Microsoft and the Xbox Rumors

On May 21st, Microsoft will unveil the new Xbox to the world and have gamers talking leading into E3 a few weeks later. And while there's no guarantee of what will be shown or announced, I'm sure it'll be similar to what Sony's PS4 conference had with spec information and some games, I think there will be some focus on the non-gaming aspect the new system will have along with seeing the box (since that's so important to Mr. Microsoft Major Nelson apparently). Not to mention, the name should be announced so people can stop guessing whether it's going to be Xbox 362, The Xbox, Xbox Infinity, etc.

So in this post, I wanted to highlight some rumors that I find either interesting or need to be discussed with a somewhat open mind without jumping to automatic conclusions.


1. Two Models: To Game, or Not to Game

While it's a given that the next Xbox will have both gaming and non-gaming capabilities, rumor is that Xbox will have two different models. One of those models will not include a disc drive as it will be more of a Roku or Apple TV type device that is used as a media center device to stream movies and shows. One rumor is from someone claiming to have worked on this set-top box saying they will have functionality allowing an individual to search using gestures and voice-recognition, which makes it sound like Kinect could still be integrated into this sku.

Microsoft has taken strides to become more and more like Apple as the gaming side of Xbox has dwindled but the functionality with other apps and programs has become increasingly important. Having a box that rivals Apple TV with some new bells and whistles could be another way in doing so while still using similar hardware already being put to use in the gaming market of Microsoft. Whether or not Microsoft decides to go this route will surely be seen later this month, but there's no reason to believe they wouldn't as they seem to have a healthy dose of products to put on such a device.


2. Backwards Compatibility Add-On

The past few generations have been spoiled with backwards compatibility. Back in my day, we wouldn't expect a new console to play old games unless they were re-released on the new console. But thanks to the Internet and vocal minorities becoming vocal majorities, it has become commonplace for people to clamor for backwards compatibility.

Not to say it's not logical. It makes sense as to why people wouldn't want to keep 16 different systems laying around the TV and switching them out to play a few games if you could keep just one that played all of them. And with technology improving with each new iteration, eventually one of these would be able to play old games with little effort, right? In the case of the PS3 it's understandable why the PS4 won't be able to due to completely different hardware, but why not everything else? Cost? Console design? Hell, I don't know. If I could answer this completely, I sure as hell wouldn't be typing up this blog.

While rumors say the new Xbox won't be able to play 360 games, there are talks of an add-on that could be hooked to the new box to do so. Either way, Microsoft might find a way to convince people to get rid of the old system, but keep the games and upgrade to new hardware. While this would be pretty great, let's not forget how the current gen backwards compatibility fared as only some games would work and others wouldn't. Hopefully, if they create an add-on device, they would work out the kinks to allow all current-gen games play, and not only a selection of them.


3. Two Year Contract

Microsoft announced a model last year for a $99 Xbox that would then have a 2-year contract for customers to pay. Easy money up front, long term commitment. And while the total payment would come out to more than what you would just forking it all out at once, it may have been a positive experience for them. They haven't released numbers specifically for that model, but it could have been the beginning of a good idea for the next gen console.

Some look at the overall price and realize that you will pay more in the long run, but most customers won't care. It's easy to pay monthly than one lump sum at the beginning, and that's enticing to many people. Sony and Nintendo would be smart to have a similar option, but nothing has been noted yet. Microsoft looks poised (and is rumored) to release this option with great success, as it will look like a great deal sitting next to consoles priced $399 and up.

On the other hand, consoles make for great presents for birthdays and holidays. I'm not sure how eager some people are to buy "the gift that keeps on giving.....you bills each month". But if Microsoft releases a brand new console with this type of option, it will be a winning formula for them.




4. Always-On

Yep. That's the error message Sim City players received due to the always online setup with the game. If Microsoft decides to go this route, you may be familiar with similar error messages.

But Microsoft wouldn't really do that now, would they? I think people give them a little too much credit. Microsoft knows people will pay for their service even if they aren't entirely sure what they paying for. If I had to guess, it would be more ads and more content I would never use. Yet they get rid of 1 vs 100 which was amazing but is the one device I have to pay extra on to watch Netflix. Something is a little screwy there. But how many people willingly fork out $40-$50 a year on a service for party chat and "better servers". Heads up folks, you aren't paying for "better servers", you are paying for "Internet capability" which just happens to have "better servers". Considering how cluttered the dashboard has become and slow everything seems to have gotten, clearly the money being put on Live isn't going where it should be. But people still pay, and that's how Microsoft knows they have customers hook-line-and sinker.

