So I plan to bore the internet and myself with a bunch of posts about the games that defined the seventh console generation for me (starting with the Xbox 360, including the Wii and the PS3). These are going to be either the best games of the generation, or milestones in the generation, or just games that meant a lot to me personally. The first of these is the game that really helped define the beginning of the seventh generation:
Fight Night Round 3
This may not be the best boxing game of all time. It may not even be the best one in the Fight Night series. Actually I'm pretty sure it's not. It is, however, the moment that I knew the next generation had arrived. Specifically when I first played the demo. There were only two boxers in the demo: Roy Jones Jr., and Bernard Hopkins. Extremely canny choices by the development team, it showed these guys really knew boxing.
At the time, I didn't really know boxing. I had only vaguely heard of Roy Jones Jr., and I had never heard of Bernard Hopkins at all. I certainly didn't know that Jones had beaten Hopkins in a boring unanimous decision with only one usable hand, and I didn't know that fans had been clamoring for a rematch during the intervening years. I did, however know that the overall visual fidelity of what I was seeing on my screen surpassed anything I'd ever experienced in a video game before. It really no longer looked like a game. It looked like a CG movie, and at times, it could almost be mistaken for a real boxing match.
When the game finally came out, I poured hours into it, I created a boxer and finished the career mode (thousand pointing it as I did so). I re-played famous fights over and over again. Ali-Frazer, Robinson-LaMotta, Jones-Hopkins, Leonard-Hagler. The game turned me into a boxing fan. I had to know all about the men these avatars represented, I studied up on boxing, learned about Floyd Mayweather, and both Sugar Rays, I learned about Shane Mosley and Oscar De La Hoya (you'll notice not all of these guys were even in this game). I would watch boxing on TV and between rounds play Fight Night. I would watch TV and play Fight Night during commercials. If I ever had any down time, Fight Night went in.
The mechanics were brilliant, the Sweet Science boiled down to a few button presses. Set up the heavier blows with the jab, duck, move, counter. Is your guy fast? Keep away. Is your guy strong? Get inside and fight in a phone booth. You can never really capture the style of a guy like Roy Jones, but you can feel what it is to be the faster man, and what it is to pack a huge wallop. Fight Night executed on this beautifully. Eventually the game felt a little shallow, with the haymakers and the counters possibly being slightly overpowered, but it didn't stop me from playing.
Visually, it set the bar for what fighting games should look like, a bar few have met. The fight night and UFC games from EA are in a league by themselves when it comes to fighting game visuals. At least in my opinion. Blood and sweat coming off the body, great cloth simulation, and that slow motion punch to the face. Just amazing visual moments that truly set this game apart.
I bought the next two Fight Night games and thoroughly enjoyed them, but Round 3 will always have a special place in my heart.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Monday, January 6, 2014
Definition of Terms
I work in the game industry and it seems like there are a few terms that go poorly defined or understood by gamers, the games media, and even developers. Mainly it has to do with categorizing games and trying to talk about types of games with broad generalizations. I figure I'd throw a few definitions I'd been thinking about into the ring and see what people thought. I'd like to point out that this is just my take on this stuff and isn't meant to be any kind of authority. It's just a talking point in a larger discussion.
AAA or Triple A: This term is meant to define a game that's in the "big leagues" of gaming. Generally it is an indication of a game's budget. In the sixth console generation this budget was somewhere between one and ten million dollars. It was a rare game that cost ten million dollars to develop. In the seventh console generation, AAA probably starts somewhere around twenty million and can go up to two hundred million dollars.
So what does all this money buy you? Generally it ends up creating a higher fidelity experience with some degree of higher production values. More money can be spent on art for larger and possibly more intricate locales, more iterations can be paid for in level design, more money can be spent on voice talent and sound recording. Frequently more money is spent on marketing and the game gets more exposure. This all means the game is expected to sell way more copies in order to turn a profit. This also means that these games tend to be somewhat risk-averse and frequently are meant to be built into multi game franchises to ensure multiple years of high revenue.
Towards the end of the seventh generation, and beyond, Triple A games almost always contain some form of long tail, usually in the form of a multiplayer component. And nearly always in the form of downloadable content used to generate more revenue to try to eke even more profit out of these expensive behemoths.
