To follow on from what I was talking about before, Rock Band 2 has now been officially announced, and from what I can tell it's very good news.
Here are the headlines:
1) All downloadable content will be cross-compatible between all Rock Band games.
Cross-compatible, mind, so Rock Band 1 owners don't need Rock Band 2 to keep enjoying songs.
2) Same goes for instruments.
I'm sure that in the UK we're all very pleased about not being asked to shell out a ton of money yet again for the peripherals.
3) But they're releasing updated models anyway.
There's hope that they might do something along the lines of the optional cymbals that double up on the regular pads, like the third part MadCatz kit. If so, count me in (so to speak) for the drums, at least.
4) As for content, we're talking about 80-ish songs.
Similar number to the next Guitar Hero, then. Which is great value, compared to the price of downloadable content - but no announcements of what the songs will be like yet. Of course, they're talking them up big-style.
5) New game modes that let you enjoy the songs in new and exciting ways.
No idea what this could possibly mean, but it all adds value, I suppose. We shall see.
6) Most of the little gripes that people had with the original have been heard and fixed.
Well, we can believe it when we see it, but their online community is very active and they do read it regularly, so I think we'll find many improvements.
So, what it amounts to is a refinement of what we had before. It's no reinvention, and I don't suppose anyone expected it to be. I think that it's more of a definitive version, in that it looks like it is trying to take the 'but...' out of 'I love Rock Band, but...'
As for me, I love Rock Band, but, for example...
*I wish there was more flexibility with the characters you create - such as allowing them to take more than one instrument, or using them as band members when you're playing solo, instead of the defaults. A small point really, but I've always liked customisable characters, so I'd like to see them better.
*I do worry about the durability of this drum kit, and I'd like to see lessons learned next time.
*I wish the songs would cater to a slightly wider range of tastes.
*
Monday, 30 June 2008
Sunday, 22 June 2008
5 Reasons why Rock Band will hold its own against Guitar Hero: World Tour
Since I bought Rock Band today, I've been looking with interest at the reaction to the unveiling of Guitar Hero's answer to it. On the face of it, it looks like the new Guitar Hero is an attempt to finish what Rock Band started, almost in the same way that Rock Band itself was a natural progression on from Guitar Hero. Indeed, I believe that the new Guitar Hero may have plenty going for it - particularly that drum kit. However, I don't think it's game over for Rock Band by any stretch. Here's why:
1) Rock Band has a big head start
This is significant not just because the people who already shelled out for a Rock Band kit are unlikely to want to do so all over again - let alone where to put all this stuff. It's also important because Rock Band has also had time to release some fine, fine downloadable tracks which Guitar Hero has to work hard to catch up to.
2) The Rock Band franchise is less obnoxious
Not everyone is totally into the RAWK!! posturing and attitude of the Guitar Hero games, and Rock Band has some of this too. However, its cleaner interface, and general toned-down-ness in this respect comes off as more mature and will likely appeal to people with a wider range of tastes.
3) Not everyone cares about the drums
I care about the drums, but not everyone does and when you take those out of the equation, the peripherals aren't really that different at all.
4) Even those who do care about the drums aren't definitely going to base a purchasing decision on that.
If I had free choice of drum set, there's no doubt I'd pick the Guitar Hero ones over Rock Band. But given that they only work with their respective games, I'm afraid that the general feel of the game and the songs it provides are far, far more important to me and for a while at least (see 1) the outlook seems brighter for Rock Band. I'm sure others will agree.
5) The games will naturally develop distinct audiences
I believe that Guitar Hero will become the franchise that appeals to the big rhythm game enthusiasts, while Rock Band will manage to reach across several audiences. Imagine that Guitar Hero is a PSP and Rock Band a DS. Sure, the PSP is flashier and has some really cool features which are impossible on the DS - and it has big appeal for serious gamers. However the DS is the popular choice for providing simple variety, and delivering more consistently good content.
I hope both games do well in their own right and then again it might not play out the way I predict at all but hey - at least I can enjoy playing Doolittle by Pixies, however it turns out!
