The landscape of the gaming industry has changed. Retail is no longer the beast it once was. With the growing popularity of services like Netflix, the idea of digital distribution is becoming commonplace. Gaming is starting to take that route as Steam has been increasingly popular, offering an online platform for indie and triple A titles. Why then does the concept only apply to PC titles? Why can't it be integrated into all the consoles.
Well simply put, the consumer base isn't there. No person wants to pay the same amount of money for a digital copy then for a hard disk copy. With the current setup of internet security, digital distribution has not moved to the point where you feel safe and secure possessing a digital copy. Services like I-tunes consistently lose account data, causing people to repurchase something they already payed for.
With the wonky and unfriendly user interface that Microsoft uses with Xbox Live, apprehension is to be expected. I bring up Microsoft as they are the biggest contender for success of this model but the biggest offender to its failures. Recently Valve has announced why their DLC has to have a charge point. Essentially Microsoft's model forces them to have a price point for their DLC. So the new update is 7 dollars on Xbox Live and free on Steam for users with a PC. This creates such a wonderful message for Microsoft and their overall agenda to consumers everywhere. Why is it that I as a consumer am forced to pay for something that has always been free to me on the PC for the past ten years?
Well to put it simply, Microsoft believes in charging for everything, it was the way they operated in making PCs and software, its how they operate in terms of gaming. Their argument is that the prices create an economy and the prices regulated the growing economy on Xbox Live. That is a bunch of BullS@#t. You just can't admit openly that you love charging everyone for everything on the Xbox Live Marketplace. Five dollars for a Halo marine costume for your avatar? Seriously? If that is the landscape of things then I might as well buy all my games on the PC. Where at least I won't get charged pitons for all the services that have been free for the past seven to eight years. Thanks Microsoft.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Updates, Where are They?
As you are no doubt aware, I have not updated the world on my deeply insightful thoughts for at least a week. Rest assured you will be reading about something no doubt either entirely frivolous or pointless in nature. Of course by the time you read this, I will have no doubt updated something slightly more interesting then this footnote. Funny picture to hold you over until then. Oh you should also definitely catch me on Twitter, if you are THAT bored. Seriously, if you are, that's pretty damn pathetic. "Base!"
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Rasberries AND Blueberries!
Tower defense games are somewhat of an acquired taste. My girlfriend likens them to watching a generic action film. You create the scenario and watch it unfold ultimately. With Defense Grid, Xbox Live finally gets it's tower defense game. While it doesn't break any new ground, it improves on the concept of other TD games and offers a very solid and addictive experience.
The game play is relatively simple. You create towers along a path while enemies show up from numerous locations, grab a power core and then proceed to the exit. Let every power core escape and you lose the game. It is your job to construct virtually a maze of death to stop them and their diabolical schemes of taking over the world. Now along with deciding which one of ten towers to use, you are given the option to upgrade them invariably. Once upgraded they cause carnage on a massive scale. So you are a given a choice, build more towers to maze your enemies effectively or upgrade your cannons to level 3 to decimate any boss monster that haplessly crosses its path.
The single player campaign alone is 20 levels, not including about five to six challenge modes for each level. The Xbox live version also contains 5 new maps entitled "Borderlands" along with their respective challenge modes as well. While it doesn't offer any multi player modes, the resulting experience should last you ten-fifteen hours. Given the truly addictive nature of the game, there isn't anything too horrific with that.
On an aesthetic level, Defense Grid is beautiful. I can't exactly place it, but the level design, the monsters up to the tower animations look and sound amazing. The towers rise up from the ground as they are slowly being constructed, the aliens cast long shadows as they move monotonously from one side of the map to the other. It isn't next-gen technology, but it still proves to be a visual vista for the eyes.
Overall, Defense Grid isn't an innovation in the tower defense genre. However it is perhaps one of the most solid strategy games on the Xbox Live Arcade system. Made even better for half the price of the PC version plus five bonus maps. If you are a tower defense fan, a strategy fan or just a fan of addictive games, then this game is definitely for you. Yes Rasberries are totally awesome.
(score is for arbituary reasons, I do not really place a gameplay experience on a rudimentary number system. However, if you just want to know the simplfied version of my opinion, please read on)
Eight out of Ten
The game play is relatively simple. You create towers along a path while enemies show up from numerous locations, grab a power core and then proceed to the exit. Let every power core escape and you lose the game. It is your job to construct virtually a maze of death to stop them and their diabolical schemes of taking over the world. Now along with deciding which one of ten towers to use, you are given the option to upgrade them invariably. Once upgraded they cause carnage on a massive scale. So you are a given a choice, build more towers to maze your enemies effectively or upgrade your cannons to level 3 to decimate any boss monster that haplessly crosses its path.