Indie: This refers to a small scale developer or a small production team's game. Similar to film, it can be somewhat tough to define. Few would consider Bungie to be an indie developer, though the company isn't owned by a larger company. Generally this term is used to describe games that live more on their ideas than their production quality. Some particular part of the game is meant to be taken to a superlative level, or there is some innovation that isn't generally seen in AAA games. Mainly indie games can tend to take more risks because they have much smaller budgets. Usually the teams are smaller and self funded. That's not to say that there aren't a ton of experienced developers in indie games, it's just that there is generally lower or no salary so they don't attract the same kind of talent. Not to say they have less talented developers, but they definitely have a different style of developer overall, I've found that independent games tent to be more quirky and rely more heavily on mechanics than production value. I have also found that more is forgiven from indie games due to their lack of a huge budget.
Core Games: This is where I'm going to get really controversial. For me, a core game is a high fidelity immersive narrative experience. This immediately discounts games such as Madden and FIFA, and to some degree Call of Duty. I wouldn't necessarily rule those games out as not being core games, I just think they're sort of exceptions to the rule, and generally fit into some (possibly very large) niche. Generally core games are trying to present some large narrative experience, some big story. Usually they try to use immersion to tell said story.
Core games aren't necessarily AAA, I've found most indie games are honestly trying to target core gamers. These are the games for people that over the past 20 years or so would identify as "gamers" or more specifically "video game players". Generally video games are one of the main interests of people who fit into this group, either as a hobby or an overall form of entertainment. I won't go into made-up demographic information, but developers expect this group to spend significant amounts of time with games in their lives.
Casual Games: These games tend to focus on small repeatable puzzles or mechanics that can be played for short periods of time. Frequently they have some sort of progression hook to create a sense of investment. The cost of entry for casual games is generally very low or free. They rely on progression hooks or low barrier to entry for revenue. Rarely is there a notion of an immersive story, and a minimum satisfying play session is generally only a few minutes. Contrast that with a core game where it is difficult to get a satisfying game session that lasts less than an hour. Casual games generally reside in places with the absolute lowest barrier to entry, so either in an app store on a mobile device, or on a web page or linked through Facebook. Generally they want to avoid an installer for PC, and rarely do they really take off on consoles because the barrier to even starting to use a console has traditionally been so high (having to go into the living room, turn on the TV, switch it to console mode, etc etc...). These games rely on absolutely huge numbers of players, but they tend to make very little money from each player.
These definitions are broad guidelines with which to try to sort games, they're not any sort of hard and fast rule. Don't think of the categories as buckets but more like a spectrum, some games are between AAA and indie, and some games are between core and casual, a good example of that is something like Plants vs. Zombies, which requires a fair time investment to play, but has still managed to reach a huge audience through easy accessibility. Anyway, I'd love to hear what anyone thinks about this stuff, I think it's a really interesting discussion.
AAA or Triple A: This term is meant to define a game that's in the "big leagues" of gaming. Generally it is an indication of a game's budget. In the sixth console generation this budget was somewhere between one and ten million dollars. It was a rare game that cost ten million dollars to develop. In the seventh console generation, AAA probably starts somewhere around twenty million and can go up to two hundred million dollars.
So what does all this money buy you? Generally it ends up creating a higher fidelity experience with some degree of higher production values. More money can be spent on art for larger and possibly more intricate locales, more iterations can be paid for in level design, more money can be spent on voice talent and sound recording. Frequently more money is spent on marketing and the game gets more exposure. This all means the game is expected to sell way more copies in order to turn a profit. This also means that these games tend to be somewhat risk-averse and frequently are meant to be built into multi game franchises to ensure multiple years of high revenue.
Towards the end of the seventh generation, and beyond, Triple A games almost always contain some form of long tail, usually in the form of a multiplayer component. And nearly always in the form of downloadable content used to generate more revenue to try to eke even more profit out of these expensive behemoths.