Microsoft would be foolish to have the next console be always-on, especially after the disaster that was Sim City's launch. Factor in every Christmas where the influx of new users makes the system crash (or the release of a new Halo game) or just cases where it doesn't work where they don't really explain why; having the system be always-on would be the biggest slap in the face to their customers, not to mention the ones who don't have Internet. The negatives far outweigh the positives, and there is no benefit that anyone can muster except Microsoft...because it benefits them.

As much as I want to dismiss this rumor, there have been a lot of rumors about this. Adam Orth helped fan the flames with his twitter ramblings, docs have been released saying it's always online, Dev kit screenshots show always-online capability...there's just a lot coming out to simply dismiss this. If Microsoft thinks they can do this and do it well, best of luck to them. But they are playing with fire, and as Frankenstein knows, you don't want to piss off a mob of people who have fire.


5. Used Games

If the always-on concern doesn't frighten you, then perhaps the talk of no more used games does. I'm on the fence when it comes to used games. I love having the ability to sell my games to purchase a new one, but at the same time, I understand publishers need those purchases so stores will buy more games from them to sell.

But both PS4 and the Durango have had rumors about them not playing used games. Jack Tretton for Sony said used games will be playable on the PS4, and while it's not as definitive as that, Gamestop seems enthusiastic about the new Microsoft console. And if Gamestop is happy about it, then my guess is that it will play used games.

Cut and dry, right? Not quite. Not long ago, something was added into some games that caused a collective groan among gamers. Online passes. Once they were redeemed, other gamers wouldn't be able to access the online portions of the game if they purchased it used. Some would luck out as the passes weren't redeemed, but most gamers would have to fork out an additional $10 to use any online aspects of the game.

Now what if both Sony and Microsoft were being honest in that the consoles can play used games? The caveat being: You buy it used, you have to pay a little extra to be able to play it. Not an online pass, just a game pass in general. As criminal as that may sound, nobody can really complain in the long run. Gamers who had a problem with no used games would still have the ability to sell them to Gamestop, Amazon, wherever. Gamestop would still have sales coming in from used games. Publishers would receive a little something for used games whereas in the past they didn't. Everyone seems to win a little bit, even if it's not a perfect scenario for everyone. So while I think the rumor of no used games is bogus, I think there could be a possibility of some information being held back until the last possible moment.



In just a few short weeks, we may have an answer to a few of these rumors. Some answers may hide crucial information to see the full picture, but some rumors will definitely be put to rest. Microsoft will have some momentum going into E3, and the gaming world will be in full frenzy until the release of next generation of consoles.

I bought a Vita...

Judging from their sales numbers, especially here in the States, not many people are saying that apparently. Their sales are abysmal and despite the recent surge in Japan, it clearly won't continue to sell like hotcakes there.

But why would I want one? If you listen to everyone, the Vita is a sinking ship with no games coming out for it and is a failed handheld. Everything is either Ouya, 3DS, or IOS/Android. Vita is this forgotten child locked in the basement that we peek in every once in a while just to remind ourselves how disappointing it is. Or at least, that's how I interpret most responses about the Vita.

And yet, I wanted one. I already posted about why I have a new love for handhelds, but the love couldn't sustain my need to keep my 3DS. Although I enjoyed playing games like Pushmo, VVVVV, Pokemon Black 2, and The World Ends With You; I couldn't really justify the need for a 3DS that I couldn't have with a DSi. Sure it had a couple Mario games and some 3D versions of 64 games, but having played several of these 3DS only games...I can't say I really cared. I never played Ocarina of Time on the 64 and grew bored with the 3DS version and it's bland empty open world. New Super Mario Bros 2 was nothing spectacular and while 3D Land was good, it didn't blow my socks off. So, I no longer own a 3DS.

So why the interest in a Vita when the "superior" 3DS can't hold my attention? Well, first and foremost, the games. I know, I know. There are no games. The same cliche' response that every person who dislikes their Vita seems to go to. I think the proper response isn't "There are no games", it should be, "There are no games that I'm interested in playing". Those are two completely different responses, and only one which I would say is valid.