1) Rock Band has a big head start
This is significant not just because the people who already shelled out for a Rock Band kit are unlikely to want to do so all over again - let alone where to put all this stuff. It's also important because Rock Band has also had time to release some fine, fine downloadable tracks which Guitar Hero has to work hard to catch up to.
2) The Rock Band franchise is less obnoxious
Not everyone is totally into the RAWK!! posturing and attitude of the Guitar Hero games, and Rock Band has some of this too. However, its cleaner interface, and general toned-down-ness in this respect comes off as more mature and will likely appeal to people with a wider range of tastes.
3) Not everyone cares about the drums
I care about the drums, but not everyone does and when you take those out of the equation, the peripherals aren't really that different at all.
4) Even those who do care about the drums aren't definitely going to base a purchasing decision on that.
If I had free choice of drum set, there's no doubt I'd pick the Guitar Hero ones over Rock Band. But given that they only work with their respective games, I'm afraid that the general feel of the game and the songs it provides are far, far more important to me and for a while at least (see 1) the outlook seems brighter for Rock Band. I'm sure others will agree.
5) The games will naturally develop distinct audiences
I believe that Guitar Hero will become the franchise that appeals to the big rhythm game enthusiasts, while Rock Band will manage to reach across several audiences. Imagine that Guitar Hero is a PSP and Rock Band a DS. Sure, the PSP is flashier and has some really cool features which are impossible on the DS - and it has big appeal for serious gamers. However the DS is the popular choice for providing simple variety, and delivering more consistently good content.
I hope both games do well in their own right and then again it might not play out the way I predict at all but hey - at least I can enjoy playing Doolittle by Pixies, however it turns out!
Friday, 13 June 2008
On Review.
I've been thinking about that review of Gamespot's LostWinds review I posted up, and how it relates to my opinion of the reviewing process in general.
See, I'm not one to get pissy about reviews or precious about the games I like. However, it seems there is a fine line between someone having a subjective opinion that clashes with your own and someone being genuinely unfair on a game. The latter very rarely happens, on professional sites, because they're, well, professional. That said, my feeling about the LostWinds review is that it was on just the wrong side of fair.
Now, to put this next bit in to context, I've only played through one Metal Gear Solid game, and that's the second one (which I hear a lot of people consider to be the worst in series). So, my interest in the series is minimal. Certainly, I enjoyed it and I wouldn't even mind playing the 4th one, or any of the other ones, but I haven't been swept up in the hype like some. To clarify even further, I'm fairly confident it's a great game series and that MGS4 is all sorts of wonderful, it's just that there are other things I'd rather play first. Okay, fans?
What gets me worked up is when a site like Eurogamer dares to give MGS4 such a punishingly low score as 8 out of 10 and then every single fanboy and girl, not just of MGS but of the PS3 in general, crawls out of the woodwork with extreme indignance at such a personal insult. The 360 fanboys aren't innocent, either, with their laughing at MGS4 fans because their game recieved such a... well, a perfectly respectable score (the same one awarded to Gears of War, incidentally, to some but not quite as much outcry).
I joined in the ensuing discussion to see if I could bring about some sort of modicum of sense to it (along with a few allies) but this is the sort of discussion we are talking about:
Us: Come on, 8 out of 10 is a good score. It means it's a great game for anyone to play (with a few caveats), and a must buy for fans, surely?
Them: No, it's worth at LEAST a 9 even though I haven't played it because it isn't out yet, so the reviewer must be some sort of MGS hating idiot.
Us: But he liked the game, a lot!
Them: Oh, clearly his anti-MGS/PS3 bias is written all over the review.
Us: Really, where? I think you're just reading what you want to read.
Them: [Quote taken out of context]
Us: Sigh...
I could see that I wasn't going to convince them that it really was a positive review of the game and so I hoped to attack their assumption that reviews should be objective. My argument went something like this:
There's very little that can objectively said about a game and still be useful. The objective facts about a game are things that can be found out without even playing it. Of course, in a review you need some facts: perhaps some information about the control system, or what you can change in the options menu, or a summary of the general premise of the game and so on. However, the real meat of the review is a highly subjective account of the reviewer's experience with the game.
So, why do we read reviews when we don't know if we can trust the opinions?
