G-pinions

I spent quite a while yesterday repairing an old board game I played in my youth called Hero Quest. It's a game with a board that looks like a dungeon, and a bunch of little plastic figures, goblins and furniture. I won't go into the details of the game right now, because it's not the point of this post (maybe Dan will explain it in the comments if i'm lucky), but suffice to say, it kicks a lot of ass. And it was released in 1989. The four main characters you can choose from are a Barbarian (a "tank" of sorts), an Elf (decent at melee, but can still use magic), a Dwarf (good at fighting, can do some other shit too), and a Wizard (who has a weak defense and physical offense, but has plenty of magic attacks, all of which are based on various elements). I can only assume D&D has similar character classes, and about a million more, and it's been around for a fuck of a long time. I'm sure you can appreciate where i'm going with this. The character archetypes in these "nerd's games of choice" have been around for-fucking-ever, and to say that C.O.Norrath is ripping of off Diablo is ignoring decades of hard-earned nerdness. And just plain silly, you silly silly goose.

So I finally watched The Ring tonight; great stuff. I'm now having trouble walking to the bathroom, I fully expect scary TV water to be pooling everywhere. The difference in cinematic quality between this film and nearly every other horror/suspense i've ever seen is shocking. And this is from the same guy (him, not me) who directed Pirates of the Caribbean, which was fairly straightforwardly made (even though it too was great but for very different reasons). So, check that shit out if you haven't seen it. Although I suspect I was like the last person in the country to see it, kind of like Sixth Sense (which 50 First Dates gives away the ending to, for whatever fucking stupid reason).

Metal!

Ok, it's been awhile since my last post. I know all of our dedicated readers have been wondering "Where is Lanyon?" You see, I can explain... I came down with leprosy. I got it from Tom.

Ok. Now that we have that cleared up, I would like to spend a moment or two to talk about Champions of Norrath. It's not a bad game considering Blizzard released the same game about 4 years ago. The game plays almost exactly like Diablo 2. Now to be fair, I have not yet had the chance to play this game multi-player since:

A) My roommate is inept and video games frighten him.
B) Tom and Nick and whoever else I could conceivably play this game with live too far from me since I live in BuFu nowhere.
C) Why play this when you can play Diablo 2? Same game, but better.

Every class in Norrath seems to mirror a Diablo 2 class. Observe!

---
CoN: Barbarian
D2: Barbarian

This one is the most obvious. In both games this character is the straight "tank". Almost all of its skills are hand to hand combat based. In both games this character can wield dual weapons.
---
CoN: Wood Elf Ranger
D2: Amazon

This is the "Ranged" character. Both of them specialize in ranged weapons, and a number of their skills, including "multi shot (strafe in D2)" and the "Cold/Poison Arrow" skills are exactly the same in both games.
---
CoN: High Elf Cleric
D2 : Paladin

These are the "holy warrior" classes. These classes also share a number of skills. CoN's "Holy Strike" is identical to D2's "Holy Bolt". Both classes also have "Shield Bash" and "Holy Armor", which are pretty much the same in both games.
---
CoN: Erudite wizard
D2: Sorceress

Yep, once again almost exactly the same. The Erudite wizard has "Frost Bolt", "Bolt of Shock", "Frost Storm", "Fire Weapons", "Cone of Frost", and more, all of which are the same as the D2 versions (some with different names, but the same skill).
---

The only other class in CoN is the Shadowknight. Although it is the most original class in the game, over half of its skills seem strangely like the Necromancer from D2 (Skeleton pets and Debuffs anyone?).

I'm not trying to say the whole game rips off D2. For example, D2 had a great story and great cutscenes (It is a Blizzard game after all). Also, D2 could support 8 players.

Perhaps playing this multiplayer could change my views on it, but... Meh.

Well, all in all, CoN is not a bad game. It's just if you have the option, I would go for D2 any day of the week. Like today for example.

Peace.

Per Danny's request, I scoured the net to find sales figures of Enter the Matrix and Prince of Persia. IGN, in a mailbag from early February, states that PoP has sold a combined 550,000 across all 3 major platforms. This is not a horrible amount, but considering how many total systems there are in existence, not to mention the fact that PoP is one of the most beautiful and inspired games this generation, sales were very disappointing.

IGN says the figure of 550,000 is accurate through December 2003. However, in January, Ubi Soft, the publisher of PoP, opted to pack in another hit title, Splinter Cell, free with any purchase. As of now, there are an uncofirmed 2 million Prince of Persia sales. That Ubi Soft had to pack in another game for free to sell the almost perfect PoP is very sad indeed.

Read the article here.

