The 8th Generation of Console Gaming: A Prediction.

I haven't even watched E3 but I think I have enough of an idea of what's going on so here goes.

     Microsoft is becoming more confident and thus more greedy. They're experimenting with what will work and what's too far and in the gaming industry that's just a bad idea. Knowing how dumb some consumers and/or Halo fanboys are, the Xbox One will not do spectacularly in sales but won't be all for naught since it'll make enough money. Microsoft will continue to pump out average to mediocre Halo entries and run the series into the ground with merchandising. Microsoft will suffer to a degree due to the loss of potential income because many gamers worldwide are not at all pleased with Microsoft's new business model.

     Sony will most likely dominate this generation again with the PlayStation 4 since they are at least moderately aware of their consumers and the economy. The PS4's cheaper price tag in addition to larger indie support will possibly lead to the PS4 being the console of the 8th gen. Metal Gear Solid V along with the other strong titles announced, like Destiny and Infamous: Second Son, will do well because they will and Sony will reclaim their throne which was taken from them during the PS2 era. That's a best case scenario. Worst case scenario is it's just a repeat of the PS3: a great console with great games but no killer apps like the ones that Xbox 360 had. PSN will get disapproval for its addition of a subscription but it won't matter in the long run since it's still a cheaper alternative to Xbox LIVE and PSN now has more features than its PS3 counterpart.

     Nintendo will continue to be Nintendo. More Mario, more Zelda, more SSB. Nothing new will come and we'll get the same old rehash of the same old games. Consumers will still buy Nintendo products because why the hell not? Pokemon X&Y will do well. The 3DS will most likely be more popular than the WiiU since an unimpressive and small library of games for the console leads to less than optimal sales figures. Nintendo will suffer to a degree from Ubisoft pulling their license as less incentive is offered to non-casual gamers. WiiU will be the least successful of the 8th-gen consoles.

     The other innovations that aren't by the Big Three will be forgotten as usual. While interesting, the Ouya's current game library leaves much to be desired, with the only titles worth mentioning being Final Fantasy III and Organ Trail: Director's Cut. The other consoles like the Retron5 will do as well as usual but still not reach mainstream. The Steam-Box, if it comes this gen, will not do as well as hoped because majority of Steam users are PC gamers whose computers can handle the games they would buy, and Big Picture mode, while a perfectly solid addition to Steam, isn't taking on as hoped.

     This is just a prediction mind you, but I have a feeling it's an accurate one. Of course, only time will tell... here's to Q4 2013.

Retro Gaming and Collecting.

     The picture above is my Super Nintendo. By the time I was born the SNES was going downhill and making way for the N64 and PlayStation but I picked one up last year anyway. I've poured a decent amount of time and money into my collection of video games, which is currently approaching two hundred and fifty games. Do I play them all? Well... yes and no. My SNES here is an interesting story in that vein that I'll probably recall further down the page. To the one hundred PC games I have, I'll merely say "Steam". That should answer your questions.

     I'll get around to them. Eventually. Maybe.

     But to be honest this post is not so much an explanation or review as much as it is a personal account of why retro gaming/collecting in my opinion is so enjoyable.

Why retro?
     This part is simple enough: they're fun. I play and purchase any games I deem to be fun. Halo 3 is fun. So is The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past, which is over 20 years old (and getting a sequel this year!!!). Also nowadays Triple-A gaming is going downhill as Call of Duty, Halo, and Assassin's Creed dominate the market, leaving other fantastic titles like Deus Ex and Dishonored buried. Other modern gaming titles prove that the market is running out of ideas and is starting to hit a point at which quality levels out and things start getting generic. Retro gaming has loads of quality titles (Final Fantasy VII, Chrono Trigger, Double Dragon, etc.) that give us tons of variety both in genre and theme. They are also the most iconic. In my opinion the greatest of all the consoles are the grizzled elders like the PS2 and Super Nintendo.

