The Three Rs N3twork is a primarily British viral entertainment network, with standings in many niche interests involved in a variety of different groups. Ranging from gaming to adulthood to video creation.
1/10 - "Just, No." 2/10 - "Avoid." 3/10 - "Gamebreakingly flawed" 4/10 - "Not so great" 5/10 - "Pretty Average." 6/10 - "A few nice touches, nothing amazing" 7/10 - "Not brilliant, fun anyway" 8/10 - "A decent enough game, Well worth a look." 9/10 - "A really good game. Highly Recommended." 10/10 - "An absolute must buy, a defining game for the genre."
Japan has long been the heartland for Nintendo support. Release a 360 in Japan and plaster 'Nintendo' all over the box and it'll sell like a new Elvis Presley album. Yet, Microsoft have been adamantly chasing that market despite the polite nudge-offs that the Japanese have been giving them over the past few years. In a bid, perhaps, to do what Manchester City are currently doing the football industry, and become the ultimate games console for all walks of life in all 'theatres of war'.
The latest attempt by Microsoft to buy their success in Japan has resulted in them slashing the prices of all their Xbox models. From September 11th, the Elite will be dropped from $441 to $368 dollars, the Pro will be available for $275. The Arcade, shockingly, will go from $257 to $183 (that's just over £90!!! Cheaper than a DS lite in the UK [£99.99]). To put these numbers in some kind of context for British readers: in the UK, the Elite retails (according to prices on GameStation) at £259 (just over $510), the Pro sells at £200 (just under $400), and the Arcade goes for 159 (~$310). So for the arcade, that's a price difference of £60 between the UK and Japan. In other words, if you're thinking of buying an Xbox IMPORT! The games are cheaper too!
This, essentially, means that the Arcade model is $50 cheaper than a Wii, which retails out there for $231. A desperate gambit by Microsoft to steal the home advantage from Nintendo, which has often claimed to be the 'economical' choice for families. And, importantly, Nintendo, despite all their problems, have been able to afford it, by lowering the debt that producing the console itself has put them in. In other words, the smaller HDD and the, at times, 'last gen' software has in fact not mattered due to the market it's aimed at. Microsoft haven't really learned this lesson. It's market is, broadly speaking, people. Nintendo have aimed their products at a cross section of people that don't care for (and might not appreciate) the swarve graphics and astronomically complex game systems that Microsoft and Sony have put in their boxes. But Sony, as a side, know what they're doing, and have aimed their products for a market that appreciate the blu-ray and the processing speed.
Strictly speaking, Microsoft's hardcore has always been online gamers. With, arguably, the best online service around, the Xbox has always been able to rely on a community of gamers, rather than a chopping and changing casual gamer lot. This has made them take the middle ground, between Nintendo (who appeal to people who wouldn't usually game, and in a way, view the console as a toy), and Sony (who are geared towards making their equipment the best technologically [the PS2, you will remember was immensely ahead of its time in the field of graphics and game processes]).
However, I don't believe Microsoft are used to this position, and it's difficult for them. In the OS market, they have more or less total ownership over a great percentage of the market. Appealing to both big business and individual users. Mac and Linux are both highly specialised, though they are growing more popular. In an ideal world, I think Microsoft are aiming for a market strategy like that, achieved by making the 'catchment area' for the Wii and PS3 smaller; allowing a great percentage of the market to be appealed to by the Microsoft doctrine.
But this issue in Japan show exactly why they will fail in this. The situation is too far gone, and Microsoft came along too late in the game. The Xbox wasn't a Windows 3.1, it was just a successful third party candidate. Nintendo and Playstation are the original players in this game, and have their own loyalists. For Nintendo, this is Japan. Nintendo know exactly what Japan wants, and how to give it to them: and how to make a return on this. Microsoft can't do that, because it's stretched too far, every game has to be available for release in all the 'theatres of war' for it to make sufficient return on the games. Nintendo, on the other hand, can design games (and, more frequently than any other developer, does) that appeal just to Japan, and then release the bigger title games overseas too. And it can then export at greater profit, because of the Yen-Dollar exchange.
Then, finally, within this, and at the core of this, Nintendo have developed with the needs of the Japanese close to its heart. The Wii, with all its little niches and tidbits (like motion sensing), appeals to them, because it's been designed for them. Add a little bit of marketing alteration and this then appeals to families abroad, as the cheap, viable option. So Microsoft can undercut as much as they like, but the Japanese know what they want, and it's Nintendo that's offering it to them, like no other company can, and the price of it can go hang. Put it this way: if you lowered the price of Hell's Kitchen on the DS to £10, I'd still go for Battlefield for £40.
Jack Thompson looks set to get what some gamers would, undoubtedly, call justice. As DW covers in his earlier article, Jack Thompson has been tried for 27 counts of professional misconduct. Today the Judge Tunis released her ruling for the 7 counts that Jack Thompson was found guilty of. After the Florida Bar Association suggested a term of 10 years ban for Mr. Thompson's legal practice, Judge Tunis went on to say this was 'too lenient' and further extended this to a lifetime ban, and a 43,000 dollar bill for court costs. Ha fucking ha.
After giving shit for games such as GTA as being too violent, gamers have a right to be annoyed with such a person who is a threat to virtual freedoms. Personally, I wouldn't have minded. He was an activist against something he didn't believe in: I have no problem with that. What I have a problem with is that he abused his powers and his position to do this. To quote Judge Tunis: 'Further, he has repeatedly indicated, verbally and in writing, that his conduct is justified to promote and champion his personally engendered moral values and causes.' In short, he broke the law in order to create the law. I think the French did something similar in 1789.
However, there is hope. Jack Thompson has a defense which may lead him to be 'emancipated'... Because conveniently, according to him, Judge Tunis' loyalty oath (and therefore her right to be a Judge) is forged. That's his defense. Now... this to me seems equivalent to saying 'Yeah sure, I committed all of those crimes, but SHE...' Surely, if that's his defense, he's admitted his guilt?
This guy's supposed to be 'religious'.
But more importantly, Jack Thompson is, in his opinion, 'right'. That's the only thing that can drive a person to risk everything to change laws. To misrepresent. To mispractice. But the law says he's not 'right', because he's broken the law, and so is punished. Luckily for gamers. Gamers who love GTA, and DON'T drive around in a 60s sedan drive-bying hoodies. This makes the world believe that Jack Thompson's opinions about games are wrong too. This guy is a martyr to our own freedoms. Of course, not everyone is suddenly going to change their mind, but I have to give Jack a pat on the back for making the position of the gamer more credible. And restoring everyone's faith in lawyers...
Though, essentially, he still deserves everything that comes his way, simply, because he's such a hypocrite. If I were him, I wouldn't be so worried about the loss of my entire life, but, instead, the loss of my dignity. Don't, ever, undermine your own argument by undermining the system you're appealing to. How can anyone take him seriously? How can he take himself seriously? That's my opinion anyway.
But what it comes down to is this (as a gamespot user put it):
As promised, here is my article about Sonic the hedgehog, From January. everything from here on in is unedited.
