Well, it looks like the E3 hype is officially kicking off, and it's just barely February. The Entertainment Software Association has released a list of the attendees that have been confirmed so far, and there are a few folks on there that didn't show for last year's iteration.
Most notably, Activision Blizzard makes a reappearance. I've been speculating since last year that their decision not to attend in 2008 would either mark the end of E3, or would signal the need to transition the expo back to its original format. Obviously, the ESA has opted for the latter. Additionally, the rabid success of PAX (The Penny Arcade Expo) has basically backed the ESA into a corner. Either they improve, or they rapidly become irrelevant.
This should be a very interesting year to be at E3. We'll have to wait and see how it all comes out.
The list of confirmed attendees so far is:
• Activision Blizzard, Inc.
• Atari, Inc.
• Atlus U.S.A., Inc.
• Bethesda Softworks LLC
• Capcom Entertainment, Inc.
• Disney Interactive Studios, Inc.
• Eidos Interactive
• Electronic Arts, Inc.
• Epic Games, Inc.
• 505 Games
• IndieCade
• KOEI Corporation
• Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc.
• LucasArts Entertainment Company LLC
• Majesco Entertainment Company
• Microsoft Corporation
• Midway Games Inc.
• MTV Games
• Namco Bandai Games America Inc.
• Nintendo of America, Inc.
• Rebellion
• Sega of America, Inc.
• Serious Games
• Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc.
• Sony Online Entertainment LLC
• Square Enix, Inc.
• Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.
• THQ Inc.
• Ubisoft Entertainment
• Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment Inc.
Feb 2, 2009
Jan 30, 2009
A New Project, Perhaps?
You know, I've found myself in a strange state of mind over the past few days. I was using this blog as an outlet for my meager creative urges, when I realized that it was still lacking something. In my years writing for gaming sites, I always had that most effective of measuring sticks, the audience.
The readers will always tell you how they feel, and often, they will feel like you're an idiot. In some cases, they may even be right. I never realized how much I would miss that until it was gone. It's ironic. I find myself somehow wishing for a reader to comment on my blog calling me some sort of fanboy, or a whore for some company or another.
With that thought fresh in my head, I felt another thought bubbling up from the muck-ridden swamp that passes for my mind. What if I was writing for a gaming site? Why couldn't I? I mean, why start one of my own? Everybody's doing it, right? I could even resurrect my old podcast, assuming I could find someone to talk to.
Well, I don't know where to go with this thought. I feel that I could definitely make some small contribution along those lines, but I don't know who would join in, what they would be willing to do, or even how I would pay for it all. I just know that I've got that old itch to make my thoughts available to the general public.
If it actually matures into anything concrete, I'll let you know.
The readers will always tell you how they feel, and often, they will feel like you're an idiot. In some cases, they may even be right. I never realized how much I would miss that until it was gone. It's ironic. I find myself somehow wishing for a reader to comment on my blog calling me some sort of fanboy, or a whore for some company or another.
With that thought fresh in my head, I felt another thought bubbling up from the muck-ridden swamp that passes for my mind. What if I was writing for a gaming site? Why couldn't I? I mean, why start one of my own? Everybody's doing it, right? I could even resurrect my old podcast, assuming I could find someone to talk to.
Well, I don't know where to go with this thought. I feel that I could definitely make some small contribution along those lines, but I don't know who would join in, what they would be willing to do, or even how I would pay for it all. I just know that I've got that old itch to make my thoughts available to the general public.
If it actually matures into anything concrete, I'll let you know.
Jan 27, 2009
Thoughts on the Resident Evil 5 Demo
Well, since I still have a little bit of my hated XBox Live Gold subscription left, I thought it would behoove me to check out the Resident Evil 5 demo that became available for download. After all, I had heard some really good things about it.
I have to admit, the game looks great. The graphics are smooth and well done. Enemies look appropriately menacing, and the environments meet the recently enacted 'grittiness' standards.
Unfortunately, my positive impressions end there. The control scheme is an absolute nightmare. Down the sight aiming is a great feature in games, but it's sadly missing here. Instead, Capcom presents us with a laser sight of dubious value, and the ability to move it at what could generously be referred to as a snail's pace.
The co-op actions feel forced, such as having my partner hit a button to punch the enemy that has me grappled. Haven't we all about grown tired of quick time events, no matter how they're structured? Just give my partner the ability to punch, and allow them to determine if my sorry butt is worth saving or not.
I understand that people feel the need to 'innovate' in the shooter genre. After all, if they don't try, they get to hear critics say "This is the same old thing." Unfortunately, this often leads to change for the sake of change, instead of change for the better. This appears to be the case with Resident Evil 5, and the game suffers for it.
