My Speculations

Probably not, despite both being released very near each other (6/12 for MGS4, 6/13 for Hulk) . Although I have yet to hear about any of the “mainstream” entertainment news sources make such outrageous claims I have no doubt that they will at least try. Let’s face it, these types of stories make headlines and, as such, make money. However, that said, just like GTAIV didn’t adversely affect the sales of Iron Man, I can pretty much guarantee that MGS4 won’t affect the sales for Universal’s probably-gonna-be-a-hit movie, The Incredible Hulk.

Perhaps I just don’t get “it” from a mainstream perspective, i.e. a non-hardcore gamer, but who seriously thinks that these types of mediums actually interfere with each other. Even in today’s day and age of competing markets and recession talks, the entertainment industry (movies and games alike) won’t be competing for a long while, at least not on these grounds. Assuming, of course, that the Incredible Hulk is any good (and from the buzz I have been hearing it actually is) both of these mediums should maintain high profits for both companies involved (Konami, Universal). But let’s get to the real issue of this post: why is there always this “them versus us” mentality when it comes to video games and movies?

In recent months the movie industry (i.e. the media) has been having a field day with video games. It has become the latest blame craze. Kid shoots up a school (my thoughts to the families affected)? He must have been a hardcore Halo/Counter-Strike fan. How about if a video game pursues even the slightest sexual content? Well, it must be because they are trying to corrupt our children. And now, apparently, they are attempting to subvert out movies… When will it end?

Like we saw with Iron Man, the targeted audience for these two mediums (young, 20-30 y/o males) have enough money and time that both should do fairly well. Any fault on the movie “The Incredible Hulk” will be the fault of it’s own acting, CGI, and history (the original was horrible). So please, when you do see these headlines start popping up, ignore them. They want money and they get money by getting you to read their bullshit. What will be really interesting to see is if the casual-friendly Wii starts to affect movie sales of popular movies that aren’t geared towards the young male. An audience that is definitely more hesitant about where their next dollar goes… Keep an eye out for those headlines.

WiiSports 2 vs The Notebook 2… FIGHT!

There are a lot of people out there who absolutely refuse to buy Polyphony Digital’s newest racing simulator Gran Turismo 5: Prologue. This has nothing to do with a better sim being available, although I’d be lying if I said Forza 2 wasn’t a main contender, and it has nothing to do with people being disenfranchised with the property. What many people are angry about is that Sony has decided to charge $40 for what essentially can be boiled down to be nothing more than a demo, or so many gamers claim.

So where is the real value in GT5: Prologue? Is it really worth $40? In order to figure this out I have decided to break down the value of GT5: Prologue based on what was offered in GT4 (for the PS2) and what we believe will be included in GT5 (to be released in one year plus). So let’s carry on shall we?

First I will give you what is offered in GT5: Prologue, GT5, and GT4:

Gran Turismo 5: Prologue - $39.99 download/Blu-ray - Released: April 15 2008

• 70 total cars (includes all tuning/racing cars)
• 6 Tracks
• 16 player online racing
• HD capabilities up to 1080p
• Documentary (included with BD purchase only)

Gran Turismo 5 - $59.99 (presumably) Blu-ray - Release date: TBA 2009

• Rumoured to have 900 cars (includes all tuning/racing cars)
• No official track list has been released, but one could assume that it will feature near the same amount as included in GT4
• Online multiplayer; at least 16 players… maybe more?
• HD capabilities up to 1080p
• Automobile damage (rumoured to be patched in at a later date for Prologue)

Gran Turismo 4 - 49.99 (upon release) DVD - Released: February 22 2005

• 700+ cars (includes all tuning/racing cars)
• 100 tracks (includes rally and real world racing circuits)
• No Online
• HD capable up to 1080i (no 720p)

So there you have it. Those are the main things that each game offers. Of course there are other minor things, but I decided to not include as the value really wouldn’t change very much. Next I will go about in listing what is the most valuable, down to the least. Don’t worry I will be explaining my reasonings for where I place each item. This is ordered in most valuable to least valuable:

1. Amount of automobiles; generally one of the first thing anybody will ask about a new GT or any racing SIM game is how many cars will be available. This is the “meat” of the game and it is what keeps people coming back for more and more.
2. Online multiplayer; with this new age in consoles it has become increasingly important to all next gen console owners that their games come with online multiplayer. Games with no online multiplayer have little replay value, and little overall value. Depending on the genre, of course…
3. HD capabilities; the main reason for buying the PS3 was not only as a Blu-ray player but also so you could play your games in HD as well. Graphics are a corner stone to the PS3 this generation and as such it has become extremely important to gamers to be able to race in the best visuals possible.
4. Amount of tracks; while this would have been more important in last generations it has generally become more and more acceptable to deliver quality over quantity. Basically this means that many gamers would rather have 20 extremely good looking tracks than 100 tracks that don’t live up to the rest of the game.
5. Car damage; while an important new addition it is not widely regarded as being a “must have” feature for the Gran Turismo games. In fact, some gamers are even angry about its addition to the series with GT5.
6. Documentary; not much value at all. For all gamers who get the BD version of Prologue, I imagine many will simply neglect it altogether. Actually, I’d be surprised if the majority of gamers even know that it comes with a documentary.

