Personal Account- Spec Ops: The Line

*SPOILERS ENSUE* You have been warned.

Spec Ops: The Line draws the line between a good game and a soul-crushing experience. The later was more my speed as I was forced to examine a real lesson behind the guise of a third person shooter; war is not fun. That should be obvious, but I see how the youth of today enjoy shooters and it scares me a bit. I got into gaming before shooters became the big ‘thing’, so I was never conditioned to worship those kinds of games. Sure, one of my favorite games for the N64 was Goldeneye, but James Bond is hardly a soldier killing brown people (that, and he's English). Tuitt, Vernon Tuitt.

I miss this game

With such ware games as Call of Duty, there is a clear divide between good guys and bad guys. From Germans to Japanese, from Arabs to basically any other brown person you can shake a stick at, it’s usually the Americans that are gung-ho about taking the baddies out, and they usually win. Amuricah! But what if Americans had to fight other Americans? In a setting where survival is paramount and the way to go about stopping the opposing force isn’t as clear-cut and clean as you’re used to, how would you cope with your decisions? Furthermore, how far would you go to challenge behavior you found appalling?

I soiled myself. Damn.

It’s easy to get lost in the Medal of Honors and the Battlefields, but it takes some balls in the industry today to bring real moral dilemmas to your console, make you choose, and then punish you severely for making said choice.

While I frown upon such a practice, I’m not shaming it entirely because it actually worked in this game. The story follows Captain Martin Walker, leader of a three-man reconnaissance team sent to investigate a distress signal in a sand-covered Dubai. Simple recon turns into a rescue mission that involves saving a company of soldiers who were thought to be killed. It turns out that the soldiers failed their own mission and occupied the city, butchering civilians and taking others hostage. What comes next is a slew of choices by the captain that lead his team deeper. The chaos and death that ensues left a bitter taste in my mouth, but in a good way. I was left wondering about how powerful the human mind real is, and how we can trick ourselves into believing anything just to escape horror or mask extreme guilt.

The game gives you a false sense of control as it leads you down a path of fantasy where the villain is clear. However, toward the end, you’re taken for a loop when you realize that the villain was just a scapegoat to cope with the atrocities that Walker witnessed/committed. Yes, the rouge soldiers he fights are very real, and Walkers feels an obligation to stop them to save lives. Unfortunately, he winds up slaughtering soldiers, civilians, and then more soldiers by the end. Actually, Walker winds up causing more damage than the company of soldiers did.

I double dog dare you!

This brings me to another question: is there a clear line between good and evil? Is everything so black and white? In the game, you get a sense of who the real enemy is AFTER you accidentally slaughter a bunch of civilians in a terrible way. But it’s only after the people are dead and you, the player, realize how not-fun war is. There IS no line between good and evil because we all have our beliefs. Ponder on your beliefs and think about what you believe to be ‘evil’. Now think about what you would do to stop said evil. What if the thing you would do to stop the evil was considered evil by someone else? I know this is a bad example, but the point is that perception and belief are powerful. My dad told me that every war in history has been fought over some belief or ideology, mainly religion. In Spec Ops, the belief of one man caused the death of countless people. He wanted to be a hero and save lives, but wound up being the harbinger of destruction in an already destroyed Dubai.

In conclusion, I don’t think that Spec Ops was preachy, but the realism was there and I appreciated the game for what it was. Not every story has a happy ending, nor do the good guys always win. I accept this game into my collection as the one that breaks the fantasy and serves you a truthful story. There is no work around or a different angle to approach from. There is no have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution. There is only the situation as it is laid at your feet, and you must accept the consequences for whatever decisions you make.

Despite the repetitive cover shooting and a ridiculously easy aiming system, the graphics and visuals were pretty nice. I appreciated the use of destructible environments like glass and columns, but it sucks that everything wasn't destructible. I appreciate that some things would break apart if they took enough damage, but almost everything else your character stands behind could withstand a nuke. I don’t play multiplayer because it’s not a compliment to the game and takes away from the single-player experience (that, and the internet I use won’t connect with my Xbox 360). Although, the single-player campaign is about 7-8 hours, so be prepared for a short game.

I’d recommend this game to a friend even though it’s short because it’s a step away from the ‘Amuricah! Fuck Yeah!’ attitude that some shooters seem to have. It manages to punish you for killing others, but rewards you with a new way of thinking. Pin the tail on the donkey.

