Kinect 2015 - The Future of Gaming? (Dragon's Cove)

As of writing this, Microsoft just recently announced that Kinect had sold one million units in ten days - yet this fact is bittersweet when taken into perspective of the many reviews, opinions and trials that have been video'd, blogged, published, etc.  The reason I say 'bittersweet' is because Kinect's launch has pretty much been what everyone expected: the Xbox full-frontal assault on Wii marketshare.  

Kinect's criticism's are well known: 'the launch games are too casual'; 'the lag makes it unworkable for anything apart from mediocre use'; 'you need too much space to use it'; 'it's inherently 'racist' for failing to identify darker-skinner users (my favourite)'.  While a lot of this criticism has been over-trumpeted and blown out of proportion, there is truth in most of it that cannot be ignored.  Or can it?

While most reviewers are happy to bash the living brains out of the launch titles (someone deserves a falcon punch for 'Joyride' by the way which is arguably the worst Kinect title) most still believe that there is something special in the hardware itself.  In fact, most reviews I have read, even the most vicious, have used a word I've not seen used for many years: 'Potential.'  Don't get me wrong.  This does not fix the shortcomings of Kinect's launch, but then again Microsoft knew where the growth market was and maybe they know a damn site more about making money in the gaming industry than you or I.  Don't agree?  The #1 console this Christmas would beg to differ.

Ok - so Microsoft has its investment return in the bag and now we have a new toy for the Xbox which has a lot of potential but doesn't really do anything....yet.  So where does that leave us?  It leaves us (and developers) with time.  The comparisons between Kinect and Sony's 'EyeToy' are obvious, yet they are unfounded in attempting to play down Kinect's potential because they ignore two key differences: one of hardware and one of software.  Kinect, unlike its rival, can see in true 3D and it can track complex objects (or people) as they move up, down, in, out or turn around.  Kinect can also examine its subjects in Infra-red light which is a much more reliable spectrum to use.  However, the ace in the sleeve is what Microsoft has always used to their advantage: Kinect's Software Development Kit.  Much as the 360 console itself dominated the PS3 for years, Kinect could well turn Sony (and Nintendo) on its ear for a second time by providing studios worldwide with an unmatched set of development tools that make Kinect accessible to even the most modest of skillsets including those of the rapidly expanding 'Indie Games' XNA movement.  Recent evidence of this for Kinect is in the heart of the game reviews.  At least three of Kinect's launch titles have achieved aggregate scores over 7.5 whereas not one PS Move title has managed to break above 6 on a single review.  Is this because Move is 'worse'?; No - it's because it is, like it's console brother, an absolute pig to write code for.

All that aside, the Move still relies on the existence of an alternative controller in place of a conventional controller (or none at all) and this will immediately restrict Move's success.  Where Kinect is positioned now introduces a completely new direction for gaming in-so-far as how we, the gamers, interact with our games.  To provide a suggested example of how this might alter our experiences, I will attempt to illustrate one possible scenario of how Kinect could dramatically enhance the way we game:

December 2nd, 2015 - First play of the newly-released 'Dragonfire Prophecy'

That night...

"...I open the packaging and pull out Disc 1 for my new treasure: Dragonfire Prophecy.  There's been so much press about this game before its release; especially by notable reviewers who are already calling it the game of the decade!  I'm happy to judge for myself so I waste no time in getting the hard drive install going.  During the install, a bell sounds from my speakers and I hear a voice, "'James' wants to chat with you."  The install is going to take a few minutes so I decide to take the call and reply, "Xbox.  Answer," as I pull out the case insert and discover a gold-coloured bit of hard paper resembling the business card of some medieval used car salesman.  I study the strange oversized characters on the card when I hear my friend, James.

"Ah!  So you got it then.  I can see it from here," says James.

- "Yeah. Just picked it up.  Is it any good?"

"Mate, it's mind-blowing....anyways, I can see you're preoccupied so I'll give you a ring on Friday"

- "Ok, sounds good. Take it easy.  Xbox! End Chat."

Feeling a little guilty that I didn't even lift my head to look at him - I made a mental note to send James a text message later in the day...but for now, my hands were busy playing with game-related paper things.  Another bell sounded, "Install Complete - Would you like to play Dragon's Cove?"

-"Yes."

Putting the case aside, I searched around for my game controller and after a bit of scavenging - found it stuffed under a pile of toys by a certain 3-year-old boy terror.  By the time I returned to face the screen, the speakers erupted with a magnificent crescendo of music as the 'Dragon's Cove' title credits began to roll across the screen.  After a bit of song and dance, the words 'Press or Say 'Start' appeared and I nimbly obliged (by pressing the start button) as I took a gulp of a freshly-poured Guiness draught

A blurred image slowly faded in and cleared to reveal a flickering candle alone in a blackened room.  A deep, ancient voice rumbled from out of the darkness, "Ah, you have arrived.  We have much to do, you and I - but first, you must prove your right to continue.  Only one who possess the sacred mark can embark on such a journey as this.  Show it to me now - hold it up  to the flames so that I may study it..."

With a smirk, I take the hint and hold up the strange looking business card towards the screen - admiring the elegance of what can only be an elaborate form of digital rights management.  After a few seconds, the flickering light on screen expands to reveal an old sage smiling a toothless smile from the other side of the candle.  

Feeling the need for a snack, I stand up and begin to walk towards the kitchen...

"Oh!  Are you leaving so soon??  Would you like me to wait for your return?"

Caught off guard, I pause mid-step and look back at the animated fellow.  After a second thinking about the question, I answer, "Yes."

"Ah. Al-right then.  You know where to find me"

The image freezes and darkens and the words 'Game Paused - wave to continue'

...

