Friday, December 03, 2004
Graphic ladies of the night
The internet is abuzz, as it were, with speculation, discussion, and the odd bit of actual information regarding the next-gen consoles. In a recent presentation, EA showed off a couple shots of what future iterations of Madden and Need For Speed could look like. Emphasis on 'could':
Personally, I think the Madden pic is a little bit too far while the NFS one is a little conservative. I suppose football games could end up looking that good by the end of the next generation, but I don't see it being quite as impressive right off the bat. It will still be impressive as hell, sure, and I'll rave about it like the whore I am, but depth of focus changes in the grass? That's a little much. As for that sleek-looking car, Gran Turismo 4 doesn't look all that worse. The tree leaves aren't quite as random and the shadows and reflection mapping aren't quite that complex, but I think they're selling themselves short with this render. Regardless, the thought of a Burnout game that actually makes me feel like I'm involved in a 200 m.p.h. wreck is intimidatingly cool, to say the least.
And then there's WarDevil. What I really like about this glimpse into the future (well, a year from now anyhow), is the emphasis on animation and art design over sheer pixel-pushing (though that's mighty impressive as well). The way those robo-dealie beasts move their heads is sweet, and simple things like that can add a lot to an actual gameplay encounter. I actually think that animation and lighting will see the most improvement over the next couple of years, or at least be the most noticeable. It's personal taste of course, but I'll always think Otogi looks better than Ninja Gaiden because of the soft lighting. And why do you think your mom commented on how good Prince of Persia looked as she walked by? That's right - your good friend lighting. And as great as all the current basketball games look, not one isn't laughably bad at depicting the ball leaving the player's hands (when you replay it, zoom in, and scrutinize, of course).
Anyhow, just figured I'd join the party and post the pics. Comment away.
Personally, I think the Madden pic is a little bit too far while the NFS one is a little conservative. I suppose football games could end up looking that good by the end of the next generation, but I don't see it being quite as impressive right off the bat. It will still be impressive as hell, sure, and I'll rave about it like the whore I am, but depth of focus changes in the grass? That's a little much. As for that sleek-looking car, Gran Turismo 4 doesn't look all that worse. The tree leaves aren't quite as random and the shadows and reflection mapping aren't quite that complex, but I think they're selling themselves short with this render. Regardless, the thought of a Burnout game that actually makes me feel like I'm involved in a 200 m.p.h. wreck is intimidatingly cool, to say the least.
And then there's WarDevil. What I really like about this glimpse into the future (well, a year from now anyhow), is the emphasis on animation and art design over sheer pixel-pushing (though that's mighty impressive as well). The way those robo-dealie beasts move their heads is sweet, and simple things like that can add a lot to an actual gameplay encounter. I actually think that animation and lighting will see the most improvement over the next couple of years, or at least be the most noticeable. It's personal taste of course, but I'll always think Otogi looks better than Ninja Gaiden because of the soft lighting. And why do you think your mom commented on how good Prince of Persia looked as she walked by? That's right - your good friend lighting. And as great as all the current basketball games look, not one isn't laughably bad at depicting the ball leaving the player's hands (when you replay it, zoom in, and scrutinize, of course).
Anyhow, just figured I'd join the party and post the pics. Comment away.
I think I'm alone now
Alternate titles: "It's Evolution, Baby!" and "Don't cry for me, I'm already dead." Clearly, this is a column that would much rather quote someone else's work than come up with an original idea. And now you know the rest of the story.
But, like every story with an ending, there is a beginning as well. I finally finished Sabre Wulf a few nights ago. Upon firing up my GBA:SP for the first time in months, I was actually surprised to see I hadn't completed it earlier. Considering how much I loved the game, and how close to the end I was, there is no reasonable explanation for waiting so long. By playing through the last 3 levels, which took about an hour because Rare is a sadistic company, I was reminded just how good the game is. Probably the second best game I've played on the system, only behind Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga.
At the end of the game, the mayor says to, um, the lead character (I have no idea what his name is. Sabre Wulf is the main bad guy):
"You never know when we might need your archaic platforming skills again."
