Ghost Recon Advanced War Fighter, Gears Of War, Rainbow Six and most recently Mass Effect. A key feature for all the above mentioned games has been using your squad to help you and to give the feeling that you are more than a one man army.

I'd like to know if there is any specific reason behind this gameplay mechanic. In fact I can only recall one game where me being incapacitated didn't result in my instant death, Star Wars Republic Commando was that game. If you went down then it was possible to beckon your squad members to try and come to your aid if they could. This was a brilliant mechanic and made your squad all the more useful for things other than diversions. It made the game a little easier in some cases but at least it made sense for the type of game you were playing. All people in combat situations tend to have some medical training even if it is limited, so they should be able to use it. I never got round to playing GRAW 2 so I don't know if it was present there. but feel free to correct me. I just feel that it is a small issue in squad games that appears to get no attention for some reason. With the upcoming Vegas sequel and the yet to be official announced Gears of War 2 (we all know it's happening) I wonder if this will be implemented in the squad revival system.

That's pretty much it for the post today, no epic rant but just a quick notation on my recent realization of squad mechanics. Does anyone else know of any other games where you could get help from your team members after being downed? or is it an obvious feature that is very sparse in squad based games?