Indie: This refers to a small scale developer or a small production team's game. Similar to film, it can be somewhat tough to define. Few would consider Bungie to be an indie developer, though the company isn't owned by a larger company. Generally this term is used to describe games that live more on their ideas than their production quality. Some particular part of the game is meant to be taken to a superlative level, or there is some innovation that isn't generally seen in AAA games. Mainly indie games can tend to take more risks because they have much smaller budgets. Usually the teams are smaller and self funded. That's not to say that there aren't a ton of experienced developers in indie games, it's just that there is generally lower or no salary so they don't attract the same kind of talent. Not to say they have less talented developers, but they definitely have a different style of developer overall, I've found that independent games tent to be more quirky and rely more heavily on mechanics than production value. I have also found that more is forgiven from indie games due to their lack of a huge budget.
Core Games: This is where I'm going to get really controversial. For me, a core game is a high fidelity immersive narrative experience. This immediately discounts games such as Madden and FIFA, and to some degree Call of Duty. I wouldn't necessarily rule those games out as not being core games, I just think they're sort of exceptions to the rule, and generally fit into some (possibly very large) niche. Generally core games are trying to present some large narrative experience, some big story. Usually they try to use immersion to tell said story.
Core games aren't necessarily AAA, I've found most indie games are honestly trying to target core gamers. These are the games for people that over the past 20 years or so would identify as "gamers" or more specifically "video game players". Generally video games are one of the main interests of people who fit into this group, either as a hobby or an overall form of entertainment. I won't go into made-up demographic information, but developers expect this group to spend significant amounts of time with games in their lives.
Casual Games: These games tend to focus on small repeatable puzzles or mechanics that can be played for short periods of time. Frequently they have some sort of progression hook to create a sense of investment. The cost of entry for casual games is generally very low or free. They rely on progression hooks or low barrier to entry for revenue. Rarely is there a notion of an immersive story, and a minimum satisfying play session is generally only a few minutes. Contrast that with a core game where it is difficult to get a satisfying game session that lasts less than an hour. Casual games generally reside in places with the absolute lowest barrier to entry, so either in an app store on a mobile device, or on a web page or linked through Facebook. Generally they want to avoid an installer for PC, and rarely do they really take off on consoles because the barrier to even starting to use a console has traditionally been so high (having to go into the living room, turn on the TV, switch it to console mode, etc etc...). These games rely on absolutely huge numbers of players, but they tend to make very little money from each player.
These definitions are broad guidelines with which to try to sort games, they're not any sort of hard and fast rule. Don't think of the categories as buckets but more like a spectrum, some games are between AAA and indie, and some games are between core and casual, a good example of that is something like Plants vs. Zombies, which requires a fair time investment to play, but has still managed to reach a huge audience through easy accessibility. Anyway, I'd love to hear what anyone thinks about this stuff, I think it's a really interesting discussion.
Thursday, November 7, 2013
Console launches
So I feel like most gamers have noticed the overall lackluster nature of console launches of late. The WiiU, Vita, 3ds, and even the Xbox One and PS4 seem to have fairly anemic launch lineups. I was considering why this has to be this way, and ultimately I think it comes down to install base. Launching your world-beating genre defining AAAAAAAA title that costs a hundred million dollars when the hardware it runs on is supply constrained just doesn't make financial sense. From Sony and Nintendo's perspective, they really can't afford a loss like that, and for Microsoft, it's a matter of keeping the division profitable, Microsoft isn't trying to break into the console market anymore so they're less inclined to put a huge expensive game out at launch when they could just wait for more console to be sold.
In previous generations it wasn't as risky because games were less expensive to produce. Something like Halo probably broke even or made money at 500 thousand units sold. Something like Grand Theft Auto V probably had to sell 4 million to break even. maybe more. If the console sells like gangbusters, there might be 5 million out at launch. If yields are good. Also remember companies are disinclined to produce game consoles in large numbers at launch to try to maximize profit as processes are evolved to build the consoles more cheaply. This is how Sony makes money of ps2 and ps3 despite losing money at launch. So if you need to sell 4 million to break even and only 5 million consoles are out there, you're screwed, because I can't think of a single non pack-in game that had an 80% attach rate.