RE5 may turn out to be an excellent game at release, but this demo is a lackluster showing at best. At this point, I can only recommend it to absolute die-hard Resident Evil fans. In good conscience, I can't ask anyone else to subject themselves to it.
I have to admit, the game looks great. The graphics are smooth and well done. Enemies look appropriately menacing, and the environments meet the recently enacted 'grittiness' standards.
Unfortunately, my positive impressions end there. The control scheme is an absolute nightmare. Down the sight aiming is a great feature in games, but it's sadly missing here. Instead, Capcom presents us with a laser sight of dubious value, and the ability to move it at what could generously be referred to as a snail's pace.
The co-op actions feel forced, such as having my partner hit a button to punch the enemy that has me grappled. Haven't we all about grown tired of quick time events, no matter how they're structured? Just give my partner the ability to punch, and allow them to determine if my sorry butt is worth saving or not.
I understand that people feel the need to 'innovate' in the shooter genre. After all, if they don't try, they get to hear critics say "This is the same old thing." Unfortunately, this often leads to change for the sake of change, instead of change for the better. This appears to be the case with Resident Evil 5, and the game suffers for it.
RE5 may turn out to be an excellent game at release, but this demo is a lackluster showing at best. At this point, I can only recommend it to absolute die-hard Resident Evil fans. In good conscience, I can't ask anyone else to subject themselves to it.
Jan 22, 2009
F.E.A.R. 2 - Still Freaky.
I must admit to a healthy amount of skepticism surrounding F.E.A.R. 2. After all, at E3 2007, Warner Brothers was showing off Project Origin, which was developed by Monolith, the developer of the original F.E.A.R. At the same time, Sierra, the owner of the F.E.A.R. IP, was showing F.E.A.R. 2. A few months ago, when Activision closed down Sierra, Warner Bros. picked up the IP and rebranded Project Origin with the F.E.A.R. 2 name.
Now, I was excited to hear that Monolith would be continuing their work on this franchise. I've always loved their work in the past (No One Lives Forever, Tron 2.0, F.E.A.R., and Condemned, to name a few), and I have high hopes for their future releases as well. Still, I held my enthusiasm in check pending the arrival of the PC Demo of F.E.A.R. 2.
Well, it arrived shortly after lunch today. After a quick download (1.76 gigs - about 35 minutes from FileFront here), I jumped right right in. I was quickly rewarded with the type of gameplay one would expect from a F.E.A.R. title: gunplay with slo-mo and a variety of specialized grenades.
On the hardest difficulty, the demo is still fairly simple to complete. There's only about 25 minutes of gameplay, but what is there is all the tension, fun, and goose-bump inducing interludes that you'd expect. Nothing gets the heart rate up quite like having a flash of light reveal a zombie-like female stalking you and eventually grabbing you, only to vanish again.
Combat remains virtually unchanged. You kill a variety of Replica soldiers, all of whom seen genetically enhanced to take massive amounts of damage before succumbing to your assault. Of course, you'll get a chance to peruse a wide range of weaponry, including shotgun, submachine gun, assault rifle, rocket launcher, sniper rifle, and even a handheld laser gun. They even toss in the powered-armor mech suit that has been featured so prominently in the trailers.
All in all, this demo is just a small taste of the game, but I have to admit that it has assuaged a lot of my trepidation about F.E.A.R. 2. Now, I'm looking forward to the game's release on February 10th with anticipation instead. Hey, isn't that what demos are all about?
Now, I was excited to hear that Monolith would be continuing their work on this franchise. I've always loved their work in the past (No One Lives Forever, Tron 2.0, F.E.A.R., and Condemned, to name a few), and I have high hopes for their future releases as well. Still, I held my enthusiasm in check pending the arrival of the PC Demo of F.E.A.R. 2.
Well, it arrived shortly after lunch today. After a quick download (1.76 gigs - about 35 minutes from FileFront here), I jumped right right in. I was quickly rewarded with the type of gameplay one would expect from a F.E.A.R. title: gunplay with slo-mo and a variety of specialized grenades.
On the hardest difficulty, the demo is still fairly simple to complete. There's only about 25 minutes of gameplay, but what is there is all the tension, fun, and goose-bump inducing interludes that you'd expect. Nothing gets the heart rate up quite like having a flash of light reveal a zombie-like female stalking you and eventually grabbing you, only to vanish again.