What constitutes as retro?
     Retro, as far as I'm concerned, consists of any gaming console that is no longer in production. This includes the PS2, which died this year, and the original Xbox, which was discontinued in 2005 upon the 360's release (games for the original Xbox continued to come out until 2009). The PS2 may seem pretty modern, and you're right, but remember that the PS2 was introduced in 2001. That's twelve years ago. Final Fantasy X in my opinion is old enough in the gaming industry to be considered retro, as is Battlefront II, which is eight years old. Others may disagree with my definition of retro gaming, but in my opinion that's a solid line between the old and new.

Why collect?
     Collecting is a hobby. Some people collect stamps, some collect coins. Coins are pretty, and stamps are damn expensive if you find the right ones, but game collecting is interesting in that the thing being collected has both monetary and entertainment value. And it's cheap. You can pick up most PlayStation games at The Save Point (local retro store/arcade) for an average of $1-4. NES and SNES games, as well as games for Mega Drive, Saturn, and Dreamcast, fall around that general value. Same goes for GameBoy games, which can be even cheaper in some instances. That being said, things can get expensive. Very.Expensive. Don't believe old games can run expensive? Try snagging a copy of Final Fantasy VII for PS1. Or a copy of EarthBound for SNES, a game that runs $200 minimum. Popularity equals value in the gaming market. A Link to the Past, a game I was blessed with finding in a SNES lot at a flea market, runs around $40 used, more expensive than Modern Warfare 3 and around the same price as Black Ops.

Tips for anyone who wants to either start a collection or build on one:
- Don't worry if you're not in a financial position to collect en masse. Be patient and wait for the big
  ticket items, or just grab a game here and there every once in a while. You don't have to have a
  large collection, just a good one. The only reason my collection is so large is holding on to my
  games from childhood combined with really good luck and a few years of small purchases when I
  had the chance.
- Flea Markets and Yard Sales are great places to look. The only reason I have
  a Super Nintendo at all is because I stumbled on a family selling stuff for cheap. I got a free 1980s
  GameBoy, 35 SNES games, and all the controllers and power/video cords for around $25. The
  console was garbage so I grabbed one offline for $30.

Fun pic: I'm in the middle of a Legend of Zelda paintjob for that battered SNES in the top picture. Here's what I have so far!

No detailing yet so it looks a little bling-tastic.

REVIEW: Tomb Raider - First Impressions

     Tomb Raider for over a decade has been pleasing strange fanboys all over with its well-endowed main character, Lara Croft, who is always dressing for really, really good weather. This time, though, Square Enix has once again assured us that they can handle Eidos titles far better than Eidos ever could. This review, as titled, is only a First Impression: I have yet to finish the story mode and I haven't even touched the multiplayer (a first for a Tomb Raider game) and already I have enough material to write a review.

     Lara Croft's previous adventures have been thrown out the window completely for this franchise reboot; perhaps Christopher Nolan and J.J. Abrams have inspired everyone to stop being original and just REBOOT ALL THE THINGS! Which in today's game industry is often a good call. Lara ceases to be a bustially unproportional piece of eye candy, instead becoming an aspiring archaeologist in her early twenties (or late teens, not sure). Since everything related to the game industry these days involves "the gritty treatment," something is bound to go wrong and make this seemingly basic plotline make an extremely dark turn.
     "How could this be dark?" you may ask. Well in the first five minutes of gameplay you narrowly escape a sinking ship, get kidnapped, wake up surrounded by corpses, and get impaled by some rebar. Fun stuff. Also the island is controlled by cultists. This just screams "Happy Joy Fun Time." I can't reveal much more about the story, so that'll have to do.
     The graphics are on par with any Square Enix title, which means they're awesome. I own the game on Xbox 360, so I haven't experienced the PC-exclusive awesomeness that is Hair Physics. I'm not kidding. The game on PC renders realistically behaving hair. I'd also like to praise the realism of the rendered fire.
     I mean I really can't say much more; I have yet to play the multiplayer since the single-player story is so captivating (that, and I have tons of other games in my collection to work on, see the sidebar if interested). I'm just gonna end this by giving my First Impression: Square Enix has done it again. They've taken an IP that they purchased (at least the third from Eidos) and revived it in a way that's both fresh and really deserving of the pricetag. Now if only they could do that well with Final Fantasy nowadays...

Things to come....