Obviously you could have a situation like the original Halo: Combat Evolved, where the game continues to sell well for 3 years, but that phenomenon is incredibly rare, and large companies aren't willing to bet on that. The industry has gotten considerably more risk-averse as the budgets for these games have gone up to their current astronomical heights. Of course launch can be a great time for a more niche title to come out that is unlikely to sell crazy high numbers anyway because the lack of overall content provides more attention to the few titles that do come out. This has worked in favor of games like Power Stone and SSX.
Anyway this may all seem obvious, but for my friends who aren't quite as connected to the video game industry as I am, it might not be. Hopefully this explains the more lackluster launches of the past few years.
In previous generations it wasn't as risky because games were less expensive to produce. Something like Halo probably broke even or made money at 500 thousand units sold. Something like Grand Theft Auto V probably had to sell 4 million to break even. maybe more. If the console sells like gangbusters, there might be 5 million out at launch. If yields are good. Also remember companies are disinclined to produce game consoles in large numbers at launch to try to maximize profit as processes are evolved to build the consoles more cheaply. This is how Sony makes money of ps2 and ps3 despite losing money at launch. So if you need to sell 4 million to break even and only 5 million consoles are out there, you're screwed, because I can't think of a single non pack-in game that had an 80% attach rate.
Obviously you could have a situation like the original Halo: Combat Evolved, where the game continues to sell well for 3 years, but that phenomenon is incredibly rare, and large companies aren't willing to bet on that. The industry has gotten considerably more risk-averse as the budgets for these games have gone up to their current astronomical heights. Of course launch can be a great time for a more niche title to come out that is unlikely to sell crazy high numbers anyway because the lack of overall content provides more attention to the few titles that do come out. This has worked in favor of games like Power Stone and SSX.
Anyway this may all seem obvious, but for my friends who aren't quite as connected to the video game industry as I am, it might not be. Hopefully this explains the more lackluster launches of the past few years.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Rocksmith 2014
So I've been super excited for Rocksmith 2014 since it was first announced, and more so once they started holding DLC in favor of the new game. The promises made at E3 were many: improved UI, removing loading times, a solid track list. So how did it fare?
Overall it's a fantastic product, and a huge improvement from Rocksmith, it's more polished, better looking, the UI is considerably better (but not perfect), the track list is solid, possibly the original Rocksmith track list was slightly stronger, but since you can import it for $10, it's not a big deal. There are new features, such as tone changes mid-song, and many, many more tunings which is a blessing and a curse.
The note highway now has much better marking for which note to play when, and much improved finger positioning notation. Overall it's a big improvement. I have a slight bit of trouble distinguishing yellow from orange on it, but overall it's great. Very nice to get tips on when to position your fingers as a chord instead of an individual note (for songs like House of the Rising Sun), This existed in Rocksmith, but it seems enhanced now. Outside of the slight problem I have distinguishing color, I think one could say the interface is completely improved.
The only possible flaw with Rocksmith 2014 that I've found is that it's not really much of a game anymore. Songs no longer are about score and score multipliers, and while there is a score attack mode, it isn't the core mode of the game.
There also isn't a larger career, which is something I found satisfying as a player. Overall I feel like they removed one of the big features of the game, which was an excellent progression system. I no longer feel like I'm progressing in a fictional "rock star" career, this was a major hook which kept bringing me back to the original Rocksmith, and hopefully the frictionless UI in 2014 can accomplish the same result. I do find it to be a bit of a loss though.
Otherwise the game is fantastic, and I still highly recommend it for anyone interested in learning guitar or bass, so far the DLC has been fantastic, also.
Overall it's a fantastic product, and a huge improvement from Rocksmith, it's more polished, better looking, the UI is considerably better (but not perfect), the track list is solid, possibly the original Rocksmith track list was slightly stronger, but since you can import it for $10, it's not a big deal. There are new features, such as tone changes mid-song, and many, many more tunings which is a blessing and a curse.
The note highway now has much better marking for which note to play when, and much improved finger positioning notation. Overall it's a big improvement. I have a slight bit of trouble distinguishing yellow from orange on it, but overall it's great. Very nice to get tips on when to position your fingers as a chord instead of an individual note (for songs like House of the Rising Sun), This existed in Rocksmith, but it seems enhanced now. Outside of the slight problem I have distinguishing color, I think one could say the interface is completely improved.