Fully equipped with munchies and drink, I wave my hand upon returning and once again, the flickering candle bursts to life.

As I sit down, a sharp object stabs me in the left 'cheek' and I stand up like a shot, cursing at a carefully placed toy soldier holding a long pike.

"There's no need to swear, Sir!  Perhaps you are not pure of heart as I had hoped," spoke the aged voice from the screen, once again catching me off guard.  Instinctively, I say 'Sorry' without questioning why I should justify my outburst to a computer game.

"You are forgiven. Now let us continue.  Time is not on our side."

At that moment, my mood changes as I begin to feel a connection to this old man even though I know that it's only a game.  Having been caught off guard twice by this adventure simply responding to my very presence and the mundane actions of my daily life, I feel somehow...respected.  It compels me to drop everything else and give the game my full attention.  Amazingly, Dragon's Cove has drawn me into its story and I haven't even started playing!!!  I grab a comfy sit in front of the TV and speak to the old man; "Continue."

"Look into the light, my friend.  I will tell you a story about a time where great wrongs were done.  Look closely."

The candle flares brighter as the music begins to play again.  I grab my pint and take a sip as I wait for the impending animated clip to begin...but it doesn't.  After about 15 seconds, I stare at the candle flickering on screen but nothing's happening.  For a moment, I think the game has jammed because of some stupid bug.  I start to look for the controller when the candle suddenly fizzles out with a small 'pop!'

"You know," sounds the voice of the old man once again, "unless you do what I ask, this is going to take a long time.  More than we have, I fear."

What the F...??

I put my pint back down and settle in front of the TV.  Almost instantly, the candle sparks back to life and the old man speaks, "That's better.  Now look into the flames.  Look closely this time!"

The candle flares brighter again and I digest the instructions for another ten seconds and then it occurs to me - I lean forward towards the TV;  The music immediately becomes louder and deeper as I do.  "Yes....YES!  That's it!  Look closely, my friend...and all will be revealed, " says the old man excitedly as a moving image of a little girl forms in the light, appearing to be running through a flowery field, giggling and jumping....

I have just entered the world of Dragon's Cove - and I have no idea what tricks this adventure has up its sleeve but I can't wait to find out!

Lovingly Yours and Merry Christmas,

The Angry Rabbit

The Future of Xbox - on the Edge of Greatness or Utter Annihilation?

Those who read my articles regularly know that I have always had a bit of a sweet-spot for the Xbox 360; this is not undeserved.  I had no prior loyalty to Microsoft prior to purchasing the 360 and weighed my options very carefully at the time that I purchased it.  In fact, for an entire week, I had convinced myself that the PS3 was the way to go - that is - until the 360 Elite was unveiled.  Almost four years later, my Elite soldiers ever onward tolerating a never-ending list of fantastic third-party titles that always seem to edge out their respective PS3 versions.  Like many others, I have reaped the rewards of 360 ownership and have suffered the curses.  I have 1 RROD to my credit that was repaired 2 years ago and is still going strong (fingers crossed) - so bar 3 weeks at a German repair depot *wipes tear* (god bless that German efficiency), 360 ownership on the whole has been good and I have no regrets.

However, many 360 owners such as myself found 2010 the 'year of discontent' after the vacuum that followed the announcement of 'Natal/Kinect' - it had seemed as though Microsoft had pulled its Ace card and had decided to leave the country for an extended sabbatical in some non-extradition nation in the Southern Hemisphere; there were many questions but few answers.  You see - most 360 owners, at the time and today, are hardcore gamers to some extent - and Natal was looking decidedly NOT hardcore.  There was a worry (still is to some extent) that Microsoft was focusing too much on a casual future for the 360 at the expense of a decent hardcore experience.  To add further insult, for a period it seemed as though a raft of PS3 titles were being announced without much counter by the 360 camp apart from a lack-luster debut of PrimeTime (1v100) that was going to 'Change the World' until it was cancelled a couple months ago. (So much for that one then)

Since E3, my opinions of where the 360 is headed have varied wildly.  On the surface, Kinect looks like a dead duck, but the more I read into it, the more excited I get.  EDGE magazine has spent a lot of time writing about Kinect and there's no doubt why: it suggests an exciting future!  Not just for gaming but for home entertainment interaction as a whole.  Sure, for every camp that raises up the hype over Kinect, there's an equal number playing it down (usually in favour of the 'other' console) and there's no doubt that the device will have its shortcomings - the question is: Even if it does have them (shortcomings), will it make Kinect any less successful??  Only the future knows for certain, but handled properly, there's no reason why Kinect can't be the most significant event in recent gaming (and console) history.

What gives me hope is that developers are acknowledging Kinect's shortcomings and working around them, focusing on the strengths.  Devs know better than anyone that gamers want a smooth experience - and many have indicated that Kinect still shows immense promise provided you employ it with realistic expectations.  This means that most are acknowledging that Kinect isn't going to replace FPS movement control anytime soon - but then, it would be awfully handy if you reach up to a computer terminal and 'punch in' a code using your finger.  It may not allow you to swing a sword with precision in a fantasy RPG - but then, it would provide a very handy option for engaging in conversation with an NPC by speaking the dialogue options rather than selecting them.  It might not be preferred for controlling a baseball play, but wouldn't it be neat if you could signal your pitch to the pitcher or give a sign to your base runner to steal?  Add to all of that the in-built functionality to control every aspect of your console and you have a potentially out-of-the-park game winner.