--
So, Yesterday i had a bit of a blast from the past.
i went to a friends house, and as for gaming apparatus, she only had a gamecube. Now, I have had my Xbox360 system for almost a year now, and i was hungerering for some photorealistic graphics.
That was until she pulled out a copy of "sonic mega collection" from somewhere, and loaded it up, and i fell in love all over again, The blistering speed, the simple controls, The fact that 6 of us were crowded around a single gamecube controller, playing the classic "one life each" gameplay that i remember from my early years, It was brilliant, we fired through sonic two.
This got me thinking though.. Why are games not like this anymore?? with all the photoreal graphics, and the Realistic physics, what happened to a game simply being fun?? We had 3 girls present and they were playing sonic almost as much as the boys, in fact, they were positively clamouring for their turn to chuck sonic headlong through the levels,
later sonic games lost the feel, speaking from my days as an 8 year old with nothing but a megadrive and a copy of sonic two, i can safely say i appreciate the gameplay, I remember practically going into overdraft so i could get sonic 1 on the xbox live marketplace the day it was released, and to this day, i've played it more then practically every game i own.
Sonic adventure on the dreamcast made an effort to make sonic more involving, and succeeded, to be honest, in little more then to make a joke of the franchise, The great sonic games of the Megadrive era are nothing more then faded memories in the heads of people like me, and the thought scares me, hell, i'll go out on a limb and say that mario games are equally as unforgettable, but they have been long forgotten in their original forms, Hell, sonic was all about running through levels in under a minute, dodging spikes, springs and everything the dreaded eggman could throw at you, and everyone loved it, And from the looks of last nights playthrough of pretty much every game on that collection, they still do, So... The point i'm making in this editiorial, is, maybe sega, or whoever the hell owns the sonic brand now, should make a game just like that, Not another "sonic the hedgehog" travesty for the xbox360., with voice acting and a "seriously serious" storyline, but just a simple "get from point A to point B" game trying to recreate the feel of the original platformers, because, in an age where the launch line up looks like a who's who in Violent bloody warfare, or long winded japanese RPG's, a simple, addictive game that all your friends could enjoy would be a real eye opener.
After reading a particularly interesting article on the biases of reviews, it got me thinking about the best reviews to read. Personally, I usually trust the judgement of Gamespot. This doesn't mean I think they're unbiased: I think that would be impossible. But they do tend to put out good reviews. Detailed reviews with fair statements. I've tended to find that their views match up to those I find whilst playing through the game. For instance, their review of CoD 4 seemed fair and just. But, despite this, I often find myself disagreeing with reviews given on Gamespot: two examples that leap out include Halo 3 and Assassin's Creed.
So there, in one paragraph, I've listed one game I agree with Gamespot on, and two that I do not. So why, you may ask, do I keep going back to gamespot? Laziness for one. I just simply cannot be fucked to go and find a place that reviews as well as gamespot does, and also feels the way I do about games. The liklihood is (with free will and all that crap) that I'd actually have to hunt for a review for each individual game in order to find a review that I agreed with. There is one pretty fundamental flaw in this plan: you read reviews to decide on whether you should buy a game; and you can only pass judgement on a game you've bought, so you can't disagree or agree with a review unless you've actually bought it... in which case the review is of little use anyway.
So we must, it makes sense, have a place to go and read reviews that is a good faithful area to return to. As I've already mentioned, Gamespot has detailed reviews which, in many cases (but not all Assassin's Creed) do not overemphasise the good, or gloss over the bad. Or, of course, vice versa.
And yet, even with this, we have a problem, because 'good' and 'bad' are things determined by me. Well... for you, it's determined by you, but you get my point. The only thing that I can see for sure in Gamespot is that it is detailed, because what is 'good' and what is 'bad' may be different for me than it is for them. In a game, I think there should be a solid storyline, while the reviewer may put more of an emphasis on multiplayer. Neither of us are wrong, but neither of us will agree. So in which case, how can I read the thoughts of another person and say 'This is a game I will enjoy'.
This comes back to the question 'how do I choose what sites to read reviews from?' And the key word here is 'sites'. The best way to decide what games to buy is to read reviews from many different sites so you can, essentially, get the 'whole picture' as it were, and decide whether this game is worth buying. One site will write with one bias, and another with a different bias. Read altogether, hopefully I can see through these biases and see the game for what it really is. Then, I can apply my own biases, and decide whether this a game I will enjoy.
But don't forget, there are certain reviews you can skip over. A review should be detailed and at least attempting to be neutral. And remember, if you ever want perfectly unbiased, factual, and completely correct and never wrong material, come back to DWs!
Today, in gaming news, it was ruled that the owner of site MrModChips, should not be incarcerated for the selling of those technological marvels they call 'chips'. The site also sells pre-modded consoles. Basically, for those of you that don't know, 'modding' a console involves installing a small chip into your console in order to circumvent security measures, in order to perform certain activies (which are perfectly legal) such as to create back ups, or play imported games. However, the issue of modding comes from the fact that a modded console can be used to play games that are purchased, for instance, downloaded and burned onto a dvd. Of course, it's just a few bad eggs that do this. A couple of years ago in Australia, a similar case occured, and the defendant was found not guilty because the chips could quite easily be used for legal activties, and not copyright infringement.
But this raises an interesting point--and one that can be seen further in Peer2Peer downloading. The action itself is not illegal, but can lead to illegal actions, most notably copyright infringement. Because of this, it's incredibly difficult to enforce copyright laws where the actual means of infringing them is legal. People who mod consoles in order to play illegally copied games cannot be, because of the nature of the chip, and the way it works, easily differentiated from those who use the chip for backups. So how can copyright infringement be avoided? The big companies certainly want it to be.
One way, it strikes me, would be to get rid of the need for backups and imported games (or at least region coded games). If this happened, then mod chips could be completely illegalised, as the only activity they could be used in would be illegal activity. There are a couple of difficulties with this though. Of course, the removal of a distinction between PAL, NTSC and NTSC-J is one solution to the imports idea. They're not needed in today's world, but, of course, this would cost money, and if there's one thing that big companies hate more than losing money, is actually having to use it. However, discs will always be fragile, until they're redesigned, and so backups will be made. Of course, a more robust solution might be possible, but guess what that needs? Any ideas? It needs R&D. R&D requires researchers. And they require... yup, you guessed it: money. Again, big companies would much rather just convict everyone that moves, instead of spend money on the problem.
Now, there are those of you out there who are saying that 'copyright laws are just another impeachment on our freedom', and that we should just be able to copy games and play them as we please (and that's why we have Linux). But I'm very much a capitalist, I think that if you justify not paying for something because copyright laws are against your religion or whatever the hell you're saying, then you should listen to that four letter word of what is coming out of your mouth. Copyright is necessary to protect the profit motive of modern society, people put hours into designing top notch games because they get paid for it. If you don't pay for your games then those designers don't get paid, and then you extend it, to a point where no one gets paid. Sure, some of it goes to big fat cats, but essentially, no matter how much money the company makes, they're still going to take the same cut, so essentially, it's just the little guy that's losing out. I'm not having a go, I'm just saying, if you're going to do it, don't try and justify it to yourself, just accept what you're doing is wrong, and then, if you still must, get on with it.