The only possible flaw with Rocksmith 2014 that I've found is that it's not really much of a game anymore. Songs no longer are about score and score multipliers, and while there is a score attack mode, it isn't the core mode of the game.
There also isn't a larger career, which is something I found satisfying as a player. Overall I feel like they removed one of the big features of the game, which was an excellent progression system. I no longer feel like I'm progressing in a fictional "rock star" career, this was a major hook which kept bringing me back to the original Rocksmith, and hopefully the frictionless UI in 2014 can accomplish the same result. I do find it to be a bit of a loss though.
Otherwise the game is fantastic, and I still highly recommend it for anyone interested in learning guitar or bass, so far the DLC has been fantastic, also.
Monday, June 17, 2013
Surface Pro review
So earlier this year, I did a Surface RT review, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of Microsoft's tablet offering, in my biased opinion. I do work for Microsoft and am thus predisposed to liking Microsoft products so take my reviews with whatever amount of salt you deem appropriate.
The Surface Pro is the best device I've ever owned. The form factor and usability surpasses basically anything I've ever bought, in my opinion, it's that good. I wanted a note-taking/sketching tablet that had an active digitizer. I got that, plus a decent, if not fantastic laptop. The tech blogs I read criticized the device for not fitting into any category. It's noticeably heavier than an iPad, to the point of being slightly uncomfortable to use in certain situations where the iPad isn't uncomfortable, though I would argue those situations are few and far between. Generally I find the iPad is too heavy for most long-term tablet holding tasks anyway. The Surface Pro also has a smaller screen than any laptop I've ever used, and unlike the iPad criticism, it's hard to argue that the Surface Pro's screen isn't too small to be effective as a laptop. But it has an active digitizer and runs metro apps!
This means I don't really need to use it as a laptop. I turn it sideways and use the dreaded portrait mode to take notes during meetings and doodle off to the side in One Note. I can use it to paint or draw as needed with several fantastic apps available for Windows 8, including Art Rage, Sketchbook Pro, and the free Fresh Paint which is actually an app that runs in Windows RT.
The other really nice thing about the Surface Pro is that you're not limited to Windows RT apps and all your legacy windows 7 apps not only run, but run pretty well. And if the Surface Pro is a heavy iPad, it's an amazingly thin and light laptop, even with the type cover.
I've found the battery life to be basically perfect for my needs. I'll be out of juice by the end of the day, but I don't need to charge during the day with my workload. Bear in mind that most of the work I do is done on a full Desktop PC, so generally the Surface Pro is relegated to taking notes. I probably get about 5 hours out of it before a charge. I recently took it on a flight to Los Angeles, and used it to stream music over Wi Fi via X Box music, and paint some pictures, and I still had half a charge when I landed. That's about 90 minutes of heavy use, which I think is highly acceptable.
The device does get extremely hot for a tablet, but not uncomfortably so. I have yet to hear the fan, though I've felt it blowing air out, so it is very quiet. I'd rather not need a fan or have the device get hot, but it suits my needs pretty well.
Overall if the battery life were closer to 10 hours, I think this device would be even better, though I find it incredibly good right now. Highly recommended for anyone that sees the utility of the active digitizer.
It's kind of late so apologies for the quick/dirtiness of this, but I wanted to get it out there because I am super happy to have a Surface Pro and if a new one comes out with a Haswell chip, I think you'd have to be a fool not to consider it.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Next Gen Digital Rights
So anything I say here is utterly and completely personal opinion and has nothing whatsoever to do with the company I work for. I am obviously biased because I do work for one of the console manufacturers and I will admit that that bias plays into my overall thinking, but nothing I say here is in any way official or reflects any kind of official Microsoft statement.
So what I have to say is that I'm really surprised that gamers are so willing to embrace the notion of disc-switching in a digital era. This is something that gamers bitterly fought on PC for nearly a decade until Steam, with the least objectionable DRM in the industry, ended up ending disc switching on PC once and for all. Do people not remember how annoying it was to dig through discs and put each disc in the PC when they wanted to play another game?
I'm not going to try to argue that Microsoft has the best DRM situation possible, I haven't really analyzed it, but I will say it's not that objectionable to me, personally. I understand that I'm not every consumer and others have various problems with it, but overall, it meshes well with how I tend to play and buy games. I hope Microsoft can get its lending story sorted out soon, but otherwise I don't have a huge problem with any of it. I'm not saying that someone who does is in the wrong, everyone's situation is different.
