Archive for the ‘games’ Category

keeping tabs…

Sunday, April 17th, 2005

Not sure why you’d care, but I updated my game collection over at IGN. I’d like to do something similar on this site, though I’m not quite sure how to do it. My coding skills are not quite l33+ enough. So, for now, I’ll have to keep track of my stuff with the devils that are IGN. If you know a better place, let me know in the comments.

And hey, while you’re checking out my collection, buy a poor man a game or two.

Edit: I should note that the collection doesn’t include all Dreamcast, PS1 or Gameboy games… just seemed easier that way.

imagineering…

Saturday, April 9th, 2005

Yesterday, the friendly guys at Engadget asked what we would do if we could change the Gameboy DS. I already said my piece but I thought I would elaborate.

Basically, I said that I’d take the idea the DS started with and just go all the way with it. That is, they obviously want to do something different with the touch screen, an alternative interface to the common joystick, triggers and buttons. So why not go whole hog? Perhaps just ditch the traditional controls and make the touch screen bigger. Don’t worry about backwards compatibility and push for new, original games that take full advantage of the touch screen. Save all the traditional stuff (regular controls, more horsepower, familiar titles, etc.) for the next generation gameboy and take the DS on a completely different path.

I could think of some other things I would take advantage of if I was a developer too. Like wifi. Imagine a game that requires the player to get up, get out and meet people. You could find yourself in a coffee shop sometime studying and decide to take a break to play a game. You fire up the game I was talking about and lo and behold a cute girl/guy on the other end of the shop is playing too. You advance in the game and you met a potential new friend/significant other (with an instant icebreaker and something in common to boot). I just think there’s a lot of potential in social gaming.

Granted, no shareholder would ever let me do any of this with their money but changes like this (which could be done now really) could at least open some eyes and get people to look at gaming in new ways instead of just adding more horsepower and few new features.

Now, What would you do?

portable playstation? but i’ve got no place to go…

Monday, March 28th, 2005

I guess I’ll come right out and admit it: I don’t have a PSP and I don’t plan on getting one anytime soon.

It’s not that I’m against the PSP or Sony or anything like that, it’s just that I don’t really have any need for portable gaming. At all. I mean where am I going to play it? During my morning commute? I live in the Triangle of NC. I have to pretty much drive everywhere. At home? I still have a ton of games to play and buy on my consoles. I just simply don’t have the time (or money) to pick up another console right now.

Maybe later this year when I’m (hopefully) studying at Ga. Tech, I’ll live far enough away to take the MARTA into town (not that there won’t be something to keep me occupied on the train). That along with study breaks, maybe I’ll have the desire to play on the go.

Right now though, I’m treating it like those portable DVD players… when would I ever use it?

and my wallet weeps…

Saturday, March 19th, 2005

So yesterday I find out that publishers believe (or just hope) that the next generation of games will increase in price to sixty bucks a pop. This is not a total surprise to me. Eventually games would have to increase in price as games get more and more popular. Supply and demand. Here’s what gets me in this article though: they want to increase the price of the “AAA” games only. THQ readily admits that their children’s titles probably wouldn’t sustain such a high price point while Take Two says they would apply the increase “where appropriate.”

It would seem that they want to charge you $60 for whatever game they decide to hype into oblivion. Interesting. Like I said over on Joystiq, this could lead to some interesting scenarios.

For the sake of argument, let’s say they release Halo 3 at $60 and for all intensive purposes, it’s just Halo 2 with prettier graphics. So it’s fun just nothing revolutionary. At the same time another console shooter with a name no one has heard of pops up. It’s slow out of the gate because of no name recognition but it gets excellent reviews and good word of mouth. While it isn’t revolutionary either, it’s a lot of fun and provides gamers with a new experience. Plus, it’s $20 cheaper than Halo 3. What would you buy? Especially if you just bought your kid a new XBox and heard that both these games were pretty good?

It’s not hard to imagine that little upstart FPS getting more sales (or just threatening to) in the long run and embarrassing Microsoft into lowering their price. Just ask EA how that feels. The publishers in this articles seem to want a market that’s just ripe for undercutting.

On the other end of the pricing game Reuters is reporting that Microsoft wants to introduce an online store in your game. So developers add a level to your favorite game? Five bucks. New weapons, armor, spells? 50 cents here, a dollar there. Nothing new really, just paying for add-ons just in your console instead of your PC. But Microsoft seems to imply in this article that they want every game to have this functionality. This is bothersome.

For the most part I have nothing against the idea. After beating a single-player game, I might be enticed to buy another level, get new cars in a racing game, or purchase new enemies and weapons. That is, as long as the price isn’t too high and the lack of a certain item doesn’t really hinder the original game. I’ll be mighty pissed if the only way I can defeat an end boss is to buy a certain gun that’s only available through the online store. I already paid $60 for your crap game at least let me play it.

A worse problem could occur online multiplayer games though. Imagine you sign up to World of Warcraft and you play and play. For weeks you build up your experience, earn your gold, build up stats (I’ve never played the game so excuse me for my ignorance when describing it). For your hard work, you’ve gained a kick ass sword, unbeatable armor, you can take just about anybody. You alienated friends and family for weeks but dammit, it was worth it.

Then some punk kid with their mommy’s credit card buys all your stuff in thirty seconds.

Fun, huh?

That’s why World of Warcraft just cracked down on all those folks who where selling things in their world. Sure, they lost some customers, but they were at risk of losing more customers in the long run. No one wants to play a game where the only way to win is to have the most money. What I described above isn’t like the Red Sox and the Yankees buying all the best players, leaving the rest of the league to sulk. It’s more like those two teams being the only ones who could afford bats.

Overall though I think Microsoft’s idea can work but developers need to be smart with what they offer. New outfits and new avatars for a FPS? Good. Room-clearing rocket launcher that you have to buy? Bad. Just remember that these are games and games need level playing fields.

wow…. i wonder if I can keep this writing thing up….