Yeah, it's a funny comment. But it also kind of bummed me out. Why is this a dead genre? I can hear Nick growing angry already, jumping to the defense of his beloved Ratchet and Clank series. While really fun games, I don't really consider it a platformer. Not a pure one, at least. The majority of the action is focused on combat, and sadly not of the jumping on enemies soft head variety. Big guns and platforming simply do not mix.
With Sly Cooper being all about the stealth and Jak about the story, where did the real platforming games go? Even Nintendo has seemingly forgotten its roots. Mario Sunshine was really fun... but that's their only platformer on the Gamecube. Donkey Kong is stuck with bongos for some reason. Kirby has only been in an average racing title. I don't even think Pit is on life support at this point. What's most shocking about Nintendo abandoning the genre that brought them to the party is the fact that the big N clearly doesn't care about the mainstream anymore. Just because kids these days would rather fly airplanes with horrible physics while tapping that nasty hooker ass, doesn't mean there isn't still a viable market for platforming titles.
I guess this is just a plea to get Nintendo back to what they do best. I fear that with Microsoft at the helm, Rare won't be able to churn out the classic platformers like they used to. Microsoft paid a ton of money for Rare's services. They would much rather they churn out commercial successes like Perfect Dark than a kiddie, brightly colored jump jump game. I hope that Conker is a huge success because of its outstanding one-player mode. While not in the Mario or Banjo league of great platformers, it might give Rare the leeway to make some real titles in this somehow obsolete genre.
Right now, all my hope rests on Hal and their upcoming Kirby GC title. Though I would love to ignore the stupid public who makes games like Goldeneye: Rogue Agent possible, I have to rely on them to buy Kirby: GC to show that people still want these games.
Note - if you clicked on that Gamerankings link to Sabre Wulf you'll see it only got a 79% ranking. This just goes to show you how little respect the average reviewer gives to platformers now. This was an original, and more importantly fun, take on the genre. If the same caliber title was a stealth game or FPS the score would have been in the high 90s.
But, like every story with an ending, there is a beginning as well. I finally finished Sabre Wulf a few nights ago. Upon firing up my GBA:SP for the first time in months, I was actually surprised to see I hadn't completed it earlier. Considering how much I loved the game, and how close to the end I was, there is no reasonable explanation for waiting so long. By playing through the last 3 levels, which took about an hour because Rare is a sadistic company, I was reminded just how good the game is. Probably the second best game I've played on the system, only behind Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga.
At the end of the game, the mayor says to, um, the lead character (I have no idea what his name is. Sabre Wulf is the main bad guy):
"You never know when we might need your archaic platforming skills again."
Yeah, it's a funny comment. But it also kind of bummed me out. Why is this a dead genre? I can hear Nick growing angry already, jumping to the defense of his beloved Ratchet and Clank series. While really fun games, I don't really consider it a platformer. Not a pure one, at least. The majority of the action is focused on combat, and sadly not of the jumping on enemies soft head variety. Big guns and platforming simply do not mix.
With Sly Cooper being all about the stealth and Jak about the story, where did the real platforming games go? Even Nintendo has seemingly forgotten its roots. Mario Sunshine was really fun... but that's their only platformer on the Gamecube. Donkey Kong is stuck with bongos for some reason. Kirby has only been in an average racing title. I don't even think Pit is on life support at this point. What's most shocking about Nintendo abandoning the genre that brought them to the party is the fact that the big N clearly doesn't care about the mainstream anymore. Just because kids these days would rather fly airplanes with horrible physics while tapping that nasty hooker ass, doesn't mean there isn't still a viable market for platforming titles.
I guess this is just a plea to get Nintendo back to what they do best. I fear that with Microsoft at the helm, Rare won't be able to churn out the classic platformers like they used to. Microsoft paid a ton of money for Rare's services. They would much rather they churn out commercial successes like Perfect Dark than a kiddie, brightly colored jump jump game. I hope that Conker is a huge success because of its outstanding one-player mode. While not in the Mario or Banjo league of great platformers, it might give Rare the leeway to make some real titles in this somehow obsolete genre.