Not much of a blog entry so much as a lineup of what's to come. Just for those who are curious and like teasers.

13 May = Final Fantasy XIII review
14 or 15 May = Tomb Raider (Xbox 360) first impressions
TBA = Super Mario Bros. Movie review (I was encouraged).
also TBA = first in the line of INDIE FIRST IMPRESSIONS reviews.

In the meantime enjoy my other reviews/rants.

DISCUSSION: Gender in Video Games

     So a question I have noticed being asked often (and have often asked myself) is, "Why do people play the opposite gender in video games, when given the choice?" There are a good number of arguments to this, which I can hopefully put out here and justify.

     Forgive that abysmally short opening paragraph. To summarize the campaign statements of politicians: I'll try to do better next time.

Stereotypes.

     I'm gonna get this out of the way as soon as possible. The generic and mostly untrue reason for people playing as the opposite gender is because "they don't want to stare at virtual (opposite gender here)-ass for 30+ hours." I don't think this at all, but I can at least assume that most men don't exactly want to look at man-ass at all, ever, regardless of whether it's a video game or a rather unfortunate outing at a department store. Another stereotypical reason is from article I once read that claimed that men play as women in games so they can have the feeling of dominance over a woman. This also is a stupid observation that doesn't exactly accomplish anything other than annoy and/or aggravate people who don't have such low levels of respect. Well that's it for gamer stereotypes. I'm moving on now to stereotypes within game characters.

     This should prove to be a lot of fun.

Stereotypical Game Dudes.

Prime specimens: Duke Nukem, Marcus Fenix, the Master Chief, Kratos, Dovahkiin, etc, etc, etc...

     Well, the most blatantly stereotypical male character in any video game ever would probably have to be Duke Nukem, who was recently killed by a flying turd called Duke Nukem Forever (funfact: that was a pun since you can actually throw turds in that game). I'll have a article about how bad Gearbox is at making games later though, so let's stick to the topic. Men in many video games are often muscular, beefy-armed guys who love nothing more than to tote around a big weapon. They don't always have very good stories either. Marcus Fenix has little to no dynamic to his character; he is a hulking mass of pure badass with bad history who totes around a chainsaw gun. That just screams MANLY MAN'S MAN, but it's not manly enough; he must also have a muscular buildup that renders his physique disproportionate with human anatomy. Master Chief has a more developed character, and some dynamic within the limits of his role, but he too is a hulking mass of badassery who totes around a gun and is ridiculously strong. Duke Nukem is a muscular (but proportionate) man who really focuses on nothing more than himself and chicks. Dovahkiin from The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim does nothing more than run around with an axe and stare stoically whenever he's not moving. He also boasts muscly muscles. The male version of Commander Shepard is a stereotypical grunt with a buzzcut and a bad smile who in my opinion could have had a better voice actor.

 

Stereotypical Game Girls.

Prime examples: Lollipop Chainsaw girl, Oerba di Vanille, pre-2013 Lara Croft, Ada Wong

     Well I couldn't pull a large number of stereotypical female characters off the top of my head but here they are, listed above. There are two stereotypical game girls: the ones who are more or less eye candy, or the ones who are too naive to understand the gravity of whatever plotline they're in. Lollipop Chainsaw girl and Lara Croft (before the reboot, mind you) were pretty good examples of eye candy because that's all they really were, regardless of storyline. Oerba di Vanille from Final Fantasy XIII (again, a rant for another time) is extremely naive and also eye candy, because Final Fantasy doesn't and will never know how to not make women eye candy. And when I say naive I mean to the point of insanity. She's borderline oblivious, although she seems to have at least a general idea of what's going on, to her credit. I just don't like her as a character. Ada Wong is a badass zombie slayer in an Asian show-style dress. I don't know much about her character so feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken. But yeah. Also the female version of Noble Six from Halo: Reach since all of the female Spartans in that game suffer from a ridiculously emphasized posterior (to be fair she has a good voice actor).

Seriously how did this even leave the drawing board?

So why actually play the opposite gender?