Well, what we usually do is we find a web site or magazine whose opinions tend to tally quite closely with our own, because those are the subjective opinions which are likely to be of use to us. But the best thing is, even if there are opinions in the review that seem to differ to our own, we can still find them useful as a guide to whether to buy the game or not.
For instance, in the MGS4 review, the reviewer complains a little bit about just how long some of the cutscenes are. To me, that is something worth complaining about, so I'll take that in to consideration if I ever consider buying MGS4. But to Joe MGS Fan, the long cutscenes might be one of his favourite things about the series, so he can turn that negative into a positive right away. He can even mentally add a point to the score if he wants to. In fact he can add another point just for being an MGS fan, so that's 10 out of 10 already!
Reviews are not handed down on tablets of stone. They are the collected opinions of a gamer whose only responsibility is to approach the game with an open mind, in order that he might assist other people in a decision to buy or not.
The first thing reviews are not, is written-for-fans. Joe MGS fan, this review wasn't even for you. You're only reading it to satisfy some craving that is to do with your excitement about the game. I'm not knocking that - I do it all the time. I read the Lost Winds Gamespot review, after all.
What annoyed me about the aforementioned review was that it may put a lot of people off the game who would otherwise have really liked it. But you can't really say the same about an 8/10 review for MGS4. It tells fans what they already know - you'll love it and buy it. And it tells non-fans, the target audience, what they need to know - it's a great game but you may find that you have a few issues with it if you're not used to this sort of thing. That way the non-fan can make an informed decision about whether those issues are things she can live with in order to play what's supposed to be a very good game, or whether they'll be too annoying for her and so she'll pass this time around. Sounds reasonable to me.
... but of course, they didn't listen.
See, I'm not one to get pissy about reviews or precious about the games I like. However, it seems there is a fine line between someone having a subjective opinion that clashes with your own and someone being genuinely unfair on a game. The latter very rarely happens, on professional sites, because they're, well, professional. That said, my feeling about the LostWinds review is that it was on just the wrong side of fair.
Now, to put this next bit in to context, I've only played through one Metal Gear Solid game, and that's the second one (which I hear a lot of people consider to be the worst in series). So, my interest in the series is minimal. Certainly, I enjoyed it and I wouldn't even mind playing the 4th one, or any of the other ones, but I haven't been swept up in the hype like some. To clarify even further, I'm fairly confident it's a great game series and that MGS4 is all sorts of wonderful, it's just that there are other things I'd rather play first. Okay, fans?
What gets me worked up is when a site like Eurogamer dares to give MGS4 such a punishingly low score as 8 out of 10 and then every single fanboy and girl, not just of MGS but of the PS3 in general, crawls out of the woodwork with extreme indignance at such a personal insult. The 360 fanboys aren't innocent, either, with their laughing at MGS4 fans because their game recieved such a... well, a perfectly respectable score (the same one awarded to Gears of War, incidentally, to some but not quite as much outcry).
I joined in the ensuing discussion to see if I could bring about some sort of modicum of sense to it (along with a few allies) but this is the sort of discussion we are talking about:
Us: Come on, 8 out of 10 is a good score. It means it's a great game for anyone to play (with a few caveats), and a must buy for fans, surely?
Them: No, it's worth at LEAST a 9 even though I haven't played it because it isn't out yet, so the reviewer must be some sort of MGS hating idiot.
Us: But he liked the game, a lot!
Them: Oh, clearly his anti-MGS/PS3 bias is written all over the review.
Us: Really, where? I think you're just reading what you want to read.
Them: [Quote taken out of context]
Us: Sigh...
I could see that I wasn't going to convince them that it really was a positive review of the game and so I hoped to attack their assumption that reviews should be objective. My argument went something like this:
There's very little that can objectively said about a game and still be useful. The objective facts about a game are things that can be found out without even playing it. Of course, in a review you need some facts: perhaps some information about the control system, or what you can change in the options menu, or a summary of the general premise of the game and so on. However, the real meat of the review is a highly subjective account of the reviewer's experience with the game.
So, why do we read reviews when we don't know if we can trust the opinions?