What makes Kinect so powerfully intriguing is the fact that it works as an intrinsic control for the console regardless of what you are doing or using.   It's 'always on', always there ready to serve - even if you're holding a controller.  For those who suggest that Kinect can't survive because it is unable to replace a conventional controller or lacks the responsiveness of its rivals, I recommend that they have a seat and start thinking outside the box before they draw their conclusions.  Whereas the other consoles force you to choose between conventional or motion control, Microsoft demands nothing but your interest and willingness to engage the console on a level that could well prove to be the most intuitive human interface ever conceived.

What makes Kinect potent is not whether hardcore gamers decide to adopt motion control for gaming - its the potential that a 3-year-old child can speak to this nondescript device and launch an interactive (and controlled) experience with an animated pet without having pressed a single button or held a controller, or the ability to command movie playback in the dark without fishing for your remote, or the opportunity to play a trivia game with your grandmother without having to explain anything other than 'just do this' and making a buzzer-push motion in the air.  Ultimately, if delivered as promised, it will be the chance to control a fully-featured fighting mech by actually interacting with its cockpit controls using your own hands.

Kinect is a huge risk - yes...but if even 50% of it is true as advertised - it WILL change the world....and what a world it will be.

Lovingly Yours,

The Angry Rabbit.

Console Gaming: Are Premium Services the Latest Utility Bill?

On the heels of a leak from Sony about premium services (which look strikingly similar to another 'Gold' service we're all familiar with) - it would seem that yet another console supplier has joined the 'dark side' of value-added chargeable services.  On the face, Sony's Premium service has a few of it's own tricks but is ultimately 'Live Gold' under a different brand.  Social networking, Netflix integration (without the disc - golly), a music streaming service that lets you create 'stations' (although this one has videos apparently - can't wait to see the vid for Mozart's Requiem) and a pile of other goodies that only Americans will ever get to experience (as usual).

So it all sounds good - and online play is still free on PSN - but what's not being said is how much effort will remain on Sony's part with respect to the upkeep of services on the standard (free) plan.  When I see mention of access to early beta and 'earlier' access to new online titles, I do feel the need for a ponderous chin-scratch; how much of this is provided now and does that mean that Sony is going to shift focus of value-add exclusively to their Premium customers?  Short answer: Yes - and if you think different then you are living in a fantasy world.

Much like our telephone, television, electricity and gas bills - it seems as though console gaming services are the newest 'utility' to appear on our monthly bank statements.  The question is: do they deserve to be there or is it a simple matter of greed?

The Future of Consoles - Next-gen, Kinect, Move and beyond

E3 2010 was (in my humble opinion) a craptacular event with some highlights - but overall completely flat.  We watched Microsoft fall flat on its face with Kinect (although the OS interfacing stuff is damn cool - just not $150 U.S. cool) and Sony follow up with some actual credible motion-controller games.  It was always stated that software would be the guiding factor of success for either - and I'd have to say that Sony took this round.  Some still claim that Kinect hasn't yet realised its potential - perhaps...but then, will it ever at the price being suggested?  Microsoft has got its business model completely wrong this time around and I think Redmond is missing the brilliant guidance of Billy Gates more than its prepared to admit.  

However, it wasn't all rubbish - for the first time ever, I'm actually interested in a Halo title (Halo Reach) and Sony pulled a Laurel&Hardy double-take by having once 360-sweetheart Gabe Newell show up on stage to announce Portal 2 for the PS3 (cue Xbox execs clenching fists: "BUELLER!!!")  

Ubisoft also stole the show with a very impressive Assassin's Creed Brotherhood (already the GOTY candidate imo) and Nintendo...well...we hate Nintendo.

The interesting thing, of course, is that no one apart from the delusional minds at OnLive were announcing anything in the way of new consoles although its pretty much a categoric reality that both Sony and Microsoft are busy whittling away at their new offerings.  While PS3 has the longevity to push its shelf-life well into 2015, Sony knows that they will need the insurance to spar off against the impending '720' (I still stand by a 2012 debut worldwide) and the announcement for that device will be at next year's E3.

So should Sony be worried - not really.  They've got a hidef format that has enjoyed record-breaking market penetration and Microsoft will likely not ever adopt it apart from movie playback - instead, I suspect 720 games will emerge as USB 3.0 key-based or SDXC caddy-cased offerings that have all the speed of BluRay (much faster in fact) but none of the drawbacks such as moving parts or lasers.  I may be giving Microsoft too much credit here - and perhaps they should hire me to get back on top ;)  - but such a move makes sense as eliminating the need for moving parts from your base console (the BluRay drive would actually make sense as an add-on) drastically reduces manufacturing costs and increases reliability.   It also allows for a much smaller and compact unit which suits the form-factor of contemporary Home Theatre designs.  Furthermore, a key-based game delivery makes capacity irrelevant as you simply pack in as much memory into the key as you need.

Sony - on the other hand - has no desire to phase out BluRay and will support it 110% on the PS4.  The advantage that Sony has is that they don't need to design a new console per se - just 'tweak' their existing console.  Everything on the PS3 makes sense apart from some key bottlenecks and architecture 'wtf' areas that, with a bit of ironing out and a boosted CPU/GPU core, could really rock the next gen and for a fraction of the R&D costs meaning that the PS4 can enter the market at a similar price-point as the 720 despite having moving parts and lasers included.

The big question is 'who will flinch first' and I suspect Microsoft will as they seek to capitalise on the tactic that worked the first time.  Sony, on the other hand, is still under a lot of pressure to rake in more profit on its PS3 project before it undermines it with a new console.  Despite bells and whistles and moments of 'Woohoo, we're taking over!!!' - the PS3 still sits squarely in third-place against the Wii and 360 largely due to its top-end price-point - never a good place to be in a recession. (...and begs the question to Microsoft about Kinect pricing - wtf are you thinking???)

