After reading the entry about EA wanting to sell spore parts, I thought a bit about microtransactions. I decided that, overall, I do not like this trend. There is a time and place for this kind of system, but I'm not really one who likes being part of these places or being present in those times.



X-Box Live is a huge source of these microtransactions, and once I saw the infamous horse armor in Oblivion I knew things were heading down a bad path. I thought about saying things like maps in Halo and stuff are find to pay for, but I don't think so. Remember that people were creating maps for Unreal Tournament years ago, and many of them were as good as if not better than the maps included in the few released Halo maps.



I always have this nagging feeling that companies are keeping out more and more materials just to sell it to us in a pack down the road. I don't want to pay $5 dollars for a set of guns that should have already been in my game. It is just silly. Sure, I don't have to have it, but am I the only one who feels like we're being cheated?

Right now we're still on steady ground, but if any company would push the microtransactions over the edge, I believe it would be EA. EA seems to be the monster of the gaming world by producing many low quality games--in my opinion, you may disagree--and charging an arm and leg for pieces of the games that really should have been in the retail game could be the next step. I hope it doesn't come to that, but can you imagine how tempting it would be to rush a game out unfinished and offer the rest--that didn't make the cut--for more money?



Some companies build their whole game on microtransactions. These games are normally free to play MMOs. A great example is Maple Story. I personally cannot get into these games that are free, but allow the players that have more money to spend to become the best players; however, it is an amazing marketing strategy.

I fear that microtransactions will not be going away anytime soon, but I hope they do not become the next big thing.

This topic has been a hot button issue in the gaming world for...well ever, really. Ok, to be fair, I guess we'll say since the sega/snes generation. It's hard to worry about violence in the 8-bit era and before. I couldn't say what game started the debate, and people may disagree with me when it started. I do remember; however, when the debate entered into my life. Mortal Kombat. I remember it was everywhere. Violence, blood, gore, death, and kids being corrupted. From then on it has been an avalanche.

Now we have MadWorld. Have you seen the trailer for this game? Click this link or this link for it.



Everyone has always argued that violence is fine if it is tastefully done (GTA), or is justified by the game's story (Manhunt); though, these statements and examples are debatable. Regardless, after seeing Mad World in action, I believe that is a game that is completely built on mindless violence and killing. Perhaps they built in a similar story to Smash TV or the Running Man movie, but I still believe they wanted to make a game solely for the killing and violence. Look at the style. Black and white, and red blood that stands out over everything.

Now, what do I think of this? It is completely fine. Violence doesn't have to be tasteful or justified to be fun. Maybe people are cringing at that thought--violence as fun--but it's true. Video game violence that is. That is one of the many reasons that games are so popular. Games allow people to relieve stress, and escape from the real world. Escaping from the real world does not mean losing all sensitivity to real world violence or going mad (at least in 99% of gamers).



I have said that I play games for their stories. Well, that is true. GTA4 had a great story, and was very entertaining. It is important that games have stories; however, sometimes I'm frustrated and I just want to blow things up. Take a chainsaw and run rampant...in video games. There are no consequences in the land of video games. I can maim and murder and release a world of stress.

MadWorld looks like it will be the perfect game to do this in. From what I can tell from the screens and the video, it appears to be about a fight to the death gameshow. I think it may be a fun romp.

The problem with keeping violent video games away from underage gamers seems to be from where the debate really stems since adults should be allowed to play what they like. Problems that need addressing are the AO rating and parents.



AO ratings are a joke, and cannot be put on any game since that essentially kills the game. What is the point of a rating that no one will put out? Either publishers need to actually allow these games to be put out, or the rating goes into the trash. Otherwise it is pointless, or maybe it exists because it allows an out for the ESRB if they want to ban a game without "banning" the game...

Parents. Well, obviously we cannot control parents, and neither can the game industry. Parents that are really concerned about their children and violent video games should have no problem as long as they monitor what they buy, allow their children to buy, and pay attention to what games little Jimmy is playing in his room.

Really it all boils down to parental responsibility. Are violent games harmful to underage gamers? Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps it depends on the gamer, and maybe not all adult gamers need to play these games; however, I do not believe in punishing the majority of sane gamers who enjoy a little of stress releasing violence now and then because some people can't tell truth from reality (or parents don't want to be parents).

Long live the carnage. I'm gonna go blow something (fictional) up.

I feel like talking about video game consoles. What's the best console, well of course it is the Xbox 360...not. Truthfully? This generation of video game consoles is kinda "meh" (I hate that word, but it works in this case). I've owned a 360, my brother still does, and I have a Wii and PS3. I am pretty underwhelmed by all three of them.



