I want to take a moment to bring up Tom Clancy's EndWar once more. If you recall from my last post regarding the subject, EndWar is a nifty new RTS coming to PC and consoles that combines voice commands with quick, small scale combat to make for a fine strategy experience. Checking my usual sites this morning, I saw that 1up.com had posted their review of the game, the day before it's scheduled to hit retail shelves. So I read it, as is my ritual, and was shocked (Shocked!) by the apparent contempt for the fledgling IP contained within. A "C"? I've played EndWar in both beta and demo forms and I'm of the opinion that , even if one were to concentrate solely on the faults of the game, it's a "B-" at worst. The game MIGHT have taken a slide in quality since the beta but, given the state of the demo, that's unlikely.
Now, normally, I'm not one to dispute review scores. I read reviews largely for entertainment value and I'm seldom swayed by their expressed opinions, especially when they conflict directly with my own. Furthermore, I pay the review scores even less mind than the review itself, since the numbers are largely arbitrary and useless without the content of the article to provide context. If this were simply a case of differing opinions, I would have payed it no mind and this post would be about something entirely different. Maybe politics and their effect on games.
But this seemed to be more than just a case of "to each, his own". Certain phrases in the review tipped me to the notion that Mr. Haywald's review was less than impartial from the start. He starts with some niggling complaints about the single player campaign. I can't speak to this because I haven't been able to sample the full game, but it does set the tone for the rest of the review. The first really suspect phrase is "[...]beyond a few minor differences in upgradeable abilities, each faction feels exactly the same." I was under the impression (and I've seen firsthand) that the developers went out of their way to give each faction a unique feel. The American's fight with precision, the Euros are fast, and the Russians are lumbering powerhouses. They all play the same, in the sense that the controls are no different and the unit types are the same, but the units receive different upgrades the more you play, upgrades that further differentiate the different playstyles. I was honestly confused when I read this part of the review.
In the next paragraph, the review starts to break down into senseless nitpicking. "EndWar's rock-paper-scissors battle system -- helicopter beats tank, tank beats transport, etc. -- doesn't add much variety, either. [...] [T]he context-sensitive commands they learn aren't intuitive to use and simply add an annoying layer of micromanagement. What's the point in having tanks that can fire SAMs if you have to tell them to do so every time?" (Bold print added for emphasis.) First off, the "rock-paper-scissors" gameplay adds a layer of strategy to an otherwise small-scale game. This isn't Starcraft. The point is to maximize the effectiveness of the units your given, not to march over the enemy with an overwhelming force. This gives the game a feel more similar to what (I'd assume) real combat is like. Which brings me to the part in bold. Really? You're going to complain that you have to TELL your units to do things? Yes, what's the point, Mr. Haywald? Why bother playing Super Mario Bros. when you have to TELL Mario to jump? Why play Halo when you have to TELL Master Chief to shoot aliens in the head? Why, indeed? Maybe we'd feel more at home reviewing a non-interactive medium, like books or movies, hm? OF COURSE you have to tell them to use their abilities. There's a reason I mentioned Starcraft earlier. That game has a similar system, where units are given special abilities, in addition to their default attack, that have to be activated manually by the player. The difference between that game and EndWar is that Starcraft allowed you to command many units of the same type to activate their abilities in unison, whereas EndWar does not. Starcraft also expects you to micromanage dozens of units simultaneously while EndWar tasks you with managing... well, one dozen. Seems to balance out, at least in my eyes. It also takes the bite out of Justin Haywald's petty criticisms.
"Moving your forces from point A to point B is simple enough, provided that you carefully monitor the route they take -- without your input, your army's single-minded march easily derails. If a tank gets in front of your infantry on the way to an outpost, they'll just try to walk by without opening fire, taking cover, or doing anything intelligent whatsoever." Once again, I'm baffled by Mr. Haywald's observations. Did he review a copy of the game from Bizzaro world? Even in the private beta, units were intelligent enough to fire upon nearby enemy units while following your movement orders without deviating from their path to your designated destination. In my personal observations, this aspect of the game had even more polish on it when it went to public demo. I was surprised by how effectively my units would react to unexpected confrontations before I could give them new orders. The only exception to this are infantry units, who need to be directed to garrison a building or find cover, as they are weak when fighting from an unfortified position. The infantry AI will automatically seek cover if they are attacked while idle but this sometimes is ineffective, as Mr. Haywald points out. Of course, this all ties back into that "annoying layer of micromanagement" that Justin is ever so fond of.