So on to 3D - because that's the BIG future, right?

No.  I doubt it.

3D TV and gaming is like the new kid in class - at first, you think he's awesome because he's different.  Everyone wants to be his friend and invite him to their birthday parties - but after six months, he's banned to the dark corners of the AV club once it comes to light that he hides a Strawberry Shortcake doll in his backpack and still sucks his thumb when (he thinks) no one's looking.

Having seen Avatar in 3D (great visuals, crap story) - I know what it can offer and I've also seen a live demo on Samsungs new 42" 3D offering.  Hey, sure - it's pretty neat - but only in small doses.  Also, paying attention to the news, we now see Paediatricians lining up to warn parents off allowing their children (6 and under) to be within smelling distance of a 3D display - so that really lops off a giant part of the market as most teenagers often have younger siblings in the area; and they like to copy their elder brothers and sisters, hang around them and generally be very annoying meaning that everything in the household has to be safe for everyone including the snivelling 5-year-old who knows the first five maps of COD4 inside (Until governments start enforcing ESRB/PEGI ratings, you know this is a reality)

But parents DO pay attention to Mr. Mackey-style alarmist news like '3D is bad for kids, ummkay??!' and so this means a virtual write-off for the 3D capabilities of the family console.  

So where does that lead us?  Surely (hopefully) back to gaming.  Luckily, with more details leaking about Mafia II, L.A. Noire and (joygasm) Deus Ex: Human Revolution - the future of consoles will undoubtedly reside in the ability of machines to render gorgeous titles built on wonderful, vast worlds.  This alone will continue to drive specs forward.  The question is what the next move will be.

Lovingly Yours,

The Angry Rabbit.

Life as an Xbox Live Silver member exposed

You've heard of them.  You've seen them occasionally on Major Nelson's blog.  You've probably met several and didn't even know it.  I am, of course, talking about the quiet masses of Silver members on Xbox Live.  My confession today is: I'm one of them and my story is a cautionary tale for Microsoft, a stark warning for OnLive and a heads-up for Sony.  As for Nintendo...well, who cares really.

I have owned an Xbox Elite for over two years now and have enjoyed most of that ownership.  Initially, paid Gold membership was a foregone conclusion.  'Surely there must be lots to justify it' I thought and so I signed up right away and carried it for 24 months.  Within that time, I have spent more time waiting for *something* to happen.  Knowing a bit about technology, I understand that the 360 is a peer-to-peer device for most games (E.A. is the exception I think) so I assumed that Gold membership couldn't just be about multiplayer gaming.  After all, paying for an 'online gaming' service that basically connects the dots between players on the Internet is like hiring a skipper to tell you where to row your own boat rather than rowing you himself.  Essentially, the whole notion that Xbox Live multiplayer gaming requires financial 'support' is a bit of a joke.  Sure, there's infrastructure involved - but the 'meat and potatoes' part of online gaming is done by your console, not Microsoft servers (because they're aren't any).

It's particularly interesting that Sony and Microsoft have such different marketing methods which seem to be diametrically opposed to their actual service provision.  For instance, considering that the Playstation DOES use servers, it's a bit strange that it should remain free yet Microsoft would charge.   I am aware of Sony bringing in a 'Premium' service, but I would presume that by nature of that they will have to create the value-added content to drive subscriptions for it whereas Microsoft has taken a harder line by locking off online play altogether if you don't pony up.  The latter is the real problem and we have made it so.  Year after year, people continue to hand over their money for (I think) very little reason considering what you actually get as a Gold member.  Yes, you can play online.  Yes, you get access to certain demos before anyone else.  Yes, occasionally you get to sit in a gi-normous virtual studio and play a rather grinding version of '1 vs 100' whenever someone decides to run an actual 'season' which may or may not have an actual 'host' depending on whether the folks at the other end of the line give enough of a crap to show up for it. 

But so what?  Really.

I really do still like my Xbox but since cancelling my gold membership I'm starting to play it less and less.  A year ago, I talked one of my friends into getting a 360 so that we could play online together.  For a while, we did - but as we both have kids and wives who demand things like working appliances, Gold membership soon became one of those unnecessary expenses that had to go.  My friend is also a PC gamer and soon released that the lure of the 360 was far diminished considering that he could sit in front of his gaming rig and play online for free.  To date, I have no valid argument as to why that is flawed thinking.  At any rate, once my friend left Gold, I started to lose interest in online play.  Sure, I have lots of 'friends' but it all gets a bit tricky trying to meet up and find somewhere to play that isn't over-infested by whining, virginal 13-year-olds practicing their 'badness' on each other, shouting obscenities and 'tea-bagging' conquests and the like, all in a vain effort to deny their own existence as the scrawny little wretches that they are.  -Not my idea of a fun Saturday night in front of the tube.  Furthermore, games I really like to play online such as XBLA Billiards or some slightly older games I've bought don't have any players to speak of; leading me to believe that my demographic (25-40) either doesn't bother anymore because of the extra expense or is still obsessing over limited-cerebral titles like 'Modern Warfare' that I have no interest in playing anyway.

What I find ironic is how many Playstation players complain that there's not enough 'Warhawk' players: a game I'd really fancy if I ever scrounge up enough to buy a PS3.  I bet there's a lot of guys my age who play that, particularly those who are old and clever enough to know the history of Single-Trac and like their style of multiplayer gaming.  However, even on a FREE network it's hard enough finding players, so what hope can I really have on Xbox Live Gold?  Answer: None whatsover.