Right now, all my hope rests on Hal and their upcoming Kirby GC title. Though I would love to ignore the stupid public who makes games like Goldeneye: Rogue Agent possible, I have to rely on them to buy Kirby: GC to show that people still want these games.
Note - if you clicked on that Gamerankings link to Sabre Wulf you'll see it only got a 79% ranking. This just goes to show you how little respect the average reviewer gives to platformers now. This was an original, and more importantly fun, take on the genre. If the same caliber title was a stealth game or FPS the score would have been in the high 90s.
Wednesday, December 01, 2004
It's a secret to everyone
Every fan boy has their secrets. Though I won't go into detail about what Nick does in private with his Dave Mathews CDs or Tim with his tiny figures of the Green Hornet, I will tell you about a horrible secret of my own. Though I have been playing Zelda games for closing in on 17 years, I have, until only a few days ago, only completed two of those games. Though I consider Link to the Past one of the finest games ever crafted and Ocarina of Time a benchmark for all other 3D adventures to strive for, they remained alone in my bureau of completed Zelda games.
I had plenty of excuses I clutched like a protective blanket for years; reasons why I couldn't quite defeat Gannon. I do not play portable games very often so the three Gameboy Adventure - Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages and Link's Awakening - were never so much as looked at by my Nintendo adoring eyes. Wind Waker, though fantastic throughout most of the journey, was home to a form of water transportation only a masochist's mother could love. Majora's Mask, with its 3 day and then repeat lifespan, was far too repetitive for my tastes.
This leaves me with only the NES adventures to account for. Despite my unholy love of Link's first adventure, my parents never actually bought Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link for me. In hindsight, this is really shocking. My parents were never at a loss for supplying me the latest time waster for my or Jesus' birthday. It only seems logical that, when a sequel to a game I obsessed over was released, they would have surprised me with it with only the slightest of hesitations. Thankfully, my fragile youth was spared from this horrible travesty. Who knows if I would still love games to this day if Zelda II was a reoccurring image from my youth.
The last game I will talk about, and the first Zelda I ever played, was also the first Zelda ever released. Though I would rank it only behind my beloved Metroid in my list of all time favorite 1-player NES games (as ranked by 8 year old Tom, and not 23 year old Tom. Clearly, Metroid is not that high now), I somehow never completed it. My brother and I would trek through Hyrule day after day - slowly gathering the tools necessary to conquer evil. But, upon finally reaching Gannon's door, we were never quite able to break it down. Rather from lack of skill of will I do not know, but I do know that I went almost 17 years before I was finally able to lay claim to defeating Hyrule's most evil citizen.
Last Saturday night, my friend Andy and I set off down a quest I knew quite well. Knowing that I had never actually won this game, Andy laid forth the rules that, before the book closed on another day in my life, we would finally finish this game. So how does this game stack up after 17 years of imitators doing their thing? After 17 years of Nintendo tinkering and possibly even perfecting the formula they created? How does it feel to take 17 years to finish a game - a record that might never be broken?
First, I must say I was actually shocked how good this game still is. If I were living in a world where The Legend of Zelda was released in late 2004 instead of the middle of 1987, I would rate the game among the very best released this year. Though it's graphics clearly show its age, the music is as hummable as ever, the enemies are still as difficult as ever, and the labyrinths are still as cleverly constructed. The game is a masterpiece because, despite more than 17 years of dust covering its fragile surface, it still provides a more innovative, and most importantly fun, experience than any of the flashy 3D games available today. Better than Link to the Past. Better than Ocarina. Better than just about any game I have ever played. To experience The Legend of Zelda for the first time, again, like I did last Saturday, is like receiving your virginity all over again. Or being able to create pumpkin pies out of thin air. This may very well be the pinnacle of video games.