Anyyyyway, for the moment, we have to accept that console modding is a good thing essentially, and that it can be used for very useful purposes. Like P2P, which can be used to share files that one person has created, with other people, modding is not a morally wrong activity, but it can lead to illegal actions. I may be a capitalist, but I'm also a moralist, I think that we have a choice to choose our own decisions, so whilst copyright infringement is wrong, I don't think that people can be discriminated against if they use something which leads to copyright infringement in some cases. That is why today's ruling for MrModChips was a good day for gaming, and a good day for civil liberty.
The experience of video games varies from individual to individual. Some gamers play a couple of hours a week, and others play a couple of hours every couple of hours. But I'm sure you already know that (unless you're the latter, then you might be unaware that the former even exist). So how can we possibly put any definition on a group of people ('gamers') that vary in their habit so much that they can't be put in the same time bracket, let alone under the same banner. Look at the example of nations: a person from a country will be a member of that country for their entire life, so we can, with reasonable accuracy, call them 'Swedish' or 'Mongolian' or 'Martian'. However, in these groups there are exceptions, and these exceptions have names of their own 'ex-patriates' etc.
This leads me to believe that there must be other categories next to 'gamer' that can be used. Xbox Live attempted to class this as 'Recreation', 'Underground', 'Family' and 'Professional'. But this did not work. And it didn't work because the majority put themselves as 'Recreational'. And yet, this number of 'Recreational' members varied so much in how often they were gamers at all. I classed myself as recreational, and I play for a couple of hours a day. My friend is also recreational, and plays a couple of hours a week. So Xbox Live missed the mark here.
You can't, as Microsoft attempted to do, define a group by the way they believe they play. A far better system would be to put a timer on the account and then you take an average of time spent on the account per week--this is then attached to the account so other people can see just what 'kind' of gamer this gamer really is (and mock/admire them suitably). GTA had the right idea. In the stats, its possible to view your 'Addiction Level'. Something which is, apparently, 'Spiralling Downward' for me. Naturally, this doesn't define my gamer characteristics, in the way 'addict', or 'healthy habit' would, but it gives the same idea.
It seems to me that all gamers come under three categories (categories they can't possibly put themselves in... because they'd lie): hobbyist, (the kind of hobby that stamp collecting would be considered) addiction (the people that say 'I can quit sure', but never could) and cult (they're aware they have a serious problem [more so than the addicts], but if you try and tell them they should do something about it, their eyes glow red and they pull out a level 43 scythe). People might be able to give up for a couple of months in the addiction stage, but they'll always return. I'm not saying to be in the last two categories is a bad thing. It's not like heroine which actually has a truly detrimental effect, but I think everyone needs to understand (those outside the gaming circle more than any) that there's not just 'gamers'. A disgusting stereotype ranging from people with glasses and long greasy hair to people who own a mobile phone with Snake II on it.
I've spent a ton of money on the Xbox arcade, and I keep an eye on the upcoming titles, I think its a brilliant idea, and it saves me having to dig out my retro consoles for a crack at Contra or Sonic 2.
5: X-Com: Enemy Unknown/X-Com: Terror from the deep.
This has been my guilty pleasure for absolutely years. When I was 11 I was given an old PC by my uncle.
Installed on it was this gem. Its depth of gameplay and teeny tiny size [16MB on my harddrive right now] make it a natural choice for the Arcade.
X-com mixes too genre's of game. Firstly, you are in charge of managing "X-com" the agency, Formed to combat an alien invasion. To this effect you research weapons, build base facilities, and hire soldiers for the m ore exciting bit. When you get the call. Here's where it gets interesting. You dispatch a team of soldiers to the "disturbance" [be it a landed UFO, a crashed UFO or even an attack on a town] and investigate. This is the most exciting bit, slowly taking the team across the area. From the start, your made to outthink your opponent, after all, they have superior weaponry, and often superior numbers. This bit plays alot like PS one classic Vandal hearts, crossed with an "Aliens" mentality. I still play it today.
4: Excitebike
I'd like to be clear here. Not Excitebike 64, god no. The original. Excitebike was a nes game I practically grew up on, Simple gameplay, and an addictive quality trying to run through the levels as quick as possible.
I know this wish is practically redundant now, After all you can buy excitebike on the Wii's Virtual console last year. But fuck it, I want it anyway. I don't have a Wii, but I want excitebike for my 360. Chuck in the ability to share your created tracks with other people, and obviously a multi player, and you have a quick and easy, addictive classic, that would basically sell itself. I mean, look at the little guy. He's having the time of his fucking life!
Plus you know, if it was released I could get achievement's for the entire summer spent repeatedly practising those same damn tracks again and again and again.
3: Unreal Tournament
Hell, if they can release Quake 3 arena for the arcade, how about the better game? Unreal tournament is abso-fucking-lutely amazing, and while there are alot of games since that have improved upon the classic gameplay, including but not limited to the forthcoming 360 "Unreal Tournament 3" but hell, I liked it, I liked the original weapons, The fastpaced FPS and the unstoppable carnage that you could drop into at any moment. Pretty much every PC gamer has enjoyed this game at some point, and it was the first game I ever played on LAN. No screenwatching for the win!!
Plus, the Biorifle was fucking amazing.
2: Revenge of Shinobi
Its ridiculously insane how good this game was.
Firstly, it was a top notch platformer
You had ninja powers! Including, the ability to self destruct, and jump stupidly high. All ninjas should have this ability.
In the original Cart, you fought against Batman, Spiderman, and Godzilla as bosses.
You were a ninja.
Ninja throwing weapons
Now, if your not excited because of those 5 simple points, your probably not a gamer anyway. And it would fit really nicely in with the Sega Classics collection already on the arcade, no?
1: Goldeneye
Another Virtual console release, although nintendo commited the ultimate sin and didnt include online multiplayer. If ever there was a game that cried out for online multiplayer, Goldeneye was it. this game was without a doubt the best FPS of its generation, and it pretty much conquered my inherent hatred for the N64 and its ridiculously stupid controller. this paved the way for me to play classics like perfect dark, and conkers bad fur day, Funnily enough both rare titles. So eh, well done goldeneye.
Why should it be an Xbox live title? Well, the map design was amazing. the single player wasn't so bad itself, The golden gun was funny as hell, and so were the variety of mines you had to play with. But the main reason I want this game? Online multiplayer. It was addictive as hell, and I absolutely loved it but I didnt have much chance to play it at full capacity, 4 people dashing around the facility bullets whizzing every where. When the rumours went around not so long ago that this was coming to the arcade, I bought 1200 points which are still on my account today, on the off chance that it'll one day release, even now, I hold blind faith that it'll just appear one day despite the multiple statements that it'll never happen.