So there you have it. Now let’s truly compare GT5: Prologue to both GT4 and GT5:

Now, if we are to look at the cars that each game offers you’ll notice a stark contrast in what is offered with each. GT4 offered 700 cars, GT5 is rumoured to offer 900 cars, and GT5: prologue is offering 70 cars. That is precisely 1/10 the amount of cars in the $50 GT4, and about 7/100 (or .7/10) the amount of cars rumoured to be offered in GT5 which will presumably sell for $59.99. Already this isn’t looking good for GT:5 Prologue. While 70 cars may seem like a lot, when you compare it to the sheer amount offered in other versions it just can’t stack up, especially not for the $40 price tag.

Automobiles aside, let’s take a look at the online offerings of each. This is really where GT5: Prologue finds a lot of it’s value, but will it be enough to justify the $40 cost? If you take a look at the other GTs you’ll notice that GT4 has no online multiplayer whatsoever and that GT5s online multiplayer has yet to be announced. Despite the latter however one can really only assume that the multiplayer in GT5: Prologue will be carried over into GT5. Because of this the online offering in GT5: Prologue really stands out, but without a lot of cars you are bound to come across many of the same variations of cars as your own.

Of course, what would Gran Turismo really be without its graphics? Each game that has come out has blown us away in the graphics department beginning with Gran Turismo 1. So it really comes as no surprise that GT5: Prologue has amazingly realistic HD graphics, something that just isn’t seen as well in GT4. GT5, however, will have the same graphics with maybe even a few touch ups here and there. So if you are looking for some digital eye candy, you really can’t go wrong with GT5: Prologue. That said, the same thing could be said two years ago about GT4 and the same will be said about all future iterations of the franchise.

Then we have the tracks, while these used to be a major value factor in the GT games, the advent of day/night schemes along with HD graphics have definitely decreased the need for multiple tracks. However, that said, six tracks for $40 still seems a bit light when you compare it to the 100+ offered in GT4 for $50. Despite not being in HD you’ll probably still get more longevity out of the GT4 tracks than the GT5: Prologue tracks. Of course we have absolutely no idea how many tracks are going to be in GT5, but one could naturally assume that it will feature near the same amount that is in GT4.

Finally we have the automobile damage and documentary. Firstly, we really don’t know to what extent the car damage will be in GT5. Supposedly it’s going to look extremely good, but does that mean we can expect Burnout of DiRT good? Of course, this is generally a moot point as GT5: Prologue does not include any damage, with the possibility of a patch being introduced later this year. As for the documentary, this will only be available on GT5: Prologue. So if you really absolutely love the idea of checking out how the game was made this might be worth something to you…

Bottom line, despite GT5: Prologue offering some pretty nifty things it just can’t compare in terms of overall value. When you buy GT5: Prologue for $40 you are essentially getting about 1/15 the content of the others games. Granted it does come with things that GT4 does not, the only thing that will not be featured in GT5 is the documentary. For this reason I urge you to wait until the full game releases next year, or if you simply can’t wait then purchase GT4. Finally, for those who absolutely need to have a competent racing sim in HD with online and hundreds of automobiles the best place to find it is in Forza 2.

GT5: prologue is a demo. No amount of reviews, or opinions is going to change the actual amount of content provided on the disc. Don’t throw away your $40…

DISCLAIMER: I own all three consoles as well as one kick ass PC. I currently have no bias against one or another system and generally all of my consoles get equal playtime depending on what games are currently available. I, in no way, support one company over another. Chill out fanboys…

So I was surfing through the interwebs this fine morning when a chance forum thread lead me over to an article by GamePro. It wasn’t anything super special just the typical “we need more hits on our website” type of spiel article you’d find at nearly any major gaming website (IGN, GameSpot, 1UP, etc.). This article, however, wasn’t just reiterating the same garbled crap we have all heard time and time again; no, they mislabeled, under-represented, and praised a good chunk of their list titles that deserved none of the aforementioned.

Before I begin, you can check out the article for yourself and read it HERE. The last thing I want is for people to get all hopped up on my angst and not even read the article in question. That’s not cool.

Anyways, onto my point. This article is full of crap. Just to reiterate for those who decided not to read it, it is a comparison of the 2008-2009 exclusive titles between the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3, where in, they took all of the exclusives they could muster (10 for the Xbox 360, 16 for the PS3) and said a little something about them and whether or not they were a “system seller” or not. Sounds like a fun read, right? Well wait until you read some of the reasonings behind their judgements including the list:

Xbox 360:

1. Ninja Gaiden 2
2. Left 4 Dead
3. Too Human
4. Gears of War 2 (SYSTEM SELLER)
5. Fable 2 (SYSTEM SELLER)
6. Halo Wars
7. Splinter Cell Conviction
8. Alan Wake
9. Banjo Kazooie
10. Halo Chronicles
PS3:

1. Gran Turismo 5 (SYSTEM SELLER)
2. Haze
3. Metal Gear Solid 4 (SYSTEM SELLER)
4. Metal Gear Online
5. Singstar
6. LittleBigPlanet
7. Resistance 2 (SYSTEM SELLER)
8. Killzone 2
9. Motorstorm 2
10. SOCOM Confrontation
11. InFamous
12. The Agency
13. Final Fantasy XIII (SYSTEM SELLER)
14. God of War III (SYSTEM SELLER)
15. Tekken 6
16. Twisted Metal