Enter the Matrix was not a beautiful or terribly innovated game. However, it has the Matrix license attached to it with the promise of never before seen tape of the Matrix universe. According to an article printed June 19, 2003, EtM has sold over 2.5 Million Copies.

Read the article here

This further illustrates my point that quality is no longer the main concern for consumers. Marketing and licensing have become far more important.

Let me get this straight: you are a big fan of Sony and are now defending EA? Just making sure...

If EA isn't the most evil video game company around, who would you say is? Who else has done less to move the industry forward while still reaping in a ton of money and creating popular opinion?

I'll make this quick since this is such a non-argument I don't need to waste my time defending my opinion.

First of all, since I only own two of Sega's 7 or so systems, I hardly think I am biased towards Sega in any way. Also, I am hardly anti Sony. Remember, I own both a PlayStation and PlayStation 2 and will fight to the death that the best and most important game released this generation is Grand Theft Auto 3, which was a PS2 exclusive until last Christmas.

In regards to the DC and its lack of developers, EA is the only major multi system developer that refused to make even one game for the system. I have my problems with Square but they were exclusive to Sony at that point. All the other major publishers, including Konami, Capcom and Namco, all made games for the DC.

You mention Sega doesn't have any great franchises, but somehow define great as games that are blockbuster sellers. Crazy Taxi, Jet Grind Radio, Virtua Fighter, Shenmu etc are all great franchises made by Sega available exclusively on the DC that sold well. Not Madden well, mind you, but really well. And, they are all really good and innovated. Are there any other games like the ones I mentioned? Are there any other games like Madden or Medal of Honor?

The DC had three major system sellers at launch: Soul Calibur, NFL2K and Sonic Adventures. This is in addition to great games that may not sell systems like Powerstone and House of the Dead. All exclusive to the DC. It had the games and people bought it, for the most part. It was never a mainstream success, however, because it lacked Mario, Final Fantasy and Madden. Two of those franchises are system exclusive. One isn't. Do you see my point yet?

Even though NFL2K was better than any Madden game, it did not sell as well because of name recognition. I already established in my post that, with the advent of the PSX, video games have become mainstream. Because of that, quality no longer sells games (see Prince of Persia sales vs Matrix). It is marketing and licenses that sell now. Without name recognition games don't sell no matter how great they are. Ever wonder why Goldeneye sold way more copies than Perfect Dark?

I will not argue the online point since I haven't regularly gone online since NFL2K1 on the Dreamcast. However, why would EA need to partner with anyone? Why can't they make Madden online on Xbox as well as PS2? Could it be because they are in Sony's back pocket?

Rereading your post now, it shocks me how you continually miss my point about name recognition. No matter how good NFL2K is EA will always outsell it. The casual gamer does not care that NFL2K is better. They'll never even know it. They don't buy them in the first place to see if they are better.

Remember Madden 97 for the PSX? Neither do I. EA never released it because they saw 989 Studios make a 3D football game and decided to not even release their 2D game. It didn't hurt their sales at all the following year, however, because they still had almost a decade of name recognition behind them. So, while other companies do actually make better games than EA they don’t' have the, say it with me now, name recognition or marketing budget to even hope to compete.

If EA made great games this wouldn't be an issue. But they continue to churn out what is expected. They don't take risks. They don't strive for greatness. They are holding the industry back.

Calling EA the most evil company in the industry is just silly. If you don't like their games, fine. But evil? Bah. What are the "many, many reasons"? The only two I can glean from your anti-EA pro-Sega anti-Sony rant are that they killed the Dreamcast and that they don't support Microsoft's online service. First off, no matter how good of a system the DC was, it was doomed from the beginning. It had a fairly successful launch, but tapered off from there fairly quickly. The release of the PS2 was just the nail in the coffin. And it wasn't just because of the lack of support from EA. There was no Square. There was little Konami. And there was obviously no Sony or Nintendo. The whole problem that you mentioned with EA (that they have no great franchises - which for the sake of argument I'll agree with) was the same problem that Sega had. Besides Sonic (meh), Sega didn't have any system sellers. Most of their best exclusives were all ported, as you well know, and while there was plenty of innovation on the DC, most of it didn't sell. And if the system and games were as amazing and superior to everything else as you make it seem, it shouldn't have needed support from EA.

And as far as EA supporting X-Box Live, why wouldn't they want to team up with the leader in the marketplace? Besides, I'm sure that before years end you'll see EA games online on the X-box. About those "inferior online games"...what makes them inferior? EA Games are some of the best online games on any system, and most support 56k (not that I need it, but it's nice for everyone) and all of them are always free. And dammit Tom, you don't play any games online, so how can you judge their games and services?