Just when I think I couldn't be any more baffled, Justin hits us with the next statement. "Playing against real people is, as always, more fun than just challenging the computer. Human opponents are more unpredictable and thus make things more exciting. But this mode's as vanilla as the main game, with no additional options -- and the same micromanagement problems that plague single player are just as persistent." At this point, I was certain that Justin had played a different game than I had. Ignoring for a second that he neglects to even mention the game's persistent online campaign, his logic still seems faulty. EndWar comes with three skirmish gametypes (Assault, Conquest, Siege). The game doesn't really need any more than that. The whole point of the game is providing a simple ruleset to build strategy on. The complexity of the game comes from the nuance of meeting the demands of each battle. Of course, since Mr. Haywald doesn't seem to enjoy the game at it's core, why would the multiplayer change his mind? Omitting the existence of the online campaign, though, is inexcusable. It's more than half of the game. In the beta, the online campaign is what kept me coming back. The gameplay reminded me of Chromehounds and gave me hope that EndWar might fix some of the minor flaws evident in that game's multiplayer. Also, the rank and upgrade systems gave the game a sort of RPG levelling appeal that kept me coming back, even when I knew my progress would all be lost when the beta ended. Justin Haywald doesn't mention ANY of this in his review. I... wow. Words fail me. The inconsistencies in this review leave me speechless.
Finally, and this a big "Finally", Mr. Haywald wraps up his review: "It just isn't enough by itself to raise the game beyond "mediocre RTS." It's definitely worth checking out to see voice command done right, but overall, it lacks the depth and substance to bring anyone over from superior PC alternatives." This last phrase is highly suspect and, frankly, is what inspired me to type out 1000 words on the topic. "It lacks the depth and substance to bring anyone over from superior PC alternatives." Let's just forget for a second that I, personally, think the game has more depth and substance than Mr. Haywald gives it credit for. If we take his words at face value, he's saying that PC RTS are better because they're MORE COMPLICATED. This, combined with his allusions to Command & Conquer at the beginning of the review, seems to tell us that Mr. Haywald would rather be steamrolling newbs with a squad of 4 dozen Mammoth Tanks than learning the ins and outs of a new game, regardless of its quality. Maybe you feel the same. I certainly don't. The point is, this is a glaring example of a reviewer's taste and bias interfering with his assessment of the innate quality of a game as a product. Is the game good? Bad? Who cares? Justin Haywald doesn't care for it. Why should you?
Go ahead and tell me I'm reading too far into this. Tell me I'm splitting hairs. Hell, feel free to point out that MY bias is what inspired me to write this rebuttal to begin with. You'd be right on all accounts. That doesn't make my point any less valid, though. I just want to know: How can an otherwise intelligent person who considers themselves a gamer look at a lovingly crafted game with the same level of spit shine as EndWar and think "Meh."? Judging by Gamerankings.com, I'm not alone.
Showing posts with label editorial. Show all posts
Showing posts with label editorial. Show all posts
05 November 2008
21 October 2008
Tom Clancy's EndWar Coming to Handhelds
I just read here that Tom Clancy's EndWar, in development by Ubisoft Shanghai, is getting a PSP and DS release in addition to it's console and PC releases. To those who don't know, EndWar is Ubisoft's new real-time strategy game, set to revolutionize how we think about RTS on consoles with its voice controls and simplified, fast-paced gameplay. I didn't know what to think of this game when I first heard of it, but I had a chance to play the beta when it was released earlier this year and I've been hopelessly addicted to the demo since it hit Xbox Live marketplace. I've been anxiously awaiting this game's release ever since.
