Thursday, March 18, 2004
OPM Disc Review
So I figure a good way to preview/discuss a couple of upcoming/current games is to quasi-review my monthly OPM disc, since we don't have companies sending us demos and betas willy nilly. Yet. So, here ya go:
Demos -
Lifeline: The 'big' demo this month. It ended up getting mostly mediocre reviews, even from OPM, but it's cool that they put such a unique game on their disc (more about that in a second). In a nutshell, you're trapped on a space station overridden with monsters (or aliens, whatever, fuck semantics) with some broad named Rio. You're stuck in the control room, while she's running around taking orders from you. The cool thing (and the only thing that distinguishes this game from any other sci-fi survival horror game) is that you actually talk to Rio with a headset and tell her what to do. Well, cool in theory. Really cool in theory, in fact. If it actually worked well, this game would be a must-buy, just based on the innovation. Maybe I shouldn't have had as much faith as I did in SCEI, but I expected at least a Socom-level of voice recognition. Meaning, you could control everyone easily enough, but still be shot in the back by a teammate periodically. But for a game that relies fully on voice recognition, there's no excuse for this kinda of technological sloppiness. Barking orders in Socom is actually fun, because your troops listen to you. And one of them in Michael Clarke Duncan, for chrissakes. Barking orders at Rio feels like you're talking to someone who has the most tenuous of grasps on the English language, who only understands a handful of very specific words and phrases. Nevermind 5,000 words and 100,000 phrases. Granted, the demo only has a hanful of rooms. At least I assume so; I couldn't get out of the second one. Most of my time was spent telling her to "stop" when she misinterpreted one of my commands. This is a typical conversation between Rio and I:
Rio: "I need to find blah blah blah access card or some such horseshit."
Me: "Look on the table."
Rio: "Alright, I'll leave."
Me: "STOP."
Rio: (stops) "Ok."
Me: "TABLE."
Rio: "Ok I'll check the table."
Me: (thanks the gaming gods)
Rio now stand looking at the items on the table.
Me: "Look at papers."
Rio: "Ok I'll look on the bed."
Me: "STOP."
Rio: "Ok." (starts pacing)
Me: "TABLE."
Rio: "Ok I'll check the table."
Me: "Look at photos."
Rio "Ok I'll leave."
Me: "Goddamit, listen to me you stupid whore!"
Rio: (in a brief moment of pure understanding, no kidding) "The feelings are mutual, dude."
Me: "Go bake me a pie."
I wanted her to check the glowing blue pillar thingy, but I had no idea what to call it. Too bad they didn't set the game on EARTH, where I actually know the name of most objects. Fucking space station. Oh, and turns out the papers/photos were 'pamphlets'. So, as you can see, the voice recognition is a raging bitch, and makes the game borderline unplayable. I'm sure that with enough time and trial-and-error conversation I could figure her out well enough to solve a couple of puzzles, but I have other games to play.
Firefighter F.D. 18: Man, I'm so sick of the market being flooded with firefighting sims. It's ridiculous. It seems like for every non-firefighting game released there are at least three firefighting games released. At least. This one is surprising well-made though. I mean, it's no Flame Fantasy X-2, but it's decent. The intro cutscene is good-looking, with entertainingly laughable dialog. The bulk of the gameplay consists of spraying out fires of varying shapes and sizes so that you can rescue one of, apparently, three different people who keep getting themselves resurrounded by raging inferno's. Masochists. You get a couple different nozzle attachments to change your spray, an ax to smash through boxes, a couple of misc. healing items, and an infinitely long hose. The 'running through mud, not fire' gait of your firefighter is a bit frustrating sometimes, but rescuing people is oddly compelling (and no, not because of moral reasons, despite what the game would try and convince you of). And the scripted events are cool, although I'd probably get sick of them long before my 80th car exploded. One of the best firefighting games on the market.
Castlevania: Lament of Innocence: Once in a while OPM throws an older demo on the disc, such as this. I plan on eventually renting and playing through this game, even though the demo doesn't thrill me that much. It's better than most other non-castlevania action games out there, but a 3D Symphony of the Night it is not. I just don't feel as motivated to explore every corner of the castle and smash every candlestick as I did in SoTN. It's more about just getting to the next area to see new enemies and new architecture. Still, it's quality.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Jungle Storm: I didn't play it, because I refuse to play such Socom-similar games at least until I've actually finished the single-player game in Socom.
World Soccer Winning Eleven 7 International: Looks, great, plays great, it's just a little tough if you don't know soccer strategy for shit, like myself. And the camera is a little too zoomed-in by default, but I'm sure you can fix that in the real game.
Harry Potter's Quidditch World Cup: Yes, they (EA) made an entire game for Quidditch, the fantasy sport that Big H plays in the books/movies/merganser. It looks pretty good and plays simple enough. I didn't get to play a real game in the demo though, just some mini-game challenges. I don't know if this is my fault or if there isn't a real match included, but the demo quit after my challange and I wasn't about to start it back up. It's not THAT good.
Stuff besides demos -
Only two videos this month; La Pucelle: Tactics, from the Disgaea people, which I own but haven't even opened yet, and All-Star Baseball 2005, which I could maybe, possibly have less of an interest in. 'Replay' is a section where they (some douche who works at Sony, well, at least half of them are douches) basically show you a tip for a game through an actual video of them playing the game. I usually have some sick fascination with these, maybe because I just like seeing how other people play their games, but this month had nothing special. They have another nice 'Inside the Game' video of FFXI, which makes me consider buying it even more. Damn successful marketing. They also have a feature-length film on the Logitech USB Headset, starring Morgan Freeman, or something like that. And the making of the Quidditch game on the disc, which I figure I don't need to watch.
And last, but not least (most, in fact), a demo of a strictly Japanese game, Chain Dive. I mean, I guess it could make it over here eventually, but none of the games they've done this with so far have, so I doubt it. The game is actually really neat, and has the simplest, most fun gameplay of anything on the disc. The idea is a bit like the Shinobi remake, trying to string together monster kills to get points, but that's where the similarities to Shinobi, or any other game really, end. You traverse a broken industrial landscape (with graphics and side-scrolling somewhat reminiscent of Contra: Shattered Soldier), swinging from floating green dot to floating green dot with an energy chain of sorts. You can run along the ground too, but where's the fun in that? When you encounter an enemy, you can freeze them in a giant block of ice, then shatter them from swinging from them as if they were one of the green things. And you try to combo these shatters, which is hectic but always fun and intense, especially when there's a lot of guys on screen. I wish they had included the full game (as they've done in the past with some import games), but I'd definitely recommend it to anyone with a japanese or modded PS2.
Demos -
Lifeline: The 'big' demo this month. It ended up getting mostly mediocre reviews, even from OPM, but it's cool that they put such a unique game on their disc (more about that in a second). In a nutshell, you're trapped on a space station overridden with monsters (or aliens, whatever, fuck semantics) with some broad named Rio. You're stuck in the control room, while she's running around taking orders from you. The cool thing (and the only thing that distinguishes this game from any other sci-fi survival horror game) is that you actually talk to Rio with a headset and tell her what to do. Well, cool in theory. Really cool in theory, in fact. If it actually worked well, this game would be a must-buy, just based on the innovation. Maybe I shouldn't have had as much faith as I did in SCEI, but I expected at least a Socom-level of voice recognition. Meaning, you could control everyone easily enough, but still be shot in the back by a teammate periodically. But for a game that relies fully on voice recognition, there's no excuse for this kinda of technological sloppiness. Barking orders in Socom is actually fun, because your troops listen to you. And one of them in Michael Clarke Duncan, for chrissakes. Barking orders at Rio feels like you're talking to someone who has the most tenuous of grasps on the English language, who only understands a handful of very specific words and phrases. Nevermind 5,000 words and 100,000 phrases. Granted, the demo only has a hanful of rooms. At least I assume so; I couldn't get out of the second one. Most of my time was spent telling her to "stop" when she misinterpreted one of my commands. This is a typical conversation between Rio and I:
Rio: "I need to find blah blah blah access card or some such horseshit."
Me: "Look on the table."
Rio: "Alright, I'll leave."
Me: "STOP."
Rio: (stops) "Ok."
Me: "TABLE."
Rio: "Ok I'll check the table."
Me: (thanks the gaming gods)
Rio now stand looking at the items on the table.
Me: "Look at papers."
Rio: "Ok I'll look on the bed."
Me: "STOP."
Rio: "Ok." (starts pacing)
Me: "TABLE."
Rio: "Ok I'll check the table."
Me: "Look at photos."
Rio "Ok I'll leave."
Me: "Goddamit, listen to me you stupid whore!"
Rio: (in a brief moment of pure understanding, no kidding) "The feelings are mutual, dude."
Me: "Go bake me a pie."
I wanted her to check the glowing blue pillar thingy, but I had no idea what to call it. Too bad they didn't set the game on EARTH, where I actually know the name of most objects. Fucking space station. Oh, and turns out the papers/photos were 'pamphlets'. So, as you can see, the voice recognition is a raging bitch, and makes the game borderline unplayable. I'm sure that with enough time and trial-and-error conversation I could figure her out well enough to solve a couple of puzzles, but I have other games to play.
Firefighter F.D. 18: Man, I'm so sick of the market being flooded with firefighting sims. It's ridiculous. It seems like for every non-firefighting game released there are at least three firefighting games released. At least. This one is surprising well-made though. I mean, it's no Flame Fantasy X-2, but it's decent. The intro cutscene is good-looking, with entertainingly laughable dialog. The bulk of the gameplay consists of spraying out fires of varying shapes and sizes so that you can rescue one of, apparently, three different people who keep getting themselves resurrounded by raging inferno's. Masochists. You get a couple different nozzle attachments to change your spray, an ax to smash through boxes, a couple of misc. healing items, and an infinitely long hose. The 'running through mud, not fire' gait of your firefighter is a bit frustrating sometimes, but rescuing people is oddly compelling (and no, not because of moral reasons, despite what the game would try and convince you of). And the scripted events are cool, although I'd probably get sick of them long before my 80th car exploded. One of the best firefighting games on the market.
Castlevania: Lament of Innocence: Once in a while OPM throws an older demo on the disc, such as this. I plan on eventually renting and playing through this game, even though the demo doesn't thrill me that much. It's better than most other non-castlevania action games out there, but a 3D Symphony of the Night it is not. I just don't feel as motivated to explore every corner of the castle and smash every candlestick as I did in SoTN. It's more about just getting to the next area to see new enemies and new architecture. Still, it's quality.
Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Jungle Storm: I didn't play it, because I refuse to play such Socom-similar games at least until I've actually finished the single-player game in Socom.
World Soccer Winning Eleven 7 International: Looks, great, plays great, it's just a little tough if you don't know soccer strategy for shit, like myself. And the camera is a little too zoomed-in by default, but I'm sure you can fix that in the real game.
Harry Potter's Quidditch World Cup: Yes, they (EA) made an entire game for Quidditch, the fantasy sport that Big H plays in the books/movies/merganser. It looks pretty good and plays simple enough. I didn't get to play a real game in the demo though, just some mini-game challenges. I don't know if this is my fault or if there isn't a real match included, but the demo quit after my challange and I wasn't about to start it back up. It's not THAT good.
Stuff besides demos -
Only two videos this month; La Pucelle: Tactics, from the Disgaea people, which I own but haven't even opened yet, and All-Star Baseball 2005, which I could maybe, possibly have less of an interest in. 'Replay' is a section where they (some douche who works at Sony, well, at least half of them are douches) basically show you a tip for a game through an actual video of them playing the game. I usually have some sick fascination with these, maybe because I just like seeing how other people play their games, but this month had nothing special. They have another nice 'Inside the Game' video of FFXI, which makes me consider buying it even more. Damn successful marketing. They also have a feature-length film on the Logitech USB Headset, starring Morgan Freeman, or something like that. And the making of the Quidditch game on the disc, which I figure I don't need to watch.
And last, but not least (most, in fact), a demo of a strictly Japanese game, Chain Dive. I mean, I guess it could make it over here eventually, but none of the games they've done this with so far have, so I doubt it. The game is actually really neat, and has the simplest, most fun gameplay of anything on the disc. The idea is a bit like the Shinobi remake, trying to string together monster kills to get points, but that's where the similarities to Shinobi, or any other game really, end. You traverse a broken industrial landscape (with graphics and side-scrolling somewhat reminiscent of Contra: Shattered Soldier), swinging from floating green dot to floating green dot with an energy chain of sorts. You can run along the ground too, but where's the fun in that? When you encounter an enemy, you can freeze them in a giant block of ice, then shatter them from swinging from them as if they were one of the green things. And you try to combo these shatters, which is hectic but always fun and intense, especially when there's a lot of guys on screen. I wish they had included the full game (as they've done in the past with some import games), but I'd definitely recommend it to anyone with a japanese or modded PS2.
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Won't you take me to your... Secret Window?
This is a video game site and a video game site alone. This is not a site where we talk about politics, litter boxes or movies. We are game players and our roles, as handed down from The Giver of Roles, is to express our opinions and ideas about the industry that lies before us.
Because of these self-imposed restrictions, I am not able to tell you about Secret Window, the new movie starring Johnny Depp. I am not able to express whether it is worth seeing, even with a good or bad ending, because my opinions on movies are not why our readers come to this site. No, they want to know about games. One track mind our readers have, and I am not one to disappoint.
That is why the topic of this post is not the overall quality of Secret Window compared to other celluloid based medium products. No, the topic of this post is a breakdown of the yet unannounced game of the same name. Johnny Depp was even kind enough to stop by the developer’s studio for the day to lend his terrific voice acting to the game with his picture on the box. All together now, “Thank You Johnny.”
Be forewarned: because of the sometimes close correlation between the game and the movie, there may be parts of this post that spoil corresponding parts of the movie. Sorry, I'm halving the already slim pickings from our readers, but I feel it is worth it in the long run.
The game starts out with a cut scene. I know, movies in video games are bad, at best. But this one will be different. This scene will go back to a kinder, gentler period when a developer with certain time constraints or hardware limitations, were forced to use the in game engine to create a cut scene. This had its plusses and minuses.
First, the minuses of in game cut scenes using the actual game graphics: They don't look nearly as good as CG rendered art.
Now the plusses: by using the engine you are not restricted to only one movie. You could change the movie you are viewing based on what your character in the game is doing. For instance, if you're character is holding a knife during the game, they will hold a knife during the movie. If they have a crown of thrones (different movie, don't worry), you will don the painful cap in the movie. For the purposes of this game, I feel it is best to have the versatility rather than the beauty. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder anyway.
So, the beginning of the game starts with a cut scene. No title screen even. That pretty boy gets enough glamour shots as it is. Game loads from the memory card automatically. If no save is detected on said card, you will see the following cut scene:
Johnny Depp, the video game character not the person, is in a car. You hear his voice but see no movement in his mouthal region. He is thinking. He is deciding what to do. Subtlety, the control shifts to you. You have a decision to make.
You chose to get out of the car. Good choice or the game wouldn't go anywhere. You chose to enter the hotel behind you. As you enter the door the camera shifts to an overhead, classic Zelda perspective. Yes, the dreaded stealth mode makes an early appearance. There is a man sitting behind the desk. You can see a revolver sitting near his hand, but don't worry, he is asleep right now. His hat is actually pulled over his eyes. This couldn't be easier.
But this isn't an ordinary stealth mode. Nope. You have both a time limit, to speed things up, and a growing heart rate meter. Don't let that heart rate get too loud. If you can get to the other side of the desk, grab the keys, and sprint away before time runs out and without waking the guard, you win!
Now, sprint down the road outside. Don't worry about the guard. He's awake now but he won't catch you. Bust open the door and, Oh No! It's naked people in bed! Shooting time.
Game switches to a first person perspective so you can practice your shot. The naked girl on the left, she's your wife. You still love her, or at least want her to live. Hit her and you have to start over. The guy next to her is Ted. You want to kill him. You need to kill him. But, alas, there are certain laws that forbid that. But you do want to scare him. Like a Crazy Drift in Crazy Taxi, you have to shoot close enough to him to make the sheets turn brown, but far enough away not to shave off some dermis. Got it?
Phew... intense first scenes, no? This could be game of the year! Just remember who came up with it Acclaim.
Next, little caption at the bottom says "6 months later." Hey, if both Stephen King and David Koepp didn't have the decency to have a scene or two in between, I'm sure not going to invent something for them. The movie skips half a year, so does the game.
Another cutscene: Johnny Depp on the couch with a clock ticking in the background. Don't worry, this scene isn't for naught. If you look closely, maybe turn your head to the side a little, you can faintly make out the letters V-I-L-L-A-I-N-C-O-G-N-I-T-O on a book to the side of the clock. What's that? Could it be....? Nah. He wouldn't be in a video game, would he?
Thankfully, a loud rapping at the door stops the cut scene short. Better hope you have your 5.1 speaker setup for this. Remember to turn that bass way up. Oh no! It's a southerner! And he's ker-azay! Crazy and named Shooter. Did someone say run? Prince of Persia style would be perfect here. Run along the wall to the balcony, he's going to catch you! Good, now jump to the trapeze looking thing, careful, he's right below you now. Wow, nice one. That opened up the back door, but he's standing next to it with his manuscript. Don't let him give you his story! Dive off to the side when he attacks, then run out the door.
You made it out alive, but barely. The first page of the manuscript floated out to you. Don't read it! It can only be trouble! Oh no, it's just like one of your stories. How did that happen?
Now, it's time for some good old-fashioned dog fighting. Sure, Depp didn't fly a plane in the movie, but he could have. You don't know what he was dreaming. The trick here is to fly into the Borax Tower with enough power to shoot Queen Boobooka in the head. It won't be easy, she's sent her Royal Canadian Airforce after you. And, guess what, since I'm designing this game, I say there is a limitless amount of planes after you. Yup. You’re going to have to make your run into the tower with troops still attacking you. The trick is to just keep shooting. If you fly directly above the tower you can dive bomb the roof and make it in cleanly. Just watch out for the Guards of Veriski and you're all set.
Wake up from dream, resume normal sequence of events. The big black guy you call Ken just left your place, claiming everything is A-OK. But is it? He looks like a liar. Now it’s time for some Luigi's Mansion style snooping. Hey, if you didn't play the game you can't make fun. For those that did, you know it was cool for awhile. And this will only be one part of the game.
So get your vacuum and get ready to find Shooter. Remember to suck every curtain, he could be hiding anywhere. When you find him he'll run away screaming. That'll buy you some time to do other stuff.
Once you clear that objective, you're given another cutscene. Same couch. Same clock. Same book? Wake up and suddenly you're at your house. Er... you're old house. But you forgot to stop at the hardware store beforehand. Time for some MacGyver action. Look around the house for pieces you need to make a bomb. Champaign bottle? Check! Gasoline? Check! Really? You have two gallons of gasoline? Hang on... check! A dirty rag? Check! Dirtier than that! Um... check! Ok, now you need a flame. And not just a match either, you want to burn us both up, do you? Yes, a flame-thrower will do nicely. Now light that mother up.
Uh oh, now you've angered Ted. Insert cutscene showing Ted is a giant, cheating baby. Now it's time for some street fighting. Or, more accurately, Virtua Fighting! Weeeee! Ted can be Sarah... Roar... and our hero Depp will be the Drunken Master. Fight to the wounding!
Now here's a fun scene. There are two dead bodies in a car, and you didn't kill them. More important than that, you don't want to get in trouble. First things first, grab that screwdriver out of Sonny's head. Careful, don't want to spurt blood all over the car. Careful I say! Too much blood, start over.
The removal of the screwdriver will be handled in way vaguely reminiscent of, but in no way related to, the lock picking mechanism from Splinter Cell. The added element of time will come into play here, though. Go too slow, or fast, and risk getting your face all red.
Now we get some old fashioned Track and Field type gameplay. For those too young to remember the game (Dan....) just think Mario Party with 2-inch pixels racing. Slam on the A button to build up speed here, you need to push the car all the way over the cliff. No half assing this objective, you'll go to jail for sure. Use the analog stick to steer clear of any rocks or deer in the road. Use L and R to check your blind spots, you don't want anyone to see you push a car over a cliff with two dead bodies inside, do you?
The last part of the game is a one on one showdown between you and Shooter. Think Conker with humans here. Most people will run for the gun here, easiest way to kill a man, but Shooter is no ordinary man. Go for the sword or, better yet, that brick on the table. But just as you are about to finish him off...
New cutscene! Yay! This one is a longy so you better sit back.
Now, the real final fight. You vs Amy. Prince of Persia action again, except you have to lead her outside. Run along the walls and swing from the ceiling to chase her down, but don’t attack her. I repeat: Don't attack her. Not now, it’s too soon. Your goal is to make her scared. Make her run. Watch out for her legs! She can kick hard. Once you lead her outside it's just a matter of finishing her off.