Here are a few of the games I am currently interested to play on the Vita: Uncharted: Golden Abyss, Escape Plan, Unit 13, Assassins Creed III: Liberation, LittleBigPlanet Vita, Gravity Rush, and Persona 4: Golden. To make matters even better, PS+ has been knocking it out of the park with free Vita games. Add to it PSN games and the Cross-Buy games, and there's a huge selection to choose from. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks it, but games like Rayman Origins or Retro City Rampage are games better suited for Vita in my opinion.

I'm also looking forward to the integration between the Vita and PS4. I wish I could really expand on this, but I'll probably have to wait for E3 to do so. But playing PS4 games on the Vita while I'm out of the room or being able to play against people on the console using my handheld opens up more possibilities than having a specific restriction to that one device. The potential of the link between these two systems intrigues me and I can't wait to learn more about it.

So I gave in to the urge and purchased my first Vita. And immediately I knew why some people disliked it, and that was the need for a memory card. While you can play Welcome Park on it, that's more of a tech demo than an actual game. Nice to try out some of the features such as the tilt control, the camera, the touch screen, etc; but I wanted real games. So after spending $30 on an overpriced 8gb memory card, I was able to get some of the games I wanted. And while the PS3 has been recognized for it's slow download/install times, I didn't notice the same problem with the Vita.

The buttons and the sticks are kinda small and I'm still not sure how I feel about them until I put some more time into the handheld, but I like it. I'm happy with my Vita purchase. I wish I could say the same about Gravity Rush which has been somewhat disappointing so far (due to the controls if anything), but I have more on my plate I'm able to try including Tales From Space: Mutant Blobs Attack which I'm eager to keep playing. I haven't really touched a ton of the other apps such as Near, and I think there may be some trouble with trophy sync (Mutant Blobs Attack seems to sync, but Gravity Rush hasn't yet...), but I think I found a winning handheld.

And it's only just begun...

Polygon, Sim City, A Review, and the Implosion of the Internet

Everyone is fully aware of the embarrassing launch that Sim City has recently undergone. And while some talk is about EA and their ineptitude of having servers ready, the future of always-online games, and the overall frustration gamers normally vent; Polygon decided to open a new can of worms with Sim City and wrote a review. The review itself wasn't the problem, it was what they did after the review was written that caused a backlash.

The above score of 9.5 was the written review of Sim City before it's initial release. As you can see, it was a very highly regarded game and almost reached a perfect score. This was on 3/4/13, the day before release. Less than 24 hours later, it received an updated score:

Still a pretty good score, but why the change? As everyone is well aware, Sim City has...to put it lightly....botched their release day. The game is nearly unplayable to most gamers. A game being unplayable is a pretty big problem, and I would say warrants a worse score than an 8. That is if you decide that server problems like this should influence the score. Which it did...to an even greater extent:

This is the most recent score that Sim City has on Polygon. A 4. Within two days, a near perfect game is ranked as a game you should ignore. And the biggest reason is the server issues. Which leads me to the main point of this blog.



Perhaps it's because I'm not in the business, but I have no problem with a game getting a slight ding against it due to online issues. If a game has online problems, people who read the review need to be made aware of it since they will be throwing money at the game to play it. But perhaps online instability shouldn't be a large ding against the game on a review. Thanks to where we are in gaming, patches and fixes can come on a daily basis. What is broke today, may be fixed tomorrow. But how does a reviewer attack that exactly? Clearly server problems weren't evident before the game release which would warrant the score of 9.5. There are three ways I think this should be approached, both without touching the final review score:

1. Review Game but Update with Notes - This would be for reviews that come out before launch day. Which is the case for most big time games. Usually online problems are not persistent for review (and early leaked) copies of the game. It either works or it doesn't. Score the game based on what it deserves at that time. However, if the game releases and is unable to work online, you don't update the score. You update the REVIEW, and you do it at the top where everyone sees it immediately. Don't hide it in the original review and don't create a different section at the bottom. Let the readers be aware that there is an update to the review that doesn't go into the final factor of the score, but should go into the final factor of your purchasing decision.

2. Hold the Review Until Launch - Blasphemy. Sites need these reviews for unreleased games mainly for hits which brings in the money. This is definitely the worse of the two, but it can be considered. The problem is the competition with other gaming sites and who releases the reviews first. People care less about the accuracy of their reviews and more about how many views their review receives. This could be true, or it could be that they do care about their reviews but the higher ups don't. This would lead into discussion about embargoes, and that's not something I'm going to touch. Especially since I'm not too familiar with them.

