NCAA 12 review

I've been going on minimal sleep for 2 weeks now.  4, maybe 5 hours is all that I'll get.  The reason: EA Sport's NCAA football 12 is locked and loaded into my Xbox.  Every year it's the same damn thing; the game comes out, and I'm booked for hundreds of hours of recruiting, offensive game planning, and generally forcing CU to play the way I wish they could.

In reality, CU will undoubtedly struggle this year.  A new coach, a completely new system, a brutal schedule, and a roster bereft of large quantities of all-conference talent will almost surely lead to yet another losing season (if not much, much worse).  We all know who we would like to blame for this, but that's not the point.  What is the point is this: in the video game world, I can change this.  In the blink of an eye (5-10 hours of gameplay) I can take the Buffs from a 2-star program, seemingly hopelessly severed from a once sterling past, to a national powerhouse.  Give me a few "seasons" and Buff Nation will have it all back: Heisman winners, national championships, and year-on-year contention.  It's the magic of gaming.

It's because of this that I can't turn away from the series.  Frustration about a silly matter like CU only "deserving" 2-stars isn't enough to keep me from plopping down $60 of yearly tithing to EA Sports.  I'm helplessly shoveling money in their direction for a fix.  I desperately want real-life victories, and, sparing a stunning turn of events, the only place I will get them in any number this season will be on the virtual gridiron.  It may be the very definition of addiction when you boil it down, yet I don't care in the slightest.

What follows is my analysis of this year's edition of the series that is my personal master of puppets.  While I may be addicted, that doesn't mean that I don't still have opinions on what EA managed to screw up this year.  But it's not all bad.  In fact, there's a lot of good to this year's edition, and I'm sure I'll happily get more than $60 worth of entertainment out of it

Sweet, but fake, Tyler cover stolen from this guy.

Jump below the fold for a trip into virtual dynasty building...

Monday Grab Bag: The return of normal service

Now that the most boring week ever is behind us (a week so devoid of anything useful to watch that the country actually started paying attention to womens soccer and non-Tiger golf), we're back onto the summer grind for the next seven weeks.  Baseball!  Labor Disputes! Recruiting News!

Well, 1 out of 3 aint bad.

Today in the bag I'll be looking at what the hell happened to "Our Girls" in Germany yesterday afternoon, more shocking recruiting developments out of Texas, community roster updates for NCAA 12, and the light at the end of the NFL labor dispute tunnel.

Click below for the bag...

Quick Post: pre-emptively hating on NCAA 12

I had been extremely excited for the July 12th release of NCAA 12.  The thought of Ralphie being in the game (finally; an aesthetic touch, but necessary) along with a revamping of the dynasty mode that keeps me recruiting till the wee hours of the morning had me more amped than usual to donate my annual $60 to EA's coffers.

Then came the release of the team rankings. 

You'll have to scroll all the way down, past fucking CSU at #87, to get to the Buffs at #89.  (Rating us below CSU's shit program is just a low blow.  Some Ram must work on that staff, there's just no other explanation.) And the shit has truly hit the fan as what was once a 4-star rated program not three years ago is now 2-star rated along with a bunch of BCS rejects like Bowling Green and Wyoming.  We now have a tangible cost associated with the Hawk Dynasty: our virtual football reality is on par with the Bulldogs of Louisiana Tech.  Scorched earth indeed.

Hawk bashing aside: 2-stars?  It's not that bad is it?  I know the product hasn't been what we're accustomed to in recent years, but the program was in the Big XII title game not even a decade ago.  C'mon EA, give us a pity 3rd star.

Please, I'm begging you.

 

Civilization V review

I'd like to take a break from the nearly non-stop sports conversation to hit on the release of the 5th iteration of one of my favorite video game franchises: Civilization V

In the series you control a historical world civilization (Chinese, English, Mayan, etc.) from the dawn of man to the future. Along the way you expand your cities, research new technologies, and build armies so that you can wipe out your enemies. As opposed to, say the Total War or other RTS games, the Civ games are based on management skills and the leverage of cultural advantage. You go from controlling one fledgling encampment and one primitive military unit to controling a world-wide empire with a sprawling military rather quickly so organization and foresight is a must.