What I will say is that people acting like Sony doesn't have any DRM are fooling themselves. Sony absolutely does a DRM check on your game, it just happens to check local media instead of the internet. And for me, that's considerably worse than a manufacturer asking to have my console online. I am many times more likely to play different games if I don't have to go hunting around for discs. This is a major reason I switched to PC. And being able to fast swap in and out of games looks absolutely amazing to me. On the PS4 there will either be some kind of check to ensure you have the rights to the game you're playing via the Internet, or via local media, or else, in the least likely case, there will be incredibly rampant piracy that will destroy the platform (this is basically impossible).
I know I have friends who work at Sony and I am not going to say the PS4 is terrible or even in any way bad, I'm actually pretty excited for it. That said, I plan on never buying a single retail disc for PS4. Since all games will be digitally available day and date and since games can play while they're downloading, I'll happily buy all my PS4 games digitally rather than have to constantly change discs. If I'm being honest I'll have to say the same for X Box One. I probably won't buy any retail discs for X Box One either (though I might get a few free from work here and there).
In a few years I doubt people will even be buying video game media in stores at all, but for now, if I'm buying media, I love the idea of installing it on my console and forgetting about it, just like PC games have done for the past 5 years.
So what I have to say is that I'm really surprised that gamers are so willing to embrace the notion of disc-switching in a digital era. This is something that gamers bitterly fought on PC for nearly a decade until Steam, with the least objectionable DRM in the industry, ended up ending disc switching on PC once and for all. Do people not remember how annoying it was to dig through discs and put each disc in the PC when they wanted to play another game?
I'm not going to try to argue that Microsoft has the best DRM situation possible, I haven't really analyzed it, but I will say it's not that objectionable to me, personally. I understand that I'm not every consumer and others have various problems with it, but overall, it meshes well with how I tend to play and buy games. I hope Microsoft can get its lending story sorted out soon, but otherwise I don't have a huge problem with any of it. I'm not saying that someone who does is in the wrong, everyone's situation is different.
What I will say is that people acting like Sony doesn't have any DRM are fooling themselves. Sony absolutely does a DRM check on your game, it just happens to check local media instead of the internet. And for me, that's considerably worse than a manufacturer asking to have my console online. I am many times more likely to play different games if I don't have to go hunting around for discs. This is a major reason I switched to PC. And being able to fast swap in and out of games looks absolutely amazing to me. On the PS4 there will either be some kind of check to ensure you have the rights to the game you're playing via the Internet, or via local media, or else, in the least likely case, there will be incredibly rampant piracy that will destroy the platform (this is basically impossible).
I know I have friends who work at Sony and I am not going to say the PS4 is terrible or even in any way bad, I'm actually pretty excited for it. That said, I plan on never buying a single retail disc for PS4. Since all games will be digitally available day and date and since games can play while they're downloading, I'll happily buy all my PS4 games digitally rather than have to constantly change discs. If I'm being honest I'll have to say the same for X Box One. I probably won't buy any retail discs for X Box One either (though I might get a few free from work here and there).
In a few years I doubt people will even be buying video game media in stores at all, but for now, if I'm buying media, I love the idea of installing it on my console and forgetting about it, just like PC games have done for the past 5 years.
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Suggestions for Christopher Nolan's next film
Mori Memento.
Basically just play Memento forwards. Maybe recast the whole thing. or else continue the story back in time!
Ception, alternatively Outception.
What happens next in Inception? The world wants to know. Plus you get a chance to explain that confusing ending!
Dark Knights and Baney Days
Bring back Bane and have him team up with Batman to take on Gotham City's underworld. Also have Bane narrate the entire film.
Basically just play Memento forwards. Maybe recast the whole thing. or else continue the story back in time!
Ception, alternatively Outception.
What happens next in Inception? The world wants to know. Plus you get a chance to explain that confusing ending!
Dark Knights and Baney Days
Bring back Bane and have him team up with Batman to take on Gotham City's underworld. Also have Bane narrate the entire film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