The single player campaign alone is 20 levels, not including about five to six challenge modes for each level. The Xbox live version also contains 5 new maps entitled "Borderlands" along with their respective challenge modes as well. While it doesn't offer any multi player modes, the resulting experience should last you ten-fifteen hours. Given the truly addictive nature of the game, there isn't anything too horrific with that.
On an aesthetic level, Defense Grid is beautiful. I can't exactly place it, but the level design, the monsters up to the tower animations look and sound amazing. The towers rise up from the ground as they are slowly being constructed, the aliens cast long shadows as they move monotonously from one side of the map to the other. It isn't next-gen technology, but it still proves to be a visual vista for the eyes.
Overall, Defense Grid isn't an innovation in the tower defense genre. However it is perhaps one of the most solid strategy games on the Xbox Live Arcade system. Made even better for half the price of the PC version plus five bonus maps. If you are a tower defense fan, a strategy fan or just a fan of addictive games, then this game is definitely for you. Yes Rasberries are totally awesome.
(score is for arbituary reasons, I do not really place a gameplay experience on a rudimentary number system. However, if you just want to know the simplfied version of my opinion, please read on)
Eight out of Ten
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Dying (No it is not emo, shut up)
Dying in video games is common place in our experience. Back in the 8-bit era you would die almost constantly for clearly outlined reasons. "Oh you didn't jump there, or Oh yeah that guy does a special move on his 4th move that kills you if you don't move out of the way." Arguably, I would say that it is a good thing that gaming has moved beyond the punitive memorization era. However, it seems more and more common that games today are just frustrating and do not offer a clear definition of player failure and player death.
First and foremost, it is true, no one likes dying in a video game. On that same vein, no one enjoys failing and having to re-invest more time sinks into a game. On par with that concept, that idea of difficulty and how often you die directly correlates with how much fun you have with a game. Which creates this question of difficulty. Why does it really need to exist? Why do developers need to infuriate their players to a point of frustration just to make their game? Are they so sadistic and cruel by nature?
Well of course not, or I would hope not as the situation may warrant. Difficulty needs to exist to add gravity to a players actions and add to his overall motivation for playing. If you were essentially steam rolling content, you wouldn't have fun for very long now would you? However the alternative proves itself even worse off. By creating experiences that are simply cheap and frustrating to a player, you create an alienation and complete disregard for your game altogether. While you as a developer believe you are hiding behind the concept of "challenging" the player.
Players should only fail because of his or her own skill level and understanding of the game's logic. Failure should never be related to a technical mishap that the programmer couldn't accomplish. These things should never happen or occur.
There should always be a clear outlined reason and purpose for why you failed. This gap also shouldn't be hunkered down by a long wait period either. There should be a instant and immediate response time from the point of where you failed and the time it takes for you to retry essentially. No one wants to spend two hours attempting to break your crappy game design in addition to watching that same unskippable cut scene fifty times in a row.
"Oh my god, my game is so difficult, I'm a cutting edge developer because I present challenge in my games. My games is sweet." No it ceases to become challenging, its just poor level and game design. Stop that, stop it now. Dying should be the means of failure in a game, not the adjective that describes your game experience.
First and foremost, it is true, no one likes dying in a video game. On that same vein, no one enjoys failing and having to re-invest more time sinks into a game. On par with that concept, that idea of difficulty and how often you die directly correlates with how much fun you have with a game. Which creates this question of difficulty. Why does it really need to exist? Why do developers need to infuriate their players to a point of frustration just to make their game? Are they so sadistic and cruel by nature?
Well of course not, or I would hope not as the situation may warrant. Difficulty needs to exist to add gravity to a players actions and add to his overall motivation for playing. If you were essentially steam rolling content, you wouldn't have fun for very long now would you? However the alternative proves itself even worse off. By creating experiences that are simply cheap and frustrating to a player, you create an alienation and complete disregard for your game altogether. While you as a developer believe you are hiding behind the concept of "challenging" the player.
Players should only fail because of his or her own skill level and understanding of the game's logic. Failure should never be related to a technical mishap that the programmer couldn't accomplish. These things should never happen or occur.
There should always be a clear outlined reason and purpose for why you failed. This gap also shouldn't be hunkered down by a long wait period either. There should be a instant and immediate response time from the point of where you failed and the time it takes for you to retry essentially. No one wants to spend two hours attempting to break your crappy game design in addition to watching that same unskippable cut scene fifty times in a row.
"Oh my god, my game is so difficult, I'm a cutting edge developer because I present challenge in my games. My games is sweet." No it ceases to become challenging, its just poor level and game design. Stop that, stop it now. Dying should be the means of failure in a game, not the adjective that describes your game experience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
