Malik
(6/25/04)
For the most part,
this has been a pretty slow week in the world of us geeks, so I
decided to take some time and vent my anger on some of the topics
that, in my opinion, are the worst of the worst in the geeking
world. So, first and last tonight (I figured I'd try to go
full circle) we have two of the lamest issues with XBox Live, in
both how developers use (or neglect) it and in how developers abuse
it (and us, at the same time). Then in the middle, we have a
touchy issue that keeps causing me pain, and only goes to show why I
like to write my reviews how I do, and not just leave my fellow
geeks to the stupidity of the more commercial of sites. So,
I'm already pretty bitchy, so let's get the heart of things...
Unbalancing The
Equation
With the advent of
online console gaming brought about by XBox Live along with the XBox
HD, it seemed like, in many cases, some of the lines separating PC
and Console games were being blurred and removed. The best example
of this is seen in a game like Crimson Skies, in which you can, on
the XBox with Live, download new planes, maps, and even new types of
games (like the new Chicken Pox game). While I strictly like to keep
my console and PC games separated, this was actually a very good
move for console titles.
This allowed extra
life to be issued to aging games on the Xbox. Normally, when a PC
title is well aged, it still lives on due to new mods, hacks, skins,
maps, game modes, or whatever else the fan-geek community decides to
issue. We can even see some add-ons from the developers of the
games...I loved going to the Maxis web site shortly after The Sims
came out on the PC and downloading their new furniture add-ons. What
this, in the end, meant for the fans of a game is that once the game
was old, there would still be plenty of ways to squeeze some extra
life out of it.
Meanwhile, an old
console title usually faced a different method to keep it alive; a
far sloppier and expensive method. The player would have to buy the
newest version. Even if the newest version just meant a fix for a
few bugs, or a new game mode, or whatever, you would have to shell
out up to $50 for the "upgrade". However, with Live, this
whole issue was solved. A new "version" of Crimson Skies,
as in new planes and maps, could now be downloaded just as easily as
a new plane or map for a PC version of the game (why doesn't
Microsoft release a new PC Crimson Skies? Now that's a game that
deserves some more PC, and XBox, loving).
So, with this
great invention of downloading new content for the console, I'm left
with one question; for games that have an exact copy of the Xbox
version on the PC, and the games are released at the same relative
time (within a month or so of each other), why do some games not
offer XBox Live support for downloads that could easily be seen in
the future of the PC version? What I'm getting at, and what many
Thief: Deadly Shadows (XBox) fans are wanting to know, is why, when
a patch comes out to fix the difficulty bug in Thief for the PC, do
we have to suffer endlessly?
Adding XBox Live
support for a title that will, in all likelihood, never need Live
seems like a move that would require almost no effort and could
easily cover a company's ass. In this case, the company would be Ion
Storm, and their ass would be the massive hole blown into Thief with
the difficulty bug.
So far, of the
Xbox titles I've played (far too many to count) that don't support
Live, the number that have a desperate need for a patch are
staggering. With a PC version, a patch could be made, with relative
ease, after the bug is first reported and that would be the end of
things. However, with a console title, if a bug is reported, and the
developer didn't chose to take advantage of an easy fix, like using
XBox Live support, the only solutions we would see are one of two
really poor choices.
The first one
would be the one we Thief fans are suffering through. That solution
would be that we play through the game as best we could and
basically feel the cold bitch slap of Ion Storm after the PC version
gets a patch and we get a great big nothing. This is the usual
solution for the majority of console gaming bugs.
The second
solution is a little on the drastic side of things. This is rarely
seen in console games, and it costs the companies involved (being,
usually, the publisher) way too much to implement. That would be a
recall of the game and a new edition of the game being published
that contains a fix for the bug. This is something that the gamer
and game makers both don't want to see, so it only happens in the
most extreme cases (like if a game is not functional). This is not a
solution for a difficulty bug that doesn't render the game
unplayable.
So, those who
enjoy PC games over console titles can come out on top with
cross-platform bug filled games. Meanwhile, we who prefer console
versions of games are left with a nice big bitch slap to the
face.
Solution
The best solution,
and it would be way too easy to implement, would be for all game
designers who plan to release a game on XBox to simply implement the
Live connectivity. I may not know much about XBox programming (hell,
I'm here to play games, not make them), I imagine there must be a
rather direct system or tool set up by Microsoft for developers to
use to initiate a Live capability. Since games, almost by
definition, contain bugs, XBox Live features built into any XBox
title will help to save the developers of XBox titles from looking
like complete asses when their games hit the market full of bugs and
the gamers are left with no option beyond playing the game (with a
lot of frustration) and bitching about the developer.
One Size Shouldn't
Always Fit All
I was looking at
some game reviews for a possible fix to get me through after Thief
until Tales of Symphonia comes out next month. While doing so, I
came across Mega Man Anniversary Collection. I am an old time fan of
the real Mega Man games; before he played soccer (not many remember
that crappy SNES title anymore...no one remembered it a whole 2
weeks after it came out even), lived in a network, went 3D, or
started to be a card controller fad. So, naturally the Anniversary
Collection appeals to me. True, I could play them on the NES, but
most of the cartridges are currently (and possibly forever more)
AWOL. But the idea of playing Mega Man old-school style on my
surround sound receiver on a system that understands what surround
sound is appeals to the tech geek in me.
