I Prefer Smaller...

First, let me say that this is definately gaming post so get your minds out of the gutter.  For posts of a more tittillating and morally questionable variety please visit Tank's blog.

Now that we're on the same page let me tell you what this is really about.  I'm seeing a trend in FPSs where developers are trying to improve their online experience by making it bigger, and by bigger I mean more players in a session.  Resistance: Fall of Man (PS3 launch exclusive) is touting their game as a revolutionary online experience simply because it will allow 20v20 battles on some maps.  Huxley (theoretical FPSMMO coming to Xbox360) will support 100v100 battles and even Bungie has stated that one of the things they are hoping to do with H3 is increase the online battle size to around 32v32.  Do you really want that?  Does that make the experience better?  Is that what is going to define a great FPS in the next-gen (other than graphics)?

One of the things people have been complaining about with Gear Of War is that the online MP is only going to support 4v4 battles.  I'm actually happy with that for a few reasons:

1. It should help to reduce lag. 
2. Smaller teams are much more conducive to actually working as a team.
3. With the type of gameplay this game looks like it's going to have 4v4 looks like the right fit. 

I applaud Epic for not trying to just make their online experience bigger but rather trying to innovate the way we play the game.  They are trying to introduce us to a new style of gameplay as opposed to giving us another shooter with different weapons, color palates, and maps.  Before I go any further let me say that I realize GoW is not a FPS but rather a 3PS (yes I just made up that acronym), but it still helps to illustrate my point that devs should be focused on innovating gameplay as opposed to just giving us bigger helpings of the same meal. 

Personally I don't really want to play in a room with 20 or 30 people.  That's just too damn big.  Just stop and think about how chaotic a 16 person room is in H2.  It's tough to get everyone on the same page to split into teams or decide what game to play next.  Then once you do get into the game it's, more often than not, every man for himself even in objective games.  And that's in a room with a bunch of your friends.  What happens when you're in a lobby with 30-40 other people and you know maybe half of them?  Can you imagine how hectic and chaotic that will be?  Then once in the game how do you even try and organize a team that size into an effective force?  It sounds more frustrating to me than fun.

Maybe it's just me but I really enjoy small team-based games with my friends.  4v4 custom games are my favorite in H2 and it's because it's more of a personalized social experience.  As opposed to being just another body in the room or on a team you can be an integral part of the team and you can communicate effectively. 

Then there is the size aspect of the maps that will have to be made to accomodate that many people.  I really don't think I would want to run around on a map that big.  Just think about Containment and how much it sucks when you respawn at your base and have to run all the way across the map just to get back into the action.  You can never find a decent weapon on respawn, the vehicles are usually already taken (BTW, Resistance won't have vehicles in MP which doesn't sound next-gen to me,) and it takes too long to get back into the action.  Now imagine a map that's even bigger than that, maybe quite bigger, and the increased amount of suck that it will contain.  Containment isn't big enough even for the 20v20 that Resistance is promising so maps are going to have to be bigger.  Sure they could adjust the respawn points to get you closer to the action but that will never work quite right because the action in a room that big will rarely be concentrated in one place. 

In the end bigger just isn't better in my mind.  I like to know my team, who is on it, and be able to coordinate effectively; and that just won't happen in giant games.  IMO devs need to be more concerned with innovations in gameplay, weapon and level design, or player-centric features like map editors than just giving us a bigger playground.  I'm sure there are people that want to experience a 64 or 100 person battle but I have a feeling that once the newness of the experience wears off there won't be enough fun to keep you coming back for more.

Posted by Q @ 12:53 pm EDT | Permalink | 4 Comments

More of the same...

Senator Sam Brownback is introducing legislation in the senate called the Truth in Video Game Rating Act.  This would force the ESRB to play the full version of a game in order to assess a rating.  Currently the ESRB relies on the developers to send them footage of the game that represents it as a whole and they make a judgement from that.  Not that this is a bad idea but it is fundamentally flawed.  This is coming about because of the 'Hot Coffee' scandal of last year but even if the ESRB had played the full game they wouldn't have uncovered the hidden code that caused all the fuss.  They would have played the game in it's entirety and gave it the same rating that it got in the first place.

I'm all for the ESRB rating system being used to limit game sales to minors but I don't think making them play entire games is going to change the way they rate them.  I can't remember the last game I played or even saw that I thought "damn, the ESRB really fucked up tha time" or "I can't believe they gave this game THAT rating".  IMO the ESRB does a fine job in rating the games the way they do it now.  Legislation shouldn't be targeting the ESRB but rather retailers in enforcing the ESRB system at the point of sale.  The government needs to be forming a partnership with the industry to educate the masses and inform people of what the rating system is and what each rating means. 

Even beyond holding the retailers responsible though we should look to the real root of this problem, the parents.  A parent's responsibility is to monitor their children and what they are doing.  If you let your 12 year old play GTA: San Andreas then, in the end, it's your fault.  If you are just giving your child $60 dollars or telling them to pick a game without checking out what they are buying then you aren't doing your job as a parent.  My son is 10 and there are games in my collection he can't play or even watch me play.  He also can't go online without me there to monitor him.  Hell, he can't even play vidoe games unless he asks permission first.  That doesn't make me a better parent than everyone else but it does make me involved, and that helps me to be a good parent. 

You can read more about the legislation here.

Posted by Q @ 3:27 pm EDT | Permalink | 3 Comments

Chances Are...

I'm a true cynical.  I tend to see the worst possible outcome in any given situation as the most likely.  So when the news broke about EA buying the exclusive NFL and NFLPA license I naturally thought I wouldn't be playing a good football game for the rest of the decade.  So far, I've been right...but that may be changing. 