The Civilization series is well known for being addictive and beyond essentially every other game in the turn based strategy genre in terms of re-playability. Re-playability comes from the infinite number of ways the game world can be set up. The world can be random generated or preset. You can play against many or few other Civ's with varying presets to increase or decrease the game's inherent difficulty. The addiction comes from the "next turn button." Each turn of the game comes from you setting instructions over a set few game years. Build this, research that, etc. When you're done handing out instruction, that next turn button blinks at you, begging you to hit it to progress time a few years and process your inputs. The next turn button means progress on technological research, military production and city expansion. It's the payoff to all of your best laid plans, and is oh so damn enticing.

This current iteration of the series includes some interesting improvements over previous versions of the game. Initially, you will notice that the game looks astounding. The "sun" reflects of the water, the trees sway gently in the "breeze," and the grasslands transform convincingly into deserts in the equatorial regions. For a series that prides itself on world creation, the massively upgraded graphics help "set the illusion." This is combined with the new hexagonal game field layout. Your civilization now organically spreads over lush terrain, like an amoeba eating up food and gaining cells.
(This picture gives you a good look at the hex and the visuals.)

They've also tweaked the game-play. In previous installments, you would stack military units to create large roving military behemoths. In Civ 5 only one military unit is allowed per space, which means your military tactics are more akin to swarming and make you keenly aware of defensive positioning. Towns situated in valleys or on isthmuses are infinitely more difficult to capture from a determined defender, adding more strategy. Additionally, the onld tech-trees have been simplified and emphasized. Cultural and technological advancements have been separated, allowing you to focus on one or the other.
(Battle lines are actually drawn, rather than single stacks slamming against each other. Look! Flanks guarded by Calvary!)

Finally they've added city-states to the game. These city-states are a historical callback to the days of Constantinople and the Lombard League. They are self-serving city/civs who do not seek expansion. Instead they look to the larger, full-fledged civilizations to provide them with things. Meet their demands and they will share their wealth (be it gold, military units, or unique resources). Of course, you could always just conquer them to gain the advantages without the hassle of pleasing them, but they can be tough nuts to crack... The city-states act as a unique wild card, spicing up early game-play as pleasing them could be the difference between victory and defeat.

In the end this is a great update to the gold standard in turn based strategy. Civilization is a 20 year old franchise, and could be expected, even allowed, to show its age, but this new version is spectacular. It takes the history of the game, and tweaks it and changes it to create a whole new feel. Besides being addictive as hell, it can also be extremely challenging, and I'm sure it will provide many hundreds of hours of enjoyment. Great value for money, and a hell of a good time. If you've got the time, you'd be fool not to give it a try.

Mass Effect 2 Review

Since I'm on a video games kick...

I recently finished a play-through of the middle act of BioWare and EA's space shooter-RPG epic. BioWare, which has produced such piles of awesome as Knights of the Old Republic and Dragon Age: Origins, has become the go-to name in RPG's on the Xbox platforms. Hundreds of thousands of nerds (including, now, myself) across the country wait with bated breath for their efforts (Their next release will be Star Wars: The Old Republic; a MMORPG which will consume my life... I blame George Lucas). The Mass Effect franchise, which was initially intended to be a trilogy (but EA has been giving hints that they may want to milk the cash cow further) has quickly found an audience through its intriguing story, excellent voice acting, and strong game-play. Up until two weeks ago, however, I never had any interest in seeing what all the fuss was about; on a whim, I decided to ask my roommate if I could borrow his copy.

Jumping into the middle of a story is never recommended, but the series, with it's massive world creation underpinnings allows the uninitiated, who cares enough to delve, to quickly get back up to speed. A cute gimmick where the character "dies" in the 1st 5 minutes of the game allows for a story "reset." After brief fits of confusion, I was easily able to pick up the story and follow along with what was going on. The basic gist of the narrative is that you portray customizable super-soldier "Commander Shepard" as he battles an alien threat to the galaxy. Throughout the game you will go on missions not necessarily to progress the main story, but to collect characters and "build your team." Were this game only about the "main story line" it would probably only last a few hours, but the character missions (which do provide interesting background and story) balloon game play-through time to about 30 hours.
(Shepard and select members of his team)

Game-play reminded me of a cross between a 3rd person RPG (like Fallout 3) and a dedicated space shooter (Like the Halo series). Heath, unfortunately, is automatically re-generated (can't stand that... worst invention in video game history), item-hunting within levels often pays off with extra resources or weapons, and leveling-up is more focused on improving powers (like recent action games). In game action is fast-paced, with many enemies flying at you. You are able to combat your foes with a combination of team tactics (you get 2 computer controlled allies), special powers, and shooting skill. Easy to understand controls (with hot link-able powers on your bumpers) allow for precise combat strategies and execution.