So, of course, I was happy to hear that a handheld edition was in the works as well. RTS games are severely underrepresented on handhelds, particularly the DS. I know part of this lies in technical limitations, but an unorthodox RTS like EndWar would be just the thing to change our expectations of what a portable RTS can do. I mean, hell, Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings was fun enough. Unfortunately, I read on to learn that both of the portable EndWars are turn-based strategy games. Not only that, but that they're completely eschewing EndWar's "simplicity is perfection" philosophy with 20 unit types per faction, incorporating ground, sea and air tactics. What? Even the screen captures make the games look less like EndWar and more like a fancy Advance Wars knockoff. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure both of the games will be excellent in their own right, especially if they maintain the standard of quality set by their console counterparts (if nothing else). I just thought that a portable EndWar had potential for so much more. The simplified rock-paper-scissors RTS formula of EndWar would make for a seamless transition to handhelds, with the expected graphical downgrade (though, on PSP, maybe not so much). Hell, the DS is uniquely equipped to handle voice commands!
At any rate, keep an eye out for EndWar this November, regardless of the platform you play it on. If you're an RTS fan at all, it's at least worth a look.
So, of course, I was happy to hear that a handheld edition was in the works as well. RTS games are severely underrepresented on handhelds, particularly the DS. I know part of this lies in technical limitations, but an unorthodox RTS like EndWar would be just the thing to change our expectations of what a portable RTS can do. I mean, hell, Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings was fun enough. Unfortunately, I read on to learn that both of the portable EndWars are turn-based strategy games. Not only that, but that they're completely eschewing EndWar's "simplicity is perfection" philosophy with 20 unit types per faction, incorporating ground, sea and air tactics. What? Even the screen captures make the games look less like EndWar and more like a fancy Advance Wars knockoff. Don't get me wrong; I'm sure both of the games will be excellent in their own right, especially if they maintain the standard of quality set by their console counterparts (if nothing else). I just thought that a portable EndWar had potential for so much more. The simplified rock-paper-scissors RTS formula of EndWar would make for a seamless transition to handhelds, with the expected graphical downgrade (though, on PSP, maybe not so much). Hell, the DS is uniquely equipped to handle voice commands!
At any rate, keep an eye out for EndWar this November, regardless of the platform you play it on. If you're an RTS fan at all, it's at least worth a look.
10 October 2008
Starcraft II Trilogy
News just came out of Blizzcon that the much anticipated Starcraft II will be split into three separate retail releases, titled Terran: Wings of Liberty, Zerg: Heart of the Swarm, and Protoss: Legacy of the Void. The announcement just broke so details are scarce, but the bottom line seems to be that if you want the complete SC2 single player experience, you need to buy three different games. Now, this raises several concerns.
When I first heard about the Activision/Blizzard merger, I had many deep reservations. Given Blizzard's track record for enjoyable, highly polished games (Warcraft, Diablo) and Activisions reputation for milking any and all gaming cashcows till the teat runs dry (13 Tony Hawk games in 10 years?), I was afraid that the quality of Blizzard's stable of classics would noticeably decline. In that context, it would be difficult not to see this announcement as the latest symptom of Activision's "business first" attitude affecting Blizzard's game line, but this news isn't all bad.
First of all, we don't know how much each installment is going to cost. We might see three releases for $40 each. Even $50 each isn't that far fetched, with today's pricing standard moving towards the $60 spectrum. Of course, any of these prices can only be judged on the merit of how much content comes in each bundle. Activision Blizzard insists that each installment will be a title unto itself, with the same content as the original game, if not more so. This is a valid point, if true. It's validity stands to be seen on release day. Only time will tell.
Which brings me to my next point: we just don't know yet. What we do know is that all three releases will come with fully-functional multi-player. We also know that all three factions will be playable in each version. Despite the bleating from the dissident section of the Blizzard community, there's no evidence that this decision was inspired by a search for more money. More likely, the work on the various faction campaigns took longer than expected and, to offset rising development costs and to appease a loyal fanbase waiting too long for a sequel, decided to break up the offline content into three packages with consecutive release dates. This way, gamers can get their hands on the multi-player and dig into the Terran campaign without having to wait the months for the Zerg and Protoss stories to be finished up.
