It's all over the internet, pretty much every gaming site has covered it. The gaming community has raised their fists in unison against the Evil Empire that is EA, and upon their threats to not buy the game EA has yielded to the power of their wallets and agreed to not charge for more guns. Success.
But for some reason, Luke Plunkett from Kotaku, has written an article raining on the parade of happy gamers worldwide. In his recent rant, Mr.Plunkett basically says that who cares if we won this "small battle," the war isn't over and EA is just going to find another way to make money off of this game, and eventually will return to DLC that effects gameplay mechanics. To somewhat of a degree he is right, but the way he addresses it is wrong. He addresses it like a suicidal emo kid and puts down all the people who stood together against this injustice, calling it a "hollow victory" and that this evil will come into the world eventually. He might be right, but we have no way to know. And to suggest that since it's coming anyway that we should just not even try is like saying "well the world is going to end someday so why don't we just blow it up now." And then to me it seems like he's suggesting that the reason this boycott came to be was because we were mad about EA making money. He makes it seem like we though "hey guys! EA is making money! Let's not buy their game!" We aren't mad that EA is making money, and even if they do shift things around so they can make money another way, we won't care as long as they aren't taking advantage of us like they were before.
By our standing against this DLC, game, and publisher we have stopped (or in Mr.Plunkett's eyes "delayed the inevitable") exploitation of gamers. By doing it once we have proved to the big suits that we aren't mindless wallets that dispense money at your bidding, but gamers who want to have an enjoyable gaming experience and can recognize when we're being taken advantage of. But I think even more important than that is that we've proved to ourselves that we can unite as a gaming community despite what or how we play and make a difference. And now that it's happened (on this major scale) I think it'll start happening a lot more.
4/7/08
PC Gaming- Possibly Complete Gaming?
For the past several years, gaming “experts” have been debating over whether or not PC gaming is done for, will be done for soon, or if it will stay around forever. It’s my turn to weigh in on the issue.
I’ll start with the upper hands consoles have over the PC for gaming. The biggest advantage console gaming has over PC gaming is compatibility. With the PC you need to make sure you have compatible graphics cards, sound cards, processors, flux capacitors, and so on. In order to keep up with all the games coming out you’re going to be dumping an extra $300-$600 into your computer every 6-12 months. With the consoles, you pay $250-$600 for the console and you can buy games for it for the next 6 years without any problems. On top of that, on the PC you have to spend 20+ minutes installing your game, with the consoles you just pop the disk in and you’re playing. And yet more on top of that is when you need to install the games to your PC it takes up more memory and you’re limited to how many games you can have on there where as on consoles they theoretically can never fill up.
Now for PC’s side of the story.
Up until the late 90s, almost unanimously gamers believed that First Person Shooters belonged on the PC. That was because up until the release of Xbox, there were really no successful FPSs (other than Goldeneye for the N64.) The reason there was no successful console FPS and gamers believed that the PC was the only place an FPS could live in peace was because nobody had figured out a working control scheme for the consoles. The move with WASD and aim with mouse control scheme was what worked and the only thing that worked. But when the Xbox came out, game developers were able to figure out a FPS control scheme that worked, and now FPS makes up the second largest chunk of console video games (behind adventure games.)
Now that PC gaming enthusiasts can’t use that argument to try to defend their desktop machines, the PC starts to fade from the gaming scene more. But I think the biggest thing that is keeping PC gaming alive is Real Time Strategy games. Games like Warcraft, World in Conflict, Rise of Nations, Rollercoaster Tycoon and Civilization will keep the PC alive because it is in the same situation that FPS games were in 10 years ago. There have not been any RTS games on a console that have been successful because there has never been a working control scheme for it. That’s why so many people are up in arms about Halo Wars being only for the 360 and not the PC, because the console control scheme could ruin the game. But that’s getting off topic.
