From Ford Racing 3 to Rush 'n Attack
Today is my last day at GameSpot. I've worked here for more than three years, so I am sad to leave. It's time for me to take on a new challenge, but I'll always be a fan and reader of GameSpot. I visited this site long before I ever got a job here, and I will continue to do so long after I move on. I've had experiences here that I know I'll never forget, like trips to E3, Leipzig, and Barcelona, late night arguements about Game of the Year awards, and the always insane holiday rush. I've had a great time here, learned a lot, and met some incredibly skilled, funny, and intelligent people. So thanks to GameSpot and to all of you, it's been fun.
-Greg (M)
Print
Comment
Tag
Facebook
Digg thisApocalypse...POW!!
I think I might have found my reason to purchase a PlayStation 3...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
...It's just too bad about the cover art. And that goofy blue box...
It's, uh, Live!
I enjoy Xbox Live. It's a great service even if there are a lot of idiots using it. It took me awhile to warm up to the idea of paying a subscription fee to play games online, but I've since come to realize that with Xbox Live you get what you pay for. Apparently, I'm not the only one who feels this way. With several million subscribers and growing, the future of Xbox Live looks pretty bright right now. But can the service thrive beyond the Xbox?
Microsoft thinks so, and it's getting ready to raise the second pillar of its Live Anywhere triad, Games For Windows Live. The notion of a unified community of PC game players and Xbox 360 game players living in harmony is hopelessly romantic, but if anyone is in the position to make it happen, it's Microsoft. Personally I couldn't care less about playing games on my PC that I could just as easily play on my Xbox 360, but I'm holding out hope that Games for Windows Live will be everything Microsoft is promising and more. But even if the service fails miserably, it should be an interesting experiment.
Although I don't see Games for Windows Live ever enjoying the kind of widespread success of its Xbox counterpart, Microsoft is a tenacious beast with money to burn. There's nothing to lose by trying to cater to the PC crowd by marketing the newly released Vista operating system as a gaming-centric product. The biggest hurdle for Microsoft is fact that PC gamers have been playing games online for a decade, whereas console gamers have only been playing online in significant numbers for three or four years. For the past few years console owners looking to play games online had but two choices: Xbox Live and whatever third-party solution any given PlayStation 2 game offered. Xbox Live was the first widely successful, unified online gaming service for home consoles, and that's the reason people use it and are willing to pay to do so.
It's an entirely different story with PC gaming. The PC culture is averse to paying for anything, or even thinking about paying for anything. There are all kinds of free software and services online, legitimate and otherwise. Why would people start paying money all of a sudden, especially when they don't really get much for the investment?
Here's what you get for free with Games for Windows Live:
Shared account between Games for Windows Live and Xbox Live
Single-player Achievements
Private Text and Voice Chat
Friends List
PC-only Multiplayer
and here's what you get for $50 per year:
Multiplayer Matchmaking with Friends
TrueSkill Matchmaking
Multiplayer Achievements
Cross-platform Multiplayer Gameplay
Based on that features list, I'd say it would certainly make sense to sign up for a Silver account on Games for Windows Live. For one thing, it's free so there's no risk. More importantly, it brings together all the people playing (supported) PC games and makes it easy to set up multiplayer matches for said games. I'm not convinced that paying for a Gold membership will see as much of a return. I'm curious to see how Microsoft is going to convince PC game players that they should start paying for the privilege of playing against Xbox 360 players. Will anyone with a free account feel like they're missing out because they can't play with Xbox 360 players? If anything, I feel a bit cheated for paying for Xbox 360-only multiplayer for the past year when the PC people are getting a comparable service for free right out of the gate.
Although it doesn't make much sense to me, I'm sure there are people out there who will pay, if only for those multiplayer achievements. I do think that there is a demand for a unified online gaming service, and although there are some such services available, there's plenty of room for improvement. From a development standpoint, online play has been handled differently on the PC than on consoles. Instead of catering multiplayer games to a singular online community, PC developers have typically developed online functionality for each individual game, around which relatively small, insular communities form. For instance, there's a huge community of Counter-Strike players and a huge community of Battlefield players, but the two groups have nothing to do with one another. Sure, some people might play both games, but the groups at large have no reason to mingle, even though they share a common interest (team-based shooters). There have been exceptions, such as Battle.net, which is Blizzard's online community for the various iterations of Diablo, Warcraft, and Starcraft. Battle.net is highly successful with millions of active users worldwide, but it's limited to a handful of Blizzard games. It's also free, which puts it in a slightly different category than Games for Windows Live.