But first!
Ted is back and he's got a broadsword. One on one fight, this time to the death. This mode takes place like Bushido Blade. So don't get cut, and aim your stabs at his cold, black heart.
The ESRB has ruled the actual ending is too violent, so Amy now turns into a giant alien plant creature. And the final battle is a turn-based battle like Grandia II. So, position yourself far so she can't swipe you with her leaflike tentacle, then stab her in the head with your shovel if she gets too close.
Phew, you won the game. Congrats. Now sit back and enjoy the movie. And always dip your corn in butter.
Because of these self-imposed restrictions, I am not able to tell you about Secret Window, the new movie starring Johnny Depp. I am not able to express whether it is worth seeing, even with a good or bad ending, because my opinions on movies are not why our readers come to this site. No, they want to know about games. One track mind our readers have, and I am not one to disappoint.
That is why the topic of this post is not the overall quality of Secret Window compared to other celluloid based medium products. No, the topic of this post is a breakdown of the yet unannounced game of the same name. Johnny Depp was even kind enough to stop by the developer’s studio for the day to lend his terrific voice acting to the game with his picture on the box. All together now, “Thank You Johnny.”
Be forewarned: because of the sometimes close correlation between the game and the movie, there may be parts of this post that spoil corresponding parts of the movie. Sorry, I'm halving the already slim pickings from our readers, but I feel it is worth it in the long run.
The game starts out with a cut scene. I know, movies in video games are bad, at best. But this one will be different. This scene will go back to a kinder, gentler period when a developer with certain time constraints or hardware limitations, were forced to use the in game engine to create a cut scene. This had its plusses and minuses.
First, the minuses of in game cut scenes using the actual game graphics: They don't look nearly as good as CG rendered art.
Now the plusses: by using the engine you are not restricted to only one movie. You could change the movie you are viewing based on what your character in the game is doing. For instance, if you're character is holding a knife during the game, they will hold a knife during the movie. If they have a crown of thrones (different movie, don't worry), you will don the painful cap in the movie. For the purposes of this game, I feel it is best to have the versatility rather than the beauty. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder anyway.
So, the beginning of the game starts with a cut scene. No title screen even. That pretty boy gets enough glamour shots as it is. Game loads from the memory card automatically. If no save is detected on said card, you will see the following cut scene:
Johnny Depp, the video game character not the person, is in a car. You hear his voice but see no movement in his mouthal region. He is thinking. He is deciding what to do. Subtlety, the control shifts to you. You have a decision to make.
You chose to get out of the car. Good choice or the game wouldn't go anywhere. You chose to enter the hotel behind you. As you enter the door the camera shifts to an overhead, classic Zelda perspective. Yes, the dreaded stealth mode makes an early appearance. There is a man sitting behind the desk. You can see a revolver sitting near his hand, but don't worry, he is asleep right now. His hat is actually pulled over his eyes. This couldn't be easier.
But this isn't an ordinary stealth mode. Nope. You have both a time limit, to speed things up, and a growing heart rate meter. Don't let that heart rate get too loud. If you can get to the other side of the desk, grab the keys, and sprint away before time runs out and without waking the guard, you win!
Now, sprint down the road outside. Don't worry about the guard. He's awake now but he won't catch you. Bust open the door and, Oh No! It's naked people in bed! Shooting time.
Game switches to a first person perspective so you can practice your shot. The naked girl on the left, she's your wife. You still love her, or at least want her to live. Hit her and you have to start over. The guy next to her is Ted. You want to kill him. You need to kill him. But, alas, there are certain laws that forbid that. But you do want to scare him. Like a Crazy Drift in Crazy Taxi, you have to shoot close enough to him to make the sheets turn brown, but far enough away not to shave off some dermis. Got it?
Phew... intense first scenes, no? This could be game of the year! Just remember who came up with it Acclaim.
Next, little caption at the bottom says "6 months later." Hey, if both Stephen King and David Koepp didn't have the decency to have a scene or two in between, I'm sure not going to invent something for them. The movie skips half a year, so does the game.
Another cutscene: Johnny Depp on the couch with a clock ticking in the background. Don't worry, this scene isn't for naught. If you look closely, maybe turn your head to the side a little, you can faintly make out the letters V-I-L-L-A-I-N-C-O-G-N-I-T-O on a book to the side of the clock. What's that? Could it be....? Nah. He wouldn't be in a video game, would he?
Thankfully, a loud rapping at the door stops the cut scene short. Better hope you have your 5.1 speaker setup for this. Remember to turn that bass way up. Oh no! It's a southerner! And he's ker-azay! Crazy and named Shooter. Did someone say run? Prince of Persia style would be perfect here. Run along the wall to the balcony, he's going to catch you! Good, now jump to the trapeze looking thing, careful, he's right below you now. Wow, nice one. That opened up the back door, but he's standing next to it with his manuscript. Don't let him give you his story! Dive off to the side when he attacks, then run out the door.
You made it out alive, but barely. The first page of the manuscript floated out to you. Don't read it! It can only be trouble! Oh no, it's just like one of your stories. How did that happen?
Now, it's time for some good old-fashioned dog fighting. Sure, Depp didn't fly a plane in the movie, but he could have. You don't know what he was dreaming. The trick here is to fly into the Borax Tower with enough power to shoot Queen Boobooka in the head. It won't be easy, she's sent her Royal Canadian Airforce after you. And, guess what, since I'm designing this game, I say there is a limitless amount of planes after you. Yup. You’re going to have to make your run into the tower with troops still attacking you. The trick is to just keep shooting. If you fly directly above the tower you can dive bomb the roof and make it in cleanly. Just watch out for the Guards of Veriski and you're all set.
Wake up from dream, resume normal sequence of events. The big black guy you call Ken just left your place, claiming everything is A-OK. But is it? He looks like a liar. Now it’s time for some Luigi's Mansion style snooping. Hey, if you didn't play the game you can't make fun. For those that did, you know it was cool for awhile. And this will only be one part of the game.
So get your vacuum and get ready to find Shooter. Remember to suck every curtain, he could be hiding anywhere. When you find him he'll run away screaming. That'll buy you some time to do other stuff.
Once you clear that objective, you're given another cutscene. Same couch. Same clock. Same book? Wake up and suddenly you're at your house. Er... you're old house. But you forgot to stop at the hardware store beforehand. Time for some MacGyver action. Look around the house for pieces you need to make a bomb. Champaign bottle? Check! Gasoline? Check! Really? You have two gallons of gasoline? Hang on... check! A dirty rag? Check! Dirtier than that! Um... check! Ok, now you need a flame. And not just a match either, you want to burn us both up, do you? Yes, a flame-thrower will do nicely. Now light that mother up.
Uh oh, now you've angered Ted. Insert cutscene showing Ted is a giant, cheating baby. Now it's time for some street fighting. Or, more accurately, Virtua Fighting! Weeeee! Ted can be Sarah... Roar... and our hero Depp will be the Drunken Master. Fight to the wounding!
Now here's a fun scene. There are two dead bodies in a car, and you didn't kill them. More important than that, you don't want to get in trouble. First things first, grab that screwdriver out of Sonny's head. Careful, don't want to spurt blood all over the car. Careful I say! Too much blood, start over.
The removal of the screwdriver will be handled in way vaguely reminiscent of, but in no way related to, the lock picking mechanism from Splinter Cell. The added element of time will come into play here, though. Go too slow, or fast, and risk getting your face all red.
Now we get some old fashioned Track and Field type gameplay. For those too young to remember the game (Dan....) just think Mario Party with 2-inch pixels racing. Slam on the A button to build up speed here, you need to push the car all the way over the cliff. No half assing this objective, you'll go to jail for sure. Use the analog stick to steer clear of any rocks or deer in the road. Use L and R to check your blind spots, you don't want anyone to see you push a car over a cliff with two dead bodies inside, do you?
The last part of the game is a one on one showdown between you and Shooter. Think Conker with humans here. Most people will run for the gun here, easiest way to kill a man, but Shooter is no ordinary man. Go for the sword or, better yet, that brick on the table. But just as you are about to finish him off...
New cutscene! Yay! This one is a longy so you better sit back.
Now, the real final fight. You vs Amy. Prince of Persia action again, except you have to lead her outside. Run along the walls and swing from the ceiling to chase her down, but don’t attack her. I repeat: Don't attack her. Not now, it’s too soon. Your goal is to make her scared. Make her run. Watch out for her legs! She can kick hard. Once you lead her outside it's just a matter of finishing her off.
But first!
Ted is back and he's got a broadsword. One on one fight, this time to the death. This mode takes place like Bushido Blade. So don't get cut, and aim your stabs at his cold, black heart.
The ESRB has ruled the actual ending is too violent, so Amy now turns into a giant alien plant creature. And the final battle is a turn-based battle like Grandia II. So, position yourself far so she can't swipe you with her leaflike tentacle, then stab her in the head with your shovel if she gets too close.
Phew, you won the game. Congrats. Now sit back and enjoy the movie. And always dip your corn in butter.
This is me writing
The concept and goal of realism in videogames is fascinating to me. As technology improves at a pace we can hardly stop to appreciate, the desire to create reality, or the illusion of it, seems to have become a central goal of businesses and artists alike in many mediums. From the thousands of CG characters in the Lord of The Rings films to the movement of a player's clothes in NBA Live 2004, creating the depiction and illusion of reality in any sort of digital entertainment has become a central focus. In terms of how this is represented in videogames, it obviously varies drastically from game to game. A sports title will try to depict human muscle movement as accurately as possible, while the developers making a racing game will make sure that the weight and inner workings of a car is taken into consideration when making a turn; it's this difference in application that interests me, as does the philosophy behind such design decisions.
I have heard several people in my life, including Tom, say that they don't like simulation or realism in games. After all, what's the point of playing a fantasy game, if not to explore avenues and ideas not available in our physical and moral reality? Why play a racing simulation when you can roll around a giant maze in a plastic ball, as a monkey no less? For someone who has never touched a controller, the choice seems easy. But anyone who has played Need For Speed Underground will tell you that the feeling of speed and exhilaration is absolutely thrilling. I'm not saying which is better (I'll still take the monkeys any day of the week), but they both have their appeal, and for very different reasons.