One thing that really surprised me is how much the Zelda series has changed through the years. While newer titles stress exploration and puzzles, the first Zelda was all about the action. While each labyrinth and new section of the overworld offered new enemies and strategies, puzzle solving was very rudimentary. For the most part, puzzles were relegated to finding the appropriate wall to bomb or bush to burn. There are no puzzles which require you to lower water. There is nothing as complicated as knowing to shoot your wooden arrow into the sun to turn it into a fire arrow. While this may seem like the first Zelda is a simplified version of its younger brothers, I see it much differently. The first Zelda is just an extremely focused game that tried to push the player along instead of forcing momentum to stop while they tried to figure out what to do next. The game offers enough clues to make sure there is always action taking place and the player is never bored. In this age of games artificially extending a games life by adding pointless backtracking missions and impossible puzzles, it was nice to see a game that lasted a mere 3 hours, but made more of those hours than any new game could even hope to achieve.
There are a few amusing things I encountered on my quest. First are the sometimes confusing translations. When you happen upon an underground free coin exchange, the beast within merely says "It's a secret to everyone." Sure, this is a well known quote, but what does it mean exactly? If it's a secret to everyone, does that mean everyone knows about the secret? If they do, why wouldn't they have stolen the money beforehand? Furthermore, if it is a secret to everyone, wouldn't it be a secret to no one?
Even more baffling is the phrase "Master using it and you can have this." This is spoken to you before receiving the White and Master swords. For most of my life, I assumed the "Master" referred to the noun. As in, the man known only as "Master" is using this sword. Obviously, this confused me so. If the master is using it, how can I have it? Where is he? Who are you? It wasn't until I explained this to Andy, and he told me Master is a verb, that everything became clear. Though 95% of the blame lies with me, that other 5% goes with the translators. Clearly, this game has plenty of rough dialog, so it was only natural to assume this sentence was of the nonsensical variety as well.
Another odd thing was the big eared creatures. I don't know their names so I'll give you a rough description - they look kind of like cats, minus the cumbersome body and appendages. They clearly have whiskers, they are yellow, and they bounce. They are located in the 5th Labyrinth, and some Labyrinths later in the game. In the instruction manual it says they "Don't like loud noises" or something to that extent. But, for some reason, blowing a whistle does no damage. If I could change one thing about this game, it would be making those stupid bastards die after one or two toots. That is all.
As I'm more than 1200 words into this column, I think I'll just end it now. If you haven't played through the first Zelda before, or it has been more than a year, please try it again. It really is one of the best games I have ever played.
I had plenty of excuses I clutched like a protective blanket for years; reasons why I couldn't quite defeat Gannon. I do not play portable games very often so the three Gameboy Adventure - Oracle of Seasons, Oracle of Ages and Link's Awakening - were never so much as looked at by my Nintendo adoring eyes. Wind Waker, though fantastic throughout most of the journey, was home to a form of water transportation only a masochist's mother could love. Majora's Mask, with its 3 day and then repeat lifespan, was far too repetitive for my tastes.
This leaves me with only the NES adventures to account for. Despite my unholy love of Link's first adventure, my parents never actually bought Zelda 2: The Adventure of Link for me. In hindsight, this is really shocking. My parents were never at a loss for supplying me the latest time waster for my or Jesus' birthday. It only seems logical that, when a sequel to a game I obsessed over was released, they would have surprised me with it with only the slightest of hesitations. Thankfully, my fragile youth was spared from this horrible travesty. Who knows if I would still love games to this day if Zelda II was a reoccurring image from my youth.
The last game I will talk about, and the first Zelda I ever played, was also the first Zelda ever released. Though I would rank it only behind my beloved Metroid in my list of all time favorite 1-player NES games (as ranked by 8 year old Tom, and not 23 year old Tom. Clearly, Metroid is not that high now), I somehow never completed it. My brother and I would trek through Hyrule day after day - slowly gathering the tools necessary to conquer evil. But, upon finally reaching Gannon's door, we were never quite able to break it down. Rather from lack of skill of will I do not know, but I do know that I went almost 17 years before I was finally able to lay claim to defeating Hyrule's most evil citizen.