This list isn't just about games that couldn't quite clinch originality: there are plenty examples of that, Haze,Call of Duty 3 and Dynasty Warriors V to name but a few. This is, if you like, a medal for 'trying your best'. These games have all attempted so hard to be original, and just, for some reason, failed. It's the award you got in primary school for taking part in the race even though you were 5 stone heavier than the next fattest person in your class, and subsequently suffering a stroke as a result of which. (Was that metaphor in bad taste?)
5th game that tried its best to be original Perfect Dark Zero
Oh it could have been so good. Everything was going well for it, it had the background of an amazing shooter to support it, it had the Rare support, it even had a hot woman protagonist. Where did it all go wrong for Rare's blunt sharp-shooter? For its sins, it introduced a cover system, a rolling about button and came up with a variety of different weapons in order to ensure that this game would be the perfect one to launch the 360. But, the gameplay, 360 buyers soon found out, only had the longetivity it did because there was nothing else to play. But as soon as the next decently popularised game came out, everyone raced at lightning speed to their disk drives and, gingerly, hit 'eject'.
So what was it that failed PDZ in its efforts? The storyline, for one, was when you strip it down, pretty basic, and not original at all, but that wasn't so much of a problem, except it presented itself as primarily a multiplayer game. However, the multiplayer was boring: the vehicles were too exciting and too exotic, despite how originalthey were meant to be. The maps were frigid at best, and lacked colour and flare. And maybe, there was one thing that was out of Rare's control. Because PDZ was the game to be released with the 360, it meant that everyone had imbued all of the spirit and anticipation of the 360 into Perfect Dark. And of course, when Perfect Dark was mediocre at best, it was just a let down for, possibly the highest anticipated game to date, with the exception of our number one spot.
4th game that tried its best to be original Rainbow Six 4
Rainbow Six 3 had possibly the most playability of any Xbox game on XBL. I played it for hours and hours, days on days on end. I finally put it down in exchange for Halo 2, but despite this, it still holds a special place in my heart. And so, I wrongly suspected, should Rainbow Six 4. RS4 had a playability span akin to that of a velociraptor. Despite introducing a truly innovative character modification system, and updating the graphics on RS3. It also had a moderately interesting and unused story, which you expect from a Tom Clancy game.
And yet, it was one of my least played games, bar one, which comes up next. Why was this? Well, firstly, the maps were unbelievably dull. I only played three or four, and most of those I was forced to, there was only one that I really liked... and even then, one spawn was superior to the other. But essentially, the game play was the same as Rainbow Six 3, no significant changes in interface or combat systems--and what wasn't in RS3 wasn't any good anyway. When the game's worse than its predecessor, you automatically ask: "Why the fuck am I playing this game?" And when you ask that question, you know its time to consign the disc to its case on a dusty shelf.
3rd game that tried its best to be original Star Wars Battlefront 2
I played this game for maybe 3 hours, before never playing it again. I didn't immediately jump out of my skin for dislike, I was just shocked at how so much new stuff could actually make the game seem more like its ancestor than were they to keep the game exactly the same. Battlefront the original was an amazingly decent 'Battlefield'-like game. Battlefront had absolutely no problem in maintaining its individuality from the Battlefield series that it borrowed so heavily from. Its success in this can be attributed partly to the fact that it's set 'a long time ago, in a galazy far, far away'. But Battlefront 2, as the developers clearly realised, was going to have to be majorly different in order to distinguish itself. A set of new maps and a couple of extra classes was not going to do it.
So they made a big fuss about updating the system, adding 'Heroes', changing the gameplay so some of it was in space, adding many new vehicles, and creating a respectable amount of new maps with structural and tactical design to enable 'crunch' zones and lax zones. I feel so sorry for this game, because it should have been an incredible success. And its a mystery to me, because I know that many reviews score this highly, as would any gamer reviewing this independently of the gaming world. But the fact remains that, even after trying so hard to be individual to Battlefront, Battlefront 2 was an extremely short lived game, that, in the main, died not long after I was done with it.
2nd game that tried its best to be original Project Gotham Racing 4
This was, for all intents and purposes, a very good game. But it lacked its own separated state of respect. PGR 4 was, unlike PGR 3, always referred to as PGR. It just didn't exist separately from the Project Gotham Universe. This was a shame, because PGR 4 brought in many new things that PGR 3 didn't have: the calendar system of races for one. And in this sense, it had a great amount of innovations, but... it was still just PGR. It never stood out as a great racing game, it lacked just that little bit more to push it over the edge. PGR 3 on the other hand has this edge, but, when we went to PGR 4, it had all the same cars as PGR 3, with only a few new additions. Of course, I understand, they're not going to be able to add 150 new cars in the space of a year: new models aren't released that quickly. But, between PGR 2 and PGR 3, sufficient new models were released to allow PGR 3 to assume the title: new.
Everyone wanted to like PGR 4 because it was such a large franchise, and one of the cornerstones of the name 'Xbox'. However, I think, despite the addition of motorcyles, it was difficult for many people to say "This is an outstanding game", like they could with PGR 3. So, here, the PGR series have taken a backstep, despite taking a step forward in originality.
1st game that tried its best to be original Halo 3
What a shame. Such a shame that this was not the game it should have been. It was a great game, for maybe a month, and then, even after that, had good replay value. But it should have been what CoD 4 later turned out to be. Halo 2 set it up for great multiplayer, and of course, the original Halo would have it have great single player. And it had both of these. But really, it felt like that was all they had done, taken Halo and Halo 2 and packaged them in the same cellophane. This wasn't through lack of trying, though, the rank system and various new items, such as the flare, should have set this game up to being completely original. But it always felt as if they could have been released as a separate add-on for Halo 2. There was no key, fundamental change in the game to make it seem like Halo 3. It always just felt like Halo 2.5.
DW should be back sometime tonight or tomorrow, so expect him to be making some more posts soon. Before that though, the third of three articles from this contributor whilst he's alone on the blog. I've looked at some games of the present, I've also looked to a game of the future, but now its time to honour some of the games of the past. Now I could spend the whole article talking about the greatest action heroes of previous games, Mario, Sonic, E. Honda... But that would just be too easy. Instead, I'm going to talk about those characters behind the scenes, the little guys, that really made the difference to the hero's final outcome.
The first minor hero I'd like to talk about is actually a minor heroine. She was in a game franchise that lasted 3 moderately successful games, and was a nearly flawless aid for those three games. Her only mistake was to get captured by something that wanted to destroy the Universe or something (I'm not entirely sure, I never quite got the storyline). If you haven't guessed already, it was Cortana. Throughout the Halo games, she is a fantastic sidekick to the MC, and she's intelligent, knows a lot about technology, and, let's face it, you, as a self-respecting gamer, would.