Instead of the tired practice of "leveling-up" (historically in RPGs, you'd have to wander the country-side outside of story missions, fighting easy enemies over and over and over, in order to level up; this in turns gives you the requisite skills to face tougher, end-game enemies. It blows.), this game uses a mining mini-game to allow for upgrades and bonuses; while not a true leveling-up system, it has basically the same effect, wandering the country-side to prepare yourself for the actual game. You have to travel to many (often far-flung) systems to accumulate the necessary resources (most stops take about 10 minutes to mine all the available resources). Maybe I'm just impatient, but there has to be a better way to "level-up" your character. This is essentially dead time in the game, and is, quite frankly, boring. All RPG's are beset with this problem, and many people feel that this "dead-time" is what makes an RPG an RPG. That's crap. You shouldn't have to spend countless hours performing repetitive acts in-order to progress the story. It's like the practice modes in recent iterations of sports games: I don't want to practice, I want to play! If I wanted to practice I would've actually picked up a bat and spent time "outside."

(You'll stare at screens like this for hours.... boring!)

The game is, on the whole, very well designed. The world is beautiful, and attention to character detail is excellent (when you're on a mission you can actually see your multiple weapons housed on the back of your characters armor. This is a little bit of real-world logic that has always been missing from video games. For example: where does Link keep his giant sack filled with 3 different swords, 3 tunics, 3 pairs of boots, a mask, a boomerang, a bow and arrow set with 3 types of arrows, a hook-shot, a power glove, 3 shields, a few bottle of magic potion, etc in Zelda 64? For such a small guy, he sure does seem to be able to carry so much stuff effortlessly. ) When I first stepped foot into what was, for me, the first city traveled to (Omega, ironically), I felt comfortable; as if it made sense that the galaxy (set about 150 years in the future) would have developed this way. Combine the dystopian industrial vision of "Blade Runner" with the pragmatic western vision of "Firefly" and the "end of history" vision of "Star Trek: TNG," and you have some sort of idea what I'm talking about. Cities felt livable, but not not perfect. Characters, both in terms of writing and design, are believable; each have stories that invite you to delve deeper to discover their true motivations.

(The designers drew their inspiration from many sci-fi sources. In this fly over shot of Omega, you can definitely see the Blade Runner.)

One of the immersive world-building details which draw you into the story is the near-perfect voice acting. Much of the story is revealed through conversations with the myriad of characters throughout the "universe." Were it not for the talent behind the characters, these conversations would come off flat. Knowing this, BioWare has assembled an excellent cast capable of pulling the job of convincing voice acting off. Stars like Martin Sheen, Tricia Helfer, Yvonne Strahovski, Carrie-Anne Moss, Seth Green, and Adam Baldwin combine with series and voice acting veterans to form a stellar cast. It really is one of the best jobs of bringing video game characters to life I've seen in a while (All without the over-acting present in the God of War series).
(Some of the voice-acting talent in the game. Plenty of nerd favorites in that bunch.)

Overall, I found the game to be very entertaining. The expansive world creation efforts of the design team allows for quick immersion into the world, and solid controls allow for solid fast-paced action. The overwhelming sense I got while delving into this futuristic vision was that it felt like Halo combined with Star Trek. Halo in the sense of the swarms and aliens trying to take over the galaxy and destroy all humans, and Star Trek in the sense that a Federation of alien races combine efforts in the name of inter-galactic peace. It's an interesting combination; and one that has proved very lucrative for EA and BioWare. While not necessairly an original game, drawing upon countless sci-fi tropes for inspiration, this game does a great job of entertaining. I'd compare it to a summer blockbuster movie. Entertaining, but nothing really new. Regardless, I'm still looking forward to the 3rd installment, and I'm interested to see where EA will push the brand in the future.

Can Video Games be art?

This past Friday, Roger Ebert (Who I love to read from time to time) sent the video game world into a tizzy by furthering his contention that video games are not art. Being an avid gamer, my mind endlessly processed the debate all weekend. I guess it all depends on your definition of "art." Ebert's post, in response to a video discussion from game designer Kellee Santiago, struggles to find a central definition, at first rejecting Santiago's definition (which was from Wikipedia, so I would tend to disregard as well mostly because of it's simplistic nature) before declining to provide a consensus answer.