I read a fairly good interview in the latest issue of OPM with Martin Edmonson, head of Reflections Interactive (Shadow of the Beast, Stuntman, the Destruction Derby and Driver series'). The part that intrigued me the most, and prompted this post, was his answer to the question "What inspires you as a developer?". His answer: "The pursuit of realism. Realistic visuals, physics. Anything that enables us to create games that are closer and closer to something that could be confused with live-action footage. We are not there yet - some way off it, in fact - and this is why we get excited by new hardware. It opens up new possibilities in that pursuit of ultimate realism." Now, this is coming from a guy currently wrapping up Driv3r, the third game in a driving series that has historically been one of the best at accurately simulating car physics, including damage modeling and everything else that goes along with it. And those kinds of things can always be improved (which he later goes into), almost infinitely.
What motivates me to play this game though? I could go outside right now and drive my car if I so desired. Well, I can only drive it so fast. And I really should stick to the streets, and avoid others cars. In a game, I can do whatever I want. I can burn by the police at 90 m.p.h., only to end up in a high-speed fruit market chase. And if it's a well-made game, I'll still feel like these are things I would be able to do in the game world. Game likes Burnout encourage smashing into other cars, and the damage that results, thanks to the physics, is supremely satisfying. But it extends beyond racing games. In a tennis game, I want to be able to dive for the ball at any degree of intensity. I want to be able to swing my racket at every possible increment of speed, and see the results of such decisions play out like they would in reality. In a spy game, I want to be able to scale any surface I could in real life, using real spy gear. I want to be able to shoot someone with a tranquilizer dart as I hang upside-down from a pipe, and watch their body convincingly slump to the ground. In a shooting game, I want every object in the world to react to my bullets as they would in reality. I want to be able to shoot someone in the arm, and watch them clutch it with a shaking hand as the blood spurts from every exposed artery. Some of the implications might sounds grotesque, but once again, I can't, and would never, do these things in real life. And these are the things that infest our everyday fantasies, even if we choose not to discuss them. I can't play tennis. I've never even tried. But I want to be able to pick up a controller and be a pro. I want every game world to be structured in such a way that I can do what I want (or what the developers give me to do), however I want. I want ultimate choice, based on rules that the game world has given me. I play a spy game because I want to feel like a spy. So why not do it as realistically as possible? This 'realism' doesn't mean people can't be creative in games though, as it should apply to the game world and it's rule set too, not just ours. If a developer wants my giant rabbit character to jump really high, fine. But make it so that I can land on top of the building I'm standing next to. Make it so that when I land the ground shakes a little. If you're going to develop a new engine with it's own laws of gravity, extend it to every facet in the game.
Fantasy is indeed important in a game. But a fantasy that I can relate to and understand? That would truly impress me. And that's why this 'realism' idea fascinates me so much. It's not so much about the pursuit of one specific imitation or realization, it's about the fleshing out of an entire idea, an entire universe. Whether you're making a car turn as it would in real life, or a dragon singe the grass around a hero's feet when it breathes fire, you're trying to make your game as realistic as possible. One of the reasons many of our dreams are so vivid and lifelike is because they take place in worlds that we understand fully in the context of the dreams, even if they're crazy, alternate universes that seem ridiculous when we wake up. And that's what I want to see in games, and what I think many developers strive for - the expression of ideas and new worlds in such a comprehensive way that I don't question the small imperfections, I don't question my place in the world. It's kind of a crazy thing to think about, but as technology evolves and molds itself around our lives, I think we'll see more and more immersiveness because of this 'realism' that many people strive for in their art and entertainment.
I dunno, maybe I'm crazy. But it seemed like a good thing to write about after four hours of sleep at seven in the morning.
I have heard several people in my life, including Tom, say that they don't like simulation or realism in games. After all, what's the point of playing a fantasy game, if not to explore avenues and ideas not available in our physical and moral reality? Why play a racing simulation when you can roll around a giant maze in a plastic ball, as a monkey no less? For someone who has never touched a controller, the choice seems easy. But anyone who has played Need For Speed Underground will tell you that the feeling of speed and exhilaration is absolutely thrilling. I'm not saying which is better (I'll still take the monkeys any day of the week), but they both have their appeal, and for very different reasons.
I read a fairly good interview in the latest issue of OPM with Martin Edmonson, head of Reflections Interactive (Shadow of the Beast, Stuntman, the Destruction Derby and Driver series'). The part that intrigued me the most, and prompted this post, was his answer to the question "What inspires you as a developer?". His answer: "The pursuit of realism. Realistic visuals, physics. Anything that enables us to create games that are closer and closer to something that could be confused with live-action footage. We are not there yet - some way off it, in fact - and this is why we get excited by new hardware. It opens up new possibilities in that pursuit of ultimate realism." Now, this is coming from a guy currently wrapping up Driv3r, the third game in a driving series that has historically been one of the best at accurately simulating car physics, including damage modeling and everything else that goes along with it. And those kinds of things can always be improved (which he later goes into), almost infinitely.
What motivates me to play this game though? I could go outside right now and drive my car if I so desired. Well, I can only drive it so fast. And I really should stick to the streets, and avoid others cars. In a game, I can do whatever I want. I can burn by the police at 90 m.p.h., only to end up in a high-speed fruit market chase. And if it's a well-made game, I'll still feel like these are things I would be able to do in the game world. Game likes Burnout encourage smashing into other cars, and the damage that results, thanks to the physics, is supremely satisfying. But it extends beyond racing games. In a tennis game, I want to be able to dive for the ball at any degree of intensity. I want to be able to swing my racket at every possible increment of speed, and see the results of such decisions play out like they would in reality. In a spy game, I want to be able to scale any surface I could in real life, using real spy gear. I want to be able to shoot someone with a tranquilizer dart as I hang upside-down from a pipe, and watch their body convincingly slump to the ground. In a shooting game, I want every object in the world to react to my bullets as they would in reality. I want to be able to shoot someone in the arm, and watch them clutch it with a shaking hand as the blood spurts from every exposed artery. Some of the implications might sounds grotesque, but once again, I can't, and would never, do these things in real life. And these are the things that infest our everyday fantasies, even if we choose not to discuss them. I can't play tennis. I've never even tried. But I want to be able to pick up a controller and be a pro. I want every game world to be structured in such a way that I can do what I want (or what the developers give me to do), however I want. I want ultimate choice, based on rules that the game world has given me. I play a spy game because I want to feel like a spy. So why not do it as realistically as possible? This 'realism' doesn't mean people can't be creative in games though, as it should apply to the game world and it's rule set too, not just ours. If a developer wants my giant rabbit character to jump really high, fine. But make it so that I can land on top of the building I'm standing next to. Make it so that when I land the ground shakes a little. If you're going to develop a new engine with it's own laws of gravity, extend it to every facet in the game.
Fantasy is indeed important in a game. But a fantasy that I can relate to and understand? That would truly impress me. And that's why this 'realism' idea fascinates me so much. It's not so much about the pursuit of one specific imitation or realization, it's about the fleshing out of an entire idea, an entire universe. Whether you're making a car turn as it would in real life, or a dragon singe the grass around a hero's feet when it breathes fire, you're trying to make your game as realistic as possible. One of the reasons many of our dreams are so vivid and lifelike is because they take place in worlds that we understand fully in the context of the dreams, even if they're crazy, alternate universes that seem ridiculous when we wake up. And that's what I want to see in games, and what I think many developers strive for - the expression of ideas and new worlds in such a comprehensive way that I don't question the small imperfections, I don't question my place in the world. It's kind of a crazy thing to think about, but as technology evolves and molds itself around our lives, I think we'll see more and more immersiveness because of this 'realism' that many people strive for in their art and entertainment.
I dunno, maybe I'm crazy. But it seemed like a good thing to write about after four hours of sleep at seven in the morning.
Monday, March 15, 2004
More responses
First, the "Name recognition" post. As Dan said, it was probably the most logical and relevant thing that's been written on this site so far. Props, Tom. I do disagree on a couple of things though. I don't think that saying Sony and Microsoft don't have any creative talent is true at all. In terms of developing games, it's arguable, but I don't think we've seen enough internally-developed games from either of them to judge that. Their talents are in marketing, their R&D, the selling of their systems and peripherals and such, and in working with developers and publishers on their games, which is as important as a great game for a company. Also, I don't think that the FF games were mainstream before FFVII, because gaming wasn't mainstream yet, so they couldn't have been, unless you're talking about Japan. As far the N64 being more powerful than the PS (and thus providing fodder for your "power doesn't matter" argument), it was indeed more powerful on paper, but didn't always look or sound that way because of the cartridge format. Many of the games looked cloudy and messy, and the sound was always compressed; many games couldn't have cd-quality music as a result. So graphically and audially it was only sometimes better than the PS. They both had their pros and cons, technologically, but ended up on a very similar level most of the time. I also disagree that most PS games were crap, but that's sheer opinion. I do know that you only owned a couple of games for it though, so I dunno how accurately you can say 'most'. Regardless, good article.
As for the 'what sells a game?' and 'what makes a successful launch' topics, those get a bit more complicated. I'm a bit confused by your statement "it makes the most sense to release a system with only 2 or 3 finished, great games then wait a year and have 10 great games right away, but be behind 10 million in system sales", but I think it's definitely better for a system to launch with as many games as possible because it's been shown that people buy an average of five games at launch (not that us po' folk can afford that, but apparently most people can). Once again, I'm speaking just from a business standpoint, not my personal preference. Seeing as I could only afford to buy two max, I'd much prefer those two be top quality. I also strongly disagree that most launch games will be multiplatform. I would actually be shocked if any were, besides sports games. Developers are usually working up to the last minute on launch games, and generally still don't get all the time they'd like to finish them (especially with the coming to terms with new technology aspect). So the chances that they'd have enough time to finish a game completely to their liking and still be able to port it is very slim.
While the debate rages as to how important exclusive games are down the line (nevermind who currently has the best), I will say that they are important for a launch, especially a simultaneous system one. If PS3 ends up having GTA4 (or 6, depending on how you count) for a launch title, I have no doubt it will outsell any other co-launchers on a 2-1 ratio. Besides that, I don't think any one game will help sell a system more than the others, because I figure they'd all launch with the same amount of exclusive, desireable games, as usually happens. They're still important to have though, just to keep pace with the competition. Even if the playing field is level software-wise though, I'm sure PS3 will still be first, X-Box second, and Nintendo third, based on current installed user bases and popularity and such. I don't think much is going to change in the next year or two. And while Nintendo could certainly make a stong attempt at avoiding third place by releasing a new Mario or Zelda title at launch, it's anyone's guess as to whether they actually will. Another Luigi's Mansion isn't gonna do it. And I don't know why you're saying you don't think Sony can succeed without a strong in-house development team. They've never had much of one at all, never mind a strong one, and they have an absolutely massive installed user base. It's all about brand recognition, marketing, and price. I don't see why you think this will all suddenly change when it's been that way for nine years. And why would GTA suddenly be multiplatform, and at the same time? Rockstar hasn't developed or published anything on the Gamecube besides Smuggler's Run 2, and San Andreas is launching on PS2, as usual. I just don't see why these things will all change. You say there's always the chance they could lose the rights, but that rarely happens outside of buyouts even though it's a constant possibility. I'd even argue that there aren't that many more exclusive titles today than there were a couple of years ago. I mean, there are more amount-wise, simply because more games than ever are being released overall, but I don't think there are that many more, ratio-wise. And although the next-gen systems all share processor and graphics chip companies, they'll still be very different beasts to develop for.