Well, what we usually do is we find a web site or magazine whose opinions tend to tally quite closely with our own, because those are the subjective opinions which are likely to be of use to us. But the best thing is, even if there are opinions in the review that seem to differ to our own, we can still find them useful as a guide to whether to buy the game or not.
For instance, in the MGS4 review, the reviewer complains a little bit about just how long some of the cutscenes are. To me, that is something worth complaining about, so I'll take that in to consideration if I ever consider buying MGS4. But to Joe MGS Fan, the long cutscenes might be one of his favourite things about the series, so he can turn that negative into a positive right away. He can even mentally add a point to the score if he wants to. In fact he can add another point just for being an MGS fan, so that's 10 out of 10 already!
Reviews are not handed down on tablets of stone. They are the collected opinions of a gamer whose only responsibility is to approach the game with an open mind, in order that he might assist other people in a decision to buy or not.
The first thing reviews are not, is written-for-fans. Joe MGS fan, this review wasn't even for you. You're only reading it to satisfy some craving that is to do with your excitement about the game. I'm not knocking that - I do it all the time. I read the Lost Winds Gamespot review, after all.
What annoyed me about the aforementioned review was that it may put a lot of people off the game who would otherwise have really liked it. But you can't really say the same about an 8/10 review for MGS4. It tells fans what they already know - you'll love it and buy it. And it tells non-fans, the target audience, what they need to know - it's a great game but you may find that you have a few issues with it if you're not used to this sort of thing. That way the non-fan can make an informed decision about whether those issues are things she can live with in order to play what's supposed to be a very good game, or whether they'll be too annoying for her and so she'll pass this time around. Sounds reasonable to me.
... but of course, they didn't listen.
Monday, 9 June 2008
LEC and me.
I don't care what the truth behind this article is. Either way, it's indicative of the general mood and gives me reason to look back and think about how it all went wrong for Lucasarts Entertainment Company. Of course, doing that in any detail would involve, y'know, actual research, so instead I'm just going to vent some spleen for a while.
"They're brilliant," I enthused at a classmate, years ago, "I'd buy anything with LucasArts written on the box." It was true, as well. I couldn't say it about any other developer that I can think of. I didn't fall in love with every LucasArts game I encountered, but the hit rate was high enough and I could at least come away from the shop knowing that I'd got myself something of unmatched quality and style. I don't remember the last time that was true but even around the time of Grim Fandango - my all time favourite LEC game, no less - that faith was starting to waver.
It was 1998, then, and it seems that 10 years is a long time in gaming, because nowadays the words 'LucasArts' on a box are, if not an outright condemnation (after all, some outsourced projects like those LEGO games have been rather good), at least something of a warning.
With the Star Wars prequels, the merchandising machine got all fired up again but we LucasArts faithful were unconcerned. For a start, Star Wars games had always been part of LEC history. It was only be expected that games would accompany the film. What was more disappointing was the standard of most of these games as compared to the X-Wing/TIE Fighter and Jedi Knight fare we'd been treated to in the past. Even then, though all was not lost in our minds.
'So they had a few cash-in games,' we thought, naively, 'Fine. Just leaves them more money to do the stuff we know they really love, such as those lovely adventure games.'
I suppose the first clue should have been the disappointingly substandard Escape from Monkey Island which clearly had neither the time or budget attention paid to it as the same-engine but far more polished Grim Fandango. But everyone can make mistakes, right? At least they're still trying.
Then came Full Throttle 2 - or not, as it turned out. Not much was ever revealed about the project, but by all accounts it was less true to its roots as people had perhaps hoped and it was ditched after a surprisingly candid admission that it just wasn't up to standards. The cancellation caused a few wobbles in the community but most people - myself included - genuinely believed that it was better this way. It gave us hope that LEC were still concerned with quality.
When Sam and Max 2 was announced, it gave people more hope still. Steve Purcell fully on board and all accounts saying it was shaping up to be a great sequel; the little tidbits provided delighting fans everywhere, this was to be where LucasArts found its way again. Then, to everyone's (not least Steve Purcell's) surprise, it was cancelled, most-way through its production.
The reason?
'Current marketplace realities.'