And if competition spurns creativity, wouldn't it be better if EA was exclusive to Sony? Then the XSN sports titles would have to pick up the pace and up their quality too. If EA was on every system, online, what would be the motivation for other companies to make new, more innovative sports franchises? There would be none. That potential monopoly is the only bad thing I can fathom for the future.

And saying that EA games "aren't bad" is doing them a gross injustice. The quality and polish and fun factor in the SSX, NBA Street, LOTR and Sports franchises is astounding, nevermind their countless other titles. If they made bad software, Sega's 2K series would have been able to hold it's own and take over the market, as would the XSN games.

Overall, it just sounds like you hate them for being as good as they are.

P.S. The Bouncer was not 2D, and gamers did not "flock" to it, by any means.

There are many, many, many reasons to hate this most heinous of companies. Many. They are the worst, most evil company, by far, in the video game industry. And, yes, I know full well that Microsoft is also in the industry.

What fuels my hatred so? Well, it's all rather simple. EA is more concerned with making a huge profit than making quality games and turning people's frowns upside down. A video game company whose only motivation is to make money is an inherently bad company. They are not concerned with making art; they are concerned with making Benjamins. This is wrong.

4 and a half years ago, a company who I have never been a huge fan of released a system that blew me away. Prior to the release of the Sega Dreamcast, the only Sega product I owned was a used Genesis II. They make great games, always have and always will, but I always found their systems inferior to their competitors. A friend in my youth was raised by two well meaning but very ignorant parents who bought him the Master System instead of the far superior Nintendo Entertainment System. I played many games at his house, none of them all too memorable.

I was given a Genesis and SNES in 1991 for Christmas, forced to decide between one to keep. I chose the Genesis, based on the fact my parents gave me Toejam and Earl with it in addition to the packed in Sonic. 9 months later for my birthday I sold my Genesis to get the far superior SNES.

The Saturn was a joke. I had fun playing Virtua Cop and Fighters Megamix, but it was quite obvious that the PlayStation and N64 had far more innovative games and were way more fun.

Then along came the Dreamcast. It looked beautiful, obviously. But the games also just looked like a lot of fun. I preordered the thing to get Powerstone and Sonic Adventure, and then fell in love with Soul Calibur and NFL2K. I loved the thing like it was my baby. From Crazy Taxi to Jet Grind Radio to Skies of Arcadia. The system was pushing out games better looking than anything on the PSX or N64, and the games were not only a ton of fun but really innovated.

And, shockingly enough, the system was actually flying off the shelves. Fueled in no small part by the media hype surrounding Soul Calibur and Crazy Taxi, gamers were actually buying the DC with many games to go with it. Could Sega actually make a successful system again after the ill-fated Saturn?

Not if EA had anything to do with it. When Sony entered the market in 1995, they made games mainstream for the first time ever. They had a wider assortment of games than ever before, and, with clever marketing and budget priced titles, the relatively niche, nerdy hobby of gaming was finally embraced by the masses. The Nintendo 64 helped spurn this new love with the best multiplayer games ever seen on a home console. From Goldeneye and Perfect Dark to the beloved Super Mario Kart, if you wanted to get together with some friends and play games, Nintendo was the place to be. For the first time ever, the mainstream was finally deciding what games were going to make money and, therefore, what games companies were going to make.

As many of you might know, the most popular genre among the general public is sports. Specifically, football. And, to be even more specific, John Madden Football.

There was no Madden Football on the Dreamcast.

EA wrote the obituary for the DC in America. If you don't have EA on your side, you will not succeed. It's as simple as that. As good as NFL2K was on the Dreamcast, it didn't have any name recognition with the general public. Ever after Sega teamed up with ESPN, the public still refused to buy it. "We don't want to change" they yelled, "We want Madden."

The PS2 came out with marginally better graphics, 2 fewer controller ports, no VMU and no built in online support, and blew the DC out of the water. Gamers were flocking to shallow 2D brawlers like The Bouncer and pseudo 3D fighters with 5-year-old gameplay like Tekken Tag Tournament over the far more innovative and fun Dreamcast games. EA teamed up with Sony, though.

And now the Dreamcast is dead. And I cry.

But EA is still going strong. And EA, like a Cougar, is still teamed up with the leader in the market place. The Xbox is a great system with a strong collection of exclusive titles, not to mention the best graphics and the only system with a built in hard drive and Internet support out of the box. They are the only system out right now with an online infrastructure built and maintained by one entity. Yet EA refuses to support XBox Live, instead they continue to suck Sony's teat making inferior online games on the PS2.