So as far as what makes a system successful? Well, it's a trickier market to predict than most industries, because who knows what will catch on next, but there are a couple of things that have been important for a while now, and will probably stay that way at least until a new console company comes along. Graphics, name recognition, marketing, and price point are all major. It's unfortunate that gameplay has taken a backseat to these things in some cases, but I have faith that hardcore gamers will always have more than enough great, original games to play. While the runaway success of the Playstation, even right from the start, is hard to pindown (as Tom discussed), I think price has a lot to do with it. I mean, with so many titles constantly being released prices almost always drop after a few months at most, and since the cd and now dvd formats are so cheap to produce, they can still make money selling a game for a fraction of it's initial release cost. It sucks that publishers have to drop their prices to constantly compete with newer games, but it's a nice bonus for consumers. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Nintendo rarely lowers their game prices (Mario Party 3 through 5 all still sell for $50 at many larger retailers). I know that if I could have paid $20 for Wind Waker I would have bought it without a second thought, or SSB:Melee a lot sooner than I did. I saw some footage from the recent D.I.C.E. conference today, where I saw Nintendo state that one of the reasons they're not online is because "charging consumers to play online isn't something the company feels comfortable with right now." But it's ok to ask them to buy a GBA to get the most out of their games or sell two year-old games for their original price? Anyhow, these kinds of decisions force consumers to spend their money elsewhere. Apparently on PS2. It's a shame though, because I'd love to be able to afford all of Nintendo's first party games. They're great.
As I said, graphics are important, but I find it's kind of tricky how that works. A game with great graphics won't necessarily sell any better than a game with marginally worse graphics, but a game with bad graphics is almost surely doomed from release these days. Technology today seems more about keeping up rather than trying to be the best. I guess that's probably caused by the relative unpredictability of the market - companies don't want to risk failed innovation. That's why I give props to Nintendo for having the balls to pimp the DS, even if it is a potential crapbomb (sales-wise, not quality-wise).
Anyhow, I've had enough of this for tonight. I'd like to start on some new topics, but I have the feeling I haven't heard the last word on this from my red-headed cohort. We'll see.
As for the 'what sells a game?' and 'what makes a successful launch' topics, those get a bit more complicated. I'm a bit confused by your statement "it makes the most sense to release a system with only 2 or 3 finished, great games then wait a year and have 10 great games right away, but be behind 10 million in system sales", but I think it's definitely better for a system to launch with as many games as possible because it's been shown that people buy an average of five games at launch (not that us po' folk can afford that, but apparently most people can). Once again, I'm speaking just from a business standpoint, not my personal preference. Seeing as I could only afford to buy two max, I'd much prefer those two be top quality. I also strongly disagree that most launch games will be multiplatform. I would actually be shocked if any were, besides sports games. Developers are usually working up to the last minute on launch games, and generally still don't get all the time they'd like to finish them (especially with the coming to terms with new technology aspect). So the chances that they'd have enough time to finish a game completely to their liking and still be able to port it is very slim.
While the debate rages as to how important exclusive games are down the line (nevermind who currently has the best), I will say that they are important for a launch, especially a simultaneous system one. If PS3 ends up having GTA4 (or 6, depending on how you count) for a launch title, I have no doubt it will outsell any other co-launchers on a 2-1 ratio. Besides that, I don't think any one game will help sell a system more than the others, because I figure they'd all launch with the same amount of exclusive, desireable games, as usually happens. They're still important to have though, just to keep pace with the competition. Even if the playing field is level software-wise though, I'm sure PS3 will still be first, X-Box second, and Nintendo third, based on current installed user bases and popularity and such. I don't think much is going to change in the next year or two. And while Nintendo could certainly make a stong attempt at avoiding third place by releasing a new Mario or Zelda title at launch, it's anyone's guess as to whether they actually will. Another Luigi's Mansion isn't gonna do it. And I don't know why you're saying you don't think Sony can succeed without a strong in-house development team. They've never had much of one at all, never mind a strong one, and they have an absolutely massive installed user base. It's all about brand recognition, marketing, and price. I don't see why you think this will all suddenly change when it's been that way for nine years. And why would GTA suddenly be multiplatform, and at the same time? Rockstar hasn't developed or published anything on the Gamecube besides Smuggler's Run 2, and San Andreas is launching on PS2, as usual. I just don't see why these things will all change. You say there's always the chance they could lose the rights, but that rarely happens outside of buyouts even though it's a constant possibility. I'd even argue that there aren't that many more exclusive titles today than there were a couple of years ago. I mean, there are more amount-wise, simply because more games than ever are being released overall, but I don't think there are that many more, ratio-wise. And although the next-gen systems all share processor and graphics chip companies, they'll still be very different beasts to develop for.
So as far as what makes a system successful? Well, it's a trickier market to predict than most industries, because who knows what will catch on next, but there are a couple of things that have been important for a while now, and will probably stay that way at least until a new console company comes along. Graphics, name recognition, marketing, and price point are all major. It's unfortunate that gameplay has taken a backseat to these things in some cases, but I have faith that hardcore gamers will always have more than enough great, original games to play. While the runaway success of the Playstation, even right from the start, is hard to pindown (as Tom discussed), I think price has a lot to do with it. I mean, with so many titles constantly being released prices almost always drop after a few months at most, and since the cd and now dvd formats are so cheap to produce, they can still make money selling a game for a fraction of it's initial release cost. It sucks that publishers have to drop their prices to constantly compete with newer games, but it's a nice bonus for consumers. At the opposite end of the spectrum, Nintendo rarely lowers their game prices (Mario Party 3 through 5 all still sell for $50 at many larger retailers). I know that if I could have paid $20 for Wind Waker I would have bought it without a second thought, or SSB:Melee a lot sooner than I did. I saw some footage from the recent D.I.C.E. conference today, where I saw Nintendo state that one of the reasons they're not online is because "charging consumers to play online isn't something the company feels comfortable with right now." But it's ok to ask them to buy a GBA to get the most out of their games or sell two year-old games for their original price? Anyhow, these kinds of decisions force consumers to spend their money elsewhere. Apparently on PS2. It's a shame though, because I'd love to be able to afford all of Nintendo's first party games. They're great.
As I said, graphics are important, but I find it's kind of tricky how that works. A game with great graphics won't necessarily sell any better than a game with marginally worse graphics, but a game with bad graphics is almost surely doomed from release these days. Technology today seems more about keeping up rather than trying to be the best. I guess that's probably caused by the relative unpredictability of the market - companies don't want to risk failed innovation. That's why I give props to Nintendo for having the balls to pimp the DS, even if it is a potential crapbomb (sales-wise, not quality-wise).
Anyhow, I've had enough of this for tonight. I'd like to start on some new topics, but I have the feeling I haven't heard the last word on this from my red-headed cohort. We'll see.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
Responding to some comments
Clearly, this latest debate has sparked some passion so, instead of responding to the individual comments at the bottom of each post, I'll just reply here.
I really do not think that any of the three systems will launch a year later than the competition this time around. As history has shown, the first system out of the gate usually wins. The only exceptions are the Saturn and Dreamcast. The Saturn came out a mere 4 months before the PlayStation so the early release date did not really matter too much. Also, they pretty much lost the race before it even started by designing a 2D system in the 3D era. The Dreamcast always seemed like a tweener system. More powerful than the N64, but not powerful enough to compete with the PS2 generation. If you include this in the current generation, then it is the only exception to the "release a year early and win" theory.
At this point, before any new system has even been named let alone shown, all we have is speculation. I think that if Sony says they will come out Fall '06, then Nintendo and Microsoft will try their hardest to arrive that holiday season as well.
You can argue that point if you like, but it makes the most sense to release a system with only 2 or 3 finished, great games then wait a year and have 10 great games right away, but be behind 10 million in system sales.
As more and more games go multiplatform, it seems likely that most of the games available at launch will be on more than one system. If it comes out in the fall, EA will probably launch a Madden game, for all systems. You can probably expect a new SSX as well. And a new Tony Hawk, those things come out every year. The majority of launch titles are usually not Metal Gear Solid caliber. It is probably pretty safe to assume that the majority of launch titles for all three systems will be easily ported 3rd party offerings. That is just the way things work for a system's launch. There is usually not enough time to learn new hardware and develop a new, original game that takes advantage of it.
Obviously, every company will need a few games to make their system stand out. This is Nintendo's biggest strength. They are in the best position to offer great, exclusive content for their system at launch. As a first party devloper, they have intimate knowledge of their own system. Since MS and Sony rely on 3rd party support for the most part, it will be very difficult to get a great, original game available at launch. Without a strong relationship or a deal to keep a game exclusive, they might only have one or two titles available exclusively for their system.
And, if all three systems launch within a few months, which seems like the most logical thing, they will be no leader to support. Therefore, there is little reason to make a game exclusive to the new PlayStation when the other two have just as good of a chance to win the war.
My point is, in an industry fueled by money, you will see more and more titles follow the Red Dead Revolver and Pandora Tomorrow school of thought. That is, with a little more work a third party developer can make more money by releasing their game on two or three systems. Without a strong in house team, it is possible that Sony will not have the exclusive content needed to build a strong user base.
I did not mean to imply Sony is doomed. Clearly, they are not. They could have two straight Saturn type failures in a row and still have a new system ready for the next next next generation. I just think Sony needs to shore up some real exclusive content, most likely in the form of stronger 1st and 2nd party support, to continue their success.
About Grand Theft Auto being an exclusive or not. Clearly, having a year, or more, cushion between a PS2 and Xbox release is very significant. My point was not that Vice City sales were split between the Xbox and PS2. Obviously, most video game players just bought Vice City for their PS2. No reason not to since it's the greatest game this generation and all. My point was that the series is not exclusive. My point was that, since Sony already lost out on having the sole rights to the lucrative GTA franchise, there is a chance in the future that new GTAs might be on all 3 systems at the same time. There is a chance that GTA will appear exclusively on the Xbox 2, and never make it's way to the PS3 or Gamecube 2.