3. Review Online Mode Later - While this wouldn't work with Sim City due to it always being online, some games have a functional single player mode and a broken multiplayer. In cases like this, the single player can be reviewed but leave a discretion to the reader that the multiplayer can't be reviewed yet because it's broken. Anyone who played Brink on the PS3 on launch day remember that you couldn't play online due to the Sony hack. In this case, review the single player and let the readers know that the multiplayer will be reviewed at a later date. Same can be said for any multiplayer that doesn't work immediately.

Polygon however decided to take their own route on it, and just change the score with a reason as to why. But I have a slight problem with it. For their score of 8, they listed that being unable to play the game was a big reason. Understandable, but if that was a huge concern, you would think an unplayable game would receive an unplayable score. Fast forward one more day and you receive more problems that stem from the same issue of server overload. So they lower the score again. But while you can actually get into the game, there are other issues such as the speed of which you can play it (no more "Cheetah" speed), crashing issues and no leaderboards. That caused the game to receive a 4. Maybe I'm a crazy person, but I would much rather play a game with some issues than not play a game because of issues. But scoring a game less because it actually works and still has problems as opposed to not working in general is completely ludicrous, and the reviewer should rethink the approach.

Many seem concerned with Polygon's approach to changing games. But it shouldn't be that big of a shock as it is mentioned in their review guidelines:

Taken from Polygon:

Polygon's reviews and database have been built based on the idea of updates, or "bumps," as I've called them. If a game changes in a substantive way, we can add an update to our reviews that informs you how and why, and we can modify our scores accordingly. This will appear on the reviews in question as a timeline of that game's evolution and our corresponding recommendation (or lack thereof). The original review score will never vanish or go away, but our readers will be able to better understand where our opinions as a site reside over time for games we review.

We do not guarantee that we'll be able to do this with every game, and whether we do so or not is solely at Polygon's discretion. We will act in what we consider the best interest of our audience, while being as fair as possible to the developers and publishers who pour time and money into the games you play. If a game sees substantive improvements that make for a better experience, we want to reflect that. If a game is less worthy of your limited time, we also want to reflect that.

 Whether you agree or disagree, they have it on their site as to their approach on reviews. But one should question exactly what it would take for them to update their scores. Games have problems with launches. It's common. Everyone is well aware of similar issues Diablo 3 had upon it's launch, but it received a perfect score. What is weird though...it's online is STILL messed up....It hasn't been updated, it never received a docked score, and was one of the biggest releases last year. This idea of pick and choose what reviews will be updated is not something a professional site should use, even if I agree that a game worthy of your time should receive this attention. Clearly, it doesn't. It only matters based on what will create hits at that time. Even the creator of Minecraft made comments on it because he constantly makes updates that improves the game. Oh, and in case you haven't heard, Minecraft is a pretty popular game. Not just on PC, but 360, Android, and IOS.

Polygon has made some bad decisions in this review, and to make it worse, they don't even follow their own rules. Here is what it says about a 1:

A game that doesn't properly function, which is what Sim City was. Instead of giving it an 8, it should have received a 1. Bottom line based on the review guidelines that the site itself set up. If they don't follow their own guidelines for scores, what makes Polygon a site worth trusting with reviews? Back that up with their pick-and-choose approach to what games will get updated scores, and I wonder why anyone would go to Polygon for their reviews.

Despite this being a Polygon centered blog questioning their review not only for Sim City but review scores in general, I think it sets up a precedence for the possibility of future online-only games. But it's not only online-only games that are affected. Every Call of Duty or Halo release seems to cause problems on Xbox the first day or two due to sheer number of people online at any time, and I don't think there's been a single MMO that hasn't released without a hitch. It's not singled out to Sim City. But Polygon needs to think about their review process a little bit more before this happens again, because the Sim City review has painted them in a negative light. Especially if they don't treat this game equally to other games with similar problems on launch day.

Square Enix: How The Mighty Have Fallen

It's hard to believe that at one point in time, Square Enix used to be one of the biggest names in video games. It still is, but not in the same way. Whereas they used to be an acclaimed developer known for their amazing RPG's, they no longer warrant the attention they once deserved. But why?

Well, let's go back a ways first. You see, people don't have super fond memories of Square Enix, it's usually Square. Square is the company that came up with a little game series called Final Fantasy. Other gems include Parasite Eve, Kingdom Hearts, Legend of Mana, Vagrant Story, Xenogears, and Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars. Perhaps you have heard of a few of them? In 2003, Square was merged with publisher Enix best known for Valkyrie Profile, Star Ocean, and the other juggernaut RPG franchise, Dragon Warrior/Dragon Quest. Square Enix now appeared to be an RPG developer that nobody else could touch.