Assassin's Creed 3 VS. Mass Effect 3: Who has the worse ending?

Happy Black Friday, folks! Thanks for stopping by for my 100th post! I haven’t posted on my blog in a while. Sure, I’ve been writing, but the material has been used for my videos on Youtube. Thanks to everyone watching/reading my material!

WARNING: This post contains spoilers for Mass Effect 3, Assassin’s Creed 3, and the Matrix. Please stop reading if you have not seen/playing any of these titles.

Earlier this year, the debacle with Mass Effect 3 and its lore-breaking story/ending took over the web. Whether you believe the game was good or not, no fan can deny that there were unacceptable elements of the game that no company in the industry should adopt. Like that situation, Assassin’s Creed 3 was release recently with a disappointing conclusion. A friend of mine was explaining his satisfaction with the gameplay, but otherwise utter disappointment with the story and its resolution.

I later came across a thread on Hold the Line with the same topic, and I felt the need to write about it. I chuckled because my friend was as adamant about his opinions as I was about Mass Effect 3. Then he said it; the thing that stopped me in my tracks and caused me to ask him to repeat what he said. I quote, “The ending to Assassin’s Creed 3 is even worse than the ending to Mass Effect 3.”

To which I replied, “Whaaaaaaaat?”

Granted, these are his opinions, but I felt obligated to dispute them on the grounds that I’d be doing the gaming community a disservice if I simply let that statement roam these lands unchecked, unchallenged.

I was quite respectful. I let him explain his reasoning which (to sum up), was mainly based on the dissatisfaction he felt that, “Desmond went out like a punk. Bitches be crazy son”.

I kid, of course. What he really said was, “It seemed rushed toward the end and Desmond didn’t get a more satisfying death. He just touched the orb and then died.”

I have to begin by saying that, while I have not played the game, I watched and enjoyed the collection of cut-scenes compiled by Vikz9211 on Youtube. Desmond is the main character. The journey through his ancestors’ lives is just to help him save the world. He is the one to do it. In his genetics lies the key to unlocking the secrets left behind by the First Civilization. In the first game, Desmond Miles was the looking glass through which we experienced the trials of Altair Idn-La’Ahad (an Assassin that lived during the Crusades). I cared more about Altair’s life in the past than I did about Desmond here in the present.

Desmond became the main character at the end of Assassin’s Creed 2, in my opinion. Ezio Auditore da Firenze (an Assassin that lived during the Renaissance) has defeated his enemies and enters the Vault under the Vatican only to be greeted by a hologram of a member of the First Civilization. Ezio tries to speak with her, but she insists on his silence as she isn’t interested in talking to him, but through him. Her message was for Desmond! This means at some point that, these people saw their doom, and laid the pieces out for us to find, including messages to the one they choose millions of years ago to stop a worldwide catastrophe from repeating itself.

When she was finished, she left Ezio confused, Desmond dumbstruck, and I was left enamored. When it cut to the credits, I put my controller down and applauded. No one else was even there, but I had to applaud because that’s a cliffhanger. That’s how you do it! Similar to Halo 2 and its ‘Sir, finishing this fight’ moment, I was compelled to wait for another chapter of the series, and I knew that Desmond was important.

Ubisoft reaffirmed Desmond as the main character two games later in Assassin’s Creed Revelations. Towards the end, Ezio (now an old man), finds a library left behind by Altair. He realized now what he was too young to understand when he came across that first hologram. Like Altair, he was but a conduit through which a message could be passed. These messages weren’t meant for him to understand, but he understood that he played his part and that it was time to retire. With this, he speaks these words to an image of Desmond directly.

Now we come to Assassin’s Creed 3 where Desmond finds the final temple and needs to make a choice; give his life to save the world or let the world die and become a prophet for the survivors to help rebuild. There is a twist to giving his life for humanity, though. If he does, he will release an ancient from the First Civilization who will enslave the human race. It’s only a choice for the character, however, because Desmond chooses to save the world, releasing the evil chick. He does this in hopes that other Assassins with rise up and find a way to stop her.