I'm going to purposely ignore Luigi as we enter the realm of Nintendo, because in so many of the games Mario had to do a lot of the work himself, and he also gets captured by a giant turtle a hell of a lot. Instead I want you to turn your attention to a character that really was annoying, extortionate and in fact, you can't possiblly like him at all. He even made an annoying sound when you engaged him in conversation. So why is he even mentioned, you ask? Simply because of the continuity that he held throughout parts of the Zelda series. Every game, you subconsciously ask where and when he's going to appear, and, for such a minor character, this is quite an impression. I'm talking of course about that 35 year-old bloke who wants to be a fairy, Tingle. And yes, I think, if the universe of Zelda had shotguns, he would certainly receive many cartridges to the face. Ah well, we can only hope he appears in Devil May Cry one day.
Knuckles. I think as I've already mentioned Sonic, it wouldn't be justice without talking about Knuckles. Knuckles was, of course, against Sonic at times, he is often instrumental in the blue hedgehog's adventures. Look, I'll be blunt: he's got attitude, strength (apparently, he's the strongest in the series) and fucking dreads! What more does he need? Knuckles gets special mention here because, were he not in the Sonic games, he would easily be able to carry his own independent game franchise.
It wouldn't be fair not to talk about one of the Kong family members. But which one to choose? They all provide useful services for you when playing through the games. So I think the sensible choice would be to choose on personality, and Donkey Kong, unlike other game franchises, gives you enough depth to secondary characters to allow this. Swanky Kong was a tempting choice, as was Tiny Kong, but I think the greatest zero hero in Donkey Kong has to be Funky Kong. A pacifist, not through choice, but through laziness, he's just the kinda character you want to high five when he speaks.
But none of the above characters have what it takes to be the Greatest Hero That You Never Did See. They all have their own characteristic to donate to the embodiment of 'second best', but none of them has it all. Cortana has the intelligence, Tingle lends the memorability, Knuckles bears the attitude and Funky Kong has charisma. Well, the truth is, it's difficult to find any secondary character that has all the above characteristics, mainly because it's saved for the main character: look at Dante, or Solid Snake. So, my answer will probably come as a bit of a shock, because he's not the sort of person you'd see as a secondary character, or even as a hero, he's classically known as a villain... unless you're playing as Nod.
That's right, my vote for the Greatest Hero That You Never Did See is Kane from the Command and Conquer series. You don't play as him, so he's not the primary character, and when you play the Nod campaign, he is a hero, in many respects. As for the four characteristics, he has them all. Intelligence? He instrumented the systematic brainwashing of millions of Nod followers, and survived an Ion cannon blast to the head. Memorability? Westwood/EA have done a great job by getting Joseph D. Kucan to play Kane in all the C&C series and design a character that will never be forgotten even by casual C&C players. Attitude? Cross him, I dare you. Charisma? When you're on his good side, you have to admit... you want to destroy GDI, you want to let the race that is set to destroy Earth know where Earth is. And that is what puts him above other secondry characters, because he should be a villain, and yet, he isn't, because you side with him, and not the 'good guys'. Because remember "You can't kill the Messiah!"
This weekend DW and Darkshadowfang have gone off to a festival, so this will be the first of three articles I'll be posting this weekend to keep a constant supply of articles on the blog. This one was prompted by the disease that appears to be spreading throughout my social group, mentioned in previous posts. This disease in question has been spreading for some months now, and is called World of Warcraft.
I don't play WoW, I've never had the urge, and, to be honest, I'm not a great fan of MMORPGs, which explains why I'm ripping WoW in this blog. But what I am a fan of (at the moment, if I was writing this blog 6 months ago, it would have been to do with CoD) is GTA. But out of my group of friends, only DW owns and actually plays GTA, so I ask what are they all busy doing? Killing trolls and orcs on WoW. While what am I doing? Blowing shit up. Which sounds cooler to you?
Now, I'm not going to disparrage the poor sad acts who sit there playing it for 26 hours a day, because that's a mental condition, and you need professional help with that; me taking the fucking piss won't end those people's suffering. No, I'm confused at the people who play it 'socially'. 'Social' gaming. Using WoW to traverse long distances--in the name of society. Face it. Gaming is not social. I mean, let's take the example of Xbox Live. Go into a lobby on CoD and, if it's predominantly American, I get pummeled with 10,012 bad impressions of an English accent, that makes them sound like they have a crumpet stuck in their fucking throat. Is that social gaming? Just because it involves other people doesn't mean that it's social. Getting punched in the face isn't a social activity (I don't count boxing, they wear oven mits), even though it involves more than one person. If you want to further society, you don't escape into another society, in the hopes of finding something better. If you turn your back on society, it will turn its back on you. And to game, you must accept that. If you want to be social, go out, pick up the phone, even use some variety of IM. That's social.
Three problems with WoW are money, finance and funding. These don't happen all at the same time. WoW goes through your money first, then your finance as you remortage your house, and finally you're forced to dip into your business' funds. If you still have a business, and it hasn't become 'Property of BlizzCorp.' GTA doesn't charge me monthly. I know there'll be a lot of sighs at me bringing up money (because true gaming transcends monetary interests), but really? 18 quid for two months. Well, let's see, that's 9 GBP per month, and that's £108 a year, plus about 11 for the original game. So for a year's play of WoW, you pay the same amount as GTA plus two years Xbox Live. But... here's the bit I really don't understand... in WoW, you don't even get an M14. I'm lost... why are people playing this game again? So, you see, this is where I'm no longer blaming the addicts, because they get the most out of their £9 a month (in fact more, as they're playing two hours more than physically possible a day). But these 'social' WoW gamers, who honestly honestly honestly aren't addicted, are paying monthly just to keep the game running. At worst, you could be paying £9 a month just to play for a couple of days.
Also, the plot in GTA is fantastic. Not so much for WoW. GTA has drugs, sex and rock and roll. WoW has thugs, apex, blackrock and trolls. GTA has fast cars, and the mafia. The mafia! Where is the incentive to play WoW over GTA? In GTA you get paid, regularly, to blow shit up. But, most importantly, GTA has an innovation that I will love them forever for. Taxis.
Now, I know that Taxis weren't actually invented by Rockstar, but their use in GTA is completely innovative. Back when I used to play Oblivion (a fantastic game), when I first bought it I said to myself, I will not use the transport system. And why should I? The graphics were beautiful, and it ruined the realism of the game. I was never in a hurry to get anywhere anyway. But then, it just became impractical, so you know I compromised with myself, I'll just transport to the nearest city, and then walk it from there. Still get to experience the beautiful graphics, and it was realistic enough, but it was also practical. But, by the time I had clocked up my 2000th hour on the game, I decided that fuck it, life's too short for this walking shit. So I just beamed from place to place, and began to get impatient that I couldn't beam even closer to where I wanted to go. And even worse when I had to get somewhere new, I actually had to fucking walk there! What kinda game were they playing?! (An RPG, they answered.)