The 360 was the first one I got my hands on, and I believe the first game I played on it was Oblivion, which with all of its faults is still a good game. I've just never really connected with the game library of the 360. Don't get me wrong, I loved me some Halo 3 and Portal, but other than those few games I don't have to play anything else it offers me. (Ok, I'll throw Mass Effect in there as well).



The Wii. Ah, the Wii. Yup, that Wii. The Wii is an interesting concept. Concept, Wii. See where I'm going here? I own a few games for my Wii. And by few, I mean I own Wii Sports (it came with it, dur), Zelda (but it was stolen along with my 360), Super Mario Paper (or whatever), Mario Galaxy, Smash Brothers Brawl (yet it is missing, though, I don't even care), and I think that is all. I don't ever have the urge to even turn the system on.

Finally, that magic toaster oven that is called the PS3. The games are mostly mediocre, or exist on multiple consoles that offer DLC unavailable on the PS3. My favorite games on the PS3 that do not appear on other systems are probably Uncharted(perhaps I'll talk about this game in my next post) and Metal Gear Solid 4. The only other thing I'll say about the PS3 is that the multiplayer sucks. I mean sucks. I'm not talking about online multiplayer (i'll get to that), I just mean local multiplayer. Though, this may be a larger problem in this generation. I can't play Unreal Tournament in the living room with my friend. Oh, no, we need two PS3s...joy. Whatever happened to split-screen--this is why I have to hand it to the Halo series.



That's my basic rundown of each system. Sure, I'm not the definitive voice on the subject, but this is my blog and my opinion. I'm sure other people agree with me, though.

But it's not just the systems of this generation that seem on the "meh" side. The games, in general, aren't very impressive, entertaining, or original. Look at Metal Gear Solid 4 (and I love this game). Portal was very refreshing. We need more games with with good stories that are incorporated into the gameplay without forcing us to either skip the meat or sit for hours watching cutscenes. Games that are short and fun--maybe even less than sixty dollars.

Multiplayer on the new systems is pretty lame. The Wii probably has the best local multiplayer, but lacks pretty much any online support. The online support the Wii offers is the lamest online support I've ever dealt with in my life. Whoever thought of friend codes should be kicked repeatedly in the nads (read: his nuts, bitches). That's how angry it makes me. Hands down the Xbox 360 controls online multiplayer, but that's only because it has Halo. Halo is probably the only online console game I play. Bungie servers equal win. I love the setup, I love the organization. Team Fortress 2 lacks this organization and just feels...I don't know...I can't connect with it. This is how pretty much all of the PSN games are, and I don't enjoy it one bit. Local multiplayer seems to be increasingly left out of PS3 and Xbox 360 games. SPLIT SCREEN IS FINE. KEEP IT IN MY GAMES, DAMNIT. Sorry, sensitive subject.



Look at my little about me blurb on the side. I've owned almost every significant system bar the N64 (but I have played it a lot) and the Dreamcast (I was totally betrayed by the Saturn), and I believe we are in a sort of dry area in the console market. I don't want to evoke a game crash like in the past (I do want to work in the industry...), but something has to happen. Something is not working right somewhere. Is the gaming becoming to industrialized? Is it becoming all about money and less about fun and art? Is this why we're getting half-assed games and endless sequels (look at the movie industry, blech)?

I don't know. It seems like it will soon be EA vs. Activision. They seem to be taking over all the the game companies. And regardless of your feelings of EA, they are the king of rinse and repeat. Look at their sports games. They rape their customers every year with the same game that has minor updates and polishes. Oh, new roster? Hey, that could be updated online now.

What will come from this generation? I can't tell you, but I hope the next wave of console is less focused on a format war and pulls together their multiplayer (on and offline) as well as their direction.

That's what I think about consoles. As if you cared.

Ah, Diablo III was announced. Yes, I know I'm late in talking about it since it was a while back, but if you couldn't tell I was away from Dtoid for a bit. So, what about Diablo? I don't know what most people think about this series, but I believe it is fairly solid.

After hearing the announcement of the next game, I, of course, installed Diablo and Diablo 2 (+LoD) onto my computer to give these old games a whirl. I haven't played this series since my junior year in high school, more or less, which means for about five years. Like any game from so long ago--that I haven't played in a while--it loses the wow factor it once had.



Don't get me wrong, these games are classics. They are fun, and I enjoy the story. If a game entertains me, it succeeds. However, it is so odd to become so frustrated with things that weren't such a big deal five to six years ago. To be fair, I'm pretty sure Diablo 2 is about eight years old, and I'm probably spoiled by all the new features of video games.

It was amazing to see people still playing on battle.net after all these years. What was more shocking was all the ads and spambots either trying to steal your account or send you to sites to buy D2 items (and probably steal your account/cd key).