Too bad for Square Enix, they decided to no longer touch RPG's for the most part either. While Square was a developer, Square Enix became more of a publisher with some instances of developing games. Front Mission 4, Romancing SaGa, Kingdom Hearts 2, and Final Fantasy XII were some games that came within 3 years of the acquisition that were developed by Square Enix. Then, the turn for the worse started to become evident.

While they were never opposed to releasing handheld games, it soon became a more reoccurring aspect to their releases. From the merger in 2003 to the end of 2005, they developed 15 games and only one was a handheld game with co-developer Jupiter. This release was Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories on the DS. In a similar time frame between 2006-2008, they released 19 console and handheld games. Only 7 of them were console releases. Not to say handheld games will be terrible, but considering some of these games are Pingu's Wonderful Carnival, Snoopy DS: Let's Go Meet Snoopy and His Friends, and Mario Hoops; they don't quite command the attention a new game in a successful franchise would warrant. And of the new Final Fantasy games released, it was 4 years between XII and XIII that were littered with Crystal Chronicles, spin offs such as Dirge of Cerberus: Final Fantasy VII, and in recent years have re-released many of the older games.

Then perhaps one of the worst moves they ever made was to tease a remake of Final Fantasy VII, one of the most beloved RPG's of all time. After the movie Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children was released, the idea of a sequel or remake started making waves. They then touched on the Final Fantasy VII universe again with Dirge of Cerberus, but the worse offender came at E3 2005. There, they tried to show what kind of power the PS3 was capable of. And to do so, they remade the beginning sequence of Final Fantasy VII with HD graphics. They let loose the hounds of hell with this tease, and they haven't heard the end of it since.

The Last Remnant was their "biggest" RPG release between XII and XIII, and it was released to weak reviews. Although it was received positively in Japan, many complaints about it's graphics and battle system led to many reviews in the west being disappointing. While the PC version played better than the 360 version, it wasn't enough to keep the game on the tongue of RPG players who wanted more from RPG's in the newest iteration of consoles. Especially when Square Enix teased other games...

Knowing that Final Fantasy was the cash cow most companies didn't have, they began work on several games. These games were announced at E3 in 2006. On the horizon loomed Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, and Final Fantasy Agito XIII (later renamed Final Fantasy Type-0). Final Fantasy XIII was not well-received thanks to the 8-hour tutorial filled with corridors and handholding. Final Fantasy Type-0 released in Japan but is nowhere to be seen outside Japan. Final Fantasy Versus XIII is still in limbo. Later came Final Fantasy XIII-2 that made improvements, but still didn't woo the audience. That doesn't matter though as Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII is set to release next year.

Then, rumors started about an HD collection of Final Fantasy X and X-2. While X-2 hasn't been announced to my knowledge, HD Final Fantasy X did get recognition in 2011 that it was coming to PS3 and Vita due to it's 10 year anniversary. A few months later, development on the HD re-release started and then news fell by the wayside. Until last month. February 2013, Square Enix showed some HD models of Tidus, Yuna, Bahamut, and Yojimbo. And while Square Enix may be proud of where they are on the HD re-release, it has fans scratching their heads wondering why all they can show after a year of development are some HD models of a game that was released back in 2001.

And let's just ignore the disaster that was Final Fantasy XIV...

At the recent Sony press conference for the Playstation 4 reveal, Square Enix committed another act which left people confused. They showed a tech demo, which looked like a Final Fantasy game, to everyone in attendance. But what was weird though, was that they released the EXACT same tech demo the year before at E3 when they revealed their new Luminous Engine. Instead of showing more footage of Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII or even something involving Thief 4 which was announced today, they decided to make themselves a laughing stock at the PS4 announcement conference by showing something everyone has already seen. Didn't attach a working title to it, didn't give anything else other than "Please look forward to E3!" And all I have to ask myself is...why?

It's baffling to try and construct some sort of explanation to figure out exactly what Square Enix has been doing in recent years. They have done little with some of the bigger franchises they have available to them, and some of the biggest franchises they have are plummeting to their demise or surviving due to re-releases. Perhaps with the next generation of consoles they can dig themselves out of whatever hole they have created and reinforce to gamers that Square Enix is a developer you can get behind. That Square Enix is a developer who understands the fans and release games they like. And that Square Enix is no longer the joke many see them as and become the powerhouse they should be. But until the stupid decisions are abolished, nothing will be changing.