Of course, this is all conjecture. It's also completely possible that those evil suits at Activision have strong armed Blizzard into digging a little deeper into the wallets of their fanbase for two unnecessary retail bundles. After all, money is the only fuel that can sustain the fires of their hell forges, where they offer their sacrifices of forsaken children to their dark lord, Cuthyl'Naruus.
When I first heard about the Activision/Blizzard merger, I had many deep reservations. Given Blizzard's track record for enjoyable, highly polished games (Warcraft, Diablo) and Activisions reputation for milking any and all gaming cashcows till the teat runs dry (13 Tony Hawk games in 10 years?), I was afraid that the quality of Blizzard's stable of classics would noticeably decline. In that context, it would be difficult not to see this announcement as the latest symptom of Activision's "business first" attitude affecting Blizzard's game line, but this news isn't all bad.
First of all, we don't know how much each installment is going to cost. We might see three releases for $40 each. Even $50 each isn't that far fetched, with today's pricing standard moving towards the $60 spectrum. Of course, any of these prices can only be judged on the merit of how much content comes in each bundle. Activision Blizzard insists that each installment will be a title unto itself, with the same content as the original game, if not more so. This is a valid point, if true. It's validity stands to be seen on release day. Only time will tell.
Which brings me to my next point: we just don't know yet. What we do know is that all three releases will come with fully-functional multi-player. We also know that all three factions will be playable in each version. Despite the bleating from the dissident section of the Blizzard community, there's no evidence that this decision was inspired by a search for more money. More likely, the work on the various faction campaigns took longer than expected and, to offset rising development costs and to appease a loyal fanbase waiting too long for a sequel, decided to break up the offline content into three packages with consecutive release dates. This way, gamers can get their hands on the multi-player and dig into the Terran campaign without having to wait the months for the Zerg and Protoss stories to be finished up.
Of course, this is all conjecture. It's also completely possible that those evil suits at Activision have strong armed Blizzard into digging a little deeper into the wallets of their fanbase for two unnecessary retail bundles. After all, money is the only fuel that can sustain the fires of their hell forges, where they offer their sacrifices of forsaken children to their dark lord, Cuthyl'Naruus.
01 October 2008
Spore DRM: It's A Bitch, Ain't It?
Digital Rights Management (DRM. Copy Protection, by any other name.) is most definitely the hot topic in the PC gaming scene right now, specifically in Spore. Console gamers... well, they'll just play in the sand, blissfully ignorant, won't they? Somebody who's never had to coax the game out of their disc via installations, driver updates, driver downgrades, and various other ancient voodoo rituals couldn't comprehend the implications of yet another barrier on the road to JUST PLAYING THE DAMN GAME. And that's a shame since, even sheltered as they are playing on their Xbox 360s and PS3s, they're not totally unaffected. A distressingly large portion of the console gaming population can attest to the abomination of copy protection embedded in PSN and Xbox Live downloads. Microsoft, in recent months, has introduced an online tool to allow people to transfer DRM for their 360 downloads between consoles, but even this isn't foolproof (I have my own experience with this, but that's a horror story for another day.). But I digress.
The fact is game publishers have resorted to punishing paying customers for piracy, something they, as paying customers, have nothing to do with. At all. Apparently, the next best thing to shooting yourself in the foot is aiming for the vital cash flow. Furthermore, DRM doesn't obstruct pirates. It barely registers as a hurdle. Most modern DRM is code written by companies who do nothing but DRM work (Securom, Starforce, etc.). If 5 different games all have Securom security on their discs, the groundwork for that code is probably similar, if not identical. Pirates are elite hackers on steroids and most copy protection measures are just another line of code for them to glance over on their way to converting a game from a disc to a digital copy to be distributed online.