Combat remains virtually unchanged. You kill a variety of Replica soldiers, all of whom seen genetically enhanced to take massive amounts of damage before succumbing to your assault. Of course, you'll get a chance to peruse a wide range of weaponry, including shotgun, submachine gun, assault rifle, rocket launcher, sniper rifle, and even a handheld laser gun. They even toss in the powered-armor mech suit that has been featured so prominently in the trailers.
All in all, this demo is just a small taste of the game, but I have to admit that it has assuaged a lot of my trepidation about F.E.A.R. 2. Now, I'm looking forward to the game's release on February 10th with anticipation instead. Hey, isn't that what demos are all about?
Jan 20, 2009
Join the Fight Against H.R.231
Gamers everywhere are near universal in their disdain for governmental attempts to further regulate the sale of video games. In the past, we've seen several laws in this vein proposed, passed, and struck down as unconstitutional.
The latest contestant on this legal merry-go-round is H.R. 231, sponsored by California Representative Joe Baca. It proposes to place a warning label on every game rated 'T' or higher by the ESRB that would read as follows:
Let's forget for a minute all the other types of equally (if not more so) violent media that exist today. Movies, books, and even the TV news showcase violence every day; all of them sans warning labels. Let's focus instead on the fact that to this day there has been no scientific consensus of a link between video games and violent behavior. In fact, several studies (such as this one by the Pew Internet and American Life Project) suggest that playing video games is actually helpful.
This bill will even require the label for games rated 'T' and above that did not receive that rating for violence. This would not only be ridiculous, it would be overly confusing for parents, and would basically render the ESRB ratings moot.
The ECA (Entertainment Consumers Association)has an excellent page that will allow you to contact your Congressman and voice your opposition to this patently unconstitutional measure.
I urge every gamer to head over there and submit your email right now. If we make our voice heard, perhaps we won't have to wait for this nonsense to be challenged in court.
You can find more info on this bill over at GamePolitics.
The latest contestant on this legal merry-go-round is H.R. 231, sponsored by California Representative Joe Baca. It proposes to place a warning label on every game rated 'T' or higher by the ESRB that would read as follows:
WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.
Let's forget for a minute all the other types of equally (if not more so) violent media that exist today. Movies, books, and even the TV news showcase violence every day; all of them sans warning labels. Let's focus instead on the fact that to this day there has been no scientific consensus of a link between video games and violent behavior. In fact, several studies (such as this one by the Pew Internet and American Life Project) suggest that playing video games is actually helpful.
This bill will even require the label for games rated 'T' and above that did not receive that rating for violence. This would not only be ridiculous, it would be overly confusing for parents, and would basically render the ESRB ratings moot.
The ECA (Entertainment Consumers Association)has an excellent page that will allow you to contact your Congressman and voice your opposition to this patently unconstitutional measure.
I urge every gamer to head over there and submit your email right now. If we make our voice heard, perhaps we won't have to wait for this nonsense to be challenged in court.
You can find more info on this bill over at GamePolitics.
Jan 15, 2009
'A Miracle in the Hudson'
I'm sure that unless you're living under a rock somewhere you've seen the news coverage of the amazing plane crash story in New York today. Well, to be fair, it wasn't so much a crash as a controlled water landing.
While it's a little off the topics I usually talk about, I couldn't watch that coverage today without being astounded at the professionalism and bravery shown by all those involved.
First, the plane's crew. The pilot, a 29-year veteran of US Airlines and a former F-4 fighter pilot for the US Air Force, made a landing that many would have called impossible, based on the design of the aircraft he was piloting. Keeping the engines out of the water until the last possible minute, he managed to bring the plane down not only in one piece, but on top of the water. Then, he left the cockpit, oversaw the evacuation of the plane, and then walked the plane twice to make sure everyone was off. Of course, all of this was assisted by the copilot, who should receive equal praise.
Second, the flight crew, who kept everyone calm and facilitated an orderly evacuation, which no doubt saved many lives.
Third, the first responders, both official (NYPD, FDNY, Coast Guard, and Port Authority Police) and private (ferry operators). These people leapt into action without orders or questions. They took their boats right up to fuselage of the plane and pulled everyone of those passengers and crew members off the plane and out of the water.
Least you think these things are small ones, realize that a matter of a few minutes in water that cold (35-40 degrees) can be the difference between life and death.
Today we saw an amazing feat of courage, skill, and to be fair, more than a little luck. My hat is off to all of them, and if I ever make it up to New York, I'll be hunting up some of these people to buy them all a drink. I recommend you do the same.
While it's a little off the topics I usually talk about, I couldn't watch that coverage today without being astounded at the professionalism and bravery shown by all those involved.