     I will give a couple reasons from a guy's perspective since I cannot speak for women. One reason is because female characters aside from the ones mentioned above often have more interesting and well-crafted stories that don't involve moving your misshapen muscular hulk of a body around corridors blasting the shit out of everything. Take Claire Farron (aka Lightning) from Final Fantasy XIII. She's a sergeant in the military who is forced to rebel in order to save her younger sister from being hunted down as a threat as a result of an accident. She also has a pretty nice backstory given in the Thirteen Days subplot of the game in which you discover that she's vulnerable underneath the callous and battle-hardened exterior.

     Also Commander Shepard from Mass Effect. I have no clue why but the story for me just seems to fit better if Shepard is female. Also coupled with the fact that femShep can smile without looking like a pedophile, and also is voiced by Jennifer Hale, a kind of celebrity among video game voice actors. Also sometimes the story calls for it anyway (such as the official canon for Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II listing the main character as a female named Meetra Surik). Other reasons could simply be because male stereotypes in certain games don't fit the character. If you wanted a stealthy ranger or thief, wouldn't a walking tank with an epic beard seem a little out of place? (looking at you Skyrim).

---CONCLUSION---

Shepard looking cool.... above.

Shepard not looking cool.... below.

...sweet Jesus.

REVIEW: Halo 4: Examining the Flawed

Felicitations! I would like to start this post by saying that I like Halo. A lot. It is one of the few modern titles worth a full price tag these days. (I'd also willingly pay a full $60 for Tomb Raider, if the price hadn't dropped already.) Today's subject for dissection is Halo 4, the first game that 343 Industries actually made (2011's Halo: Anniversary was developed by Saber Interactive). As a diehard Halo fan since 2007, I would like to take some of your time to offer what I feel is an unbiased review of 343i's firstborn. And so it begins...

Gameplay.

Halo 4's fourth level, "Infinity."

     Halo is a first-person shooter, which means that the gameplay is rather straightforward: use the shooty thing to shoot at the squishy things and make them dead. What sets shooters apart is how the shootiness is achieved. Halo's gameplay for years has retained the same core gameplay. I can't exactly describe what it is but those who have played a Bungie Halo game from 2001-2010 probably know what I'm talking about. Halo 4 has gameplay which includes a few new gimmicks that instantly say I'M DIFFERENT to veteran Halo players. Among these are sprinting (only seen before as a powerup in Halo: Reach) and the absence of the flashlight. Dual-wielding from Halo 2 and Halo 3 are still absent. Armor Abilities from Reach also make a return, which in all honesty I don't like. I never liked Armor Abilities since they somewhat broke the gameplay in Reach, but at least Halo 4's selection is slightly more balanced.
     Signature weapons such as the Assault Rifle, Needler, and Battle Rifle return, among the rest of the series' staples. It is worth noting that the Plasma Rifle has been completely replaced by the Storm Rifle, a subpar and mediocre attempt at nerfing the Plasma Repeater from Reach. Also returning from Reach are the DMR and Concussion Rifle. The Gravity Hammer makes a contextually baffling return as well despite the complete absence of Brutes in the Covenant, pointed out by companion material.

Story.

     Halo is mainly praised for it's rich fictional universe, which I can't really detail here without writing another blogpost. Just Google the backstory.
     Halo 4's Campaign is one of the best of the series, for the first time creating a truly dramatic and personal experience. One can say "but the other Halo games had dramatic stories." I would agree that the stories in the Bungie games had good stories but they weren't compelling because the original games had such poor character development that the deaths of main characters was shrugged off within five seconds. In Halo 4, the only characters that truly matter are Master Chief and Cortana. The storytelling in Halo 4 is taken to a much more epic and compelling level, which proves that 343i really threw their heart into the story. For those who want a brief synopsis, here you go:
     Halo 4 has a hearty THREE plots to follow throughout the campaign missions: The main conflict is that the Forerunners have awoken from their supposed extinction and are out to reclaim their place as rulers of the galaxy. The more interesting plotlines are Cortana's increasing instability as her lifespan exceeds the norm for AIs, and the plot revolving around the Master Chief being faced with the reality that he could lose the last and closest of his friends. For those of you going "Master Chief is in love with a naked hologram," remember that in Halo's universe, AIs are quite literally sentient digital beings. Anyway the story presented by the game had me staring at the TV for ten minutes out of speechlessness; for once, a game told its story in a way that was cinematic and well-done as far as drama and musical score is concerned (shoutout to Neil Davidge for his excellent soundtrack).
     Spartan Ops, the cooperative secondary campaign that many complain about for replacing Firefight, is at least deserving of an "A for effort." The characters of Fireteam Majestic and the AI Roland presented by the ten "episodes" of Halo: Infinity (Spartan Ops' official title) are at the least tolerable but are barely developed and to be honest, unmemorable (aside from Roland, who is one of the most sarcastic and annoying AIs in the story's universe, albeit somewhat likeable). Firefight would have probably been a stronger decision than a revolutionary episodic multiplayer expansion that relied on reusing the same five maps over and over again for different missions for half of the Spartan Ops episodes. This may be one reason that more people would rather stick with Reach.