So, copy protection doesn't bother hackers. That leaves customers. (Just to clarify real quick, those are the people trying to give these companies money.) Unless you've been living under a rock (or a console), you've probably heard about the DRM controversy surrounding Spore. Spore uses the Securom protection and requires online activation to access all of the game's features. In addition to all of this, EA decided to limit the number of online activations to three(3). This number was later increased, after much bitching from the peanut gallery, to five(5). In addition EA dismissed the whole issue from the start, saying that only 10% of their user base has tried to install more than thrice. This could likened to Toyota releasing a 2009 model car that, when crossing the Ukrainian border, explodes. Then saying "Less than 10% of our customers drive our product in Eastern Europe." It's THAT level of willful ignorance.
Of course, this is only an obstacle if you bought the game. If you acquired the title through a less legitimate source, say, a torrent site, then these little nuisances are conveniently weeded out in the piracy process. So, again we're back to punishing consumers while exalting pirates. Yes, EXALTING. In a world where companies exhibit such flagrant disregard for their "valued customers", pirates take on the role of modern-day Robin Hoods (Maybe, "|20|}1|\| |-|00[)$"), taking it all back for the little guy. Well, thieves are thieves. From a PR perspective, companies like EA couldn't be dealing with this issue any more ham-handed. It ought to be a rainmaker: people are stealing from them. For them to take that and turn THEMSELVES into the villains takes a special kind of incompetence. The kind that usually makes you eligible for government assistance.
Electronic Arts and every other publisher out there needs to make a few vital changes in their position. Firstly, just accept the fact that some people are going to steal your product. If it bothers you that much, get on Congress' collective ass to pass harsher penalties for distributing protected IP illegally. Or, better yet, take a nod from Stardock and assume a much less authoritarian position. i.e. start making it worth more to buy your product than to pirate it. Spore should be a natural in this regard. One of the games biggest selling points is the ability to seamlessly integrate other people's creations into your games, as well as share your creations with everyone else. This is something you need to register with a legitimate copy to do. You shouldn't NEED to saddle your software with viral copy protection (Securom DOES affect system performance. Don't let anyone tell you different.) and draconian install limits. This is paranoia on your part. Nothing more.
Which brings me to my second point: start treating people like potential sales instead of potential criminals. The glass really is half full, EA. A quick glance at gaming forums will tell you that a good portion of people who pirate your game are honest folks who bought the game and are determined to actually PLAY it, despite your best efforts to the contrary. Your attitude towards your customers has done more to drive them to piracy than the price tag ever could have. You've taken the stance of a metaphorical old man, shaking his cane and yelling from his stoop at the kids skateboarding in the street. Stop it. It's not going to change anything and it just makes you look cold and out of touch.
That being said, I'd like to address the individual for a moment here. If you pirate games just to avoid paying for them, or anything else that couldn't be defended as a "legitimate" reason (acquiring out-of-print games, a backup copy for a legally owned game, nonsense like this Spore business), than you are a criminal. A SWAT team's not gonna come bust down your door any time soon, but, morally, you know you are wrong. If you have the money and want a game, go buy the damn thing. Somebody worked hard to make that game and they'll never receive due credit for their work unless somebody buys it. If you just gotta get you some free games, there are other options. Do your part to end this pirate-publisher hostility.
That ended up a lot longer than I planned. Shoudn't be surprised, though. It's a complex issue. The bottom line is publishers need to take responsibility for their role in the issue and generally loosen up, while the pirates themselves need to find something better to do with their talents. Like hacking the e-mail accounts of corrupt political figures.
The fact is game publishers have resorted to punishing paying customers for piracy, something they, as paying customers, have nothing to do with. At all. Apparently, the next best thing to shooting yourself in the foot is aiming for the vital cash flow. Furthermore, DRM doesn't obstruct pirates. It barely registers as a hurdle. Most modern DRM is code written by companies who do nothing but DRM work (Securom, Starforce, etc.). If 5 different games all have Securom security on their discs, the groundwork for that code is probably similar, if not identical. Pirates are elite hackers on steroids and most copy protection measures are just another line of code for them to glance over on their way to converting a game from a disc to a digital copy to be distributed online.