Yes, I am very bitter. EA buys companies and churns out rehashes of games every year. No, their games aren't bad, but they aren't that good either. EA is the 2nd largest publisher in the world, 2nd only to Nintendo, yet they have no GREAT games in their library. They have no Metroids or Sonics. No Chrono Triggers or Herzog Zweis. EA is a company that uses licenses created by other companies to sell their games. EA is what is wrong with the industry.

And this is not just talk. The most recent EA game in my collection is Madden '94 for the SNES. I refuse to buy any game they "make" or publish. Fuck EA.

So I know it's lame that all Tom and I have been talking about is C.O.Norrath, but it's with the best of intentions. It's a fantastic game, and a highly entertaining co-op experience. We beat it the other day, as Tom mentioned, and now we're on our second playthrough, enjoying it as much as ever. So that's why we've been talking about it almost exclusively for like a week - it's about all we've been doing for the last week.

I did find some time the other night to start going through NesterDC (NES emulator) with my friend Castro, and we got to about the mid B's (Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, to be exact). I started a list with a comment for each game as we went along to remind me about it in the future. Here are some of the highlights (and lowlights):

abadox - space r-typeish shooter, sweet, but fucking hard
adventures of captain tc - astronaut vs. parrots and inchworms
adventures of bayou billy - golden ax in a swamp vs. karate men
adventures of lolo - awesome puzzle game!!
adventures of lolo 2 - exactly the same, more snakes
alien3 - came out in 1992?? three years before playstation?!? man...
all pro basketball - wrought with mispellings, one of the players looks like hitler
amagon - killing mousebats and mushrooms on an island with a gun, and then turning into the hulk = greatness!!
a nightmare on elm street - snake-punching at it's finest
anticipation - AMAZING!
archon - sweet battle chess type game with real-time battles
arkistas' ring - getting raped by giant scorpions
baby boomer - try not to let the baby die! my god, this game is great!
back the the future - killed by bees and benches faaaarr to easily
balloon fight - greatness. pure greatness.
baseball simulator - fuck this. rbi ripoff. don't front.
battletank - the prequel to steel battalion. not really.
batman - wow, surprisingly great
bee 52 - a...bee sim. really nice graphics, sweet.
bill elliott's nascar - bill elliott can go to hell.
bible adventures - animal gathering religion-based greatness. and...don't let baby moses touch the spiders. whatever you do.
big bird's hide and speak - "this can't be good." - castro
bigfoot - "i don't know what to think of this, cause it kind of sucks." - castro

So, there you have it, the first installment in Nick's Nintendo Notes. Pretty catchy, eh? Eh? Fuck you.

I think that this article gives some good arguments as to why EA is bad for the gaming industry, a topic Tom and I have debated several times. This article supports his viewpoint moreso (that they are indeed bad), but it's a good, informative read either way. I think that they have always made and published great games, and until I start to see that quality dip, I have no qualms with their products. And I think because of the quality of their products, they can get away with being a bit of a monopoly in sporting games and such. They might release the same game year after year with minor tweaks, but as long as that game is top-notch, I don't really mind. There is enough innovation elsewhere in the industry; sometimes it's nice to have a solid base of completely solid, well-made, fun games to always fall back on, even if they're not the most experimental of companies.

Lastly, I went ahead and signed up for Netflix (well, for the free trial at least). The turnaround time was obscene (the good type of obscene) - I signed up Thursday at 2a.m. and received my first three movies on Friday. Too bad they blew. Well, better luck next time. Oh, and I also saw 50 First Dates. Good times. Drew Barrymore is a Pixie Goddess, and I wish to marry her. That is all.

Last night, after almost 6 hours more of summoning Skeletons and Evil Hammers, traversing the pits of hell and the serene aerial skyways of heaven, and watching lost souls prance around and get rekilled by maniacal wizards, Nick and I finally got through all of Champions of Norrath. Yup, after only a week, we finished the game. It was amazing while it lasted, but I'm not quite ready to give it up.

Thankfully, we can now play through the game at a harder difficulty level and collect even more cool shit. We're only at level 19 now and we're holding stuff we can't use for another 2 levels. So, for maybe the first time ever in my video game life, I'm going to start up a game after winning it. Kind of sick, isn't it? But there's so much stuff we haven't done yet! Like, Nick has this one spell that does 500 damage or something all the time, and you have to be level 25 to use it. And I have this one spell that converts enemies to our side and something else that rises the dead to fight on our side. How could we not continue playing?

In card related news, iBuy is the most evil game ever. I set a record for futility last night with almost 500 points last night (499, to be exact). Nick won the game with SIXTY FOUR points and even Theresa beat me by more than 100, and she had never even played before. God, I'm horrible. iBuy is like this sick version of Rummy where Tom loses and everyone ends up miserable. We have to play this again real soon.