This was the problem, I desperately wanted to walk, maintain the realism of the game, but I couldn't be bothered! But Taxis answered this question! They were realistic (even had the annoying cab drivers who 'decided to take the long way'), but they also took you exactly where you wanted. And then, you had the opportunity to watch the entire journey (if you had the luxury of time), or skip it, for an extra fee of course. This extra fee translated to me into some kind of punishment for not watching the graphics. And, most importantly, they weren't available at the push of a button. In some cases, taxis were exceedingly rare at some points in the day, and this just added to the realism. Having to run five blocks to find any taxis, and then 20 running you down in the middle of the road at once. You even swear at them when they don't stop! Taxis are the best innovation of any game in recent years. More efficient than trains (they go exactly where you want), and just as realistic. But quicker than finding a car that's the right colour, BHP etc for your tastes.
This is the real reason why I don't understand why people play WoW. It doesn't have taxis. What were Blizzard thinking? The other thing is it doesn't have Nico Bellic. And let's face it, Nico is like a sarcastic Jack Bauer, a smooth Jason Bourne, or a modest god. Nico and Taxis. The best WoW got is the undead (yeah, they were cool in House of the Dead, but without the shotgun, what's the point?) Lastly, what WoW is missing, that would make me play it is IF99: the funk station on GTA. Nico, taxis and IF99. Any of those things would make me play it. Get all three, and hell, I won't just pay for the game and a year's subscription, I'll buy all the extras, expansions and shit. Even if I do have to remortgage Darkshadowfang's barn for it.
Today, seeing a certain advert on the TV for the thousandath time prompted me to write this article on ironic game genres. Now, this is a game review site, but I think a lot of people get caught up in the gaminess of games and end up forgetting about this other realm of imagination--real life. As a result, developers have seen fit to enhance our lives by giving us an opportunity to just completely ignore real life, and do everything on the console.
5th most ironic video game genre: Music sims: eg. Guitar Hero, Singstar.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love Guitar Hero: not as much as some perhaps (looking at Darkshadowfang here), but still, it's a decent game. Singstar also, is a lot of fun, especially at parties where the aim of the game is to show everyone else just how bad your voice can be, whilst singing 'Our House'.
But, where's the realism? For instance, in an online game of Call of Duty 4, one takes on the role of a team, let's take Spetsnaz (the Commies), the aim is then to pick up your weapon and shoot bullets at members of the opposing team so that they die. This, BY AND LARGE, is the objective of war, which is what CoD is attempting to capture. If Neversoft had been involved in the production of CoD 4, the objective would be still to shoot the enemy team, but you would be shooting them with, say, a microlight, or a chest of drawers.
Guitar Hero is simply Tekken with rhythm, and Singstar is how to make yourself look like the worst singer ever. Ever. Nobody wants to be good at Singstar, because that would mean being good at singing. In the same way, Guitar Hero doesn't lead you to being good at Guitar. Sure it maliciously tricks you into thinking you are by giving you the shiny Gibson Les Paul controller, but really, all it is is button bashing like Dead or Alive, or Tetris.
The really ironic bit? Well, it applies to Singstar more than Guitar Hero. But the really ironic bit is you're paying upwards of 40 GBP for something you could otherwise do for free. Sing. People have been playing Singstar for thousands of years before Sony ever existed. Oh, and, nearly forgot to mention: the X Factor Game.
4th most ironic video game genre: Movie Franchises: eg. every single Star Wars game ever made, and Indiana Jones game, and King Kong, and Halo (you'll see), and Lord of the Rings (those are definitely not based on the books) and... well you get the idea. Any game that was originally a movie.
Movie Franchises are quintessentially poor. They form the bottom of the barrel expectancy that most experienced gamers will just avoid. There are notable exceptions to this: Star Wars have produced some excellent games, to measure up to some excellent movies. But, they've also created some games that made you want to scratch your eyes out (and Episode I). This is where the irony comes in, but not so much irony as tragedy. For instance, the Godfather. Arguably the best film ever made, was somehow the basis for a game which was shockingly horrible and something I wouldn't want to meet in an alley on a dark night.
What's the problem though? Why does it seem that the better the film, the worse the game? Well, one cold night in February I believe I stumbled across the answer. DW, Darkshadowfang and I, as well as some other mates were watching the movie Starship Troopers. A classic. A truly great movie for sci-fi. Standing aside other science fiction greats such as Star Wars, (Episodes 2 through 6), a select few of the Star Trek movies, and Alfie. However, DW brought something interesting up: everything in Halo is ripped from Starship Troopers. And I don't just meant a couple of the vehicles, and some of the plotline, I mean, you can even see the similarities in the abbreviations used. USMC (United States Marine Corps) and UNSC (United Nations Space Command). Now there's a lot of web debate about this, and I don't want to get into that, because I'm just using this to prove a point. That point is: had Halo been produced exactly the same, with just a different name, Starship Troopers, it would never have done so well. This renders movie franchises pointless, because what's the point in them being a franchise if they don't have the same name as the movie they're representing. The only notable exception is Goldeneye. Goldeneye achieved everlasting fame for redefining the shoot-em-up genre. However, I class this as anomalous because it was made by Rare. Back in the day, Rare could have made a game about monkeys going around shooting other monkeys with bananas and it still would have been a groundbreaking, multi-million copy selling game. Oh wait... they already did that.
3rd most ironic video game genre: Life sims: eg. the Sims, Simcity, to a lesser extent Rollercoaster Tycoon.
I owned a copy of the Sims once. But there was something about it that took the fun out. It was one of the few genres that actually struck me as being about as useful as a paper fire blanket. This is mainly because... what it was trying to let you do, unlike shoot-em-ups or RTSs, was to make you live. As in live life. As in what I was doing before I turned the computer on. This was a big problem for me when it came to buying the next expansion pack. And the next one. And the next one. And the two after that. I questioned myself. Why? I asked, should I spend good money on an another expansion pack when I can do more or less anything on there in Real Life? I can set fire to the hob, I can go out and buy a new outfit which makes me look like a jogger all the time. But most importantly, I can cook Mac and Cheese in under 5 minutes. It takes me the same amount of actual time to cook Mac and Cheese in Real Life, as it does to cook it on the game. And what the fuck do I get out of waiting for my mini-me to cook it on the game? Where is my daily nutrition? How can I enjoy the taste? When I wait for it, at least I get something out of it.
And this is the important point: the Sims has lost the point of gaming. Gaming is not to give the gamer a chance to live the life he is already living. But, instead, to blow shit up. To do something absolute fucking crazy, like drive around Silverstone at 20 mph under the speed of light. What the hell is the point of a game where your own life is more interesting?
2nd most ironic video game genre: Sports games: eg. FIFA ('24-'08), Madden etc.
Don't encourage us developers! Dear god! Before sports games existed, there was a chance that occasionally we might go outside and play some football, maybe a game of rugby, maybe, for the more adventurous gamer, even a trip down to the gym. But now? Why risk that small chance of getting worn out? Now we can do it all on the screen. I can (if I owned any of these games) play a selection of cricket, ice hockey, croquet and football without having to move from my bed (actually, I do have to take my cover off to reach the console though; that's a constant problem for me). And, as we all know, every single gamer in the world is pale and a few stone overweight, so this is a problem. I can already get Dominos delievered to my door, where's the incentive to leave bed now?