First up: Ninja Gaiden 2. Generally, I’d agree that this game won’t be a system seller. To be honest the games are just too hard for the American audience. However, in GamePro’s logic their reasoning behind the fact that it won’t be a system seller lies within it’s God of War like nature, i.e. it’s too repetitive and has little mainstream appeal. But what’s that? You guessed it: God of War III is most definitely listed as a system seller. How can you honestly knock a game for it’s God of War-like gameplay and then turn around and praise that very game where the inspiration comes from? Absolutely ridiculous. Oh, and for the record, Ninja Gaiden’s gameplay is not all that similar to God of War… get it right GamePro.

Next: Alan Wake, Banjo Kazooie, Halo Chronicles. Should these titles even be included in this list at all? I don’t think so. In an effort to at least make their faux-list at least a bit more appealing GamePro is apparently populating it with games that don’t even have a tentative release date, and almost no screenshots whatsoever (none in the case of Halo Chronicles). I’m not saying these games won’t ever get released (although I’d say there’s a good chance one of them will get the axe), but why did they include them at all? Microsoft’s 2008-2009 line-up may look a bit thin right now without them but thats something Microsoft needs to worry about not GamePro.

Third: Gran Turismo 5: Prologue. Who ever said that demos were system sellers? GamePro apparently. Despite only coming with 8 tracks, 40 cars and an online mode, GamePro seems so sure that the game will sell as well as it did in Europe and Japan. Think again. Both of those territories are used to getting demo versions of the GT games, the U.S. is not. As a huge fan of the series even I won’t spend $40 on a game that isn’t even half complete. Call me crazy, but I think the game will meet stiff resistance here in the U.S. Anybody down for a game of Forza?

Fourth: SingStar. While not listed as a system seller (and rightfully so) the game being listed as a top title here at all is laughable. SingStar was a hit on the PS2, but it won’t be on the PS3. Sorry to break the news to everybody but, here’s the shocker, the PS3 is not the PS2. Last generation the PS2 became the defacto “casual” console. As such, games like SingStar were bought by many of these same people. This generation, however, the Wii holds that crown and many of the same casual gamers who bought a PS2 before are buying a Wii today. This will probably be the least successful SingStar ever and I won’t be surprised if they kill off the franchise because of it…

Fifth: Final Fantasy XIII. While I have absolutely zero doubt that this will be a system seller, I do doubt when it will be released. GamePro says 2009, but I am thinking even later. Look at it this way: Final Fantasy is Square’s most important franchise, by far. Nothing else comes close. Final Fantasy XIII is planned to be their most important sequel to the franchise. The mere fact that we are almost in the middle of 2008 and still we know next to nothing about the game means that the game will probably be announced for November 2009, but delayed into Spring 2010 for extra “polishing”. Don’t expect Square-Enix to let this title go one second before it’s ready…

Finally: God of War III. God of War is a huge Sony franchise, there is no doubt. While it’s not really the equivalent of Microsoft’s Halo, in terms of sales, it can definitely stand on it’s own two feet. However, that said the third installation may meet with some stiff resistance if the developers fail, yet again, to improve on the formula. When the first game came out it was awesome. I loved and played every minute of it. Then the sequel came out. It was still good, more of the same, but don’t fix what isn’t broken right? Then the PSP game came out… still exactly like the first game, I didn’t buy it. The third game in this franchise can’t just be more of the same.

Of course picking apart the games, themselves, is only one reason why this is such a shit article. If I really need to state the obvious the mere fact that they wrote this article which predicts well into 2009 is absolutely ludicrous. There is still plenty of time for both Microsoft and Sony to announce new titles as well as cancel current ones. Perhaps Sony announced every major title they already have, and Microsoft is just sitting on tons of announcements for E3? A very real possibility. For those that recall, this same (but opposite) scenario happened last year at E3/GDC where Microsoft had already announced most of their games prior to these events, leaving Sony to announce a treasure trove of goodies for us. Sony is widely regarded as having the best E3 last year…

Also, let us not forget the Wii. I know a lot of people like to say there is no competition between Sony/Microsoft and Nintendo, but there is. In fact, Nintendo is probably more of a competition to these companies today than they were during the entirety of the last generation. Excluding them from this article was about as shitty as some of the judgments they made.

Anyways, I’ve ripped my hair out enough over this. Feel free to comment or flame me below. I’m sure many here will think I am arbitrarily bashing the PS3… I’m gonna go play Folklore now.

And before I begin I am making no assumptions in this thread about Blu-ray failing like HD DVD, or any of that nonsense. What I am talking about is purely of names and identities.

Let’s face it, the average consumer doesn’t take to new names all that often. Sure, DVD wasn’t reverted back to being called VHS, or disc VHS or anything like that, but VHS also wasn’t a disc. DVD shared very few similarities with it’s bulky step cousin twice removed; VHS. Blu-ray, on the other hand does almost the exact same things as DVD only better, and in High Definition. Now that HD DVD is dead, how long will it be before consumers coin the term off onto the victor: Blu-ray?