Multiplayer.

     The game's multiplayer bears little to no resemblance to traditional Halo multiplayer. Many blame 343i for turning the game into Call of Duty, but in 343i's defense, and to use their own words, many features noted in Halo 4 are standard amongst almost all shooters these days. I do agree with this statement, but that doesn't really protect them from the slew of disapproval that fans seem to be giving at the moment. The gameplay comes dangerously close to deviating entirely from the Halo formula that has been in play up until 2011. This isn't noticeable as much in Campaign mode so much as multiplayer. The multiplayer population has been dropping rapidly, still decreasing. Why is this worth noting at all? Well the game came out in November. It's only been out for six months and people have already gotten bored with it. The Spartan Ops campaign was promoted before release as something that would keep replay value up, but the first season has ended with no real expectation for a second, and all of the DLC has been released as of mid-April. All of this and I haven't even started talking about the mechanics of multiplayer yet.... bleh.
     Loadouts from Reach return for Halo 4 but are more in line with Battlefield / Call of Duty-esque features: you are allotted Spartan Points and must unlock new weapons for purchase with rank advancement. Ranking up is much faster than in Reach, which I personally am thankful for. I have owned Reach since the second it launched and as a casual gamer, three years of on-and-off gameplay have only gotten me to Colonel; not very far into the upper echelon of rankings. Gone is the original Halo mechanic of "the power weapons are scattered around, fight to the death over them." Instead, one must call in Ordnance drops by proving competence during matches. This is the true meaning of "it sucks to suck." I would personally compare Ordnance drops to a slightly different version of Killstreak rewards from CoD.
     Playlists are also back but they really suck. Like bad. The playlists are more akin to Battlefield's, where you select the gametype and there is no variety. The frequent addition and removal of new and old playlists is also a source of "aw man, you had ONE job." CTF and Infinity Slayer, the two main gametypes, are not really that special in my opinion, and I exclusively play Action Sack, one of the few actual Halo-styled playlists carried over from Halo 3. Playlist population is only in the hundreds, barely an echo of the game's booming 170,000+ gamers from only six months prior.

Perhaps 343i has a twisted sense of humor...?

     Customization is still one of the game's strong suits. Halo 4 returns to different armor pieces (a la Halo 3) instead of Reach's armor attachments, a welcome return were it not for some of the absolutely abysmal armor sets. Pictured above is the Defender set, which upon seeing the helmet, I can only think, "DERP". Also making me throw up in my mouth is the FOTUS armor, which I kid you not is centered solely around looking like a unicorn. A UNICORN.

---CONCLUSION---

     Does Halo 4 really belong on the pedestal that critics have placed it upon? I think not. Don't get me wrong, the game was and still is one of my personal favorites, but it is hopefully a learning experience for 343i as they go to produce Halo 5 for the as-of-yet-untitled Xbox console.

     ...which is another rant entirely.

22 March - Hey there.

So you've probably stumbled on my little blogspot. Well hey out there, it's me, Steve! Basically once I get some more free time this will be my site for random game reviews and/or rants. I'm trying to fight this lag and get an opinion on the Defiance beta but until then, other games or just no review will have to suffice. Thanks for taking the thirty seconds to read this!

Peace.