Unlike Gran Turismo, Sony does not actually own the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Since their biggest game is made by a third party, there is a chance they will lose exclusive rights in the future. Just look what happened to Resident Evil. Who would have guessed in 1997 that two consecutive Resident Evil titles would appear exclusively on a Nintendo system. This industry does some weird things. If you aren't making your own games, anything can happen.
One last note, regarding my "Japan has the worst taste in gaming" line. Clearly, I love the Japanese. Nintendo and Capcom etc. live there. But... come on! Dating Sims! Majong! Horse Racing titles! Bah!
And they ignore the great titles atop our sales chart like... Enter the Matrix. The nerve.
I really do not think that any of the three systems will launch a year later than the competition this time around. As history has shown, the first system out of the gate usually wins. The only exceptions are the Saturn and Dreamcast. The Saturn came out a mere 4 months before the PlayStation so the early release date did not really matter too much. Also, they pretty much lost the race before it even started by designing a 2D system in the 3D era. The Dreamcast always seemed like a tweener system. More powerful than the N64, but not powerful enough to compete with the PS2 generation. If you include this in the current generation, then it is the only exception to the "release a year early and win" theory.
At this point, before any new system has even been named let alone shown, all we have is speculation. I think that if Sony says they will come out Fall '06, then Nintendo and Microsoft will try their hardest to arrive that holiday season as well.
You can argue that point if you like, but it makes the most sense to release a system with only 2 or 3 finished, great games then wait a year and have 10 great games right away, but be behind 10 million in system sales.
As more and more games go multiplatform, it seems likely that most of the games available at launch will be on more than one system. If it comes out in the fall, EA will probably launch a Madden game, for all systems. You can probably expect a new SSX as well. And a new Tony Hawk, those things come out every year. The majority of launch titles are usually not Metal Gear Solid caliber. It is probably pretty safe to assume that the majority of launch titles for all three systems will be easily ported 3rd party offerings. That is just the way things work for a system's launch. There is usually not enough time to learn new hardware and develop a new, original game that takes advantage of it.
Obviously, every company will need a few games to make their system stand out. This is Nintendo's biggest strength. They are in the best position to offer great, exclusive content for their system at launch. As a first party devloper, they have intimate knowledge of their own system. Since MS and Sony rely on 3rd party support for the most part, it will be very difficult to get a great, original game available at launch. Without a strong relationship or a deal to keep a game exclusive, they might only have one or two titles available exclusively for their system.
And, if all three systems launch within a few months, which seems like the most logical thing, they will be no leader to support. Therefore, there is little reason to make a game exclusive to the new PlayStation when the other two have just as good of a chance to win the war.
My point is, in an industry fueled by money, you will see more and more titles follow the Red Dead Revolver and Pandora Tomorrow school of thought. That is, with a little more work a third party developer can make more money by releasing their game on two or three systems. Without a strong in house team, it is possible that Sony will not have the exclusive content needed to build a strong user base.
I did not mean to imply Sony is doomed. Clearly, they are not. They could have two straight Saturn type failures in a row and still have a new system ready for the next next next generation. I just think Sony needs to shore up some real exclusive content, most likely in the form of stronger 1st and 2nd party support, to continue their success.
About Grand Theft Auto being an exclusive or not. Clearly, having a year, or more, cushion between a PS2 and Xbox release is very significant. My point was not that Vice City sales were split between the Xbox and PS2. Obviously, most video game players just bought Vice City for their PS2. No reason not to since it's the greatest game this generation and all. My point was that the series is not exclusive. My point was that, since Sony already lost out on having the sole rights to the lucrative GTA franchise, there is a chance in the future that new GTAs might be on all 3 systems at the same time. There is a chance that GTA will appear exclusively on the Xbox 2, and never make it's way to the PS3 or Gamecube 2.
Unlike Gran Turismo, Sony does not actually own the Grand Theft Auto franchise. Since their biggest game is made by a third party, there is a chance they will lose exclusive rights in the future. Just look what happened to Resident Evil. Who would have guessed in 1997 that two consecutive Resident Evil titles would appear exclusively on a Nintendo system. This industry does some weird things. If you aren't making your own games, anything can happen.
One last note, regarding my "Japan has the worst taste in gaming" line. Clearly, I love the Japanese. Nintendo and Capcom etc. live there. But... come on! Dating Sims! Majong! Horse Racing titles! Bah!
And they ignore the great titles atop our sales chart like... Enter the Matrix. The nerve.
Name recognition
I'm not going to get in a fight about Sony. I don't like them, or Microsoft, because they aren't video game companies. I do buy their systems. I buy their games. I enjoy them. But any company that can survive in an industry without any creative talent scares me. If Nintendo ever drops out of the hardware business, we would be stuck with two companies who try to control the industry with their money rather than their talent.
But that all seems pretty obvious. No point arguing that.
What I do want to talk about is what makes a system succeed. You would think, after playing video games obsessively since I was 4 years old, I'd have some grasp of what makes this industry run, but when it comes down to it I'm really not sure. I do know that I wouldn't let my 4 year old waste his life playing B17 Bomber, though.
Back in the day, technology was hardly a factor. The NES trounced the Master System even though it was light years behind it in the graphics department. Nintendo did have just about every huge franchise, though. And it looked so cool with its sleek grey paneling and futuristic trap door loading mechanism.
Then along came the Genesis. In 1989 Sega introduced a spanking new system and a bad ass mascot to move it off the shelf. And, while Nintendo made a huge push forward when they finally released the SNES, remember that, depending on the sales figures you trust, Sega actually outsold Nintendo in the 16-bit generation before they got all crappy add-on happy.
Power? Apparently, people still didn't care in the early 90s. SNES had Mode 7 - that cool, scalable graphics effect in Super Mario World and the pseudo 3D world in Super Mario Kart. SNES had a much larger color palette, 32,768 colors to only about 512. And the Super Nintendo had the far superior controller. 3 buttons? What was Sega thinking?
But Sega was "cool". Sega had the "Genesis does... you can't do that on Nintendo" song. Sega had a sleek black system. And, probably the most important thing of all, Sega had John Madden Football. Of course, the SNES had it too, but it was never quite as good as the Genesis versions. So, when all was said and done, the two systems ended up in a virtua tie.
In 1995, a new company entered the war and everything seemed to fall right in their lap. Nintendo opted for carts and essentially dug their own grave. The move made Square, suddenly more worried about making movies than games, jump to the CD technology Sony was pushing, and single handedly won the war in Japan. Sorry Nick, Final Fantasy was already a main stream success before FF7 came out. Japan may have the worst taste in gaming in the world, but they know a good thing when they see it. Sega one upped Nintendo by shooting themselves in the foot: trying to beat Sony to the market, they launched the Saturn 4 months early, surprising consumers and retailers alike. And, they forgot to add a 3D processor. Oops. Sony, who didn't commit any major errors, was almost handed the crown.
Power was once again a non factor, do you sense a trend here, as the much more powerful N64 fell behind the underpowered PSX from the get go.
For all the great games released on the N64, the only reason it was able to stay relevant came down to the 4 controller ports in the front. As good as Ocarina and Mario 64 were, it was the 4 player chaos of games like Mario Kart and Goldeneye that kept the system on the cool radar.
What is still hard to understand is how Sony won exactly. Was it just because it used CDs? Yes, it had more games, but that was hardly a factor last generation when the SNES and Genesis were neck and neck. Was it just because it was considered cooler? Was it just because of marketing? Was it because games like Mario made the N64 seem like a kiddy machine whereas games like Resident Evil made the PlayStation seem more adult?
To me, it's the only real reason why it could have won. Yes, the PlayStation had more games, but anyone can admit that most of the games were crap. When all is said and done, both systems probably had the same number of quality games released every year. But the quality on the PlayStation was rated T and M and tried to hook the older crowd in.
This generation follows a similar trend. PS2 comes out a year before the GC and Xbox. It's underpowered but still looks good. Like the PSX, it's lacking in any real hardware innovation. MS brought a hard drive and built in broadband support this generation and Sony brought... firewire? Anyway, it still has more games, but most of the great ones go multiplatform anyway. But, it's cool. It has the marketing. And, it has the name recognition. Look, you can even play your old PSX games on it. What it lacked in multiplayer goodness and graphics, it made up for with Grand Theft Auto.
The only other factor that has pretty much lead to all the overall winners each generation is when the system is released. NES came out before the Master System. Genesis before the SNES. PSX before the N64. And, of course, PS2 before the GC/Xbox.
If everything comes down to name recognition, though, wouldn't that mean Nintendo would still be running things? And if it came down to cool, wouldn't Sega still be here?
So, if it all comes down to when you come out and marketing... where do games fit into the equation
But that all seems pretty obvious. No point arguing that.
What I do want to talk about is what makes a system succeed. You would think, after playing video games obsessively since I was 4 years old, I'd have some grasp of what makes this industry run, but when it comes down to it I'm really not sure. I do know that I wouldn't let my 4 year old waste his life playing B17 Bomber, though.
Back in the day, technology was hardly a factor. The NES trounced the Master System even though it was light years behind it in the graphics department. Nintendo did have just about every huge franchise, though. And it looked so cool with its sleek grey paneling and futuristic trap door loading mechanism.
Then along came the Genesis. In 1989 Sega introduced a spanking new system and a bad ass mascot to move it off the shelf. And, while Nintendo made a huge push forward when they finally released the SNES, remember that, depending on the sales figures you trust, Sega actually outsold Nintendo in the 16-bit generation before they got all crappy add-on happy.
Power? Apparently, people still didn't care in the early 90s. SNES had Mode 7 - that cool, scalable graphics effect in Super Mario World and the pseudo 3D world in Super Mario Kart. SNES had a much larger color palette, 32,768 colors to only about 512. And the Super Nintendo had the far superior controller. 3 buttons? What was Sega thinking?
But Sega was "cool". Sega had the "Genesis does... you can't do that on Nintendo" song. Sega had a sleek black system. And, probably the most important thing of all, Sega had John Madden Football. Of course, the SNES had it too, but it was never quite as good as the Genesis versions. So, when all was said and done, the two systems ended up in a virtua tie.