The last thing I can think of that PC gaming has over console gaming is that anyone can make a PC game without having to buy a license or rights. If a developer wants to make a console game they need to go to the console’s respective owner (Sony, Microsoft, and/or Nintendo) to buy the rights to make a game for their system while on the PC you just program the game. So by cutting that cost out of the budget it means more can be spent on the actual production and quality of the game, but that’s really a minor thing.
Basically, my prediction is that as soon as someone figures out a successful control scheme for Real Time Strategy games for the consoles, we will start to see PC gaming fade forever. I don’t think simply making a mouse and keyboard attachment for a console would do the trick though, it would need to be a regular controller based control scheme. Who knows, maybe it'll be as soon as Halo Wars, or maybe it'll never come at all and PC gaming will still be fighting to stay in the picture forever.
I’ll start with the upper hands consoles have over the PC for gaming. The biggest advantage console gaming has over PC gaming is compatibility. With the PC you need to make sure you have compatible graphics cards, sound cards, processors, flux capacitors, and so on. In order to keep up with all the games coming out you’re going to be dumping an extra $300-$600 into your computer every 6-12 months. With the consoles, you pay $250-$600 for the console and you can buy games for it for the next 6 years without any problems. On top of that, on the PC you have to spend 20+ minutes installing your game, with the consoles you just pop the disk in and you’re playing. And yet more on top of that is when you need to install the games to your PC it takes up more memory and you’re limited to how many games you can have on there where as on consoles they theoretically can never fill up.
Now for PC’s side of the story.
Up until the late 90s, almost unanimously gamers believed that First Person Shooters belonged on the PC. That was because up until the release of Xbox, there were really no successful FPSs (other than Goldeneye for the N64.) The reason there was no successful console FPS and gamers believed that the PC was the only place an FPS could live in peace was because nobody had figured out a working control scheme for the consoles. The move with WASD and aim with mouse control scheme was what worked and the only thing that worked. But when the Xbox came out, game developers were able to figure out a FPS control scheme that worked, and now FPS makes up the second largest chunk of console video games (behind adventure games.)
Now that PC gaming enthusiasts can’t use that argument to try to defend their desktop machines, the PC starts to fade from the gaming scene more. But I think the biggest thing that is keeping PC gaming alive is Real Time Strategy games. Games like Warcraft, World in Conflict, Rise of Nations, Rollercoaster Tycoon and Civilization will keep the PC alive because it is in the same situation that FPS games were in 10 years ago. There have not been any RTS games on a console that have been successful because there has never been a working control scheme for it. That’s why so many people are up in arms about Halo Wars being only for the 360 and not the PC, because the console control scheme could ruin the game. But that’s getting off topic.
The last thing I can think of that PC gaming has over console gaming is that anyone can make a PC game without having to buy a license or rights. If a developer wants to make a console game they need to go to the console’s respective owner (Sony, Microsoft, and/or Nintendo) to buy the rights to make a game for their system while on the PC you just program the game. So by cutting that cost out of the budget it means more can be spent on the actual production and quality of the game, but that’s really a minor thing.
Basically, my prediction is that as soon as someone figures out a successful control scheme for Real Time Strategy games for the consoles, we will start to see PC gaming fade forever. I don’t think simply making a mouse and keyboard attachment for a console would do the trick though, it would need to be a regular controller based control scheme. Who knows, maybe it'll be as soon as Halo Wars, or maybe it'll never come at all and PC gaming will still be fighting to stay in the picture forever.
4/6/08
Rooster Teeth Announces Next Endeavor
From the people who brought you the comic genius that was Red vs Blue and the pure awesomeness that was Griffball are at it again with a new machinima series, Reconstruction. I'm very excited for this, but it seems to be taking a different route from the original RvB, and going with an action drama similar to Deus Ex Machina rather than their regular antics. But with RT, you never know. Here's the trailer;
4/5/08
Nudity in Games
Nudity in games brings up many questions. Would it sell more video games or would it be kept out of the hands of children to name a few. But the most overlooked question I think is, is it necessary? Would nudity in games make a positive contribution to games? Recently on a site which I refuse to give any publicity to there was an article saying that since most gamers are guys in their 20s that nudity should be included in games. There are so many things wrong with that statement. First being that the statistics given are very generalized, completely guessed, and probably not true. I’m sure a good chunk of gamers are in their 20s, but if it were the majority there wouldn’t be giant sections devoted to video games in Toys R’ Us. I’d guess that there are more gamers who aren’t perverted than in their 20s. The second thing wrong with that statement is the complete disregard to morals and respect to women. The third thing wrong with that statement is, (as stated at the beginning of the article) does it make a positive contribution to the game. Without going into detail I can say no and if you need the reasons explained then you’re an idiot.