Have a look at that. That's the actual wording on the press release. That's how LucasArts were willing to represent themselves to the world. I had always seen them as a group of people who derived genuine joy from the creation of games. Almost like they were indie developers, except with more money, so they couldn't have collided 3 more dismaying words together. How could I possibly have any enthusiasm for anything they ever did again after that statement?
The answer is that I couldn't, and I still can't. I can't even muster up much enthusiasm for the next part of the story. Basically, all the familiar names and faces from the LucasArts we loved had left and formed their own studios, and some have gone on to bring back some of that magic we missed too, in the shape of the excellent Psychonauts and Telltale's Sam and Max episodes (with which I nevertheless have a few issues). For all that, however, nothing could match the power of all those people working in the same place, at the height of its powers.
It's long dead now. I imagine a giant, lumbering zombiefied LucasArts, unaware of its own demise, searching for franchises upon which to feast. I only hope someone does the kind thing and brings a shotgun to its head before it goes for anything I truly hold dear, like another Monkey Island or -heaven forbid- Grim Fandango.
"They're brilliant," I enthused at a classmate, years ago, "I'd buy anything with LucasArts written on the box." It was true, as well. I couldn't say it about any other developer that I can think of. I didn't fall in love with every LucasArts game I encountered, but the hit rate was high enough and I could at least come away from the shop knowing that I'd got myself something of unmatched quality and style. I don't remember the last time that was true but even around the time of Grim Fandango - my all time favourite LEC game, no less - that faith was starting to waver.
It was 1998, then, and it seems that 10 years is a long time in gaming, because nowadays the words 'LucasArts' on a box are, if not an outright condemnation (after all, some outsourced projects like those LEGO games have been rather good), at least something of a warning.
With the Star Wars prequels, the merchandising machine got all fired up again but we LucasArts faithful were unconcerned. For a start, Star Wars games had always been part of LEC history. It was only be expected that games would accompany the film. What was more disappointing was the standard of most of these games as compared to the X-Wing/TIE Fighter and Jedi Knight fare we'd been treated to in the past. Even then, though all was not lost in our minds.
'So they had a few cash-in games,' we thought, naively, 'Fine. Just leaves them more money to do the stuff we know they really love, such as those lovely adventure games.'
I suppose the first clue should have been the disappointingly substandard Escape from Monkey Island which clearly had neither the time or budget attention paid to it as the same-engine but far more polished Grim Fandango. But everyone can make mistakes, right? At least they're still trying.
Then came Full Throttle 2 - or not, as it turned out. Not much was ever revealed about the project, but by all accounts it was less true to its roots as people had perhaps hoped and it was ditched after a surprisingly candid admission that it just wasn't up to standards. The cancellation caused a few wobbles in the community but most people - myself included - genuinely believed that it was better this way. It gave us hope that LEC were still concerned with quality.
When Sam and Max 2 was announced, it gave people more hope still. Steve Purcell fully on board and all accounts saying it was shaping up to be a great sequel; the little tidbits provided delighting fans everywhere, this was to be where LucasArts found its way again. Then, to everyone's (not least Steve Purcell's) surprise, it was cancelled, most-way through its production.
The reason?
'Current marketplace realities.'
Have a look at that. That's the actual wording on the press release. That's how LucasArts were willing to represent themselves to the world. I had always seen them as a group of people who derived genuine joy from the creation of games. Almost like they were indie developers, except with more money, so they couldn't have collided 3 more dismaying words together. How could I possibly have any enthusiasm for anything they ever did again after that statement?
The answer is that I couldn't, and I still can't. I can't even muster up much enthusiasm for the next part of the story. Basically, all the familiar names and faces from the LucasArts we loved had left and formed their own studios, and some have gone on to bring back some of that magic we missed too, in the shape of the excellent Psychonauts and Telltale's Sam and Max episodes (with which I nevertheless have a few issues). For all that, however, nothing could match the power of all those people working in the same place, at the height of its powers.
It's long dead now. I imagine a giant, lumbering zombiefied LucasArts, unaware of its own demise, searching for franchises upon which to feast. I only hope someone does the kind thing and brings a shotgun to its head before it goes for anything I truly hold dear, like another Monkey Island or -heaven forbid- Grim Fandango.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)