So here I sit with a console that I can't play online with and I yearn for one that I can yet I can't justify spending the money anymore.  I suppose you get to an age where budgets mean everything and you suddenly get really angry when you pay for something and get so little back for it.  Microsoft has been trumping up their 'Live' services for ages and at first, I believed them.  However, when you're paying for something, you expect results.  If there are no results, then anticipation turns to impatience, then frustration, then apathy and eventually terminating the subscription becomes a no-brainer because you just don't give a crap anymore.  That's the point I'm at and it's unlikely I'll ever subscribe again unless Microsoft can actually create a substantial reason that a) is not free elsewhere, b) is actually fun, c) isn't riddled with micro-transaction nonsense and most important d) delivers what was promised and exceeds expectations.  Microsoft is more than welcome to treat the world as its marketing labratory where it actually pushes the boundries to see how much money it can charge people for b.s. services before people start questioning it.  It's a bizarre approach - but they're welcome to it and the U.S. is a great place to start (and probably end) - but you can count this guinea pig out.  I've tried the kibble and it tastes like a horse's ass.

Lovingly Yours,

The Angry Rabbit.

Studios taking the piss with Blu-Ray releases on older titles, jeopardizing the format

This wonderful article came up on Den of Geek today that highlights a very real problem with Studios and their attitude towards Blu-Ray.  

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/457809/the_problem_with_catalogue_bluray_releases.html

When the HD formats were announced, many accused the industry of trumping up a new format simply to cash in on existing stocks by re-releasing them in 'High Definition' (which some today still can't really see the difference)  Of course, many of us 'videophiles' jumped to HD's defense citing the enormous potential of the new format.  True to that citation, we have seen some astounding releases such as the absolutely gorgeous '2001: Space Odyssey', the wonderfully-restored 'Snow White' from Disney and the 1st-class treatment given to the director's cut of 'Dark City.'

Sadly, however, this is quickly showing to be a novelty in catalogue releases.  I personally have been 'had' on a few including 'The Crow', 'Blood Diamond' and most recently, the Blu-Ray début of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Having put some blind faith both in Peter Jackson and New Line cinema, I bought this off of Amazon blind without reading a review of the transfer.  After all, it was such a big release it could ONLY get the best, right?  Well, the very next day, I happened to catch a public showing of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' on BluRay in HMV and couldn't believe my eyes!  I called to one of the staff ('Dan' was his name, I believe) and asked 'Is that the BluRay version?' -to which he replied, 'Yeah, looks pretty amazing, doesn't it?'

After quietly flunking Dan on his video assessment skills, I pulled out my Blackberry and dialled in HiDefDigest.com (their review is linked here) only to see my fears justified.  The video transfer of my most beloved anticipation of the entire format release schedule was a dud!  For those of you who haven't seen it, the lack of detail and fuzziness in places is so awful that people would be justified in saying that BluRay is no better than DVD.  Knowing full well that this trilogy will have been ordered as 'The Choice Trilogy' for Home Cinema fans to show off their equipment, I pray that those who did know enough to keep this on the back shelf if they are still trying to convince that sceptical relative or spouse of their neighbour that BluRay is the 'bee's knees'.  On this occasion, they couldn't be further from the truth.

The real danger here is that people will be demo'ing the Lord of the Rings trilogy in a bid to see what BluRay can do and they will be harming confidence in the format by doing so.  Honestly speaking, I am that much of a video quality freak that I'll hold onto the trilogy if only for the slightly better results on 'The Two Towers' and 'The Return of the King', but it is a bitter-sweet at best; all in all, I feel ripped off.  Worse than that though, there are undoubtedly potential BluRay owners looking at this transfer and saying 'My DVD looks just as good' and writing off the format entirely.  

Even more distressing, this is not the first time as Den of Geek has kindly pointed out.  Studios are cranking out the catalogue titles as quick as they can press the discs.  From a greedy, profit-whoring monster point-of-view, I can see the point.  If you're only tossing an average of £3-£5 ($8 U.S.) for older films on DVD, studios are obviously wanting to recoup some lost profit by exploiting the new novelty.  However, Sony and the entire BD association should be sitting down together and drafting a 'code of conduct' or 'quality assurance policy' to prevent greedy studios from shovelling poorly-transferred films onto BluRay.  Studios who wish to release a catalogue title would then have to prove 'demonstrable effort' to the association; to show that care and quality was applied to a release's transfer, offering a marked improvement over previous transfers on both audio and video quality to a level worthy of the format.  This needs to be done sooner rather than later - and I hope Sony will take the lead with their own catalogue releases.

Despite what studios want to believe, people buy equipment (and formats) to enjoy the films that they love, and more often than not, the 'list of favourite films' is rooted firmly in the back-catalogue, not in recent releases.  If someone was to ask me - honestly - if having BluRay was worth the money, knowing that this person would pursue older titles, my answer would be 'not really, not yet...'  That sucks that I have to say that!  ...but it's true.  Studios are flat-out torpedoing BluRay by crapping on their back catalogues with mediocre transfers.  It worked with DVD because DVD was a novelty in being digital, small (compared to VHS) and offering relative access and extra content.  ...but none of these things are novelties any-more; DVD owns them and will keep them.  BluRay has only its visual and audio quality to ride on; ignore this too often and BluRay will lose consumer confidence altogether.

Next time I spend good money on a catalogue release, I'll be sure to wait for the review first.  Never again.

For those of you who haven't bought Lord of the Rings on BluRay yet - my advice would be to save your pennies and see if those fat asses in New Line Cinema can get their finger out and do something appropriate for the Extended Edition due out later this year/early 2011.

Lovingly Yours,

The Angry Rabbit.

"Not a fan of driving games, I guess" said to me by my mate...