But for those idiots out there, here are the reasons explained. Who has seriously taken their Halo game or Call of Duty game and said “Man, I wish this had naked ladies in it!” (I wish I had a sound clip of Brian Regan saying that.) If you have ever thought anything like that, anyone would classify you as sick and perverted. The article I mentioned suggesting the addition of this feature into games stated it would “add realism” to games. Because we all know that there are naked girls wherever there’s a gun fight or a knight battling a dragon… Wow… But then they gave the example of if there was a Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 level that took place in a strip club, they could have naked chicks in there doing pole dances and whatnot. That makes total sense! If guys with AK-47s run in looking for terrorists I wouldn’t expect the strippers to try to run away, I’d expect them to keep doing whatever they were doing. They probably wouldn’t have left when they found out terrorists where there either… Just plain stupid…
So if you’re still not convinced that nudity wouldn’t add realism to a game or that it still should be in games, here’s even more reason why you’re wrong. You play video games to game, not to see naked ladies. (As sad as it is,) there are already naked and scantily clad women on TV, billboards, magazines, the internet, restaurants, and pretty much anywhere else. Do you need it in your games too? Come on, seriously. If you want that stuff to be in the game wouldn’t that mean you wouldn’t be paying attention to the actual game?
So if after all the common sense- I mean evidence I have shared with you, you still aren’t convinced- if the ethical and logical reasons I have provided aren’t computing with your mind clouded with disgusting thoughts, here is a reason that any gamer, regardless of what he thinks on the issue based on already stated facts, should be able to agree on why nudity should stay out of games; We already have enough trouble and annoyances coming from stupid lawyers, attorneys, politicians, and “news” reporters saying games are evil and should be banned from the universe. We’ve all seen the uproar made over the hot coffee incidence in GTA:SA and even the commotion (mostly over assumptions and misunderstandings) made over the tiny bit of sexual content in Mass Effect. If we make nudity in games a common thing, (regardless of how needless, pointless, stupid, and immature it is,) will give something very strong for these people to use against us to take away what we love and cherish so much. No, not naked women, but video games.
But for those idiots out there, here are the reasons explained. Who has seriously taken their Halo game or Call of Duty game and said “Man, I wish this had naked ladies in it!” (I wish I had a sound clip of Brian Regan saying that.) If you have ever thought anything like that, anyone would classify you as sick and perverted. The article I mentioned suggesting the addition of this feature into games stated it would “add realism” to games. Because we all know that there are naked girls wherever there’s a gun fight or a knight battling a dragon… Wow… But then they gave the example of if there was a Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 level that took place in a strip club, they could have naked chicks in there doing pole dances and whatnot. That makes total sense! If guys with AK-47s run in looking for terrorists I wouldn’t expect the strippers to try to run away, I’d expect them to keep doing whatever they were doing. They probably wouldn’t have left when they found out terrorists where there either… Just plain stupid…
So if you’re still not convinced that nudity wouldn’t add realism to a game or that it still should be in games, here’s even more reason why you’re wrong. You play video games to game, not to see naked ladies. (As sad as it is,) there are already naked and scantily clad women on TV, billboards, magazines, the internet, restaurants, and pretty much anywhere else. Do you need it in your games too? Come on, seriously. If you want that stuff to be in the game wouldn’t that mean you wouldn’t be paying attention to the actual game?