Before you shout me down pleading to others of my ignorance on the matter you should know that we already saw this type of thing happening even before the format war was over. For those that recall, visitors to Google’s search engine were constantly looking up HD DVD as opposed to Blu-ray, despite Blu-ray maintaining a lead on the sales front (LINK). It makes sense that the name is more popular than Blu-ray because consumers generally know what Blu-ray is; a DVD with high definition content on it, i.e. an HD DVD. Technical garble aside, both are discs that play movies/hold content only one does it in HD. Even the U.S. Government did this in the recent court filings against Blu-ray when they listed in the papers: HD DVD players (e.g. Blu-ray disc players) (LINK).

So is this Blu-ray’s fate? Two, three, five years down the road are we going to be calling them HD DVDs again, despite them really being Blu-rays? I know a lot of you probably think this is inconceivable, but is it really? Consumers (myself included by the way) have definitely done stupider things and, to be perfectly honest, do we even need the Blu-ray name? The war is over. Fancy names aside if you were to look at a Blu-ray disc and a DVD would you notice any real differences in them? I doubt it…

Anybody who buys an OS and expects it to be as stable as the last iteration is an idiot. I mean no personal attacks on anybody but it’s true, and I won’t be easy on anybody who thinks that. It’s the 21st century, there is no reason why people should expect such things.

Do you expect a game to ship without bugs?

What about your favorite MMO?

So why did you all expect Vista, on day one, to be so f-ing great? Who cares if Microsoft told you that it was, you were a sheep lured into a wolves den then. Game companies hype their games the same exact way. Anybody who knows anything about computers should know this. Hell, when Vista came out I held off on buying it for about 8 months because I knew that it was not going to run properly with every game or piece of hardware and you know what? I was right! Like every OS that preceded Vista it did not work with every game or piece of hardware. However, now, after a year it works great for my gaming PC.

Bottom line is that people expected Vista to be the “wonder OS” to save them from their computer troubles, which is perhaps Microsoft’s fault for hyping it too much. I’ll be straight about this 100%, there was no fucking way that every driver for every hardware/software/etc. was going to be available on Vista’s release. There were just damn many things for the Windows platform, which is actually part of the allure of the Windows-based system.

The whole sticker thing is a different issue altogether, and Microsoft should definitely feel some repercussions for it. That said, however, I am so sick of hearing people complain about Vista.

“Ohhh Vista won’t do this.”

“My Vista is so slow compared to XP.”

That’s the price of change and expansion! Sure XP was a stable OS, but it’s old. It had two SPs under it’s belt with numerous upgrades and fixes before that. It did not come out as the “wonder OS”, although Windows 2000, and ME definitely helped XP’s image. Vista, on the other hand, was offering something truly new to the Windows platform since Windows 95. It was birthed out of the legacy that XP built and when it wasn’t as fully functional on day one as XP was at four years people through temper tantrums, like bloody school children. Well guess what? Vista is better than XP, if for nothing else than the mere fact that it’s change and it’s different.

Truth be told, technology advances differently from most other things. When a new technology that is replacing something else comes out it is usually not as good as it’s predecessor. Actually sometimes it can seem downright horrid in comparison. What people don’t realize is that the predecessor is a base for the new technology, a goal for the designers to bring it up to that level. Usually this comes fairly quickly and then they are able to build upon it to make it even better, something that was impossible with the previous technology. XP was great, but, as a technological society, we could not use it forever. Vista is out now, and it will eventually become better. . .

Oh, and for those who are waiting for Microsoft’s rumoured 2009 OS to come out, I wouldn’t hold my breath. For one, that’s probably gonna get delayed by at least a year. Second, and this one is really my main point, the next OS will not be a “wonder” OS on release either. Expect it to ship with the same shitty bugs that Vista and XP were shipped with. . .

Welcome to the 21st century.

So, yesterday, in a brilliant move to further piss on the hardcore gamer, Nintendo announced that it will start charging for certain games using a “Pay & Play” service that will extend to some online services. Yes, you heard that correctly, Nintendo is going to start charging people to use their “online services” on specific games. I’m sorry I just have to say that one more time: Nintendo. . . is going to start charging people to use their online services.

Before I begin with the rest of my article, I just want to be really clear with you guys. I love Nintendo. I am a huge fan of their products, and I have owned every single system they ever made including the Wii on the first day it came out. They are one of the best, if not the best, development company in the world. Finally, they are a shrewd business and one that, no matter what they do, I can usually find the business sense behind it to justify the action. So please, be calm and don’t flame me.

Back in 2002, Microsoft first announced their online services for their first console, the Xbox. They were pretty much the first console to offer an integrated online service out of any of the major competition (Nintendo, Sony). I say “pretty much” because the Sega Dreamcast did have a pretty neat online service when they first launched in 1998. Anyways, the Xbox Live system wasn’t spectacular, but it was something, and despite being billed yearly for the service at least it was revolutionary for console gaming. Nobody could argue that the same, or a better service could be found elsewhere.