In 1995, a new company entered the war and everything seemed to fall right in their lap. Nintendo opted for carts and essentially dug their own grave. The move made Square, suddenly more worried about making movies than games, jump to the CD technology Sony was pushing, and single handedly won the war in Japan. Sorry Nick, Final Fantasy was already a main stream success before FF7 came out. Japan may have the worst taste in gaming in the world, but they know a good thing when they see it. Sega one upped Nintendo by shooting themselves in the foot: trying to beat Sony to the market, they launched the Saturn 4 months early, surprising consumers and retailers alike. And, they forgot to add a 3D processor. Oops. Sony, who didn't commit any major errors, was almost handed the crown.
Power was once again a non factor, do you sense a trend here, as the much more powerful N64 fell behind the underpowered PSX from the get go.
For all the great games released on the N64, the only reason it was able to stay relevant came down to the 4 controller ports in the front. As good as Ocarina and Mario 64 were, it was the 4 player chaos of games like Mario Kart and Goldeneye that kept the system on the cool radar.
What is still hard to understand is how Sony won exactly. Was it just because it used CDs? Yes, it had more games, but that was hardly a factor last generation when the SNES and Genesis were neck and neck. Was it just because it was considered cooler? Was it just because of marketing? Was it because games like Mario made the N64 seem like a kiddy machine whereas games like Resident Evil made the PlayStation seem more adult?
To me, it's the only real reason why it could have won. Yes, the PlayStation had more games, but anyone can admit that most of the games were crap. When all is said and done, both systems probably had the same number of quality games released every year. But the quality on the PlayStation was rated T and M and tried to hook the older crowd in.
This generation follows a similar trend. PS2 comes out a year before the GC and Xbox. It's underpowered but still looks good. Like the PSX, it's lacking in any real hardware innovation. MS brought a hard drive and built in broadband support this generation and Sony brought... firewire? Anyway, it still has more games, but most of the great ones go multiplatform anyway. But, it's cool. It has the marketing. And, it has the name recognition. Look, you can even play your old PSX games on it. What it lacked in multiplayer goodness and graphics, it made up for with Grand Theft Auto.
The only other factor that has pretty much lead to all the overall winners each generation is when the system is released. NES came out before the Master System. Genesis before the SNES. PSX before the N64. And, of course, PS2 before the GC/Xbox.
If everything comes down to name recognition, though, wouldn't that mean Nintendo would still be running things? And if it came down to cool, wouldn't Sega still be here?
So, if it all comes down to when you come out and marketing... where do games fit into the equation
2,043 word rebuttal
Well, what kind of a man would I be if I didn't offer a rebuttal to Tom's lunatic rant? And like a good parent, I'm not angry - just disappointed.
Anyhow, regarding PSM's list. The intro paragraph to the list ends with "Here are our top picks for the 10 best PlayStation game franchises of all time." They don't say "Here is our list of games that have appeared exclusively for the PS1 or PS2." All but one of the games on the list are either literally exclusive, or are considered exclusive by most for all intents and purposes. And even if the game began on another system (which PSM gives a nod to, obviously), they have all defined themselves and found a home on the PlayStation. They are now definitively PlayStation franchises, regardless of where they started or where they're heading or where they made an appearance on. Whether I agree or not with the game choices and ranking for the list (more on that later), they are all completely relevant and are all eligible for a list such as this.
10. "Ridge Racer first made it's jump to multiplatform four years ago with Ridge Racer 64. And don't forget about R: Racing Evolution released for all three systems just last year."
Ridge Racer might have appeared for a one-game stint on the N64, but was defined by Ridge Racer Type 4 on the PS1, and refined in the PS2 launch title Ridge Racer V. And as anyone familiar with the series will tell you, R: Racing Revolution was not part of the Ridge Racer series, it is a separate franchise altogether.
09. "Next up is Tekken. This, it could be argued, is pretty much exclusive. All five major titles have been released for the PSX or PS2. But, then there's that one game: Tekken Advance. Not really exclusive if it's on a Nintendo system as well, eh?"
Well, there were two Zelda games for the CD-i as I remember. One of which is widely considered one of the worst, if not THE worst game ever, mind you. So I suppose Zelda isn't really a Nintendo exclusive series either. Oh, and Mario taught me how to type once on my computer. See how ridiculous this criteria makes things?
08. "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater has appeared on everything from the PC to the N-Gage and the Dreamcast. Not an exclusive."
Yes, Tony Hawk has generally been released on most systems. But the first game debuted on the PS1, and the resulting fuss made the franchise what it is today. And Tony Hawk 3 (and 4 if I recall) both had limited exclusivity periods. Not to mention online gameplay, a big part of the series now, is only available on the PS2. The PlayStation made gaming mainstream, and the THPS series made skating mainstream. No matter how good of a game it was, it wouldn't have caused much of a fuss on a system with a 10 million installed user base.
07. "SSX: Tricky was actually a Gamecube launch title way back in the day."
The series launched on the PS2, and helped make the launch a success. The sequels have indeed seen release on the other consoles, but the PlayStation still carries the defining version (online play, etc.). This is a close one, but this game is so synonymous with the Playstation that I'm not going to let it slide.
06. "Resident Evil 0 was a Gamecube exclusive and Resident Evil 4 will be as well."
In Nintendo's struggle to get decent exclusive non first-party titles they signed an exclusivity agreement with Capcom for a couple of games. They ended up rereleasing three RE titles that were three years old at the minimum (eons in the console business), and managed to get an original game out of it with 0. And I seriously doubt RE4 will stay Gamecube exclusive. Look what happened to Viewtiful Joe. Anyhow, the series has always been on PlayStation first and foremost, and defined a genre now mimicked in countless other games, exclusive and non-exclusive alike across all of the consoles. And I don't think that literal exclusivity means much when a game is released for another platform a year or more later, because it's not competing sales-wise across the board. Same thing for GTA. Alas, I'm getting ahead of myself.
05. "Metal Gear Solid is another obvious example. The first in the Solid series was just re-released for the Gamecube. And don't forget, the series originated on the NES and MSX in 1987."
As I said, PSM respectfully acknowledges that Metal Gear began elsewhere, in a different, gentler time. Though I hardly think this should be taken into consideration considering it picked up again ELEVEN YEARS LATER on the PlayStation. There has never been an original game in the series for another system since then, and the rereleases/remakes have all happened ages after the originals, so as I said, they're not competing. And MGS3 (the most creative, freshest-looking action game I have seen in ages) is only being released on the PS2 this year.
04. "Ok, John Madden Football has been on just about every system."
Indeed. All I can say about this is the same thing I said about Tony Hawk. This series came into it's own because it became mainstream, and the PlayStation made gaming mainstream. But yeah, besides online play (sucks to be you, Microsoft) this one is not exclusive by any means.
03. "Grand Theft Auto was released on the Xbox last year."
A little over a year later, everyone who wanted to own Vice City owned Vice City. Not that it didn't still sell well, but it had been a cultural icon and the malicious addiction of gamers for quite a while already. GTA is Sony's biggest 'exclusive gun', and San Andreas will be no different this year.
02. No Comment.
Gran Turismo has always been completely literally PlayStation exclusive.
01. "And, of course, Final Fantasy has been on every Nintendo system minus the N64 and Virtual Boy."
Final Fantasy VII was the first 3D traditional RPG as far as I know, was treated as quite the revolution in gaming, and has gone on to sell at least eight billion copies. All the FF games since have turned into gaming icons, and made the series one of the few that can compete with Mario. And none of them have been on any other systems, save for a couple of drastically different offshoots. And it's going to stay that way for quite a while I imagine. It's a PlayStation series now, deal with it.
So, you see, whether they are literally exclusive by definition, or released years later on other platforms or remade or bought out or whatever, these games are more than considered "PlayStation game franchises." If you really want to get into technicalities, we can go there too. As I said, Zelda (CD-i) and Mario (PC, Arcade, Atari) have both been released for other platforms. And what about X-box? Well, Halo and KOTOR are both PC games now (superior ones, no less), and Crimson Skies started as a PC game. The only significant one I can think of is Panzer Dragoon Orta, but that's hardly a system seller.
The games I would have liked to see on PSMs list, you ask? Why, how thoughtful of you. Well, it's a shame that the Crash Bandicoot series kinda blew on PS2, because all the PS1 iterations were fucking solid gold. Twisted Metal would have been nice, but then again, two of the games in the series sucked like three miles of cock. The Jak and Ratchet series are both great, but with only two games each it's tough to consider them franchises quite yet (each series on PSM's list has a minimum of 3 titles released on a Sony console, with most having 5+). Castlevania: SOTN is one of my top five favorite games ever, and LOI is cool from what I've played, but they're a bit too spread out. Red Faction and Timesplitters would both be solid entries too (Timesplitters moreso for originality), as would Colony Wars had a PS2 sequel ever been made. The Silent Hill games have been fucking phenomenal when I've gotten up the courage to play them. Also, props to Ace Combat, Medal of Honor and Parappa, it's too bad none of them received PS2 sequels that did the originals justice. Top three, I would have to say MGS, FF, GTA, in descending order.
It's true though, since 1995 Sony has been unable to produce a Mario-caliber mascot. But you know what? I fucking loved my PlayStation. And now I fucking love my PS2. And I'll "settle" for Metal Gear Solid. I'll "settle" for Grand Theft Auto. I'll "settle" for Final Fantasy. Saying that non-exclusive content is what Sony has brought to the industry is just ignorant. You wouldn't even see a fucking X-Box if Sony didn't pave the way into the industry for companies that don't typically make consoles. And clinging to exclusive content is exactly why your precious ultra-superior Nintendo is in hot water right now. Releasing one great game on a system every six months isn't exactly what I'd call a clever business plan. Nintendo wants to sell their systems based solely on exclusive content, and it just doesn't work that way. They need to encourage other people to make games on their system by providing support for things consumers want, such as, I dunno, online play. Exclusive content is their downfall at the moment. And Mr. Tom "Exclusive Content" McNintendo here didn't even play through Metroid Prime or Wind Waker (and if you did play through Mario Sunshine, you can't tell me it was the ride of your life). But we've been over this before.
You say that without a strong in-house development team Sony can't succeed. Well, the only system lagging behind right now is the one with the strong in-house development team. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to have on your side, because it's obviously not, but encouraging other people to make games for your system, even publishing them, is infinitely more important.
As far as the next generation of systems, the only thing I know for sure is that Sony will come out on top. And I'm not saying that because I'm a fan boy, or because I want them to, I'm saying it based on my educated opinion. Even Microsoft has said that they plan to pull ahead in the next NEXT generation. I don't think a company with hundred of billions of dollars to spend would be shooting for second place if they thought they had a shot at the top spot.