So if after all the common sense- I mean evidence I have shared with you, you still aren’t convinced- if the ethical and logical reasons I have provided aren’t computing with your mind clouded with disgusting thoughts, here is a reason that any gamer, regardless of what he thinks on the issue based on already stated facts, should be able to agree on why nudity should stay out of games; We already have enough trouble and annoyances coming from stupid lawyers, attorneys, politicians, and “news” reporters saying games are evil and should be banned from the universe. We’ve all seen the uproar made over the hot coffee incidence in GTA:SA and even the commotion (mostly over assumptions and misunderstandings) made over the tiny bit of sexual content in Mass Effect. If we make nudity in games a common thing, (regardless of how needless, pointless, stupid, and immature it is,) will give something very strong for these people to use against us to take away what we love and cherish so much. No, not naked women, but video games.
Blog update- 4/5/08
Hey anyone out there reading. The counter on here says I've had 58 page views, but my Google analytics page says I have no visitors, so something is broken. I'm pretty sure it's analytics because last night I was at my friends house and showed him the blog on his computer so that should've ticked something. So if your out there post a comment on this thread to let me know, even if this is your first and last time here.
So anyways, I've changed a few things for the blog; I've changed the news feeds you'll see to the right of the page, instead of getting everything from Joystiq for each individual console I went directly to each console's site and got the feeds from there I'm thinking that will be better. Also, I've added a "Release Dates" section on the right side of the site as well. Don't go complaining about there not being many games up there, I just can't think of any more games with officially announced release dates (that I support) to put. If there are any you want me to add post a comment or send me a message or something to let me know about it.
So that's about it for now, and if anyone cares expect another article within the next few days.
So anyways, I've changed a few things for the blog; I've changed the news feeds you'll see to the right of the page, instead of getting everything from Joystiq for each individual console I went directly to each console's site and got the feeds from there I'm thinking that will be better. Also, I've added a "Release Dates" section on the right side of the site as well. Don't go complaining about there not being many games up there, I just can't think of any more games with officially announced release dates (that I support) to put. If there are any you want me to add post a comment or send me a message or something to let me know about it.
So that's about it for now, and if anyone cares expect another article within the next few days.
4/1/08
WoW Rant: I Hate Hunters
I hate the hunter class. Plain and simple. This is how I see them; weak, lazy, scardy cats. They're too weak to use a weapon that requires actual strength, too lazy to go up to their target that they're fighting, and they're too scared to fight their targets themselves and send stupid little animals to do the fighting for them. In my 3 weeks playing World of Warcraft, I have not run into a single hunter who has been helpful to anyone, let alone helpful to me. I've partied up with one once because she was looking for someone to do a quest with her. We had to fight through this gauntlet, she'd tell me to go attack a certain NPC, I go to tank it, and she attacks something else and we both die. So not only hunters weak, lazy, and wimpy, they're stupid.
Oh yeah, they're jerks too. So many times I've had to spend two or three times longer on a quest where I have to kill a certain number of monsters because while I'm trying to run up to the NPC, a stupid hunter will shoot it with a gun/bow. Then no top of that several times I've told hunters that I hate hunters, and then they're just spamming me with cuss words and and poorly worded and thought out insults.
Basically, whoever is a hunter needs to be banned from WoW. Plain and simple.
EDIT: Well, ironically the night after I post this I go on a raid with some guys from my clan and one of them was a hunter. The raid went great and everyone was helpful including the hunter, (well except for the time he fell of the ledge...). So maybe not all hunters are evil.
Oh yeah, they're jerks too. So many times I've had to spend two or three times longer on a quest where I have to kill a certain number of monsters because while I'm trying to run up to the NPC, a stupid hunter will shoot it with a gun/bow. Then no top of that several times I've told hunters that I hate hunters, and then they're just spamming me with cuss words and and poorly worded and thought out insults.
Basically, whoever is a hunter needs to be banned from WoW. Plain and simple.
EDIT: Well, ironically the night after I post this I go on a raid with some guys from my clan and one of them was a hunter. The raid went great and everyone was helpful including the hunter, (well except for the time he fell of the ledge...). So maybe not all hunters are evil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)