So once again the question is, will you pay for Games for Windows Live? It doesn't matter for me because I already pay for Xbox Live, so I'm a subscriber by default. I don't imagine I will ever use it though, simply because I prefer to play games on my Xbox 360 and it doesn't matter to me whether I'm playing against someone on a PC or a console. Now if I could play an Xbox 360 game against someone with the same game on a PlayStation 3, that would be something worth getting excited about. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out by the end of the year, with PC gamers earning Halo 2 achievements while Xbox 360 gamers busy themselves with Halo 3. What do you think? Will Games for Windows Live bring about a utopian state of free love and headshots between PC and Xbox 360 players?
Microsoft thinks so, and it's getting ready to raise the second pillar of its Live Anywhere triad, Games For Windows Live. The notion of a unified community of PC game players and Xbox 360 game players living in harmony is hopelessly romantic, but if anyone is in the position to make it happen, it's Microsoft. Personally I couldn't care less about playing games on my PC that I could just as easily play on my Xbox 360, but I'm holding out hope that Games for Windows Live will be everything Microsoft is promising and more. But even if the service fails miserably, it should be an interesting experiment.
Although I don't see Games for Windows Live ever enjoying the kind of widespread success of its Xbox counterpart, Microsoft is a tenacious beast with money to burn. There's nothing to lose by trying to cater to the PC crowd by marketing the newly released Vista operating system as a gaming-centric product. The biggest hurdle for Microsoft is fact that PC gamers have been playing games online for a decade, whereas console gamers have only been playing online in significant numbers for three or four years. For the past few years console owners looking to play games online had but two choices: Xbox Live and whatever third-party solution any given PlayStation 2 game offered. Xbox Live was the first widely successful, unified online gaming service for home consoles, and that's the reason people use it and are willing to pay to do so.
It's an entirely different story with PC gaming. The PC culture is averse to paying for anything, or even thinking about paying for anything. There are all kinds of free software and services online, legitimate and otherwise. Why would people start paying money all of a sudden, especially when they don't really get much for the investment?
Here's what you get for free with Games for Windows Live:
Shared account between Games for Windows Live and Xbox Live
Single-player Achievements
Private Text and Voice Chat
Friends List
PC-only Multiplayer
and here's what you get for $50 per year:
Multiplayer Matchmaking with Friends
TrueSkill Matchmaking
Multiplayer Achievements
Cross-platform Multiplayer Gameplay
Based on that features list, I'd say it would certainly make sense to sign up for a Silver account on Games for Windows Live. For one thing, it's free so there's no risk. More importantly, it brings together all the people playing (supported) PC games and makes it easy to set up multiplayer matches for said games. I'm not convinced that paying for a Gold membership will see as much of a return. I'm curious to see how Microsoft is going to convince PC game players that they should start paying for the privilege of playing against Xbox 360 players. Will anyone with a free account feel like they're missing out because they can't play with Xbox 360 players? If anything, I feel a bit cheated for paying for Xbox 360-only multiplayer for the past year when the PC people are getting a comparable service for free right out of the gate.
Although it doesn't make much sense to me, I'm sure there are people out there who will pay, if only for those multiplayer achievements. I do think that there is a demand for a unified online gaming service, and although there are some such services available, there's plenty of room for improvement. From a development standpoint, online play has been handled differently on the PC than on consoles. Instead of catering multiplayer games to a singular online community, PC developers have typically developed online functionality for each individual game, around which relatively small, insular communities form. For instance, there's a huge community of Counter-Strike players and a huge community of Battlefield players, but the two groups have nothing to do with one another. Sure, some people might play both games, but the groups at large have no reason to mingle, even though they share a common interest (team-based shooters). There have been exceptions, such as Battle.net, which is Blizzard's online community for the various iterations of Diablo, Warcraft, and Starcraft. Battle.net is highly successful with millions of active users worldwide, but it's limited to a handful of Blizzard games. It's also free, which puts it in a slightly different category than Games for Windows Live.
So once again the question is, will you pay for Games for Windows Live? It doesn't matter for me because I already pay for Xbox Live, so I'm a subscriber by default. I don't imagine I will ever use it though, simply because I prefer to play games on my Xbox 360 and it doesn't matter to me whether I'm playing against someone on a PC or a console. Now if I could play an Xbox 360 game against someone with the same game on a PlayStation 3, that would be something worth getting excited about. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out by the end of the year, with PC gamers earning Halo 2 achievements while Xbox 360 gamers busy themselves with Halo 3. What do you think? Will Games for Windows Live bring about a utopian state of free love and headshots between PC and Xbox 360 players?
Role-pending
On game-related message boards like our very own GameSpot forums, you'll often see people refer to their ever-growing backlog of games. It's a phenomenon that's unique to video games, because unlike other forms of entertainment media, video games are designed to occupy large amounts of your time. You might miss a movie you wanted to see, but all it takes is a couple of hours and a Netflix account to get caught up. If one of your favorite music artists releases a new album you'll probably listen to it right away, and musical tastes are usually specific enough that you can hear a song once and know whether or not you like it. That takes all of what, three minutes? With a video game, you usually have to put in at least a few hours to really get a feel for it.