Anyway, when I
looked for some info on the collection, I was torn between the two
editions of it. On one hand there's the GCN version; the GCN is not
bitchy to me and has never given me a DRE (well, one time it did and
I took it to Nintendo Headquarters for a free fix...helps when a
console maker is stationed just 15 minutes away...for those around
Redmond, WA, who have broken Nintendo products, they have a sweet
little setup for customers as they wait on console repairs,
including free game playing...pretty nice). Plus something just
seems more appropriate using a Nintendo system to play the best of
the Mega Man games (2 and 3) since that is where they came from. On
the other hand, there's the PS2...while it offers an additional
feature (some new music) over the GCN version, the PS2 likes to piss
me off with DREs. So, I decided that a good review from a commercial
site might at least tell me some of the more minor deciding
factors.
So, when I hit
Gamespot.com, what did I find? First I read the PS2
review, which was relatively short for a Gamespot review (only one
page...and they have a good number of staff writers, yet I am the
only current writer for Geek-Asylum.com and I crank out about 10
times that much in a single review...that's just sad). The review,
also, while being way too short to even cover half of the features
in any detail was only a comparison of the GCN and PS2 versions. For
a review of a PS2 game, the review should cover the PS2 version of
the game in a review format, not some half-assed comparison. So, for
those aware of the stupid cross-platform game reviewing tactics of
IGN, Gamespot, and several other major net based game sites, you
could probably guess what the GCN
version's review looked like; the exact same review! Ok, not exactly
the same review; the score of the PS2 version was a 8.4 and the GCN
version got a 8.3, but there was no real information that told the
reader why one was rated lower.
Some of the points
made in the review told how one version had a better feature in one
part, but then the reviewer would say how the other version made up
for that with a different feature. However, deep down, for being a
comparison review (not a game review...they are different things)
the review should not be nearly so short. I mean if a short review
is used as a review of one game, then it's just a half-assed review
that doesn't get to the meat of things. However, if a short review
is meant to cover a comparison of two games, then it is not even
half-assed...it's more of a quarter-assed (if that's
possible).
The saddest part
is when this type of crap is used to review a game that's both on
console and PC...and yes, this does happen...a lot. When a game is
cross-console, then at least the input method is about (well, maybe
"slightly" is a better wording) the same (control pad vs.
control pad)...however, nothing else is too set in stone. Meanwhile
if a game is on both PC and console, then not even the input method
is the same (mouse+keyboard vs. control pad). For example, how can
one write one review for Deus Ex: Invisible War when the two differing
versions are XBox and PC? I mean the load times, the controls, the
graphical abilities, the glitches...none of those will ever equal
out.
So, deep down, can
anything be gained from reading a one-size-fit-all (or
one-console-fit-all) review? At best, these reviews will tackle the
issue of how the game plays on one singular console, and at worst,
like with Gamespot.com and the Mega Man Anniversary Collection, it
will be a brief and inadequate comparison of two titles without ever
getting down to business...business being how the games (yes, they
are different games) play and are enjoyed (or hated) by the player.
This cannot, plain and simple, be handled by some quarter-assed
comparison review. If you don't believe me, look at the review (or
the "reviews" since they are listed as two different
reviews...that are the same, word for word) on Gamespot and tell me;
are there any control issues with the PS2 version (at least they did
touch this issue on the GCN)? How are the load times for the two
games (if they want a comparison review...)? What games are in the
collection and where do they come from (not all of these were
originally NES titles, yet Gamespot only touches on the NES original
titles)? This is so quarter-assed that it hurts...
Solution
Ok, this is
two-fold. The first step, and the most obvious of solutions, review
sites, like Gamespot and IGN (the two worst offenders...no good
bastards...), need to treat each version of a game as unique. Since
the games are running on separate consoles with separate abilities,
and thus the games will face different controls, load times,
glitches, and sometimes different console-exclusive bonus material,
more than one short review is needed. So, if you're not up to
writing a detailed comparison review (which usually must venture
into the philosophy of the two games, and thus is far more labor
intensive), then don't treat any two titles as the same, even if
they may be the same title at a glance.
Secondly, you must
never treat a PC title and a console title as anything nearly the
same. It just doesn't work. EVER. Just like how PC gamers are rabid
about their games in a different way than console geeks are rabid
about theirs, the games are different too. For example, if you ever
try out Morrowind on the PC and the XBox version side by side, you
will understand after you easily read some text on the PC version
and squint your eyes to struggle with the XBox version's text. Hell,
the best example I can think of, even more apt than Deus Ex:
Invisible War, Deus Ex (the original), and Morrowind all put
together, is the difference of the XBox version of Hitman 2 and the
PC version. The XBox version had really sloppy controls that were
not suited for the analogue sticks of the XBox while the PC version
had tight controls thanks to the complete and fluid control a mouse
can give you. I couldn't get past the third level of Hitman 2 on the
XBox (not due to difficulty, but rather from controller induced
frustration), but the PC version handled like a dream. That made the
PC version and broke the XBox version for me.