One of my local mates, James - recently bought a PS3 allowing me to get some hack-time on the most confused console ever made.  There are definitely some strengths to this 'fine' machine but I have a rather large beef list for Sony to take into account when designing their next console - but I digress.    At any rate, James is what you call a 'race monkey.'  He will forgive even the most humble of racing games if there's at least an ounce of gameplay in it.  I recently watched him play the new MX-ATV title on PS3 and thought it rather bland and simple, but he likes it and that's all that counts; it's his money after all.

After a rather long and boring dirt race in a buggy of some sort, he flipped to the 360 and powered up Forza 3.  I was half-watching him play as I was sorting the graphics drivers on his PC at the time, but payed attention enough to get a general sense of the game in action.  James swears by Forza 3 and I suppose you can't blame him.  He's a race fan and Forza 3 is regarded quite highly among 360 owners.  For me?  I think it's an overrated piece of shit.  The graphics lack refinement and the cars seem almost clinical in their movement.  Having driven for many years, there's a sense of sway to racing which Forza 3 just doesn't seem to grasp.  Sure, it may play by the numbers, but it looks cartoony and for me, it's rather boring.

Noticing that I was watching, James paused the race and offered me the controller.  'Want a shot?' -he asked.
I pursed my lips, 'Naw...carry on, mate.'
Looking almost insulted, James retorted,
'Not fan of driving games, I guess.  Are ya?'
-'Umm yeah - don't you remember who recommended Dirt 2 to you?'
'Oh yeah,' says James, 'I forgot about that...'

So am I a fan of driving games?  Ab-sol-f'in-lutely!
I like any driving game that feels like..ummm...driving.

Forza 3 sucks.
Let's see if GT5 can give fill the gap.

Lovingly Yours,

The Angry Rabbit.

Gamer gets mad over E.A's new 'pay more if its used' scheme, sues wrong company instead

Read the story at Edge

Things like this make me laugh for a number of reasons.  Any-ways, in case you haven't been paying attention, Electronic Arts recently introduced a new 'scheme' to encourage gamers to buy games new by including one-time unlock-able content for first-time purchases.  This materialises in Mass Effect 2 as 'The Cereberus Network' offering fairly tossable content such as the chance to explore the crash site of the first Normandy (definitely not worth the time, let alone extra cash by the way...)

If you are fortunate enough to have the cash handy to dish out for a new copy, then this stuff is free.  All you do is punch in a code included with the game to redeem your extra content - but the catch is that this code isn't transferable.  Once it's used, it's gone. (by the way, no one knows if this is console-tied or account-tied so buying a replacement console could actually invalidate the content even if you bought the game new)

At any rate, James Collins thinks that this stinks after finding out that his used copy of Dragon Age: Origins (another title employing this new scheme) asked him to fork out another $15 USD to gain access to the 'free content' normally granted to first-purchase owners.  Having bought the copy from Gamestop, Collins is now suing Gamestop (not E.A.) claiming that Gamestop failed to alert him to the fact that his used copy, of which he saved a meager $5, worked out to be $10 more than a new copy if you took into account the free content which was $15 to second-hand owners.

While I feel for him (well kindof not but...), he needs to realise that he's walked headlong and blind into the bear-trap set by Electronic Arts.  In fact, the trap has worked so well that the wrong company is being held to account.  Now some of you out there may agree - Gamestop scammed him, right?  After all, another $5 would have got him the 'full game' but Gamestop wants to ship their used copies too and why not?  It makes up 20% of their annual revenue.  So Collins is quite right to stab his anger at Gamestop for being greedy jerks. -Except that, Gamestop is not at fault here; at least, not in my opinion.

Collins suit is warranted, but he should have gone after the company that set the trap in the first place: Electronic Arts.  This lawsuit is the fallout of Electronic Arts' attempt to lure gamers away from the used market by offering them candy if they buy new.  Technically speaking, their marketing assholes will say that this candy is 'the rest of the game'; essentially, you don't get the 'full' game unless you buy new, or fork out more moula.

From what I've witnessed in Mass Effect 2, this is far from the truth.  Now I'll hold my hands up and say that I did actually buy a new copy to get the content, but then I took the time to pay attention long enough to realise that this scheme was in place and the used copy on the shelf (which was also $5 cheaper coincidently) was a false economy and I was better off getting the new copy.  I didn't hold my retailer responsible for having the 'cheek' to discount a measly $5 of the used copy.  Why should I?  My retailer sets the price according to demand.  If customers are picking it up either because they don't know or don't care about E.A.s scheme, why should my retailer do anything different?  If customers DO care then they won't buy the used game at the price set and that will drive the used price down accordingly.  What did Collins expect: that Gamespot should place fancy stickers and lights, at their own expense, saying that 'HEY BUDDY, YOU'LL GET SCREWED BUYING THIS AT $5 LESS!!!"??  Well pardon me but that's complete and utter horse-dodo.

Not only is doing such a thing logistically tricky and expensive (particularly if you take in printing costs, lost time, etc) - this notification would only have relevance if the discount was within the spread of a new copy less DLC.  Effectively, Collins is alleging that Gamestop should:

A) Identify any game that carries the scheme
B) Establish the cost of the DLC if purchased
C) Monitor the cost of the DLC in real-time (because publishers discount things too, you know)
D) Monitor the prices of the new and used copies in real-time
E) Calculate the effective price of a used copy + DLC, in real-time

F) Calculate the difference of the effective price of a used copy compared against the price of a new copy
G) If the effective price exceeds the price of a new copy, alert the staff that morning to place a sticker on all affected products (or remove if effective price is now lower)
H) Send staff out routing through the shelves of used copies placing or removing stickers

Now if you bothered to read all that, does it sound complex, expensive and a bit ridicoulous? Well that's because it is.  What retailer would take such insane measures purely to educate a consumer about pitfalls of a scheme launched by a publisher?  Answer - none.  Electronic Arts should have declared this very clearly and boldly on their box art along the lines of, oh I dunno "FREE CONTENT IF PURCHASED NEW!!!"  Collins inability to be an informed consumer is certainly not Gamestop's problem.  The price of used copies has always been set according to the demand of the market.  In fact, given a few months the effective price of a used copy (including the dlc cost) will drop well below the cost of a new copy anyway; and even if it didn't, there are undoubtedly consumers out there that don't care about the free content and would have no intention of buying the DLC.