Compare this to the Mass Effect 3, a rushed mess that put the nail into the coffin of the Mass Effect storyline. I won’t go into too many details because there are plenty of videos and articles to go around about exactly why the story is broken and forced. I will just make one point that explains the biggest problem I have with the game; the Catalyst. A character that is introduced at the finale of the game without any inclination of his existence in any of the other games, introduces a new ‘conflict’ that he started and can easily solve by just going away. The Catalyst’s existence completely negates the point of the first two games and everything he says makes no sense when put against every piece of lore the Mass Effect universe has to offer.

Assassin’s Creed 3 doesn’t introduce any new conflicts in its conclusion, nor does it introduce any new characters. There are no concepts dropped on the player that weren’t introduced in previous games. It wasn’t openly said but we all knew Desmond was going to die. In fact, there were interviews with people who worked on the game saying that Desmond’s story needed to end. The tone was there, the pieces were set; all we needed to do was let it play out.

I have to disagree with those who compare Assassin’s Creed 3 with Mass Effect 3. I respect their opinion, but it seems like a bold statement to make after everything that went wrong with Mass Effect 3. AC3’s conclusion may have been a bit disappointing and abrupt, but I know why. A main character such as Desmond (who has been established over five games) should be given a proper goodbye where the music plays and his life flashes before his eyes. Maybe he has a more heartfelt goodbye with his father. We expected AC3 to be the conclusion of the series, but not because Ubisoft advertised it as such. We assumed because series have gone by the same format for years. Sequels are par for the course in the US. Can you believe Robocop got three movies? How about the Saw franchise?

The reason Desmond didn’t get a proper send-off is because the story isn’t over. It wasn’t meant to end at AC3. Ubisoft never advertised it as the end of the story. Desmond’s death was necessary to springboard the next chapter. The crisis has been averted, but another is born; Juno. Desmond put his trust and faith in the other Assassin’s, but while he was built up as the main character, what happened shows that he is not all important. Characters don’t always get to live at the end. A lot of heroes and villains died in Marvel’s Ultimate universe during the Ultimatum story arc, but life goes on. Speaking of heroes, didn’t Neo give himself to the machines in order to save the human race from their cycle of extinction? What about when Mordin went up into that tower to manually stabilize the release of the Genophage cure? AC3 illustrates that Desmond is just a piece in a large puzzle like his ancestors before him. Everyone has their part to play, and Ezio explains that in Revelations. We’re all just people, but we give ourselves titles and build ourselves up to make us seem important, but we die eventually.

In conclusion, we are used to never-ending series, trilogies, and martyrs. Am I disappointed with Desmond’s send-off? Yes. But if you ask me, I would rather be disappointed and have an ending that makes sense (with the notion that there will be another sequel) than be utterly crushed because nothing makes sense and the entire series is ruined (for the sake of being deep and meaningful with concepts that were never established as things we should care about). 

Yes, I wish that I didn’t have to remember so many elements of so many games to be caught up to Assassin’s Creed 3, but I’m glad that it all ties together and comes down to this moment. I will take AC3’s ending of the ME3’s ending any day ten times over. With this ending, we know there is going to be another game. What do you want to see in it?

Here are some things that I want to see:

Tombs and Glyphs. AC2 included the Assassin’s Tombs and the glyph decryption. I’m not really a history or geography buff, but there are huge cities with which to hide tombs to find. It was a great mechanic to have where you find all the tombs and unlock some special armor.

The glyphs were fun to decode and provide a unique payoff that was most unexpected in Assassin’s Creed 2. The video clips they unlocked pooled together to reveal some ancient memories from the First Civilization. Most notably so is the fact that the people in the clips were of the first humans to rebel, Adam and Eve. It wouldn’t be too much to add this little mechanic, also.

A bigger city to explore. Perhaps London or New York City? What about Tokyo? In previous titles, parts of the map would be blocked off as you explore your ancestors memories. Why not bring the story into modern day now that Juno has been released? This way, there would be no more synchronization, but it would open up the entire city for you to explore. Perhaps Ubisoft could have the next game set in multiple cities around the world in present day.

Less linear missions. I understand that the story is leading you to a single point, but do the missions have to be so linear? Can’t you choose your missions and how to go about them? This is reminiscent of Dishonored where it doesn’t matter how the target is executed as long as the job gets done.

Yes, make the actual plot-integral missions linear and give specifics to how a job should be done. I just think it would be better to have the rest of the game be less rigid. In a game where cities and landscapes are open, shouldn’t the missions be?