Last Saturday night, my friend Andy and I set off down a quest I knew quite well. Knowing that I had never actually won this game, Andy laid forth the rules that, before the book closed on another day in my life, we would finally finish this game. So how does this game stack up after 17 years of imitators doing their thing? After 17 years of Nintendo tinkering and possibly even perfecting the formula they created? How does it feel to take 17 years to finish a game - a record that might never be broken?
First, I must say I was actually shocked how good this game still is. If I were living in a world where The Legend of Zelda was released in late 2004 instead of the middle of 1987, I would rate the game among the very best released this year. Though it's graphics clearly show its age, the music is as hummable as ever, the enemies are still as difficult as ever, and the labyrinths are still as cleverly constructed. The game is a masterpiece because, despite more than 17 years of dust covering its fragile surface, it still provides a more innovative, and most importantly fun, experience than any of the flashy 3D games available today. Better than Link to the Past. Better than Ocarina. Better than just about any game I have ever played. To experience The Legend of Zelda for the first time, again, like I did last Saturday, is like receiving your virginity all over again. Or being able to create pumpkin pies out of thin air. This may very well be the pinnacle of video games.
One thing that really surprised me is how much the Zelda series has changed through the years. While newer titles stress exploration and puzzles, the first Zelda was all about the action. While each labyrinth and new section of the overworld offered new enemies and strategies, puzzle solving was very rudimentary. For the most part, puzzles were relegated to finding the appropriate wall to bomb or bush to burn. There are no puzzles which require you to lower water. There is nothing as complicated as knowing to shoot your wooden arrow into the sun to turn it into a fire arrow. While this may seem like the first Zelda is a simplified version of its younger brothers, I see it much differently. The first Zelda is just an extremely focused game that tried to push the player along instead of forcing momentum to stop while they tried to figure out what to do next. The game offers enough clues to make sure there is always action taking place and the player is never bored. In this age of games artificially extending a games life by adding pointless backtracking missions and impossible puzzles, it was nice to see a game that lasted a mere 3 hours, but made more of those hours than any new game could even hope to achieve.
There are a few amusing things I encountered on my quest. First are the sometimes confusing translations. When you happen upon an underground free coin exchange, the beast within merely says "It's a secret to everyone." Sure, this is a well known quote, but what does it mean exactly? If it's a secret to everyone, does that mean everyone knows about the secret? If they do, why wouldn't they have stolen the money beforehand? Furthermore, if it is a secret to everyone, wouldn't it be a secret to no one?
Even more baffling is the phrase "Master using it and you can have this." This is spoken to you before receiving the White and Master swords. For most of my life, I assumed the "Master" referred to the noun. As in, the man known only as "Master" is using this sword. Obviously, this confused me so. If the master is using it, how can I have it? Where is he? Who are you? It wasn't until I explained this to Andy, and he told me Master is a verb, that everything became clear. Though 95% of the blame lies with me, that other 5% goes with the translators. Clearly, this game has plenty of rough dialog, so it was only natural to assume this sentence was of the nonsensical variety as well.
Another odd thing was the big eared creatures. I don't know their names so I'll give you a rough description - they look kind of like cats, minus the cumbersome body and appendages. They clearly have whiskers, they are yellow, and they bounce. They are located in the 5th Labyrinth, and some Labyrinths later in the game. In the instruction manual it says they "Don't like loud noises" or something to that extent. But, for some reason, blowing a whistle does no damage. If I could change one thing about this game, it would be making those stupid bastards die after one or two toots. That is all.
As I'm more than 1200 words into this column, I think I'll just end it now. If you haven't played through the first Zelda before, or it has been more than a year, please try it again. It really is one of the best games I have ever played.
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Okama Gamesphere
Not that it's by any means official, but there's a nice story online written by a guy who seemingly knows someone who knows someone who took someone hostage who knows some details of the Xbox2 launch. At the least, it's a solid summary of rumors and speculative truths, and is for the most part fairly believable.