The point is. Sports games... they, so I hear, represent something that is actually physically possible for us to do. And not just this, but physically possible for us to do at a much cheaper price than the 40 GBP needed to buy NBA. But we do not. And this is not the developer's fault, they pander to our needs and tastes. But I'm gonna blame them anyway. IT'S YOUR FAULT THE WORLD IS FAT.
The most ironic video game genre of all time, ever: Wii Fit. Eg. Wii Fit. It's not just me is it? But the Wii Fit is a complete contradiction in terms. I mean, you don't own a Wii to get Fit. You own a treadmill to get fit. Or a yoga mat to get fit. Or you put down the fucking fork. So where exactly does the Wii Fit fit in the world of video games? Because somehow it does. The game's been out for ages, and yet it's still being sold out everywhere. So what am I missing? Please someone tell me, because this has me stumped. Why are people out there buying a Wii Fit? I'm not saying I'm completely right here because I clash with public gamer opinion, but I just can't see the reason for it.
And it's not just this. the board has a maximum weight of 165 kg. !!! What kind of self-respecting gamer weighs under 165 kg? And it was the Wii Fit advert that lead me to write this article
12 years ago, a small boy, with whispy blonde hair, and greyish blue eyes sat on his parents bed, and eagerly opened his birthday presents. A look of boyish wonder spread across his face as he peeled the neatly sealed wrapping paper off of a small 8x6 parcel to reveal the hallowed 'Nintendo' symbol that would steal hours of his life from then on. As he continued to tear the paper from the box, he realised he was now the proud owner of a 'Game Boy Pocket'. His very first games console. It was that Game Boy Pocket that began my (I was that small boy for the slower witted of you) love affection with computer games.
The next console I was destined to own was the great SNES. I say great because even though it was soon to be succeeded by the N64, it still held true all the greatness of what I, even now, associate with Nintendo gaming. Cartridges, power buttons that weren't buttons, reset buttons that were buttons, but, most importantly, that overwhelming sense that you had bought a console that had been built for love of the game, rather than for love of money. I'm sure people will agree with me when I say that this last factor made all the games that little sweeter... Even if it is completely naive and untrue.
The SNES paved the way for an exciting period: Nintendo at its peak. Nothing was more thrilling to see Nintendo soar so high over the opposition with simplicity. Four controllers. A joystick. The Z button. A console with design, rather than just a grey box case. Goldeneye. The N64 didn't just scream for unrequited love, it deserved it. For me, the N64 was, is, and will always be, the very embodiment of gaming.
However, my flirtation with Nintendo was soon to flutter away as I began to grow up... well, who am I kidding? That wasn't the reason at all. It's cos Nintendo released the Gamecube. I bought the console, and enjoyed the controller, but not the console, and not the games. When the controller's all you're interested in then the console probably isn't worth the 120 GBP you fork out to buy it. That is one hell of an expensive controller. Most importantly, what the fuck did they do with the cartridges? I know that cartridges were no longer a feasible idea, but still, what now was stopping me from buying the up and coming powerhouse?
Microsoft. Ah, the wonders of being able to throw money at a problem until it gets eroded into a perfectly formed Windows symbol. The Xbox just took gaming to a whole new level for me. The console was fair, really it had no advancements over the PS2, except perhaps the original Halo. But what it did have was Xbox Live. Above all other things, this made me fall in love with Microsoft, and even to forgive them for Windows 98. Xbox Live, even today, is the best online gaming system in existence. Midtown Madness was my first real Live game, and this taught me the wonders of being 'good' at a game. 'Good' to me no longer meant being able to complete single player, 'good' meant to be able to whiz around the map on Hunter in my Lotus Esprit V8 and win. Every time. 'Good' on Rainbow Six 3 meant the people that sat in one place (affectionately known as campers) and take out the entire opposition team in a game of Survival without so much as pulling a trigger. 'Good' on Halo 2 meant getting to Level 50. But not just getting there, being able to stay there. In a nutshell, Xbox Live taught me that 'good' is to be better than everyone else.
But three cores, and one 20 gig HDD later, I'm still not better than everyone else. The 360 brings with it new challenges. Those people that get 45 kills a game in Call of Duty 4, yet another Nurburgring on PGR 4, expert on Guitar Hero. Gaming for me is not the same as it was for that small boy opening his Game Boy all those years ago. It's no longer about fun, it's about pushing the limits of your intellectual capabilities. Gaming is now about the accuracy of fingers, and the snapness of your reactions. It's about speed and intelligence. Gaming is about thinking outside of the (x)box and out-thinking those on the other end of the copper wire. And gaming is better than ever.
Hi, I'm random dave, a new contributor at www.dw-gaming.net.
I hear a "Where's the GTA review, its been over a week DW, where is it!" from a few people, and to those people, i'm sorry. I tried to power through the story mode so i could hammer out a review, but I got distracted.
Distracted by what you say?
Let me tell you.
5: Cubed "The Game You've Played Before"
This is the Puzzle game on Arcade machines around Liberty City. I first gave this a go while going for the Achievement for getting the high score, and expected a poorly constructed cheap minigame not entirely dissimilar to those you could find in every 7-11 in San Andreas.
I was wrong. Its a well thought out game, and it continues to suck me in for hours. The fact its subtley nestled into a bigger game like GTA speaks volumes about the attention to detail here.
4: Street Racing
Now that the cars in Grand Theft Auto handle like you would expect them too, a particular favourite of mine is to tear up the streets in a high performance sports car, taking on all challengers.
A quick call to Brucie after finishing his mission tree rewards you with a Starting location for your next race. A particularly devious trick i developed for harder races, is to call the Fire brigade to your location before the start of the race, and it will knock all the cars off the road, and screw with the AI pathfinding for the crucial first seconds of the race. Yes, I've spent hours racing my Banshee up on down the Strip. 3: Hanging out with my Buddies.
Sometimes, I feel burnt out on missions, and if i'm in the area, i'll call up my buddies on the in game mobile, "Hey Little Jacob, Want to go play some Darts?" Nico will say, and these casual invites quickly progress into valuable downtime from the missions, where you can watch Ricky Gervais perform, Play pool, Darts, or even take your buddy bowling in the aim of strengthening your relationship with that character.
2: Watching TV
I find myself watching the TV for 5-10 minutes at a time whenever i'm back at my safehouse these days, I'm sure when I have seen all there is for it to offer, then i'll stop watching it, but for now, it sure makes me laugh. 1: Blowing shit up
Well, Lets be honest here fella's. It is a GTA game correct? From day one me and a buddy were holing up in the local cluckin bell with a shotgun and a handful of pistol bullets, and it has only got more and more "adventurous" as my firepower and experience with the top notch combat system has increased, I find myself regularly getting into shootouts with the police, and then tearing across town flinging grenades out of my car window, raining explosive fiery death at every junction.
Thats what i've been doing instead of reviewing the game, and i havent even touched on the Time Drain that is the multiplayer yet.