Multiple genders and creeds of Assassins together. I’m a big believer in more diversity in video games. Having female Assassins is great, as well as having different colors mixed in there, too. I say knowing that Liberation stars a black, female Assassin, but as I don’t have a Playstation Vita and don’t do well with spinoffs, I don’t count that one.

A longer development time. AC3 took two years to make while developing a new engine AND working on Brotherhood/Revelations. Those two games were good, but not worthy enough to be released as full releases at full price. I would have preferred to axe all those stupid tower defense missions and just released them as DLC expansions onto Assassin’s Creed 2.

Why not? We don’t need a trilogy within a trilogy since we already explored ten years of Ezio’s life. Why can’t we just explore more of Ezio’s life through DLC. Keep in mind that in ‘real time’, Desmond is only experiencing this through a few short months of going from location to location. Again, Brotherhood and Revelations were good, but I would have rather paid $20-30 for them as expansions than have to sit through hours of meaningless side missions that just draw out the game a bit longer.

The linear, one-game-a-year formula works well for shooters like COD or Battlefield, but not for historical, period games. When it comes to franchises like Assassin’s Creed, it’s important not to rush any of the installments. I have to say that by the time Revelations came around, I was satisfied, but tired of Assassin’s Creed. Nothing in the first ten minutes of the game compelled me to want to keep going. This surprised me because I was so into the trailer, but the fact that I’ve done this dance for three years in a row with three games in the same franchise was disturbing.

Unlike Call of Duty or Madden, Assassin’s Creed is full of beauty and depth, and it’s filled with tidbits about things from ages passed. I enjoy the idea of tying this entire Assassin versus Templar thing into historical events. I just hope that more time is allowed to expand properly and give up a truly enriching experience.

My advice to Ubisoft: STOP trying to compete with other companies. Take your time and tell the story you want to tell. And tell it right. So what if you take three years instead of two to make the next game. You won't go bankrupt because a new Assassin's Creed game isn't coming out next fall, and the loyal fans will not forget about you. Actually, they will be waiting for however long it takes for you to give them what they love about you and your products so much: QUALITY. 

Enter the Budget Story Gamer Part 1

Hello Dudes and Dudettes!

I’ve been working on this project for the last few weeks. It’s turned into a three-part project involving a lot of writing and recording. I offer analysis on the Achievement/Trophy systems and gaming rewards in general.

For those of you who don’t know, Get Tuitt Gaming is an outlet for my thoughts and analysis of practices in the video game industry. From analysis to gaming news and reviews, I follow one rule: have fun! I offer honest opinions, but I’m not so prideful that I can’t admit when I’m wrong! Give my channel a look, and subscribe if you like what you hear. I apologize in advance if the quality is not up to par with people who get paid to make videos. I record, edit, and produce my own videos, and I’m getting better as I go along. Any tips, as well as topical suggestions, are greatly appreciated. Otherwise, I hope you enjoy my series starting with Enter the Budget Story Gamer Part 1!

How DLC Ruins Gaming For Me Video

This week, Tuitt talks about downloadable content and some elements of how it plays a big part in storytelling in gaming. Enjoy!

Dead Space 3???

We began 2011 with Dead Space 2. It literally scared players (and their moms) out of their seats and made us whole (if you don’t get that joke, you don’t know Dead Space). Of course, Visceral Games has to hit us again with Dead Space 3, but is it more rumor than fact? It hasn’t officially been announced, and yet there is information on the web about where the story takes places and what characters will make an appearance.

If you remember, Issac Clarke survived the horrors aboard the USS Ishimura. Then, he managed to battle Necromorphs and hallucinations of his dead girlfriend while trying to decipher the meaning of the codes in his mind. He did this all while navigating the Sprawl, a huge space station that houses thousands of civilians who become victims to the spreading infection. He manages to escape with his gal-pal, Ellie, and it cuts to black as we hear a conversation that pretty much solidifies the makings of a sequel.

But is EA waiting until E3 to announce Issac’s return? Rumors state that it will take place on an ice planet and that there will be co-op. Does co-op mean that two people can play the story together? And will there be multiplayer? Honestly, multiplayer is so unnecessary in a game like this that no one would miss it if Visceral decided to take it out. It was too dark, and if you played as the humans you had an unfair advantage before of your weapons. It doesn’t work to have one team be the monsters and the other team be the soldiers. If Visceral does multiplayer for Dead Space 3, they would be wise to add a type of horde-mode, which would be a lot more fun to fend off a horde of AI Necromorphs.