What the Next-Gen Consoles Need to Succeed

It seems the past few years we have expected the consoles to release at any time. Well, it seems that time has come. With more and more rumors coming to light and Sony having an announcement on 2/20/13 discussing the future of Playstation, the console war looks to spark up again between the next generation systems.

However, there won't be such a discrepancy between the systems as there once was. According to rumors, Sony has ditched the cell processors that were problematic for developers and are going to be on the same level with Microsoft in terms of development. They both may have the potential to collapse the used game market (unlikely, but still being talked about), both will try to have a focus on being a media box instead of solely being a game system, and integrating motion control into the system (or controller) this time is a possibility.

So what do the systems need to really differentiate themselves between the competitors? Wii U has hardware that isn't on the same level, and they are clearly going with their game pad, 1st party exclusives, and social aspect of the Wii U to be what captivates gamers. Despite those big three things, the sales for the Wii U has seemingly been disappointing in the eyes of most people, but shouldn't be counted out considering it hasn't been out for very long. It takes a while for a system to really get steam and have the potential unlocked, and that may just be the case for the Wii U. But for Microsoft and Sony to succeed next generation, they have more to prove.



1. Price

Sony knows better than anyone how much the price of a system can influence sales. The PS3 suffered heavily due to it's intimidating price point, and a more recent example can be the Vita. Not to say that each system isn't worth that amount, but for a consumer, it's not easy to fork out the amount that the PS3 and Vita asked for considering the competitor system/handheld prices.

Fortunately for Sony, they are making a system that will have cheaper specs and Blu-ray is no longer the price cow it used to be. But the magic number of $399 floats around as being the absolute most someone might spend on a new system. $450 with a game or an extra controller, but $399 for a basic system what people seem to clamor for as the most a system will cost. Hopefully this isn't completely outrageous, but I'm not a developer and I have no idea what it takes to make a profitable and affordable system. Which at first, probably won't be.



2. Exclusive Games

I think it's hard to say that exclusive games don't matter. Part of the reason Nintendo is successful is because of the love of their franchises. Originally that wasn't the case as many developers outside of 1st party could succeed on older systems such as the SNES, but recently Nintendo hasn't been as loving to outside devs. They seem to be trying to change that with the Wii U, but it doesn't change the fact that their Mario, Zelda, Smash Bros., Mario Kart, etc are what help make that system successful.

So both Microsoft and Sony need to focus on exclusive games as well. Microsoft needs to continue pumping out the Indie games, even if they are usually timed exclusives, such as Fez, Limbo, Trials, Super Meat Boy, etc. They have some big hitters when it comes to 1st party games in Gears of War, Halo, and Forza, and it's almost a guarantee those will continue to come. Sony needs the same and has been improving with their PSN games such as Journey and the Unfinished Swan. But they have also let off a lot of their studios and that doesn't bode particularly well for the future of exclusives. But they can always fall back on Resistance, Uncharted, Killzone, and Infamous. Neither company have the exclusives that even register on the same scale of Nintendo, but they need to promote the games they have and the other company doesn't.



3. Marketing

Microsoft and Nintendo know how to market their games. The same can't be said for Sony. Marketing is essential for successful games, and the biggest proof is Homefront. A game that was appallingly bad to most people but sold millions of copies. It benefited by being in a popular genre, but if it wasn't for the marketing, that game would have flopped.

So Microsoft and Nintendo...just keep doing what you're doing. Sony, come over here for a second. What are you doing? Have you realized how bad your commercials have gotten? Of course not, because most of your games have no commercials to critique in the first place. Most games don't need a ton of press because they fill a niche' market that isn't going to succeed simply because of a lot of marketing. But each game will have a specific crowd who will buy it regardless, but marketing can get sales of those unaware of the game. Look at Sly Cooper. That game is beautiful and wouldn't be terribly difficult to market, but nobody knew it came out which is disappointing. If you want to be a software juggernaut, you need to know what you are doing marketing wise. But you don't. Hopefully the new firm you are using will do a better job than the last one.