So, copy protection doesn't bother hackers. That leaves customers. (Just to clarify real quick, those are the people trying to give these companies money.) Unless you've been living under a rock (or a console), you've probably heard about the DRM controversy surrounding Spore. Spore uses the Securom protection and requires online activation to access all of the game's features. In addition to all of this, EA decided to limit the number of online activations to three(3). This number was later increased, after much bitching from the peanut gallery, to five(5). In addition EA dismissed the whole issue from the start, saying that only 10% of their user base has tried to install more than thrice. This could likened to Toyota releasing a 2009 model car that, when crossing the Ukrainian border, explodes. Then saying "Less than 10% of our customers drive our product in Eastern Europe." It's THAT level of willful ignorance.
Of course, this is only an obstacle if you bought the game. If you acquired the title through a less legitimate source, say, a torrent site, then these little nuisances are conveniently weeded out in the piracy process. So, again we're back to punishing consumers while exalting pirates. Yes, EXALTING. In a world where companies exhibit such flagrant disregard for their "valued customers", pirates take on the role of modern-day Robin Hoods (Maybe, "|20|}1|\| |-|00[)$"), taking it all back for the little guy. Well, thieves are thieves. From a PR perspective, companies like EA couldn't be dealing with this issue any more ham-handed. It ought to be a rainmaker: people are stealing from them. For them to take that and turn THEMSELVES into the villains takes a special kind of incompetence. The kind that usually makes you eligible for government assistance.
Electronic Arts and every other publisher out there needs to make a few vital changes in their position. Firstly, just accept the fact that some people are going to steal your product. If it bothers you that much, get on Congress' collective ass to pass harsher penalties for distributing protected IP illegally. Or, better yet, take a nod from Stardock and assume a much less authoritarian position. i.e. start making it worth more to buy your product than to pirate it. Spore should be a natural in this regard. One of the games biggest selling points is the ability to seamlessly integrate other people's creations into your games, as well as share your creations with everyone else. This is something you need to register with a legitimate copy to do. You shouldn't NEED to saddle your software with viral copy protection (Securom DOES affect system performance. Don't let anyone tell you different.) and draconian install limits. This is paranoia on your part. Nothing more.
Which brings me to my second point: start treating people like potential sales instead of potential criminals. The glass really is half full, EA. A quick glance at gaming forums will tell you that a good portion of people who pirate your game are honest folks who bought the game and are determined to actually PLAY it, despite your best efforts to the contrary. Your attitude towards your customers has done more to drive them to piracy than the price tag ever could have. You've taken the stance of a metaphorical old man, shaking his cane and yelling from his stoop at the kids skateboarding in the street. Stop it. It's not going to change anything and it just makes you look cold and out of touch.
That being said, I'd like to address the individual for a moment here. If you pirate games just to avoid paying for them, or anything else that couldn't be defended as a "legitimate" reason (acquiring out-of-print games, a backup copy for a legally owned game, nonsense like this Spore business), than you are a criminal. A SWAT team's not gonna come bust down your door any time soon, but, morally, you know you are wrong. If you have the money and want a game, go buy the damn thing. Somebody worked hard to make that game and they'll never receive due credit for their work unless somebody buys it. If you just gotta get you some free games, there are other options. Do your part to end this pirate-publisher hostility.
That ended up a lot longer than I planned. Shoudn't be surprised, though. It's a complex issue. The bottom line is publishers need to take responsibility for their role in the issue and generally loosen up, while the pirates themselves need to find something better to do with their talents. Like hacking the e-mail accounts of corrupt political figures.
26 September 2008
Back From An Impromptu Hiatus
I'm back! Not that I was missed or anything. That would suggest I have an audience outside of the handful of personal friends I strong armed into critiquing my reviews. (An odd request, that. Reviewing a review.) I didn't really mean to stop writing. I just sort of forgot to. For 4 months. Give or take.
But now I'm back! And better than ever! Well, "better" stands to be seen, but I'm definitely back. And I've decided to fill this space with more editorial content. It seems cut-and-dry video game analysis doesn't pull in the crowds these days (Any days?), so this space will henceforth become, in addition to a platform for the occasional game review, my personal soapbox for commenting on any game-related news. To start with, there's this gem.