A fall 2005 launch with Perfect Dark Zero as the big game? Yeah, it adds up. Microsoft didn't obtain Rare for nothing, as this current generation would have you believe. Yes, they'll probably have some trouble marketing a female for a main character without some more revealing clothing, and yes, the Goldeneye name isn't quite what it used to be. Though I would imagine their main problem would be name recognition - just when they've nailed down Halo as the game associated with the Xbox, they have the rather large task of making the gaming public aware of a franchise that's entirely new to most of them, and getting them insanely excited about it.
And what about Bungie's next game? This dude seems to think that Halo 3 will launch in 2006 to compete with the Playstation3 (assumably at it's launch). This is obviously quite feasible, but for some reason I just don't see it happening. I think that Bungie's next game will be something other than Halo 3, and that the series won't make another appearance for quite a while. They haven't been a company that rests on it's laurels in the past, and while the series is guaranteed money at this point, I imagine they'd rather do something more ambitious with freshly-acquired technology. Call me crazy, but I envision a Halo side-project (The Covenant Chronicles?) being handed over to a smaller studio (or even Wideload games, dare I say?) while Bungie sets their sights on something epic. As well-received as Halo 2 was, I still get the feeling that they were rushed into ill-completion of a grander idea again. Of course, Microsoft will have the final say in all this, but I like my idea better than what will probably happen.
Back to the actual hardware launch, I think it's probably a good time for it, especially if we'll see a PS3 in late 2006. Timing certainly helped Sony the last time around, and though they could certainly hold off another couple of seasons it will probably help Microsoft too. It will just be weird seeing games released on PS2, Xbox and Xbox2 (I'm sure PS1 will see a new Madden too at the least). Things like Battlefield: Modern Combat are scheduled for all three, and I don't see the general Xbox crowd as people who'll stand to buy a graphically inferior game when a better one exists. I'll be interested to see how MS goes about it, but they have been shockingly good at managing things so far.
So let's look at this speculated/supposedly informed launch lineup of sorts (again, from xblgamers.com):
Perfect Dark Zero
Project Gotham Racing 3
Madden 2006
ESPN Football 2K6
Amped 3
Half-Life 2
NASCAR Race For The Cup 2006
NBA Live 2006
ESPN NBA 2K6
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Based on the new movie)
Mission Impossible (Based on the new movie)
King Kong (Based on the new movie)
Star Wars game
Fighting Game (DOA4?)
Fighting Game (KI3?)
Unknown RPG (Not Oblivion)
Climax's Shooter
Now let's take out all of the sports/racing titles (because they're nothing exciting or new), the second fighting game (because they won't have two), and the unknown RPG (too vague, for now). What are we left with?
Perfect Dark Zero
Half-Life 2
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Based on the new movie)
Mission Impossible (Based on the new movie)
King Kong (Based on the new movie)
Star Wars game
Fighting Game (DOA4?)
Climax's Shooter
Ah, now we can analyze this properly. Will anyone care about Half-Life 2 a year after it's release? Possibly, but not if PD0 is as good as it should be. Same goes for Climax's shooter, whatever it may be. As for all these licensed titles, while they may be good (especially King Kong, from UbiSoft), they won't be exclusive. So what's the core now, the stuff that will start them out right or on the path to hell?
Perfect Dark Zero
Fighting Game (DOA4?)
Still not too shabby. It's no Mario 64, but it's certainly better than SSX (while great, it's now obsolete) being your best launch title. Also, I'm assuming that this is indeed DOA4 we're talking about. Sony will surely have some great stuff out next fall to keep as many eyes as possible on their system, which is why MS needs to show people that the next generation really can offer something entirely different. PD0 won't make as big a splash if you can do most of the same things in Killzone 2. That's obviously an unlikely scenario, but it's something to keep in mind. Better graphics can and will sell systems, but showing promise of amazing things to come will keep them moving.
As I said, they could have waited it out a bit longer. Ninja Gaiden 2 could have competed with FFXII and the new Zelda next fall, but I guess we won't see it play out anything like that. It's a good move to beat everyone to the punch, they just better have their shit together when the time comes.