EA may have a stranglehold on the NFL license but that doesn't necessarily mean that all hope is lost.  Madden has steadily been becoming more buggy and less well reviewed with each iteration.  At least part of that (if not all of it) has to do with the fact that there is no competition to push them.  The thought in everyone's mind has always been that since the exclusive license deal there was no hope of another football game on the market that could compete head-to-head.  I disagree with that and it seems that the talented folks from 2K sports may disagree as well.

I have always felt that the 2k football series was better than Madden.  It played better, looked better, had a better running game (crucial to any true football sim), and had better control and feel to it.  If EA hadn't put them out of immediate business after 2K5 I think that they my have actually outsold Madden over the next couple of years.  Sure it's just wild conjecture but since that's all we have I'm going with it.  Unfortuanately EA did put a bullet to the chest of 2K but it made the fatal mistake of forgetting to also put one to the head. 

PSA Break * Remember to always double tap your enemy to ensure they're truely dead. * End of PSA

Rumors are milling about the industry about an unlicensed football game that is being released by the 2k folks next year to compete with Madden.  Now I'm not talking about a drug filled, violence and steroid simulator like Blitz: The League, but rather a true football sim just like Madden...only better.  Don't believe it?  Don't see any way it could succeed?  I beg to differ my friend and let me tell you why.  There is actually precedence for this kind of competition that rages to this day...Konami's unlicensed Winning Eleven Pro Evolution Soccer vs. EA's licensed FIFA soccer.  The reason that it doesn't get a lot of notice here is because soccer isn't as popular in the US as it is, oh, everywhere else in the world!  2k could make an unlicensed football game and challenge Madden without paying licensing fees.  You may think this sounds ridiculous but it's not. 

Soccer is the biggest sport in Europe and is easily as loved as football is here in the US and Pro Evo is a huge success that has yearly iterations just like FIFA.  Being unlicensed means that they can't use the real life stars and teams but the game still sells.  Not only does it sell, but it has a huge devoted following.  It also pushes Madden in gameplay because many soccer fans feel that Pro Evo is actually a better soccer game from a gameplay standpoint than FIFA.  While EA is concerned with graphics, Konami focused on the gameplay and controls and won the hearts and dollars (or Euros) of fans.  They also take and expand every year on the rosters that they had from the previous year so you can actually follow a player through a career and become a fan of theirs even though they don't really exist. 

Pro Evo is a shining example of how to succeed in a huge sport without the support of a license.  I for one would happily buy a new 2k football title because I know that the gameplay would be great and I really don't care if I can play as my real life team.  I always like to do fantasy drafts (which you can't do in Madden from what I understand) and create my own players anyway so it wouldn't bother me.  It would have to have a fairly robust create-a-player engine, but that should be standard in any next-gen sports game now anyways.  I want a great football game and I don't care if it has a license.  Worst case scenario it would force EA to make a better Madden, or at least one that doesn't need a patch on release.

Posted by Q @ 3:59 pm EDT | Permalink | 3 Comments

Child of a Lesser Chief...

Well, I played in Caesar's FFA games last night and I have to say that, while fun, I was sorely outclassed.  In the first game I was able to steal enough kills to look competent but in the second game my true skills shined through and I got bent over with a three round burst straight to the sphincter.  It wasn't pretty.  Unfortuanately the night didn't get any better as we broke into teams and did some 4v4 and 2v2 games.  Again, I had fun but damn if it isn't a bit disheartening.

I thrive on competition.  If I'm doing something that I enjoy I want to be good at it and when I'm not I get mad.  Not mad at other people, but rather mad at myself.  It's a childish behavior, I know, but it's also just a part of who I am.  I love the the challenge of playing with the MLG crowd here on 2o2p but my skills just aren't up to snuff.  So I'm going to start playing more regularly with a real focus on improving my skills.  I have been doing THC games when there isn't anyone else on and that helps but I would much rather play in the MLG custom rooms when possible.  I'm also going to try and get into Caesar's Halo 101 room tonight to see what I can learn.

So, if you see me on and send me a game invite thanks for letting me play with you even though I'm not quite as skilled.  Know that I'm really working on improving, and if my "good game" doesn't sound totally sincere in the post carnage report screen it isn't you.  I'm having fun in my own twisted way, trust me.  Any advice and pointers are welcome.

See you online!

Posted by Q @ 2:25 pm EDT | Permalink | 3 Comments

Sony Slip...

It turns out that Assassin's Creed is coming to the 360 after all.  Not that there was ever any real doubt, but Ubisoft's dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge maneuvers over the issue did raise some concerns.  It's a bit strange for a publisher to hold back that kind of information for such a long time (the game was shown for PS3 release in May at E3) but I have a theory about that, shocking I know.

I believe that Sony was trying desperately to get the exclusive rights to this game for the PS3 but just couldn't get the job done.  I can't see any other reason that Ubisoft would have kept the announcement secret.  They were obviously working on the other platform versions seeing as how they are all being released simultaneously so Sony must have been beging for time exclusivity on the PS3. 

What really interests me about this is why Sony couldn't get this done (if my assumption is correct).  Could it be that Sony simply couldn't make it worth Ubisoft's while?  Sony stock has been slipping consistently since the E3 price announcements for the PS3 and they are strapped for cash for the first time in the companies history.  Or could it be that Ubisoft sees the overwhelming potential of this game and knows they are going to make a mint off it with a multi platform release?  They are still in a stock battle with EA from when EA tried to take them over earlier this year and they fought them off.  Another huge hit title (which I'm sure this will be) can only help them in a cash standpoint to keep EA at bay.

Who knows?  I may be completely wrong about the whole thing but I don't think so.  I prefer to think Sony is actually starting to flounder a bit.  They deserve it for all their asinine comments they have been making the past several months.

Posted by Q @ 2:56 pm EDT | Permalink | 1 Comments