Nintendo, on the other hand, was the last major console company to introduce an online system. In fact, it actually didn’t even really come out until a few months after the system launched (the first game to use the service was Pokemon Battle Revolution which got released June 25th here in the U.S.). In addition to being last to offer the service, Nintendo had also seen fit to offer us a gimped-up kid version of the internet. Unlike the PSN and Xbox Live, we do not get ID names and a friend list. No, instead we get “friend codes” which consists of 16 numbers that are console specific. If that wasn’t enough, however, those don’t really matter because each online game has its’ own friend code too! To top this all off, Nintendo deemed it unnecessary to provide any sort of means to communicate internally with other players while in online. Pretty messed up internet gameplay if you ask me.

Now, I am giving you a refresher-course on Nintendo’s online service mainly because I want to re-iterate how silly it is for them to start charging on a “Pay & Play” basis. All of these problems and faults with their system never really mattered because it was free. I can put up with all of those things very easily when I know that it’s not costing me a dime to use. However, now that they will start charging. . . that’s just no good. They don’t have a system that is worth paying for, and, as such, I will not pay for it. I can only hope that Super Smash Bros. Brawl comes minus this new “model” as I will not even pay for it to play that online, which is something I am really really looking forward too. . .

Feel free to read more HERE.

With the recent crop of consoles storming the video game market, it has come to my attention that PC gaming is reaching a sort of impasse. Game companies are beginning to falter in their support for the waning platform as sales for the equivalent console games, namely the Xbox 360 and PS3, reach into the millions of units sold in a matter of months. So where does the platform head to now?

According to this article Microsoft, AMD, Intel, and Nvidia are all banding together in an alliance in order to save PC gaming from going into extinction. What does this mean? Well right now I don’t know for sure. Nobody does except for those four companies. There is supposedly going to be a planned press conference about it at GDC this week, but nothing has come to fruition yet. Despite not knowing what this means, I can still take an educated guess at what will happen with PC gaming through these four companies. Consolization. . .

Now, when I say consolization I don’t mean these companies are going to give up on the PC and work exclusively with consoles now, nor do I necessarily mean that PC games, from here on out, will start playing like console games. What I am talking about with that specific term is that, like consoles, there will be a “brand” of gaming PCs that you can buy at an electronics store. This will make it so that PC gaming has a set standard of graphics and processing power. It will also make it so that developers working on games don’t have to worry so much about minimum and recommended specs, this will, in turn, make it easier for consumers who just want to buy a game and play it without having to worry about poor performance.

Another thing to note about consolization of PC gaming is what exactly will these games be running of off? Well there is a chance that these “alliance” branded PCs will come equipped with Vista, or XP but I seriously doubt it. If you are trying to keep costs down and simply want to establish the PC as a gaming system why bother with either of those OS’s when you don’t need all the extra utilities they offer? My best guess is that Microsoft (one of the four members) is developing a new OS specifically for these gaming PCs. They will be designed to work with nearly every recent game, however, classic gamers should be wary. This will be done for a number of reasons:

1. With XP or Vista, you need a system with much more RAM for handling background utilities like virus scanners. A new OS means less virus’.
2. Microsoft likes developing new software, don’t kid yourself, they love it. When they see a chance to monopolize another market through software, they take it. . . aggressively if need be.
3. With a new system you need a new, fresh design. One that stands out from the rest of the PCs, something that appeals to younger, “hipper”, people. Expect it to look very sleek like the Xbox 360’s interface.

Of course, this leads to variables in my little equation such as internet usage, or word processing. Well don’t worry to much. I’d say, if this does come to happen, there will be IE7 (or some equivalent thereof) on these machines. A word processing program might also be installed so as to keep the thing a PC, instead of just a game console, but don’t expect much beyond those two things. With this new “alliance” PC gaming comes first, everything else comes second.

With a new PC system being designed with a new gaming OS, what comes next? Well, right now you are probably wondering what kind of control it will have. Naturally not everybody who plays video games today understands the unique system most of us have come to know as WASD. To put it simply it is a very awkward system that we use to game on our PCs. Does this mean you should expect a re-branded 360 controller with every PC? No, I would highly doubt it. Not only would that completely squelch the PC aspect of this system, but it would also enable internet usage and any sort of word processing as clumsy and irritating. With these new PCs you can expect a traditional mouse, however, the keyboard will be different. I would expect that this “alliance” would tap into the market that the Z-board makers have been trying to tap into for years. Expect a keyboard, but with some additional buttons and keys located somewhere on it to enable easy-gaming. Control is very important for any gaming platform, the PC is no different.

So, that’s pretty much it. My theory on where PC gaming is headed is now out in the open. Is it right? I have no clue. I also have no idea if it would even work. A lot of the appeal to PC gamers now is that they get to customize their own PCs and make them stronger, faster, and better at almost anytime they want. However, while I am on that subject, this new PC platform most certainly would not be designed with those people in mind. This new “PC” will be designed with the PS3, Wii, and 360 gamer in mind. I’m not sure if the world is ready for this type of PC gaming, and I’m not even sure if I am ready for this. However, that said, the consolization of PC gaming is coming. . . one way or another it’s coming.