4. Apps

Long gone are the days where Netflix, Hulu, and Youtube are worth mentioning. They are almost a given. Instead these systems need something special that the other console doesn't have or won't have. Playstation Home can be considered in this topic, but nobody uses it. But no other console had something like it either. An interesting idea with poor implementation. The Wii U has an online community where help can be given or pictures can be drawn and it's super interesting. One of the best things the Wii U has going for it that the other systems should think about. Microsoft had my heart with "1 vs 100", and I absolutely loved it. But they didn't apparently and got rid of it.

So these companies need to find another killer app that will convince gamers that it's too awesome to pass up. Talks of DVR's using your console would be a nice addition, and Microsoft is rumored to have a Siri-like interaction with Kinect this time around. But they can't expect that something as small as Crackle is going to be a bullet point on the back of the box to sell gamers.



5. Online Service

This may be the thing that pushes the next console out in front of the other. I have been vocal about my disgust at Xbox Live and how it's nothing more than a glorified online pass. It would be one thing if they offered free online service and then with a Gold subscription you had the additional perks such as cross game chat and better servers, but instead you are paying simply to have online access. Good online access, but online access. If Sony were to make improvements to their online service and offer the same things Gold has but not charge for it, where does that leave Gold? Perhaps they will do something similar to PS+ where it focuses more on deals and games over things you should already have access to (such as Netflix).

Which is where I'm hoping Sony knocks it out of the park. PS+. Many consider it a rental service, and it partially is. You keep the games you buy, which can be found at discounted prices, but for those that complain about it being a rental service don't often complain about Microsoft's online being a "rental service". What I'm most interested in is the Gaikai acquisition and whether that may play a part in PS+. They have been pushing the idea of an Instant Game Library, but what if they were to expand on that idea and have a Gaikai service stream games if you have PS+. And not just one game a month, but have an actual library of games you can choose from. Yes it would still be a rental service, but it would remove the need to download and install games, more games would be available at any given time, and be one hell of an incentive to have PS+ all year round.





I am truly excited at the next generation of consoles. I'm not expecting a huge leap forward, but there's something special about knowing there's a new console looming on the horizon that could come in and sweep the rug out from under our feet and leave us speechless. But for them to do it, they need to improve on what made this generation of consoles so wonderful.

5 Underappreciated Games of 2012

I'm almost a month late with a game of the year post. And really, it seems to be somewhat unanimous what the top five games were with most sites. You are almost guaranteed to see X-Com, Journey, and Walking Dead in that list. I decided to instead make a list of games that I felt deserved some recognition. So here is my top 5 games that I feel were pretty good, but probably not GOTY material.

5.Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Future Soldier

Intimidation was always one of the factors for me to play a Tom Clancy game. They always felt less gamey and more about strategy with bad controls sprinkled in. At least from my small experience with some older games. But Future Soldier was able to make me finish the game by doing the reverse and making it more gamey and less about strategy. The strategy is still there, but it's far less important. And while the story isn't something I cared to follow and sending your teammates to do everything can make you sail through the game, I still found fun in the different items and weapons available while being able to use them with ease.




4. Gotham City Imposters

Gotham City Imposters has found a lot of comparisons to Team Fortress 2. Perhaps its the way the players run around, maybe how they handle, even how they look. But there is one thing that really makes it stand out to me as a fair Team Fortress 2 type game: I am god-awful at it. I'm lucky to pull off one single kill. Not to say I didn't have fun jumping into the Batman universe in this way, but I stink.Yet, the gadgets and customization of this game really make it what it is not to mention it's a competent and enjoyable shooter. But I think the greatest accomplishment of this game was that it wasn't the pile of crap people were expecting. A first person shooter set in Gotham where you don't play as Batman or the Joker, but normal people playing on their "sides"? I don't think anyone expected this game to be any good, but it proved them all wrong.



3. Final Fantasy XIII-2

This might be where you decide to ignore everything I post. Yes. I was a fan of Final Fantasy XIII-2. Hell, I was a fan of FF XIII. And while the sequel isn't quite the lengthy tutorial the first game is, it still has it's faults. The story is about as convoluted as one can expect in a Final Fantasy game, there's still a linearity to it that the creators don't seem to understand what the fans really want, and a chunk of the characters make you cringe; but the gem of this game is the battle system. Whereas past FF games were slow paced, the recent additions have sped everything up while making it more strategic with your paradigm shifts and just more engaging in general. Add in my 90's fascination with "collecting them all Pokemon-style" nostalgia that forced me to run through the world and find the best monsters to add to my battles, and this became one of the favorite games of the year.