A fall 2005 launch with Perfect Dark Zero as the big game? Yeah, it adds up. Microsoft didn't obtain Rare for nothing, as this current generation would have you believe. Yes, they'll probably have some trouble marketing a female for a main character without some more revealing clothing, and yes, the Goldeneye name isn't quite what it used to be. Though I would imagine their main problem would be name recognition - just when they've nailed down Halo as the game associated with the Xbox, they have the rather large task of making the gaming public aware of a franchise that's entirely new to most of them, and getting them insanely excited about it.
And what about Bungie's next game? This dude seems to think that Halo 3 will launch in 2006 to compete with the Playstation3 (assumably at it's launch). This is obviously quite feasible, but for some reason I just don't see it happening. I think that Bungie's next game will be something other than Halo 3, and that the series won't make another appearance for quite a while. They haven't been a company that rests on it's laurels in the past, and while the series is guaranteed money at this point, I imagine they'd rather do something more ambitious with freshly-acquired technology. Call me crazy, but I envision a Halo side-project (The Covenant Chronicles?) being handed over to a smaller studio (or even Wideload games, dare I say?) while Bungie sets their sights on something epic. As well-received as Halo 2 was, I still get the feeling that they were rushed into ill-completion of a grander idea again. Of course, Microsoft will have the final say in all this, but I like my idea better than what will probably happen.
Back to the actual hardware launch, I think it's probably a good time for it, especially if we'll see a PS3 in late 2006. Timing certainly helped Sony the last time around, and though they could certainly hold off another couple of seasons it will probably help Microsoft too. It will just be weird seeing games released on PS2, Xbox and Xbox2 (I'm sure PS1 will see a new Madden too at the least). Things like Battlefield: Modern Combat are scheduled for all three, and I don't see the general Xbox crowd as people who'll stand to buy a graphically inferior game when a better one exists. I'll be interested to see how MS goes about it, but they have been shockingly good at managing things so far.
So let's look at this speculated/supposedly informed launch lineup of sorts (again, from xblgamers.com):
Perfect Dark Zero
Project Gotham Racing 3
Madden 2006
ESPN Football 2K6
Amped 3
Half-Life 2
NASCAR Race For The Cup 2006
NBA Live 2006
ESPN NBA 2K6
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Based on the new movie)
Mission Impossible (Based on the new movie)
King Kong (Based on the new movie)
Star Wars game
Fighting Game (DOA4?)
Fighting Game (KI3?)
Unknown RPG (Not Oblivion)
Climax's Shooter
Now let's take out all of the sports/racing titles (because they're nothing exciting or new), the second fighting game (because they won't have two), and the unknown RPG (too vague, for now). What are we left with?
Perfect Dark Zero
Half-Life 2
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (Based on the new movie)
Mission Impossible (Based on the new movie)
King Kong (Based on the new movie)
Star Wars game
Fighting Game (DOA4?)
Climax's Shooter
Ah, now we can analyze this properly. Will anyone care about Half-Life 2 a year after it's release? Possibly, but not if PD0 is as good as it should be. Same goes for Climax's shooter, whatever it may be. As for all these licensed titles, while they may be good (especially King Kong, from UbiSoft), they won't be exclusive. So what's the core now, the stuff that will start them out right or on the path to hell?
Perfect Dark Zero
Fighting Game (DOA4?)
Still not too shabby. It's no Mario 64, but it's certainly better than SSX (while great, it's now obsolete) being your best launch title. Also, I'm assuming that this is indeed DOA4 we're talking about. Sony will surely have some great stuff out next fall to keep as many eyes as possible on their system, which is why MS needs to show people that the next generation really can offer something entirely different. PD0 won't make as big a splash if you can do most of the same things in Killzone 2. That's obviously an unlikely scenario, but it's something to keep in mind. Better graphics can and will sell systems, but showing promise of amazing things to come will keep them moving.
As I said, they could have waited it out a bit longer. Ninja Gaiden 2 could have competed with FFXII and the new Zelda next fall, but I guess we won't see it play out anything like that. It's a good move to beat everyone to the punch, they just better have their shit together when the time comes.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]