First, the plane's crew. The pilot, a 29-year veteran of US Airlines and a former F-4 fighter pilot for the US Air Force, made a landing that many would have called impossible, based on the design of the aircraft he was piloting. Keeping the engines out of the water until the last possible minute, he managed to bring the plane down not only in one piece, but on top of the water. Then, he left the cockpit, oversaw the evacuation of the plane, and then walked the plane twice to make sure everyone was off. Of course, all of this was assisted by the copilot, who should receive equal praise.
Second, the flight crew, who kept everyone calm and facilitated an orderly evacuation, which no doubt saved many lives.
Third, the first responders, both official (NYPD, FDNY, Coast Guard, and Port Authority Police) and private (ferry operators). These people leapt into action without orders or questions. They took their boats right up to fuselage of the plane and pulled everyone of those passengers and crew members off the plane and out of the water.
Least you think these things are small ones, realize that a matter of a few minutes in water that cold (35-40 degrees) can be the difference between life and death.
Today we saw an amazing feat of courage, skill, and to be fair, more than a little luck. My hat is off to all of them, and if I ever make it up to New York, I'll be hunting up some of these people to buy them all a drink. I recommend you do the same.
A Dearth of Good Games
Anyone besides me tired of the complete and utter lack of good games over the past month? If you ever listened to the old Gaming Today File-N-Forget Podcast, I know you've heard me rant on this topic before. If so, you'll just have to excuse my pummeling of this deceased equine beastie.
Why is it that game companies try to jam every big title of the year into the 3-4 weeks before the holidays? Honestly, it has to hurt sales more than it helps. Sure, if you have the #1 title of that period, you're going to do well, but that title will do well anywhere in the year, not just around the holidays.
I also understand that traditionally, summer releases don't sell as well, based on the theory that people are actually outside their houses doing things when the weather is nice. While there may be some small grain of truth in this theory, can anyone who plays a lot of games actually convince me that their game time drops off by a significant amount in the summer? Sure, you play less during the day, but if you're a gamer, you don't just stop playing games because the weather changes.
Furthermore, the game companies are actually hurting one another with this practice. Let's face it, these days entertainment dollars are harder and harder to come by, and everyone is much more selective about what they do purchase. Stacking all these games up over one release period simply ensures that games that would normally attract some interest are lost in the shuffle.
I think gaming as a hobby has grown to the point that we now can simply release these games when they're ready, regardless of the time of year. We've all heard stories of games being rushed to completion before the holidays (and the inevitable bugs that result), as well as those that are held for holiday release.
If I could say one thing directly to the publishers of the gaming world, it would be this: We realize that you have always done things this way; however, you should realize that the average gamer is now in his mid-to-late 20's, and doesn't need Mom & Dad to buy him the new game you just released. We can all drive now, so we will go to the store and pick up our copy, regardless of when it comes out (provided of course that the game doesn't suck).
Just imagine a world where big game releases happen once or twice a month, instead of being crammed into one or two weeks a year. Ah, bliss.
Why is it that game companies try to jam every big title of the year into the 3-4 weeks before the holidays? Honestly, it has to hurt sales more than it helps. Sure, if you have the #1 title of that period, you're going to do well, but that title will do well anywhere in the year, not just around the holidays.
I also understand that traditionally, summer releases don't sell as well, based on the theory that people are actually outside their houses doing things when the weather is nice. While there may be some small grain of truth in this theory, can anyone who plays a lot of games actually convince me that their game time drops off by a significant amount in the summer? Sure, you play less during the day, but if you're a gamer, you don't just stop playing games because the weather changes.
Furthermore, the game companies are actually hurting one another with this practice. Let's face it, these days entertainment dollars are harder and harder to come by, and everyone is much more selective about what they do purchase. Stacking all these games up over one release period simply ensures that games that would normally attract some interest are lost in the shuffle.
I think gaming as a hobby has grown to the point that we now can simply release these games when they're ready, regardless of the time of year. We've all heard stories of games being rushed to completion before the holidays (and the inevitable bugs that result), as well as those that are held for holiday release.
If I could say one thing directly to the publishers of the gaming world, it would be this: We realize that you have always done things this way; however, you should realize that the average gamer is now in his mid-to-late 20's, and doesn't need Mom & Dad to buy him the new game you just released. We can all drive now, so we will go to the store and pick up our copy, regardless of when it comes out (provided of course that the game doesn't suck).
Just imagine a world where big game releases happen once or twice a month, instead of being crammed into one or two weeks a year. Ah, bliss.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