So, as many of you probably know, I am a huge fan and a strong critic of Japanese RPG games. I love them, but at the same time I feel that they need to live up to certain expectations regarding storyline, character development, and gameplay. In my opinion a true JRPG can not be without turn based fighting. Call me crazy, but that is my opinion. Anyways, that was just some food for thought before reading. On to my first impressions of the latest JRPG to hit American shores:

I picked up this game yesterday as I have been waiting for a good JRPG for a while. First of all, let me start by saying that my initial impressions are very good. The game is BEAUTIFUL, despite some awkward character positioning at times. The graphics are top-notch and the facial expressions add a lot to the game. I am very impressed with what Mystwalker has given to us, especially after their first game Blue Dragon, which had arguably very kid-ish graphics.

The storyline is also shaping up very nice with multiple nations, a war, and all that good stuff that makes epic RPGs awesome. Seriously, the opening cut-scene is one of the best I have ever seen, better than even Final Fantasy VII’s opening cutscene (which is still one of my favorite by the way). For those curious about the storyline I urge you to read the review over at IGN. It will give you a bit of information. I won’t be spoiling anything here. I will say one thing though: prepare for a world much like Final Fantasy VI, and VII where everything is infused with a “magic” like substance for energy.There is no world map *tear*, which sucks. I have always been a huge fan of being able to travel freely across the world and explore around a bit, especially when you get your first airship. Oh well, it’s not a deal breaker. The way you move from place to place is via a list and map where you get to highlight and select where you want to go, then it automatically travels you there. While I was hoping for a world map to explore and enjoy, this alternative method is fairly nice as well.

The characters are very well developed. When you first meet a particular character, that shall remain nameless at this time, your first thoughts are going to be “my god, this guy is annoying,” and he is. But his character does get fleshed out and you’ll begin to understand him more, as such, he will not be as annoying as before.

While on the topic of characters I think this would be a good time to go over the “dreams” you’ll be encountering at random periods of time. Every once in a while when you stumble upon something that triggers a memory in our main character, Kaim you’ll get the option to relive this dream. These are completely optional by the way. Anyways, these dreams are stories that you get to read. They are masterfully written and an excellent dose of storyline for the world. Some of you may find them a chore, but others, like myself, have found them to be one of the best parts of the game. From what I can tell, reading them or skipping them has no adverse affect on the world/storyline, but I highly recommend reading at least the first one. They are very good.

Back to the game, it’s very traditional. Random battles are back, along with turn based fighting. To a lot of the newer fans of RPGs this will probably seem like an ancient form of gaming. To those of us who played Dragon Warrior 1 on the NES this is going to feel traditional. I love random battles, and I love turn based fighting. Quick note: the radom battles are actually spaced out a bit far from each other. I have gone 5+ minutes before witout getting into a fight. It’s almost too spaced apart.

Finally, this game is hard. I mean H-A-R-D. I have not played an RPG this difficult in a long time. To put it in perspective, I had no trouble with Final Fantasy VII, VIII, or IX. I beat nearly all of the U.S. released Dragon Quests/Warriors, and Blue Dragon was a cake-walk. I have even played/beat all of the Tales series of RPGs fairly easily. No, this game is harder than all of them in my opinion. Don’t expect to have your hand held through the first few hours of the game. The first boss I fought (a giant bird/gryphon) I died 4 times on before nailing down a nice strategy on beating him. Those of you looking for something difficult, this game is for you.

Well that’s it for now. I am still on the first disc and only about 6 hours into what is said to be 40-50 hour long game. There are 4 discs so hopefully that will be some indication as to the length of the game. Blue Dragon was 3 discs long and I beat that one at about 40 hours, so here’s hoping.

If you have any particular questions about the game leave em in the comments below and I’ll try to answer them as best as I can. Thanks for reading!

When you think of the RPG genre for console games, and more specifically, the Playstation brand of consoles, one of the first games to pop into your head will be, no doubt, Final Fantasy. There is a very good reason for this, after spawning more than a dozen direct numerical “sequels” and countless offshoots, Final Fantasy has certainly made it big amongst the genre. You’d be hard pressed to find any other RPG series as long lasting or as well founded as the Final Fantasy series. However, that said, what has once been considered the staple of the RPG genre, and more specifically the JRPG genre, is beginning to lose ground to an onslaught of newer and, arguably, better RPGs from both Japanese and American developers. Just a bit of history before I fully delve into my reasons for my argument:

Throughout the 1990s, Final Fantasy was a relatively obscure game. Focusing solely on the Super Nintendo for it’s primary games, SquareSoft (the developer) made three games for the U.S. market (Japan always got more Final Fantasy games than America at this time). Two of the games were critically acclaimed RPGs in the forms of Final Fantasy IV (II in the U.S.) and VI (III in the U.S.). Both of these games were very well liked amongst those that enjoyed RPGs, but, unfortunately, neither really received the financial credit that was due in America as they both went largely ignored by the mainstream gaming populace. It wouldn’t be until 1997 that the Final Fantasy series would really break out into the mainstay of videogames in the Western culture.

Final Fantasy VII was, and still is, probably one of the best RPGs of all time. It was the first ever Final Fantasy game to be released in Europe, and it was a smash hit in the U.S. which some claim to even help the Playstation brand overtake the Nintendo 64. It was during this “Playstation” era that I believe Final Fantasy had it’s reign. During the Playstation 1 era Square-Enix successfully launched 2 more critically acclaimed games as Final Fantasy VIII and IX. All three of these games were a marvel to the RPG franchise, each boasting unique worlds and fantastic stories that were as diversified as the teams who worked on them. Then the PS2 came out. . .