In all fairness, Dead Space is a great horror series, and Visceral would be wise to keep it going as long as they stick to the conventions that make it great. Again, it looks like we’ll have to watch E3 to see if there is announcement for Dead Space 3. As for details, we’ll know more as E3 2012 kicks off with the press conferences on Monday, June 4- we’ll see you there!

Dishonored on Tumblr

The people who brought you Skyrim have created a Tumblr page specifically for their first person, stealth game, Dishonored. You can see pictures, gifs, as well as get links to the Twitter and Facebook counterparts. Enjoy!

http://dishonored.tumblr.com/

Also, if you want to catch a little synopsis of what the game is all about, check out my blurb about in on Romesblog.

OPINION 2: Motion and Handheld Gaming

When you think about it, people aren’t buying games like they used to. While the industry is growing and they are building toward future innovations, sales have been declining. It’s a fact that with the economy the way that it is, gamers have to tighten their purse strings. Nintendo recently reported a 40% loss in revenue, and I’m sure Sony and Microsoft aren’t far behind. The problem is between the high prices and the fact that mobile gaming has taken off. People are playing games on their phones and tablets now, proving that you don’t need a home console or even a handheld to enjoy gaming. Why spend $60 when you can spend $3 and take it with you everywhere?

Also, Nintendo has thrived on their iconic characters (Mario, Donkey Kong, Link, etc.) without relying too much on third-party help. Microsoft and Sony are becoming too much alike in that their consoles are being carried by either first or third-person shooters. Xbox 360 and PS3 share a lot of games with a few console exclusives here and there (Halo, Gears, Uncharted, God of War, etc.), and it’s getting to the point where it doesn’t matter which one you buy besides the Blu-Ray factor for PS3. There are only a few games I care about for the PS3 and I didn’t have to have one for long to play them, beat them, and return the console. I already owned an Xbox 360, so there was no reason for me to keep the PS3.

Sometimes, I think that if the two companies joined to make a super console that was the best of both worlds, I’d be a lot happier. Since that will never happen, I can’t see how they will pull themselves out of this rut they’ve encountered.

Both Sony and Microsoft have failed at motion gaming. I realize that it’s a bold statement considering the Kinect is selling a lot better than the PS Move, but neither of them appeal to core gamers like they should. Families and children are the core audiences, and while it’s nice, the technology is nowhere near where our imaginations wanted it to go.

For me, I want to actually be inside the game and do all sorts of cool things I only ever dreamed of. Perhaps something like the Grid in Tron? Instead, the coolness of the Kinect is marred in advertising that shows parents and their kids jumping around in their overly styled living rooms. There was even one where Grandpa Oldtimer was playing with them like he’s in the know. I know that some grandparents are up and active, but you’ll only relate to that if your grandparents are like that. Kinect has so much potential, and I hope Microsoft changes directions a bit within the next year.

It’s great to market it to families, but the core gamers went completely ignored. Now, games are beginning to add Kinect compatibility, but isn’t it too late for that? I have played games like Mass Effect 3 with when I had a Kinect only to find that I felt like an idiot shouting power commands at my television. Sure, it was empowering for a little while, but I feel that such a feature is meant to impress a group. You know, like when you host a gaming event or movie party?

Handhelds are failing, as well; because it’s too expensive and mobile gaming is taking its place. There isn’t a big difference between the PS Vita and an I-Phone, minus the calling. And there isn’t much difference between the 3DS and any the previous one besides the fact that it has an analog stick, axis gyroscope, and 3D. There were a lot of games marketed along with the 3DS, yet none of them were released with the handheld.

This left a gigantic gap between the system and the games that potential customers didn’t appreciate. Not only was it not marketed correctly/enough (how many of you honestly knew about the 3DS before it came out?), but there were no 3D games to play when it dropped. Keep in mind that there are a plethora of DS games available, but the point of the 3DS is… the 3D. None of the original DS games were compatible with the 3D, for starters. What’s the point of releasing something that plays games in 3D if you can only play Pokemon Heart Gold until Ocarina of Time comes out?

