G-pinions

I think this picture speaks for itself.

A story about Nick's life.

Just kidding, though it would be kind of funny to chronicle the underground fighting circuit Nick participated in his youth.

I came across a quote in the newest issue of Game Informer I thought was kind of interesting. Ok, I didn’t come across it. I haven’t read GI in years. But, someone quoted it for me. Anyway, it’s from Reggie, the PR man at Nintendo. I assume after giving the quote he kicked their ass for their lame Paper Mario review.

“We believe that the consumer wants more in the area of community, and we are looking at how to deliver that. We think the online approach of today is a bit flawed. We think the consumer wants a better way. And that's what we're looking to do with Revolution. What I am saying is that with our next home console we will address the area of gamer community. You said "online." I used "online" as a description of a flawed business model. We are passionate about enabling our gamers to play with their friends [and] to play with others across long distances. There are a number of different ways to execute that.”

Apparently, the Revolution refers to how Nintendo will approach online in the next generation. It appears that Nintendo is trying to completely reinvent online gaming. In a few years, everything we know about online gaming could obsolete if Nintendo has their way.

First, a brief note about Nintendo’s online history: they don’t like it. Yes, they begrudgingly released an online adaptor for the Gamecube, but they didn’t market it, didn’t make a game for it, and don’t really care if anyone buys it. Why is Nintendo so down on online? Simple, they can’t make money off it now. With the added development time and the cost of maintaining servers, Nintendo sees online gaming as a money pit. Tie in the fact they don’t realize there is a world outside of Japan, where people have to pay just to make a local phone call, and you have a company that won’t jump into the internet fray until things are much different.

This community idea seems to tie in with the money making need Nintendo has expressed. Right now, pretty much no one goes online with their console. I read somewhere less than 10% of all Xbox owners have Live. Let’s be generous and say 49% go online. That is still less than half. The majority of gamers do not enjoy going online. It’s as simple as that. Why? Because it’s a dark, isolated place where people are free to be jerks and the nice are left on the sidelines. Not the most welcome place for the average gamer.

Maybe Nintendo is thinking about making an honest to goodness video game city online. A place where every gamer knows every other gamer’s name. A place where you are accountable for what you say and what you do. A place where fun takes center stage. Where the overly competitive, ranking whores are left to wallow in their own sad misery. Maybe Nintendo has devised a way to set up a virtual community, where people can talk about various things they have in common and enjoy a friendly game of Mario Tennis.

Clearly, this seems like a pipe dream. And, as good as this seems to someone like me who has met his fair of assholes online, it still isn’t enough to get the average gamer interested. In addition to this community approach to gaming, Nintendo also needs to find a way to make online gaming necessary. I’m not talking about getting patches or upgrades to games. I’m talking about games that use online so well that they add infinite amounts of fun and replayability to the average game.

Just like Nintendo needs to create software for the DS that not only supports the touchpad but makes them much better because of it, Nintendo needs to find a way to make online essential. They have standardized other attempts at changing games before – look at analog control and the Rumble Pack from last generation. I really am curious how Nintendo will convince the masses to go online, because clearly this is where the future lies.

I'm a bit late to the preview party, but I finally picked up my 1¢ demo of Killzone today at Circuit City. Money well-spent, you ask? Halo-killer, you ask? Yes, you moron, I say, then I hesitate, and then I punch you in the jaw. For starters, I think that out of all gaming genres FPS' have the least clear cut leader and standard. Halo, Doom and Half-Life are all pretty great for different reasons, for starters, and could easily be argued to represent the species at it's apex. So no, I don't think that Halo is necessarily something that needs a clear-cut beating, because it isn't unarguably the standard (unlike, say, FF for RPGs and Mario for platformers). So when people call something a "Halo killer", especially PS2 fans, I take it more as an expression for a desire of a console-defining game, as PS2 has several hovering around the top without a clear representative. Microsoft got lucky with Halo, and in reality, probably wouldn't have made it without the game (at least in the game hardware business). One of the main reasons Halo is what it is comes from the simple fact that for a long time there very little reason to own an XBox outside of that one game. Now we have Ninja Gaiden and KOTOR, so things have thankfully improved a bit, but I think it's fair to say that it made and defined the system in the eyes of gamers and the public. On the other side of things, Sony has a ton of a top-tier exclusives spanning most genres, all of which are similarly popular. I won't say that this works against them exactly, but it is a problem of sorts for them. So, basically what I'm raving on about is this: the "Halo killer" expression that we all throw around is more about something becoming representative of the system a gamer chooses and the titles they like to play. From what I've played, Killzone won't change this gaming landscape, not by a longshot, but that's not to say it isn't a wonderfully atmospheric, well-made entertaining game.