Now, I am not sure what relevance the PS2 actually had on the Final Fantasy series, if any at all. However, this is definitely when the series began a noticeable difference in storyline changes, and basic functionality changes. Starting with Final Fantasy X the series began to abandon it’s more traditional routes in order to generally appease a more global audience. This, of course, meant doing away with certain amenities and adding more customization. One quick look at the Final Fantasy X leveling system and it was very easily noticeable that changes were underfoot. As somebody who loved Final Fantasy VI (SNES) and Final Fantasy VII, this game was a stark contrast. While the storyline was still solid, the changes in leveling and the lack of a world map to explore was definitely a turn-off for me. It made my RPG experience feel overwhelmingly hollow. Of course the same can be said for FFX-2, which was, in my honest opinion, the worst Final Fantasy game ever. It was made for the fanboys of the series so they could oggle the digital beauties in the game. With FFX-2, the series had definitely hit a low point.

Final Fantasy XI, on the other hand, was truly a departure from the series. In fact, it was so much of a departure from the series that I’d argue tooth and nail that the game isn’t actually a Final Fantasy game at all were it not for the FF icons that littered the world in the shape of black mages, chocobos, etc. FFXI was an MMORPG. This, in of itself, makes the game completely unlike the others as, with an MMO, you can’t have a persistent storyline. Persistent storylines are what make the Final Fantasy series so great. Without those storylines there really isn’t a whole lot of reasons to play the game, and I didn’t.

Finally, we have Final Fantasy XII. This was the one FF game on the PS2 I had very high hopes for. After going through a considerable drought on the PS2 for Final Fantasy games I honestly believed that this one would knock my socks off. It did not. Upon receiving my copy and playing it I was soarly disappointed. Although the leveling system returned to a more traditional setting than the previous 3 games, the game still lacked a world map to explore. In addition to this the storyline was not as great as past renditions. It felt very hackneyed and the main character wasn’t at all likable. If this wasn’t enough, though, the simple fact that they turned the combat into more of an MMO type system as opposed to the oft used turn based combat was a complete deal closer. Never, at any time during my play session, did I think that the new combat system was better than the previous systems of the yester-games. It was a mockery of Final Fantasy games and every time I see the review scores ranging in the high 9’s I always find myself asking “How?”

So that’s it. There is, in my opinion, the decline of the Final Fantasy series lumped into a few paragraphs. I don’t have enough information on Final Fantasy XIII to accurately judge it, however, that said, I will be much more wary of it than I would be if the PS2 era had not been such a horrible generation for Final Fantasy. Of course, I guess this all leads back to my title, and I suppose you must be asking, “why is Final Fantasy no longer the final fantasy?” Well if you hadn’t noticed during the exact period of time as the Final Fantasy era was coming to a close was also the same era that hundreds, if not thousands, of other RPGs got their start. This can probably be attributed to the weakening of the Final Fantasy domain. Disgaia, the Tales series, Suikoden, Wild Arms, even other Square-Enix games such as Dragon Quest and Star Ocean gained dominance on the PS2. While none of them single handedly overthrew Final Fantasy brand name they did carve out niche markets for themselves out of what used to be Final Fantasy territory. Because of this Final Fantasy could disappear altogether, but it won’t be the last fantasy RPG. There are far too many household brand names of RPGs now. Of course, this goes without saying, that the reasons I highlighted in my article might not have anything to do with the actual Final Fantasy decline. Those are my personal reasons for disowning the franchise, and nothing more.

Thanks for reading.

So, this is mainly just for fun. It’s been something that I have been thinking about for a while now, since late July actually. I don’t really believe this is what happened but it makes for an interesting read anyways. Also, it’s not totally out of the picture that this could happen. Anyways onto the conspiracy:

Was the format war all a manipulated plan to subvert the consumer into buying a new product they didn’t need? Over the course of the format war (which continues to rage on today) a few semi-major events cropped up that suggests that Sony, Toshiba, Microsoft, and all movie studios were actually manipulating the format war from the beginning in order in ensure that the HD format would succeed and not flounder. Let’s start with the beginning:

Back in 2005 Toshiba and Sony had both agreed that a format war was not good and that they needed to combine their technology to avoid one.

The media (owned primarily by the movie studios) picked up this story and ran with it citing that a “format war” (over exaggerated mumbo jumbo) would be the worst possible thing for consumers with constant references to the VHS-Beta war. These were reassurances so that the populace would know exactly what would happen in the event of a “war”. In the end, the talks between Sony and Toshiba broke down citing that each one had wanted different things to be included in the disc.

Sony announced that the PS3 would carry a Blu-ray player inside. Microsoft also announced exclusive support for the HD DVD format, thus sealing the videogame crowd into the market. Gamers are one of the few consumers who buy into this kind of crap. . . to many, loyalty is everything.

The 360 launched in 2005, securing a win over the PS3, but without an HD DVD player securing an underdog status for HD DVD.