I agree that Sony and Microsoft will launch similarly powerful systems at a similar time, and that Nintendo will launch their next system without any extra doodads. You say that "right now, it doesn't look like Sony has the exclusive firepower of Nintendo, and it seems like MS is still more eager to purchase series/developers to make games their own." Nintendo's 'exclusive firepower' hasn't even been competing with games like Enter the Matrix lately, and unless they get a little more prolific the next time around or drastically alter their plans I see them being a lock for third place. And Microsoft can buy all the companies they want; it hasn't really helped them this time around outside of Bungie. You also say that the PS2 launching a year earlier made all the difference last time around. Well, you know what's going to make the difference this time around? No, not exclusive software. No, not less gadgets and functionality out of the box (stupid Nintendo). Correct answer: It will be the 26 million and counting PS2s in people's living rooms (just in North America, and not including 75+ million PS1s worldwide) staring them in the face, as well as their 312 million and counting games (PS2 alone). Side note: Microsoft isn't planning on backwards compatibility; Sony is. Even if they didn't have one exclusive title at launch they'd sell out everywhere just based on name recognition; people trust them, as well they should.
After all, 100 million PlayStation fans can't be wrong, can they? :-P
Anyhow, regarding PSM's list. The intro paragraph to the list ends with "Here are our top picks for the 10 best PlayStation game franchises of all time." They don't say "Here is our list of games that have appeared exclusively for the PS1 or PS2." All but one of the games on the list are either literally exclusive, or are considered exclusive by most for all intents and purposes. And even if the game began on another system (which PSM gives a nod to, obviously), they have all defined themselves and found a home on the PlayStation. They are now definitively PlayStation franchises, regardless of where they started or where they're heading or where they made an appearance on. Whether I agree or not with the game choices and ranking for the list (more on that later), they are all completely relevant and are all eligible for a list such as this.
10. "Ridge Racer first made it's jump to multiplatform four years ago with Ridge Racer 64. And don't forget about R: Racing Evolution released for all three systems just last year."
Ridge Racer might have appeared for a one-game stint on the N64, but was defined by Ridge Racer Type 4 on the PS1, and refined in the PS2 launch title Ridge Racer V. And as anyone familiar with the series will tell you, R: Racing Revolution was not part of the Ridge Racer series, it is a separate franchise altogether.
09. "Next up is Tekken. This, it could be argued, is pretty much exclusive. All five major titles have been released for the PSX or PS2. But, then there's that one game: Tekken Advance. Not really exclusive if it's on a Nintendo system as well, eh?"
Well, there were two Zelda games for the CD-i as I remember. One of which is widely considered one of the worst, if not THE worst game ever, mind you. So I suppose Zelda isn't really a Nintendo exclusive series either. Oh, and Mario taught me how to type once on my computer. See how ridiculous this criteria makes things?
08. "Tony Hawk's Pro Skater has appeared on everything from the PC to the N-Gage and the Dreamcast. Not an exclusive."
Yes, Tony Hawk has generally been released on most systems. But the first game debuted on the PS1, and the resulting fuss made the franchise what it is today. And Tony Hawk 3 (and 4 if I recall) both had limited exclusivity periods. Not to mention online gameplay, a big part of the series now, is only available on the PS2. The PlayStation made gaming mainstream, and the THPS series made skating mainstream. No matter how good of a game it was, it wouldn't have caused much of a fuss on a system with a 10 million installed user base.
07. "SSX: Tricky was actually a Gamecube launch title way back in the day."
The series launched on the PS2, and helped make the launch a success. The sequels have indeed seen release on the other consoles, but the PlayStation still carries the defining version (online play, etc.). This is a close one, but this game is so synonymous with the Playstation that I'm not going to let it slide.
06. "Resident Evil 0 was a Gamecube exclusive and Resident Evil 4 will be as well."
In Nintendo's struggle to get decent exclusive non first-party titles they signed an exclusivity agreement with Capcom for a couple of games. They ended up rereleasing three RE titles that were three years old at the minimum (eons in the console business), and managed to get an original game out of it with 0. And I seriously doubt RE4 will stay Gamecube exclusive. Look what happened to Viewtiful Joe. Anyhow, the series has always been on PlayStation first and foremost, and defined a genre now mimicked in countless other games, exclusive and non-exclusive alike across all of the consoles. And I don't think that literal exclusivity means much when a game is released for another platform a year or more later, because it's not competing sales-wise across the board. Same thing for GTA. Alas, I'm getting ahead of myself.
05. "Metal Gear Solid is another obvious example. The first in the Solid series was just re-released for the Gamecube. And don't forget, the series originated on the NES and MSX in 1987."
As I said, PSM respectfully acknowledges that Metal Gear began elsewhere, in a different, gentler time. Though I hardly think this should be taken into consideration considering it picked up again ELEVEN YEARS LATER on the PlayStation. There has never been an original game in the series for another system since then, and the rereleases/remakes have all happened ages after the originals, so as I said, they're not competing. And MGS3 (the most creative, freshest-looking action game I have seen in ages) is only being released on the PS2 this year.
04. "Ok, John Madden Football has been on just about every system."
Indeed. All I can say about this is the same thing I said about Tony Hawk. This series came into it's own because it became mainstream, and the PlayStation made gaming mainstream. But yeah, besides online play (sucks to be you, Microsoft) this one is not exclusive by any means.
03. "Grand Theft Auto was released on the Xbox last year."
A little over a year later, everyone who wanted to own Vice City owned Vice City. Not that it didn't still sell well, but it had been a cultural icon and the malicious addiction of gamers for quite a while already. GTA is Sony's biggest 'exclusive gun', and San Andreas will be no different this year.
02. No Comment.
Gran Turismo has always been completely literally PlayStation exclusive.
01. "And, of course, Final Fantasy has been on every Nintendo system minus the N64 and Virtual Boy."
Final Fantasy VII was the first 3D traditional RPG as far as I know, was treated as quite the revolution in gaming, and has gone on to sell at least eight billion copies. All the FF games since have turned into gaming icons, and made the series one of the few that can compete with Mario. And none of them have been on any other systems, save for a couple of drastically different offshoots. And it's going to stay that way for quite a while I imagine. It's a PlayStation series now, deal with it.
So, you see, whether they are literally exclusive by definition, or released years later on other platforms or remade or bought out or whatever, these games are more than considered "PlayStation game franchises." If you really want to get into technicalities, we can go there too. As I said, Zelda (CD-i) and Mario (PC, Arcade, Atari) have both been released for other platforms. And what about X-box? Well, Halo and KOTOR are both PC games now (superior ones, no less), and Crimson Skies started as a PC game. The only significant one I can think of is Panzer Dragoon Orta, but that's hardly a system seller.
The games I would have liked to see on PSMs list, you ask? Why, how thoughtful of you. Well, it's a shame that the Crash Bandicoot series kinda blew on PS2, because all the PS1 iterations were fucking solid gold. Twisted Metal would have been nice, but then again, two of the games in the series sucked like three miles of cock. The Jak and Ratchet series are both great, but with only two games each it's tough to consider them franchises quite yet (each series on PSM's list has a minimum of 3 titles released on a Sony console, with most having 5+). Castlevania: SOTN is one of my top five favorite games ever, and LOI is cool from what I've played, but they're a bit too spread out. Red Faction and Timesplitters would both be solid entries too (Timesplitters moreso for originality), as would Colony Wars had a PS2 sequel ever been made. The Silent Hill games have been fucking phenomenal when I've gotten up the courage to play them. Also, props to Ace Combat, Medal of Honor and Parappa, it's too bad none of them received PS2 sequels that did the originals justice. Top three, I would have to say MGS, FF, GTA, in descending order.
It's true though, since 1995 Sony has been unable to produce a Mario-caliber mascot. But you know what? I fucking loved my PlayStation. And now I fucking love my PS2. And I'll "settle" for Metal Gear Solid. I'll "settle" for Grand Theft Auto. I'll "settle" for Final Fantasy. Saying that non-exclusive content is what Sony has brought to the industry is just ignorant. You wouldn't even see a fucking X-Box if Sony didn't pave the way into the industry for companies that don't typically make consoles. And clinging to exclusive content is exactly why your precious ultra-superior Nintendo is in hot water right now. Releasing one great game on a system every six months isn't exactly what I'd call a clever business plan. Nintendo wants to sell their systems based solely on exclusive content, and it just doesn't work that way. They need to encourage other people to make games on their system by providing support for things consumers want, such as, I dunno, online play. Exclusive content is their downfall at the moment. And Mr. Tom "Exclusive Content" McNintendo here didn't even play through Metroid Prime or Wind Waker (and if you did play through Mario Sunshine, you can't tell me it was the ride of your life). But we've been over this before.
You say that without a strong in-house development team Sony can't succeed. Well, the only system lagging behind right now is the one with the strong in-house development team. I'm not saying that it's a bad thing to have on your side, because it's obviously not, but encouraging other people to make games for your system, even publishing them, is infinitely more important.
As far as the next generation of systems, the only thing I know for sure is that Sony will come out on top. And I'm not saying that because I'm a fan boy, or because I want them to, I'm saying it based on my educated opinion. Even Microsoft has said that they plan to pull ahead in the next NEXT generation. I don't think a company with hundred of billions of dollars to spend would be shooting for second place if they thought they had a shot at the top spot.
I agree that Sony and Microsoft will launch similarly powerful systems at a similar time, and that Nintendo will launch their next system without any extra doodads. You say that "right now, it doesn't look like Sony has the exclusive firepower of Nintendo, and it seems like MS is still more eager to purchase series/developers to make games their own." Nintendo's 'exclusive firepower' hasn't even been competing with games like Enter the Matrix lately, and unless they get a little more prolific the next time around or drastically alter their plans I see them being a lock for third place. And Microsoft can buy all the companies they want; it hasn't really helped them this time around outside of Bungie. You also say that the PS2 launching a year earlier made all the difference last time around. Well, you know what's going to make the difference this time around? No, not exclusive software. No, not less gadgets and functionality out of the box (stupid Nintendo). Correct answer: It will be the 26 million and counting PS2s in people's living rooms (just in North America, and not including 75+ million PS1s worldwide) staring them in the face, as well as their 312 million and counting games (PS2 alone). Side note: Microsoft isn't planning on backwards compatibility; Sony is. Even if they didn't have one exclusive title at launch they'd sell out everywhere just based on name recognition; people trust them, as well they should.
After all, 100 million PlayStation fans can't be wrong, can they? :-P
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]