For starters, it's probably the most realistic shooter that I've ever laid hands on. And that's an important distinction, because I really don't think that comes across from screenshots or videos. The movement is very methodical, even more so than Halo, and the general pace of the game has you feeling claustrophobic and defensive, as oppose to run n' gun. The weapons don't always shoot perfectly in the aiming reticle, but it's not frustrating as you would understandably assume - it just requires some patience and fine-tuning, and is usually pretty rewarding by the time a battle is over. Again, this is based on the two demo levels. The graphics go a long way towards furthering the realism too - they are indeed pretty great for PS2, and wouldn't look out of place on a more powerful system. The general dirtiness and wear of the environments can be immediately appreciated, as can the depth of focus and light placement. It all feels very organic, which feels welcoming in such relatively linear levels.

Other sweet things include the grenade throwing mechanism - firstly, you can charge them up by holding down the button longer, and some fancy lights on the grenade help you decide when the right time to throw it is. The throwing animation is believable too, as you'll put your whole body weight into it, throwing your shoulder and view forwards and then partially downwards for a split second. You can adjust the grenade's flight path at the last second while moving, but the results are expectedly varying. The weapons are fairly intense too, and all require a good amount of reloading. They all have their uses, and each new combat scenario comes a good amount of choices to be made. The Helghast, your main enemy, are not only creepy as shit but fairly offensive-minded. When a group of them come sliding down ropes from a hovering helicopter to a courtyard mere feet away from you, you'll truly understand badassness.

I'm fairly pleased with how Killzone is turning out overall, even if it is more or less what I expected - not a "killer" of any means, but a very good game nonetheless. I could obviously change my mind and retract all statements if Halo 2 is somehow even better than I think it's going to be, but for now I'll say that Killzone will certainly still be worth playing through, and will probably make for some good online play as well. It's a very different kind of FPS as a result of the feel alone, but one that's certainly welcome in my book. It will certainly make PS2 devotees feel like they're missing out a bit less this fall, and possibly even prevent a few murder/suicides.

I'm not a huge sports fan. I'm incredibly competitive by nature, but that usually comes out through videogames, arguments, and real sports like ping-pong, frisbee, bocce ball and Scrabble. As for pussy sports like football, futbol, rugby and wrestling, they can all go to homoerotic hell. Basketball, well, it's somewhere in between. It has the grace of a ballet, the strategy of a terrorist attack, and the pace of a blind sword duel. It's great. So, when I said that I would buy ESPN NBA 2K5, and then didn't, a bag full of baby turtles was run over by a tank somewhere. I'm here to apologize.

I rented said hoops game yesterday with my near-infinite Blockbuster credit and a coupon, intending to fill a slow Sunday evening it between KOTOR sessions. I will now be purchasing the game from another establishment where I have similarly infinite credit. Because it kicks ass. I haven't played more than a couple of rounds of any sports game outside of NBA Jam TE (the only NBA Jam, as far as I'm concerned) in a good three years. I had Sega NBA 2K2 and Live '97 before that, but neither ever monopolized my game time. So yeah, I'm a bit out of the loop as far as exactly how far things have come. The genre has led the industry's technology for a while now, and after playing 2K5 it's more apparent to me than ever. People say Live is better this year, but I can't really imagine how digital basketball can get much better. The movement feels a bit floaty, and the graphics still clip more than I'd like them too, but otherwise everything is damn amazing. Damn damn amazing. The A.I. is basically flawless as far as I can tell, being where I need it to be and doing the right thing 99-goddamn-% of the time. Most of the animations are photorealistically smooth, and the players models really actually look like the players they're meant to be - for the first time that I've ever seen. Everything I can think of is as good as I could ask for.

The ebb and flow of the game is great too; I've already played a buzzer beater, I've come back to win a couple games, and I've had someone come back on me. Whether it's against the computer, against a pal, or online, the game is well-paced, challenging, and intimidatingly real. And maybe this has been the standard for a couple of years now, but there as so many little touches I've never seen before - your player turning around properly to face the ball carrier as he runs downcourt, the fully polygonal fans giving you a literal standing ovation, end of game video highlights, the impossibly timely and intelligent announcing; I'm sure fans of other sports have enjoyed such majesty in their own games, but this is really a first for me. Man, and the online play is top of the line. I played one game that was a bit laggy throughout, but all of the other games were completely lag-free. That, and every game mode is playable online, including the 24/7 mode which is apparently awesome (I have yet to explore it).

So yeah, it's a big, beautiful, busty behemoth of a game. And I love it, and it shall soon be mine. I'm starting to see how Tom invested 80 hours in two months in ESPN NFL 2K5. And this stuff is $20 a pop? Good god, what a wonderful, fascinating age we live in. Lay me up.