Both HD DVD and Blu-ray officially launched (HD DVD first) in mid 2006. HD DVD is backed by Weinstein and Universal exclusively and by Warner, Paramount, and Magnolia unexclusively. Blu-ray is backed by Fox, Disney, Sony, Lionsgate, and MGM exclusively as well as Warner, Paramount, and Magnolia unexclusively. HD DVD’s underdog status is officially achieved but it was given enough power so as to present a “challenge” to Blu-ray.

From Summer 2006-Nov 2006 HD DVD is firmly winning the format war due to it’s obvious price advantage, another advantage given to the underdog format. This is done to show that HD DVD actually might be able to win. . .

The PS3 launches, and although it boosts Blu-ray to a 2-1 sales lead in software, it flounders horribly as a video game machine. Perhaps this was in the deal the whole time. Sony gets to have the next gen format but has to secede the video game market to Microsoft (nobody expected Nintendo to do so well at this point).

In order to stave off any consumer overthrow of the Blu-ray format (and it’s very expensive prices) the HD DVD studios are told not to release anything for about 3 months after the PS3 launches. This gives the consumer the idea that Blu-ray has already won.

Weinstein drops out of the HD race. This appears to have not been part of the plan at all. They shut up, step back, and refuse to comment on anything regarding HD or Blu-ray. Perhaps they thought manipulating a war was bad and feared that if consumers found out about what was happening all parties involved would suffer a severe backlash, something a smaller studio like Weinstein couldn’t afford.

July of 2007, HD DVD seems to be very near the brink of death. With only one studio supporting it exclusively the consumers are beginning to waive in their support for the format. Something needs to be done since the war hasn’t gained enough publicity yet. By August, Paramount/Dreamworks are told to release movies exclusively on HD DVD. The media is a riot. They rave on and on and on about how HD DVD was about to die and how this may have saved them. Reports of a “buy-out” swirl in the weeks ahead.

Reports that Microsoft and Toshiba are currently trying to buy Warner circle the rumour parts of media conglomerates for at least 2 months after the Paramount/DreamWorks announcement.

Rumours of an HD DVD equipped Xbox 360 start to crop up, but each time they are firmly dashed with no question on the matter. It’s not part of the deal that Microsoft’s console is to have a built in HD DVD player, which would cause severe headaches for the PS3. Remember: Microsoft gets gaming, Sony gets the next media format.

Sony sells off it’s chip processing to Toshiba, which is now actively making the cell processors for the PS3, their largest “competition” in the format war. Maybe this is payment to Toshiba for wasting so much money on helping to fuel a fraudulent war?

Warner comes out and says that it has to choose a side, after canceling their THD disc program. Citing that stand alone players matter most, they give hope to the consumer that HD DVD will win over Warner exclusivity. After all, at this point HD DVD players were much cheaper than Blu-ray’s, one of the key aspects that made it “consumer friendly.”

HD DVD needs to secure in people’s minds that Warner will go HD DVD exclusively (more publicity) so they launch a deal with Wal-Mart to sell cheap $99 players. 90,000 are sold in one weekend. The consumer is convinced that, based off of Warner’s statements, they will go HD DVD exclusive and HD DVD will win. The media reports all the positive news surrounding HD DVD.

Transformer’s releases to the general public on DVD and HD DVD. Not realizing what a huge flick it would be the companies quickly organize a “Buy One Get One Free” sale for Blu-ray titles. After all, HD DVD can’t win one single week or the consumer might see a shift in the war.

Paramount declares it sold 190,000 HD DVDs in the first week for Transformers, which are disputed by the BDA and Neilson’s Videoscan. Another media shitfest hits, providing more and more publicity to the growing format war.

Every major HD DVD title from then on has a Blu-ray BOGO attached to it just to ensure the master plan does not get thwarted. This includes both Shrek the Third and the Bourne Ultimatum.

Mid-December; HD DVD begins launching it’s own BOGO sales to begin “clearing stock” Warner knows that it’s time to shift to Blu-ray is almost here and thus many of the BOGO sales surround Warner’s titles.

Friday, 2 days before CES 2008 starts Warner is told to go Blu-ray exclusive. A media craze is struck up again. Most touting that Blu-ray has won the “war”.

Toshiba is told to issue a press release hinting at possible legal issues between them and Warner.

Toshiba cancels it’s 2 hour event at CES due to them “not knowing” that Warner was going to make the switch. . .

Is there gonna be more to this conspiracy tale? Universal and P/DW are still exclusive to HD DVD. They could ride this media circus for at least 3-4 more months.

My main point in all of this is that the whole war was manipulated from the beginning so that the HDM wouldn’t flounder like Laserdisc did. It is common knowledge that revolutionary products take hold very fast, evolutionary products often do not. HDM is very much an evolutionary product that builds off the DVD format. Without all the loyalty and bickering in forums and stores would HDM have gotten this far? Is it an interesting enough product that consumers would have been interested if the media didn’t tell us to be interested in it?

Is this a legit conspiracy? Who knows. . . I don’t necessarily believe that this did happen. What I do believe is that this could happen. Hollywood is losing more and more money each year. It’ll only be so long until that they try something as dramatic as this. . .

Anyways, take this for what it is: a fun read. That’s why I wrote it. This is not a bash on Blu-ray or HD DVD. Just a harmless conspiracy theory.

Thanks for reading.