The 3DS was $250 when it came out last year; a year after they released the DSi XL. Because I worked at Gamestop around that time, I dealt with the rage that most parents felt first hand. I have to say that I was surprised at Nintendo’s bold move because the XL didn’t have a lot of time to grow before the 3DS release. One year isn’t enough time even if it’s a bigger version of the DSi. I would rather the DSi stood on its own for a little while longer and the idea for the XL was just trashed. This way, the market won’t be saturated with different sizes of the same product.

Then, because consumers weren’t buying what Nintendo wanted them to buy, they lowered the price to rival that of the DSi XL. So, if you purchased a DSi XL for $170, you’d be upset to learn that you can have an even further upgraded version for the same price almost a year later. The only reason I can provide for why it played out the way it did was that Nintendo got greedy in the interim between the DSi and the 3DS. That’s it; feel free to provide your theories to expand on that!

This, of course, brings me to the PS Vita. The decked out Playstation Portable was said to blow the 3DS out of the water. Two touch-screens, two analog sticks, enhanced visuals, and 3G capability make it seem beyond cool in theory. One of my gripes about the Vita is that while it’s got all these features and a handful of decent games, it seems like overkill. Pricewise, Sony can take some lessons from Nintendo and lower the price a bit. The Vita didn’t sell well in Japan for a few reasons, and the price was close to the top of the list. No one wants to pay the price of a home console for something their phone can do for less.

I realize that I’m ranting, so I will bring it back to the original topic. Not being able to play used games may be what the industry needs, or it may be what brings it into crisis. As I said, people are getting more careful with their money, but not careful enough to drop $60 on a game, trade it in for $25, and buy a new game at full price. This is a rumor, however, but I would like to debate with some people. That is my socratic exercise for now, so comment on what you think about both parts! 

OPINION Part 1: Console rumors

The rumor that’s been on my mind for a while is whether or not gamers will be able to play used games on the new Microsoft/Sony consoles currently in development. I’ve had plenty of debates with people about it, but I wanted to throw this out there to you dudes and dudettes to see where you stand on this. I want to start by saying that I’m completely undecided on how I will side if the rumor is true. But keeping in mind that it’s just a rumor right now, I’ll try to be objective in my opinions.

First of all, I’d like to point out that a big part of why new games cost so much at release is because developers are trying to re-coup some of their costs up front. It’s a sort of preemptive strike against piracy and third-party retailers buying and selling their particular game used. When you buy a used game from Gamestop or Amazon as opposed to a new copy, Gamestop and Amazon pull a huge profit from the sale because it’s legally theirs to sell. The gamer purchased the game, played through it, and sold it off in exchange for however much third-party retailers offer up for the various games that are out there.

From an outside perspective, it seems to me that third-party retailers are making more off games than the people who make them. Sure, developers pull in a decent percentage from all the new copies being sold $60 a piece, but as more people finish the game, they sell it to Gamestop where others who don’t want to pay full price lie in wait for a used copy (which is usually $5 less than the new copy if you buy it from Gamestop). They’ll purchase the game from a customer at anywhere from $15-25, by the way.

Gamestop then sells that used copy for $55, but they take a big percentage of that sale since it’s ‘their game’. After that, the scraps are sent back to the developers. If you are the person that purchases that used game, you may think you’re in the clear, but you’re not. Whether or not you paid less doesn’t really matter since developers have taken measure to increase their revenue and protect themselves against the sale of used games since they don’t make much after it becomes used. A big thing that developers are doing is inserting an online pass or implementing season passes for downloadable content.

An online pass grants you the ability to play the games’ multiplayer content online. If you don’t have the online pass, you have to pay for it or you can’t play online even if you buy the DLC. Season passes are a way for the company to make money in advance for future DLC when the game releases. For example, Gears of War 3 was the first game (that I know of) to promise five DLC packs with the next year, but charging player $30 upfront. So, when a new pack comes out, all the player has to do is download it.

The only ways to get an online pass are to purchase it from your retailer or to purchase a new copy of the game. And that pass only works for that game leaving you to buy a new copy of any other games you want, as well. Developers have been doing this a lot within the past two years, and the ways that they think of to sap your pocket are immensely clever (I’ll get into that later). But the point is that developers feel they have to protect themselves and their earnings by practicing these methods.

What would happen if Microsoft and Sony implemented a way for their systems to recognize new versus used and reject the used copy? Let’s say you had your Xbox Next or PS4; you just got a used copy of the latest Call of Duty. There wouldn’t be a need for online passes because as soon as you popped it into your console of choice, it would spit out the disc and the words ‘don’t even think about it’ would appear on your screen.