First off, let me say I frown upon fanboyism in all of it's forms. One company/console/genre/series isn't better than all others just because you say so. And just because it's better now doesn't mean it always was or always will be. And just because it's better AT ALL doesn't necessarily mean that the competition is worthless in it's own right. Fanboyism (and fangirlism) is a disease by any other name. It's close-minded bigotry and that's never good for anybody.
Because of financial circumstances, I'm currently limited to an Xbox 360. (Not counting my DS. And, yes, I was forced to sell my Wii.) Given the choice, I'd own all three of the major consoles. Since that's not an option, I went with a 360. (Exactly why is a long story that I won't get into just now.) Now that I have it, I wouldn't give it up. There's a handful of games that I'd like to have a Wii or PS3 around to play, but even if we had them, our 360 would still get more play.
All that being said, let me say that I'm sure the forums will be ablaze with fanwankery either reveling in the triumphant smiting of the 360 or leaping chivalrously to it's defense. 90% of the people who see this clip will gravitate to one of those extremes: unbridled joy or righteous indignation. My reaction? Indifference.
LittleBigPlanet looks interesting, but it hasn't inspired in me the rabid, drooling passion it seems to strike in so many others, thanks in no small part to my lack of a PS3. Even so, I'm not so attached to my console that I feel the need to protect it from insult, like some beleaguered paramour. Even if I was, this video certainly wouldn't come close to offending me. The clip, for what it is, isn't particularly funny or incendiary. It's the mockery equivalent of Nelson Muntz pointing and going "HA HA!" and, beyond showing off the versatility of the LBP editing tools, isn't very exceptional in its own right. It certainly doesn't rise above the sophomoric fanboy flame-baiting it's so obviously intended as. Even as a trolling effort it's a weak showing, since it's sure to only get a rise out of the most confrontational of 360 defenders.
But now I'm back! And better than ever! Well, "better" stands to be seen, but I'm definitely back. And I've decided to fill this space with more editorial content. It seems cut-and-dry video game analysis doesn't pull in the crowds these days (Any days?), so this space will henceforth become, in addition to a platform for the occasional game review, my personal soapbox for commenting on any game-related news. To start with, there's this gem.
First off, let me say I frown upon fanboyism in all of it's forms. One company/console/genre/series isn't better than all others just because you say so. And just because it's better now doesn't mean it always was or always will be. And just because it's better AT ALL doesn't necessarily mean that the competition is worthless in it's own right. Fanboyism (and fangirlism) is a disease by any other name. It's close-minded bigotry and that's never good for anybody.
Because of financial circumstances, I'm currently limited to an Xbox 360. (Not counting my DS. And, yes, I was forced to sell my Wii.) Given the choice, I'd own all three of the major consoles. Since that's not an option, I went with a 360. (Exactly why is a long story that I won't get into just now.) Now that I have it, I wouldn't give it up. There's a handful of games that I'd like to have a Wii or PS3 around to play, but even if we had them, our 360 would still get more play.
All that being said, let me say that I'm sure the forums will be ablaze with fanwankery either reveling in the triumphant smiting of the 360 or leaping chivalrously to it's defense. 90% of the people who see this clip will gravitate to one of those extremes: unbridled joy or righteous indignation. My reaction? Indifference.
LittleBigPlanet looks interesting, but it hasn't inspired in me the rabid, drooling passion it seems to strike in so many others, thanks in no small part to my lack of a PS3. Even so, I'm not so attached to my console that I feel the need to protect it from insult, like some beleaguered paramour. Even if I was, this video certainly wouldn't come close to offending me. The clip, for what it is, isn't particularly funny or incendiary. It's the mockery equivalent of Nelson Muntz pointing and going "HA HA!" and, beyond showing off the versatility of the LBP editing tools, isn't very exceptional in its own right. It certainly doesn't rise above the sophomoric fanboy flame-baiting it's so obviously intended as. Even as a trolling effort it's a weak showing, since it's sure to only get a rise out of the most confrontational of 360 defenders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)