For a person like me the backlog can be a very serious problem, because my tastes are very broad. I like just about every kind of game, from Fight Night and MotoGP to Resident Evil 4 and Guitar Hero. Those are all great games and I could probably play them for hundreds of hours each if all other games suddenly ceased to exist. But at the same time, I don't feel like I need to play each of those games for that much time to truly enjoy them. My problem is that I also happen to be a big fan of role-playing games, which are entirely different. You could compare role-playing games and most other games to reading a book versus reading a magazine. Books have a very deliberate pace and they're structured to deliver a longer, more detailed picture of the subject matter than magazines are. When you pick up a magazine you don't have to read it cover to cover, you can read an article here, an editorial there, do the crossword puzzle in the back, and be done. There's nothing that annoys me more than starting a role-playing game, getting half-way through it, and then losing interest or moving on to another game. It's like reading half of a book. There's always a lingering feeling that I've got some unfinished business, and that just bugs me.
The result is a backlog full of role-playing games. There are so many in fact that I could quit my job and play the games full-time, and never reach the end. But as appealing as that sounds, it wouldn't be much fun. After
all, not every role-playing game is really worth playing. Just as with any
other type of game, there are a lot of bad ones out there that would gladly eat
up all your precious time and money. At times like these you can only afford to play the best of the best, so I've made a list of a few games that should be at the very top of your list if you're a fan of RPGs. Note that all of these games have or will come out this year. I have played some of these games, but I'm including them in the list for the reference of others.
Role-Playing To-Do's
-Final Fantasy XII - I don't know if this game will be any
good, but I know that I have to play it. I have played through Final Fantasy
VI, VII, IX, X, and Tactics, and they are some of my favorite games of all
time--in any genre. I can't promise that I'll finish it, but I'll definitely put
Final Fantasy XII at the top of my to-do list when it comes out later this month.
That's my list for now. You could probably spend 100 hours
or more with each of these games, but for the sake of being practical let's
assume that it will take about 40 hours to beach each one. If you add it up
that's 160 hours of game time, which is more than enough to blow your entire
Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. And that's just four games.
For a person like me the backlog can be a very serious problem, because my tastes are very broad. I like just about every kind of game, from Fight Night and MotoGP to Resident Evil 4 and Guitar Hero. Those are all great games and I could probably play them for hundreds of hours each if all other games suddenly ceased to exist. But at the same time, I don't feel like I need to play each of those games for that much time to truly enjoy them. My problem is that I also happen to be a big fan of role-playing games, which are entirely different. You could compare role-playing games and most other games to reading a book versus reading a magazine. Books have a very deliberate pace and they're structured to deliver a longer, more detailed picture of the subject matter than magazines are. When you pick up a magazine you don't have to read it cover to cover, you can read an article here, an editorial there, do the crossword puzzle in the back, and be done. There's nothing that annoys me more than starting a role-playing game, getting half-way through it, and then losing interest or moving on to another game. It's like reading half of a book. There's always a lingering feeling that I've got some unfinished business, and that just bugs me.
The result is a backlog full of role-playing games. There are so many in fact that I could quit my job and play the games full-time, and never reach the end. But as appealing as that sounds, it wouldn't be much fun. After
all, not every role-playing game is really worth playing. Just as with any
other type of game, there are a lot of bad ones out there that would gladly eat
up all your precious time and money. At times like these you can only afford to play the best of the best, so I've made a list of a few games that should be at the very top of your list if you're a fan of RPGs. Note that all of these games have or will come out this year. I have played some of these games, but I'm including them in the list for the reference of others.
Role-Playing To-Do's
-Final Fantasy XII - I don't know if this game will be any
good, but I know that I have to play it. I have played through Final Fantasy
VI, VII, IX, X, and Tactics, and they are some of my favorite games of all
time--in any genre. I can't promise that I'll finish it, but I'll definitely put
Final Fantasy XII at the top of my to-do list when it comes out later this month.
-The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - If you haven't played this
already you should move it to the top of your list. I've spent 40 or 50 hours
with this game so far, and I feel like I've barely scratched the surface. Some
people might call this more of an action game, but it has the scope and feel of
a role-playing game, so it might be time for you to give the spikey-haired teen
heroes a break.
-Neverwinter Nights 2 - I'll be honest, I haven't seen much
of this game so far. However, for people looking for a traditional PC-style
role-playing game it looks like NWN2 is the game to look forward to. It may be
developed by Obsidian rather than BioWare, but those guys did a great job with
KOTOR 2, so I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt with the sequel
to one of the best PC role-playing games of all time.