As amusing as that sounds, I can image how upset someone would be. But how would the big power players make this work? I can immediately masses of angry gamers because their lifestyle would change. They would be forced to purchase new games because used games would be rendered obsolete. My problem with this is that the third-party retailers, especially Gamestop, would suffer because it’s clear that a big part of their income is from the sale of used games and systems.

As upset as people would be about this if it does happen, how is it any different than buying a computer game? Gamestop doesn’t deal in used computer games. The installation code is only good for one computer. If you delete the game and reinstall it, that code will still be valid if only on that specific computer. But it’s impossible for a friend to borrow it because each game comes with its own installation code. If home consoles did it, the concept wouldn’t be that different.

When I worked at Gamestop, I wondered why the PC version of a game is less than the console version. I figured that the PC version has the one installation code, which actually makes sense. But then piracy is a lot higher with a PC title as opposed to its console counterpart. I believe the answer to that is Steam, but people still figure out ways to pirate things if they really don’t want to pay for it.

It’s also clear that a big reason why games are so expensive is because they only make a small profit on games once the hype has died down. A large component to the $60 price tag is covering someone’s bottom line And let’s face it, not every game is worth that much. 2011 was a big year for gaming and part of my enjoyment came from one blockbuster after another. But who wants to pay full price for a game they can beat in four to six hours? Also, who wants to pay full price for a less-than-par game?

Come on, we’ve all done it at least once. A game like Batman: Arkham City is worth the price of admission to ride, but what about Dark Void? Or Naughty Bear? Or Lost Planet 2? Or either of the Kane and Lynch games? Sports games come out every year like clockwork and fans pay $60 a pop for the same thing with a different player on the cover. I am, in no way, judging anyone who buys sports games (I enjoy Fifa and NCAA myself), but when they release it every year, it can stand to be at least $30.

I digress; the rumor of consoles not playing used games is interesting because of a few things. It’ll be something that helps both developers and gamers. Developers will make more money from each copy sold, and in theory, they’ll be able to lower the price of their games. And gamers will eventually pay less for the games they want to play. Again, this is all theory until the respective companies say otherwise. Thoughts?

2012 Wishlist: Transformers Fall of Cybertron

In the majority of the depictions of these rock’em, sock’em robots, I’ve never been truly immersed into the origins of the Autobot/Decepticon civil war. Think about it. A lot of adaptations of the franchise take place on Earth, which is where they end up after destroying Cybertron. I got the chance to play War for Cybertron last year, and it was exactly what I wanted to see from a Transformers game. I got to see how allegiances were made, who got betrayed and all the other juicy things that unfold in the plot. I also got decent gameplay for my money, and I appreciated the way High Moon studios pulled off the story as a whole.

The sequel, Fall of Cybertron, will hopefully cover then final days of the war on Cybertron before they land on Earth. I’m hoping this will result in another game that will begin what we are used to seeing: Transformers on Earth! By the way, no one seems to have address this: the dinobots weren’t on Cybertron according to television show. They were built on Earth to give the Autobots an edge over the Decepticons. I know the game is another adaptation, so they can do whatever they want… just saying… Fall of Cybertron should be out before Christmas 2012 if the world doesn’t end!

2012 Wishlist: Tomb Raider

I was never big into Lara Croft or the Tomb Raider series. I was never attracted to the character being obvious eye candy for gamers, and Angelina Jolie couldn’t sell be on the character either.

Since last year’s E3 convention, I’ve been drawn into this reboot of the series, and the more realistic-looking main heroine. It seems that she isn’t doing much treasure hunting as she is desperately trying to survive on an uncharted island. Nothing is more awesome than a strong, adventurous woman! And there’s nothing hotter, either! I’m pretty sure she’ll find the treasure she’s looking for, but the game won’t be glitzy and glamorous as it will be gritty and dark. Set for fall of this year, I hope Square Enix takes me further than Deus Ex did.

2012 Wishlist: Overstrike

A four-man group of degenerates must attempt to derail a ruthless syndicate’s plans for world domination. Aside from the fact that it will feature 4-player co-op, I have no other details to give. This mash up between James Bond and the Incredibles is said to come out this year, but without more details and a firm release date, I can only hope that this third-person shooter will be out this year.