Lets face it, sometimes you get to the end of a game, the credits roll and your sitting there, head in your hands, cursing the stupid fucking ending.
Some are far worse then others, and so I've put them down here. Just in case, Yeah, theres spoilers down thar.
5: Kane And Lynch
At number 5, the self acclaimed "Brutal tale of Hate,Loss, and Revenge". Yeah note the capitalisation of the exciting sound of words. I guess to be honest, the clue was in the word Loss.
Anyway, In this game you play as Kane, an ex mercenary who ends up fighting for his daughter with a couple of his old mercenary buddies, and his on/off partner Lynch, who cant quite decide who he wants to kill at any given moment of time. During the course of this game, Kane sacrifices pretty much every ally and friend he has to get to his daughter, and eventually he catches up with her, in a villa in some country not a single gamer cared about.
Now, heres pretty much a summary of the good ending. You escape with your daughter, and decide to go back to try and save your last 2 mercenary buddies from death, I had the idea it would be a nice heroic ending, and so this shocked me: You go down into the village at the bottom of the hill to save them and when you arrive, you find one has burned to death, and the other hates you, but grudgingly accompanies you to the escape boats. They he betrays you, and is blown up by a rocket. You get to the boat, where your daughter is shot and killed, and lynch is wounded and presumably bleeding out. The game end's with Kane and the now silent lynch floating in the middle of the ocean.
That was the good ending, and I wanted the last 8 hours of my life back.
4: Rainbow Six Vegas [1 & 2] This one gets it mention because of one guy, Gabe. You spend the entire first R6V trying to find your teammate, and save him from Irena as Logan, only to find out he's a fucking traitor. So, After shaking your fist at him, you presume Logan's gonna give him whats coming to him, Before he err.. escapes in a helicopter.
So you shoot the helicopter down, and he escapes from the wreckage. I suppose that happens eventually, so i sucked it up, and when R6V2 was announced, I bought it straight up, ready to use new boy Bishop to kick Gabe's ass. Only to have to order him around for a mission in the prologue, and then spend the whole game working with him when hes disguised himself as an NSA agent and chasing some cuban brothers you dont really give a shit about. Then he declares that he's not really an NSA Agent, and is in fact Gabe, and you travel to his villa to bust him.
Imagine my joy when at the end of the second game, I had to fight a fucking attack chopper with just an assault rifle. I mean, yeah, i can handle that, i'm up to the challenge. then, you get treated to the worst boss fights in existance, you shoot the breeze for a bit, and chat to gabe, then he raises his pistol, and you shoot him. No massive finale, you shoot him. You've taken on a whole army of terrorists, spanning two entire games, and you just shoot him. One bullet. No climatic battle, no fucking transformers taking each other to pieces on the Vegas strip, no. You just shoot him.
Yeah, i want the real boss fight please.
3: Fahrenheit [or indigo prophecy]
Let me start by saying, straight out, that Fahrenheit was the best game I had ever played until the story, and I still reckon it's a classic.
The game starts in a Diner's restroom, your character is standing above a dead body, and your thrown into the action. What follows is upwards of 9 hours of pure brilliant story telling, and scripting, trying to find out why you killed the man, and battle your ever growing insanity, all against the backdrop of a harsh winter in New York City. The story branches off into 3 possible endings in this game, but it's not the ending movies that bother me about this game, oh no. About 3 quarters of the way through the game, you engage in a Mid air fight with an ancient cult priest, and then, against the back drop of a new ice age you go into a battle straight out of Dragonball Z and fire a massive ball of energy at the main boss, killing him.
A fucking ball of energy.
Lemme just run this past you for a second, so you get this. Your Lucas Kane, your in a diner in New york city, and you've just killed someone while in a trance. Your trying to evade the police and work out why you commited the murder.
Thats badass plot right there, and i was eating it up, always playing the game.Now i'll give you the second half of the plot.
Turns out, you know something called the indigo prophecy, and some AI's are trying to get hold of it to become all powerful, also, for some unknown reason, you develop psychic powers, and must save the world from a new ice age, by flying around like your in a bad sci-fi film.
Yeah. What the fuck.
2: Assasins Creed.
This was a game with a good story. You were an ancester of the master assasin Altair. Forced to live out his memorys in an "Animus" while they search for some artifact or another. Basically, you run around 1191 assasinating people, and in your breaks from the memorys, you start to hear about assasins breaking into the lab's to come and rescue you. I found myself rushing the relatively boring assasination missions to try and get back out of the animus, and find out more about the real story. I mean, it was getting good.
Then ,its revealed one of the lab assistants is one of the assasins, and you steal a pen of a table, and get keys to unlock the doors to your cell, and you cant wait for the obvious last mission where you escape from the labs, except. it never happens.
The Assasins rescue attempt ends in about 6 seconds with the sound of gunfire over an intercom, you never get anywhere with the stupid key cards, and the last you see of lucy is her strolling out into a corridor. You end the game locked up back in your cell, and nothing's changed. I mean, sure you just spend 12 hours of your life jumping around on buildings and stabbing mentally challenged guards but in the end, you havent really done anything. I was almost tempted to play the game again, in the hope that it was a glitch and i'd get to play the last level this time. This is elevated so highly in the list because the game was utter dogshit, and i ended up finishing this game just for the fucking story.
After two years of solid hype, It appears Ubi-Soft didnt notice that the last 15 pages of the script had been left elsewhere, and just made the damned game anyway. Thanks Ubi-soft.
1: Prince of Persia: Warrior within
this tops my list for one reason, and i'm going to keep it brief, because it makes me a very sad panda, and it's uh.. been a while since i've played it. at the end of this game, the creature that has been chasing you for the entire game finally catches up with you. And it doesnt want to hurt you.
Bearing in mind, it chases you for most of the game, and if it catches you then, it flosses it's bastard teeth with you. So you spend 2 fucking games avoiding the overgrown bastard when he doesnt even want to hurt you.
oh yeah, and did i mention that one of the possible endings turns the whole thing into a time paradox meaning the entire two games didnt happen?? Yeah.
Spanish
French
German
Italian
Portuguese
Arabic
Japanese
Korean
Chinese
Russian
Japan has long been the heartland for Nintendo support. Release a 360 in Japan and plaster 'Nintendo' all over the box and it'll sell like a new Elvis Presley album. Yet, Microsoft have been adamantly chasing that market despite the polite nudge-offs that the Japanese have been giving them over the past few years. In a bid, perhaps, to do what Manchester City are currently doing the football industry, and become the ultimate games console for all walks of life in all 'theatres of war'.
intendo know exactly what Japan wants, and how to give it to them: and how to make a return on this. Microsoft can't do that, because it's stretched too far, every game has to be available for release in all the 'theatres of war' for it to make sufficient return on the games. Nintendo, on the other hand, can design games (and, more frequently than any other developer, does) that appeal just to Japan, and then release the bigger title games overseas too. And it can then export at greater profit, because of the Yen-Dollar exchange.