This two discoveries lead me to my next two discussion points. One, obviously, Diablo 3 will use battle.net and not be an MMO. Well, we knew that because Blizzard said so in the announcement, but we also knew it before it was announced because fans would eat Blizzard's face if they had to pay 15 dollars a month for Diablo. Second, what is Blizzard going to do about these spammers on battle.net when D3 comes out? I really hope they monitor the chat with more force or something. Hell, they can hire me and I'll moderator the board. Seriously, I need a job Blizzard.



Anyway, the gameplay footage--despite what some fans think--looks awesome. I know some people were complaining that it wasn't dark enough, but I think it looks fine. The art style is Blizzard, so I don't know what they expect. Diablo and Diablo II were just limited by graphics. I mean take a random sampling of games from that era: Fallout (1 and 2, not tactics just because I hate it), Baldur's Gate, etc. The graphics are similar, in my opinion. Then look at Baldur's Gate for the consoles. I know the biggest complaint seems to stem from lack of a light radius, but who is say that the video's didn't just have them disabled for the preview?

It doesn't matter, all the complainers will buy the game. I will buy the game. And if you're reading this--you're really bored for one--you'll probably buy the game.



I don't think Blizzard has made one game that flopped, yet (no, not Starcraft Ghost or Warcraft Adventures, they didn't come out). Perhaps, this is the reason for the long development times and the "it's done when it's done slogans".

Well, that's what I think of Diablo...as if you cared.

I've read a few reviews for MGS4, and almost all of them give the game a number rating somewhere between 9 and 10. I've also saw a few people get angry over a 9.3 rating, and others thought it should be lower. So, I just finished the game, and to me—a big time Metal Gear Solid fan—was great.

The graphics are amazing, and that is a fact that most people will not debate. Graphics: 10

The sound...well I see no problems with it. I can keep track of enemies by their sounds, and the music is nice. A nice little iPod was thrown in for an added bonus for a different soundtrack if the other one becomes a little old as you try to earn the Big Boss title (and a bonus, the songs can help in-game). Sound: 10.



The controls are familiar with only a few alterations—mostly for the best. I recently played all the games again, so I would be up to date on the story, so right off I noticed the change from O to X as the main select button. This kind of threw me off a bit as I was so used to selecting with O, and had reprogrammed my brain to use it since most games use X in the first place. That was how all the changes were, little quirks that slightly changed things; however, I think in the end it was far better. Now, I’m not going to deceive myself like some, the controls can still be clunky at times; but the chunkiness has greatly decreased from previous incarnations. Lastly, and the best improvement, the camera is fully controllable. In my play through of past games, I was beating my head into the wall with the stupid forced camera angles. I was so relieved when I saw that I could control the camera. Best change ever. Controls: 10.



Finally, the story. Wow. That is the best way to describe it. If you loved the storyline from the other games, you will be happy. Characters galore and the curtains are up. It’s just great for all the fans of the series. The inside jokes are nice as well. Now, is this storyline the best storyline in the videogame world? Well, that is a subjective question. However, I’m a guy that loves the storyline of the Monkey Island games. So, yeah, I think it’s a great storyline. One of the best. But, yeah, some cut-scenes can stretch on forever…ok all the cut-scenes do; but I really did not mind myself. These scenes are really for the hardcore fans who love the story, and really most people will only watch them the first play through. They can be skipped. The story is tied up nicely for all the fans. It’s full of all those things you love in a story: pain, sorrow, fury, fear, joy, and even the end. Hey, I’m allowed a lame joke. Story: 10.



My final score: 10. What does that mean? It means I loved this game. That is all. It doesn’t mean that it is the greatest game in the world. It doesn’t mean you will love it. It doesn’t mean anything outside of the fact that I loved MGS4. The problem with a number-based system is that it makes no sense. This game is a 5, and that game is a 7. Yawn. I’m sick and tired of people throwing numbers around like they really mean anything outside what the reviewer thinks about a game. New Flash: you and the reviewer may disagree. Sure, there are games that are universally terrible (i.e. ET). However, maybe someone out there (MAYBE) liked it.



What I’m trying to get at here—while sharing my opinion of Metal Gear—is that you shouldn’t listen to a reviewer. Not without reservation. If they say, “OMFG YOU HAVE TO PLAY THIS GAME IT IS A 10!” Rent it. If they say, “OMFG THIS IS COMPELETE AND UTTER CRAP, WHAT DID THEY DO TO MINORITY REPORT! 1.5”! Rent it. (P.S. Minority Report sucked :p). And keep one more thing in mind: Just because you hate the game, doesn’t mean everyone will hate it. The same goes for the games you love.
And that’s what I think. As if you cared.