In short, no two
games are ever the same if they are cross-platform, and more
importantly, since the PC is not a console and a console is a
console (seems simple enough), don't give your readers half-assed
reviews. Of course the best solution for us geeks is this; always
look at the reviews for the other versions of a title (even if you
don't have the hardware for the other versions) just to validate if
the review you're reading is a real review or some quarter-assed
piece of Gamspot (or IGN) -style shit (no offense, I love these two
sites for news, but for the reviews...well, they can do a little
better...and by "a little" I mean "a hell of a
lot").
Nothing for
Money
Paying for Live
updates (like with Project Gotham Racing 2), when it's only a minor
update that wouldn't even qualify for an expansion package on a PC
game is about the lamest possible method to try to milk money out of
gamers. I thought the Live package and the updates were meant to
serve two important purposes (from a business standpoint...Microsoft
does provide XBox Live just for the hell of it; they are a business
after all) when it's such a minor update; to reward those people who
already PAYED for the game, and to give an incentive for people who
haven't yet bought the game to actually go out and get it.
Firstly,
by rewarding the people who already own the game with new material,
it provides us geeks with a better image of Microsoft (and other
content providers), and thus we will want to, in theory, keep buying
their products. I mean if Bioware gives us a new area to explore in
KOTOR (like they did), then it means that (this is all business
theory) even if they release a lack-luster game in the future, we
could still buy the game with the expectation that new additions
will be available for download to improve the game...and if the game
is already good, we could still expect it to get better. This serves
as a good incentive for people who can't quite decide if they want a
game, or if they want a certain title for the XBox (versus other
console versions) to go for the XBox title.
Secondly, if a
game comes out and it lacks enough material to interest a geek on it
release, Live content can save the title. If a game...let's say a
racing title, has fewer cars and tracks than a competitor title that
gets released about the same time, then Live can once again come to
the rescue. If an expansion is made available, like with PGR2's
add-on of Paris and new cars, then those players who overlooked the
title at it's release could be enticed to purchase the game a few
months down the road.
However, to charge
money for most content is just flat out greed. While some content
downloads make sense to be pay services, like music downloads for
DDR games (it costs the company, Konami, money to license these
tracks and not just some small change to add the content to the game
via programmers), it doesn't make sense for the developers to charge
for content that would only make them money. Like with the PGR2
downloadable tracks, this is something that costs the programmers
relatively little to develop and make available to the public. While
it may cost PGR2's developers some money to license the new vehicles
from the owning companies, it doesn't cost money to license a
fictional track of Paris. So, if the game is going to require money
for content downloads, why not separate out the things that cost
relatively little money to develop and give them away to entice us
geeks to buy the game, and charge for the licensed goodies? There is
no reason for this milking of money from us (on average) poor
geeks.
Solution
I think I said it
best just a few lines ago, but here it is again; Charge money for
licensed content since that costs the developers considerably more
to make public, but charge nothing for the unlicensed parts. This
would mean that those of us who are fanatic about the game can get
the premium goodies, and I know there are plenty of people like that
for almost any game out there. Meanwhile, those of us who only get
minor entertainment from a game can still download the free stuff
and keep supporting the developers by buying the game to begin with
and continuing to buy the next game in the series.
I mean, I was not
the most impressed with PGR2 and only got a minor level of enjoyment
from the game. However, an add-on of Paris would definitely make me
feel a little less like I shouldn't have paid full price for this
game. Then, with that add-on, in hand, for free, I would feel more
compelled to buy the next PGR title since I'd know that even if it
was as half-assed as PGR2 (it did lack the tracks...seriously), I
could still look forward to free content to make it worth it's
value.
Hypothetical situation;
I mean if I had a choice of GT4 (when it comes out) at full price
and a PGR3 at $15 cheaper, I would buy GT4 since it'd be more bang
for my hard earned buck. However, if PGR2 had free content
downloads, I'd assume PGR4 would too, so I may consider it first and
wait for GT4 to drop in price or for a future paycheck before
getting it. However, since I know PGR2 cost money to get the content
downloads, and I wouldn't pay for PGR2 content and thus would
probably not pay for PGR3 content, why would I buy the less complete
game and skip over the content download-deprived GT4 which is more
complete from the launch? I wouldn't.
So, in a
nut-shell, content that only costs money to pay for programmers
should be free to entice future purchases, while content that costs
money should be limited to licensed products that cost a licensing
fee to program. Lastly, if licensed and non-licensed crap are
bundled together and you must pay for the download, then separate
the stuff out to satisfy both the die-hard fan-boys and the casual
(potential return-) gamer.
Conclusion
So, like I said, I
went full circle. I usually like to handle issues that are a
little more current, but considering how slow this week was in terms
of news, I think I made the right decision. I mean, sometimes
we have to appreciate what we have in order to appreciate something
new when we get it...or something like that. Well, just to be
clear, I may complain about Gamespot, but they are a good source to
obtain some quality news in a pinch...it's just a shame that the
reviews are so pathetic...oh well. Anyways, I'm bitched out
for the week. Malik
|