I agree with James Collins - this scheme is cheeky.  But if he doesn't like it, I suggest he takes the fight to the horse's mouth: Electronic Arts.  After all, there is much wrong with Electronic Arts' thinking here, but that's another blog I have yet to write ;)

Lovingly Yours,

The Angry Rabbit.

Kevin Smith throws his hat into the Horror genre with 'Red State'

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/446989/kevin_smiths_red_state_finally_set_to_shoot.html

Already on his way to becoming one of the most noted filmmakers of our generation, Kevin Smith has decided to take a marked departure from his comfort zone with 'Red State'.  While there is always risk with filmmakers pushing into new territory, Smith is one of those bankable guys that I think could pull it off.  Stay tuned!

Button-mashers and QTEs - A Plague on Both Your Houses!

Over the last decade or so, gaming (particularly console gaming) has come into its own with several styles of gameplay that seem to dominate many titles nowadays.  While button mashers date back to the dawn of modern arcade (a minute of silence for 'Track and Field'), we have certainly witnessed an evolution of the brand along with the introduction of its relatively young descendant: The Quicktime Event.  Has the Quicktime Event enhanced gaming?  Or has QTE lowered the bar for designers more interested in finding an outlet for their animations and story telling?

To understand the origins of QTE gaming, we must first look at console hardware itself and appreciate how the design of the modern game controller played its role in giving birth to this well-known style.  Long gone is the familiar 'A' 'B' of the original Nintendo NES which innovated over 1st/2nd generation consoles by introducing a second action button and bringing the familiar 'Start/Select' to the controller, current generation controllers share a much more recent ancestory in the Playstation 'X' and the 4-pointed layout of 'X', 'Y', Square and Circle.  Certainly, the Xbox controller traded up the shapes (rather cheekily) with 'A' and 'B' almost in hommage to an older generation, but in essence - a console isn't a console with that comfortable 4-point layout that has been with us for over a decade; honourable mention, of course, to the L1/LB, L2/LT, etc - but most people will agree that most of the action sits smack-dab on the right face of the controller.

So now we have the controller - but why is that signifigant? Well, although 'Dragon's Lair' is largely considered the first QTE game of any consequence, QTE gaming as a format didn't really solidify until the appearance of the first QTE title to really capture the layout of the 4-point controller - and that title was 'Parappa the Rapper.'  Even as I mention it, some of you old PS1 owners are mouthing 'Kick, Punch, It's all in the mind!'   Indeed, it was a very addictive title for a number of reasons, but Parappa the Rapper is largely forgotten as the game which brought QTE and the 4-point layout into its own...and it inspired studios to think about the role of the QTE/4pl combination and how it could be adopted into various styles of presentation.

Two games spring immediately to mind: 'God of War' and David Cage's weird acid-trip adventure, 'Farenheit' (Indigo Prophecy)

The God of War series has proven to be enormously successful and proves that the culmination of QTE and story telling can be an excellent combination - at least for some.  Personally, I was inducted into modern QTE gaming with the latter - and even to this day I have a hard time convincing myself that it was a worthwhile experience.  As both are completely different presentations, lets focus on the interactive adventure presentation first.  To me, Farenheit was a game that was both interesting, frustrating and boring all at the same time.  While part of my brain was pulled in to the adventure and the impressive graphics, I found it extremely tedious at times that rather than solve a puzzle (as is with most adventures), I was focused on the button sequence just to make it through an interesting cut-scene.  Perhaps I'm in the minority here - but I have a hard time looking at all the 'purty graphics' when my attention is being forced on hitting the right buttons at the right moment.  It's games like this that make me feel as though I'm one of the hapless minions following tedious instructions in a 'Billy Blanks' exercise video rather than actually playing a game.  To me, gaming is about intriguing the mind, not engaging in a ten-hour session of 'Simon Says'.  On that basis, I have high criticism for Fahrenheit despite it being decent in other respects.  No doubt people will sing praises about Cage's upcoming 'Heavy Rain' as well - but while some will worship this title without deviation, I suspect older gamers like me will begin to question themselves after a while and ask 'Am I having fun?'  This is where QTE interactive adventures fall apart for me.

That leaves us with the more direct action games such as God of War.  Although God of War suffers from the same affliction for QTE sequences, its a bit harder to criticise because it IS an action title of some shape.  Arguably, the God of War series has a much stronger entrenchment into hardcore gaming and so there's a much larger fanbase for this type of game.  Having said that, there is a definitive recipe to God of War which is both its strength and its Achilles heal. Much of God of War's gameplay is focused on slaughtering your enemies in mammoth proportions.  Some fanboys get upset when I call it a 'button-masher' - and I'll accept that to an extent when you take into account combos, etc.  But for the most part, a 5-hour session playing any God of War title is bound to make those thumbs hurt a little.  For me, again, it becomes all the more tedious.  Sure they mix it up with different elements (piloting beasts, level-design twists, etc) but most fans say the Boss Battles are the best part; and that's where my criticism begins and ends.  The boss battles embrace a QTE sequence that require the gamer to battle and at key moments, execute a number of button presses or movements awhile the animation plays along - now people will disagree with what I have to say here, but I find this a bit of a cop out for the developers.  To me, introducing QTE to make your animations more 'interactive' is a way of artificially trumping up your gameplay to look better without actually providing any real innovation.