2. Binary Domain

I loved Binary Domain more than Gears of War. There. I said it. I didn't think I would, nor did I think I would find a game that would ever leave my lips as a game you should play. But going in expecting to find a barely functional Gears of War clone, I was pleasantly surprised to say I found a really good Gears of War clone. But instead of creatures, replace them with robots that are more fun to shoot with characters that have more personality and humor. For the most part at least. Plus, they have a French robot. But if that's not enough, perhaps you should know there is actually a story worth experiencing and it gets completely bat shit crazy near the end. It doesn't make much sense, but how much of video games actually make any sense? I wasn't expecting it (nor would anyone more than likely), but what a reveal. And while it set up for a sequel, lack of sales would suggest this will be the last time you'll see this game.


1. Asura's Wrath

I was hesitant to put this game on the list. Every outlet seems to have someone on staff who adores this game, but in the end, it doesn't quite reach the top 10 of game of the year status. Which is understandable since the gameplay moments boil down to mediocre third person fighting, some rail shooting, and quick time events. This game should be written off as a game. But ignore the first two, because they are not good, and focus on the quick time events. They work. They provide a sense of importance that no other game does. So when Asura is having a finger the size of a continent come down on his head, that quick time event is something you want to do because you feel connected in the fight with Asura. Which brings me to the story, the real reason to play this game. It's nothing new. A godlike being who has the love of his life taken from him by other gods, so he seeks revenge. But it's the incredible art style, the amazing voice work, the sheer lunacy that happens in the story, and even to an extent the quick time events; everything adds up to make Asura's Wrath a game that should have been full of cliche's, but instead stands as a game that I had the most fun with this year. No other game even comes close to how eager I was to finish this game. Which sadly, I haven't. If only because the real ending of the game is behind paid DLC. And that is the worst thing about this game.

A Baby Boy and Handheld Gaming

Back in August, my wife and I had our first child. A baby boy. He has been one of the greatest additions in my life and I have no regrets. Less money, less sleep, less personal time, less time with the wife....as much as I enjoy all of them, he has brought a joy to my life I didn't know existed.

But at the same time, he has been a bane to my gaming hobby.

You see, my boy has a sixth sense. Instead of seeing ghosts, he has an uncanny ability to know when I'm playing video games. It doesn't matter if he's awake or asleep. I can't get in more than 15 minutes or so of gaming before he starts in with his crying. I don't know how he does it. And while I know my wife could take over completely for a few hours, I also don't want to feel like I'm pawning off my kid to her so I can shoot some people on Borderlands 2. Which by the way, I just made it through the game two weeks ago after playing it since release day. That's how much he has held me back from gaming.

However, I have found a savior to my gaming. Handhelds. I still don't get a lot of time in with them, but it's far easier to play with one hand using my 3DS than it is my PS3 controller. I can sit down and play with it while we watch cartoons, and don't even ask how much time I've put into it while sitting on the pot. I finally have a need for a handheld system that I haven't needed since I was in middle school. I still can't play it while we drive to the grocery store since I tend to be the chauffeur for everyone, but I have found myself putting more time into games like Pushmo, VVVVV, and more recently The World Ends With You. Which by the way, the three of those games are AMAZING.

So what's the point of this post? Well, since I haven't made one since September, part of it was just to show this blog isn't completely dead. As if anyone really reads it in the first place. The second was to tell those current and future parents out there that gaming isn't dead once a child comes into your life. Yes, console games can be a tad more difficult to work into your day. As much as I used to play to midnight or 1am while my wife was asleep, this little man wears me out. I'm lucky to make it past 10pm now. But I do wake up early on the weekends and get a few hours in each day, but otherwise, it has fallen by the wayside.

Handhelds are fantastic for not only kids, but for parents too. Don't dismiss them. I have never fully appreciated my handhelds the way I do now. The games are never as flashy as console games, but there are plenty of great games that I have played that I never would have had my lil man not been born. Do yourself a favor and pick one up. Vita, DS, 3DS, doesn't matter. Despite what people say, there are games out there on all systems (the Vita gets picked on for it's games, but that's a future post...) and many are worth experiencing. While I don't get the itch to play it when I have my console available, I find myself using it while I'm cooking dinner, rocking the baby to sleep, going to the bathroom, and if the wife reads in bed on her Kindle, I can play my 3DS.

But the third reason I made this post...to post pictures of the kid. How can I not? Just look at him! His cuteness makes me melt.