-Final Fantasy VI Advance - Alright, so this game might very well not make it out this year, but I still have to hold out hope. Final Fantasy VI is a masterpiece, and I would place it above any other of the Final Fantasy games that I've played (other than Tactics). Yes, it's even better than VII. I have played this game on the SNES and the PlayStation, so I'm very curious to see that changes will be made for the Game Boy Advance release. But even if it's just a port, I'll gladly drop everything to go back and visit Terra, Locke, Shadow, Celes, Kefka, and the whole crew.
That's my list for now. You could probably spend 100 hours
or more with each of these games, but for the sake of being practical let's
assume that it will take about 40 hours to beach each one. If you add it up
that's 160 hours of game time, which is more than enough to blow your entire
Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays. And that's just four games.
If you find yourself with more time, then by all means give
a look to Disgaea 2, Tales of the Abyss, Valkyrie Profile: Lenneth, Valkyrie
Profile 2: Silmeria, Baten Kaitos Origins, Xenosaga Episode III, Marvel:
Ultimate Alliance, Final Fantasy III, Enchanted Arms, and Final Fantasy V
Advance.
This time of year in the video game world is a lot like when your family comes over for Thanksgiving, and each person brings some
delicious dish or dessert. You want to eat it all, but if you're not careful
you'll end up filling up on your Mom's mashed potatoes and you'll never make it
to your Sister In-Law's pumpkin pie. I find myself in a similar predicament
now. Beyond all the games I'll end up reviewing, I have to make time for
Guitar Hero II, Gears of War, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. And I still haven't had
time to finish Dead Rising or Okami...
Weekend Movies
For some reason I've ended up watching way too many movies recently. I usually try to keep up on the buzz-worthy releases, but I rarely have time to devote to seeing everything that comes out. So once in awhile I find myself unintentionally playing catch-up by watching three or four movies in a short period of time. Here are a some I've seen within the last week:
Night Watch
In preparing to review the Night Watch game I went out and rented the movie. I was really dreading watching it, because I heard from several people that it was a confusing mess of a movie. So going into it I was expecting it to be complete rubbish. To my surprise, I ended up enjoying the movie quite a bit. I think it helped that I played the game first, because the game does a much better job of explaining the underlying concepts of the story. If you're a fan of vampires, special effects, and the supernatural you should definitely check out the movie. As for the game, you'll just have to read my full review when it goes up next week.
House of the Dead
Over the long weekend I happened to catch House of the Dead on the Sci-Fi channel. Having heard so much about the movie I figured I might as well watch it. It's actually the first and only Uwe Boll movie I've seen, and after watching it I can see why people trash the guy. It's one of those movies that as you watch you find yourself wondering if the director, writers, and actors are all aware that they're befouling not only the source material, but movies in general. At some point I have to imagine that they knew the movie was terrible, so they just decided to go whole hog and make it as terrible as they possibly could. Good lord that movie is so bad, it really boggles the mind. That scene where the group is running towards the house while jumping around and shooting zombies to techno music is so overdone that it would be hilarious if it didn't drag on for 10 minutes. Ugh, and that rave scene with like ten people dancing around underneath the giant SEGA sign, and the girl dressed in the stars and stripes jumpsuit whose name is...Liberty? After watching that movie I must say that my faith in Sega was shaken for allowing the name of one of their franchises to be soiled like that. But then I booted up The Typing of the Dead and after a few minutes of that all was forgiven.
The Hills Have Eyes
I had seen this in the theater awhile back and I thought it was a pretty decent movie, but I realized that what I like about it is the way it reminds me of Resident Evil 4. Specifically the scene in the house with that huge mutant guy and the hero. That huge guy with the axe reminds me of one of the Chainsaw Ganados, just a hulking mass that flails about erratically and destroys everything in its path. I like this concept, and it's done fairly well in The Hills Have Eyes. The rest of the movie is alright, if a bit uncomfortable to watch. Someday I'll have to watch the original. I think it has the lead singer of Midnight Oil in it, which is cool I guess?
Superman Returns
I did the obligatory summer moviegoer thing and saw Superman Returns. It was pretty dull actually, but I thought the guy playing Superman did a fair job. I think that Lois Lane and Lex Luthor were mis-cast though. Lois was just kind of snooty and annoying, to the point that you have to wonder why the hell Superman keeps saving her. Lex Luthor on the other hand was just silly. I'm admittedly not a big Kevin Spacey fan, I think he's kind of tiresome to watch because he always plays the same character. In this movie he was supposed to be a villain, but he wasn't at all sinister or even interesting. He was just a bumbling idiot, like a less crass version of Dr. Evil. In fact, the best performance in the whole movie was from the guy who plays Cyclops in X-Men. He actually seemed somewhat human, unlike the rest of the cast.
That's it for my movie wrap-up. I'm sure I'll end up seeing the new Pirates of the Caribbean soon, although I heard it isn't so great...