If you consider the debut of Grand Theft Auto 3, cut-scenes in games were already prevalent (without the QTEs) but what made GTA3 innovative was that it was achieving gameplay on a presentation scale that most developers at the time considered only achievable as a cutscene.  I realise that's not the best example, but what I'm driving at is this:  If defeating a boss requires you to jump out of the way of a huge fist, grab its knuckle and run up the arm, jump across to the nose and jam your sword into the beast's bulging eye - GREAT!  But why orchestrate that entire sequence to 'press X now' type stuff?  Why not actually require the gamer to execute these actions through the existing motion controls of his character?  Answer?  Because it takes a lot more effort to do that and keep it looking pretty and convincing.  Almost always, such sequences are waved about at E3 and TGS because they look fantastic and fun - but when you look under the hood and realise that its QTE-driven  - to me, that's like buying a Ferrari and discovering that someone has swapped its engines with a Toyata Prius; sure, it looks good - but what's the point if you're driving along to impress the girls and suddenly your hippy neighbor passes you riding a Vespa?  I found this particularly annoying when playing the boss battles in Star Wars: Force Unleashed.  It was neither challenging nor engaging to execute the QTEs to defeat various enemies.  On the contrary, I found it boring, repetitive and distracting from the actual game play - especially when it occurred in the midst of multiple enemies because pausing for the QTE animation would leaving me momentarily disoriented after resetting my position - not a great thing to do if you are trying to move about tactically to keep track of enemy positions.

So to sum up - I think gamers need to stop praising such titles that endorse the use of QTEs as a fallback method to present gameplay because to me, it's a dumbing-down of gaming as a whole.  It also gives developers that we'll pretty much accept any poorly-designed title they throw at us provided there's enough QTE sequences with 'awwws' and 'ooohs' to keep us interested.  I sincerely hope not.  I challenge developers to avoid the trap of QTE gaming and get back developing the gameplay itself.  In an age where graphics are pretty much scoring well across most titles on average, the focus really needs to be on making your game unique at the core level - the gameplay itself.

Lovingly Yours,

The Angry Rabbit.

3D BluRay: How to sabotage your own spec

Another year has begun and with it, the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas marks the beginning of 2010 with its annual parade of technical marvels and announcements.  I usually find the CES exhibition more interesting that E3 because you get a first look at the tech behind the games and everything else involved; such as surround sound, televisions and assorted home cinema gadgets.  With this years CES awash with '3D-This' and "3D-That' - it's no surprise that manufacturers are lining up to tout their offerings for the newest fashion in Home Cinema.

One of the manufacturers on the forefront of this technology is undoubtedly Sony.  Leading the charge with a freshly announced 3D specification for BluRay, 'BD3D' is the first official affirmation that 3-Dimensional video is coming to the home cinema, and soon!  Expect to see the first throng of 3D-ready televisions hitting shops this summer along with a range of BluRay players that will be compatible with the new 3D films (and games for PS3).  As it's early days, we can omit certain deficiencies in BD3D; such as it's lack of multiple fps formats (you're stuck with 24 for now) as well as other unanswered questions regarding this 'display agnostic' specification.  In actual fact, BD3D has got some things VERY right such as the promise that 3D discs will play on 2D players (as 2D films, of course) meaning that you don't have to hold off buying a 3D version of the film before investing in your 3D player/television.

Then Sony shot themselves in the foot.

As I understand it - the main business principle behind BluRay was create a value-added format that had a higher market value than its 480p predecessor; not to mention the excuse to introduce extended functionality such as 'BD Live' which provides a legitimate reason for consumers to actually want the Java-based DRM circuit that validates your disc as you play.  In turn, 3D discs up the ante even further.  It's all designed to make you spend more money on films; but after the tough battle of getting the market to accept and embrace BluRay (which its only just now doing) - Sony not only wants to make your current player obsolete, it wants to charge you a premium to upgrade to a player capable of 3D.( which is an even harder sell than conventional BluRay itself!)   Televisions, I can accept, need to be upgraded because of the mechanical differences required for 3D display - but players are simply relaying a digital signal.  Sure, this may require a few more transistors to decode and transmit, but as we understand that the PS3 will be updated by firmware, we can accept that pretty much any BluRay player has the hardware needed to play BluRay 3D.  (Or at least, there's not much required to make it possible)

I'll cut to the chase; Sony just unveiled its new range of BluRay players and televisions.  In particular, the players consist of the BDP-S370, S570 and S770.  Obviously, the higher-end you go the more you get - and normally I'd agree with that, but on this occasion, Sony has decided to restrict 3D playback to the S770!  While I'm sure Sony's marketing people are giving each other 'fisties' for thinking this up, I believe Sony (as the flagship BluRay manufactuer) has actually stalled BluRay 3D by forcing consumers to buy the most expensive player they have on offer; particularly when the same capabilities can be found on the PS3 for less than half the price.  This is a great promotion for the PS3, but not for the 3D format.  Although many have already voiced their apathy about 3D home cinema, I am one consumer who IS geared up for it - but I see no reason why I should have to buy the top-end player for the sheer privilege of decoding the format, especially considering that I already need to get a new television which will cost me between $1800-$2500 U.S. on its own!

Sony - what the hell?  Let's drop the silliness and arm ALL new players with 3D compatibility.  There's plenty of money to be made on the discs themselves (and the televisions for that matter).

Lovingly Yours,

The Angry Rabbit.