"Plato, via Aristotle, believed art should be defined as the imitation of nature. Seneca and Cicero essentially agreed. Wikipedia believes "Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas...Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction."

But we could play all day with definitions, and find exceptions to every one. For example, I tend to think of art as usually the creation of one artist. Yet a cathedral is the work of many, and is it not art? One could think of it as countless individual works of art unified by a common purpose. Is not a tribal dance an artwork, yet the collaboration of a community? Yes, but it reflects the work of individual choreographers. Everybody didn't start dancing all at once."

Certainly, what can be considered "art" is totally based on the perspective of the individual. I, for one, tend to agree with some notion that art is an expression of ideas. But there is a little more to that. In an episode of "Top Gear," (probably my favorite television show) presenter Jeremy Clarkson (when talking about the essentially pointless Alpha Romero 8c) relayed the opinion, "[...] for something to be art it can have no purpose other than itself... no function." So, ideas expressed for ideas sake.


(You'll find the quote around the 5:45 mark.)

I like that definition a lot. While it doesn't encompass the whole of "art" (the definition shamelessly excluding fields like literature and architecture which certainly have function along with form) the requirement of no purpose, which Clarkson then appropriates to a car that is impossible to drive, gives me a focus on the issue. For a video game to be "art," it would have to take a loose definition of the concept of "game."

Based on this, I think, at least on some level, that Mr. Ebert has confused the playing of video games with video game creation. Check out this paragraph:

"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care."

But couldn't the stadiums that those players competed in be works of art? Couldn't an ornately carved and delicately designed chess set be art? He's completely missing the point: it's not the playing of the games, or even really the game itself that could be considered "art;" it's the design of the game itself. I think there is a point where the focus on the object of desire (be it a chess set, an old style arena, a movie, a over-wrought piece of literature, or a game) causes that object to abate its original functional purpose, and become "art." In other words, when the artist (or collaborators) quest for the expression of ideas overrides the function for which it was created, art takes its place.

(While not the best example, the old Chicago Stadium where MJ started certainly has some artistic flair.)

The creation of a game certainly is an intense collaborative effort. There are art directors, actors, writers, and producers (much like films). Recently, in fact, I have been equating, in my mind at least, the upper echelon of video games with cinematic story-telling. I would certainly guess that Mr. Ebert would agree that films can be (but not necessarily are) art. And, as in film-art, games designed for one purpose, can be used for another.

One possible recent example of this would be "Heavy Rain." As the gaming world contemplates weather or not it is in fact a game, maybe we should instead be contemplating weather or not it's a work of art. The design of the game, from its intricate attention to detail of the character imaging to it's interactive format, is more conducive to a cinematic setting; As a game, however, it's rather lukewarm. In the creators quest to change the way the world views games, they created something that may not be a game. (In fact, one of the primary concepts behind HR is "interactive drama) So wouldn't that fit my working definition? I believe it could.
(Maybe we finally found a place for Heavy Rain)

--

Ebert opined, "no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets." Ummmm.... OK? I don't believe that anyone, anywhere, has ever tried to make that contention with a straight face. Food can still be great food even if it comes off of a home-maker's range-top. More to the point, does art need to be "great" for it to be art? I'm not entirely sure it does. "Heavy Rain" is certainly not on a level with Kurosawa's films, but that doesn't necessarily exclude the possibility that within my lifetime that the expressive nature of games couldn't reach that level.

Top-level game designers like David Jaffe, Tim Schafer and Shigeru Miyamoto are infinitely talented. Their games have shaped an entire generation (weather parents like it or not). But it's not the games themselves that makes their pursuit art... it's the design of the games. Playing a game is obviously not artful; but I've experienced somethings through video games, be they thought-provoking, awe-inspiring, or other, that are certainly interesting ideas being expressed by the authors. Sure there is some schlock out there, but just because "Transformers 2" was a pile of worthless tripe, do we necessarily disregard the "artful" possibilities of the cinematic medium? Absolutely not.

(Fallout 3 was more than just some pretty thing to stare at for hours. It was an excellent example of world building and narrative. The world created could surely be seen as "art.")

I'm sure Mr. Ebert would disagree with most of this, but I wish he wouldn't be so dismissive of the medium all together. I certainly get the feeling that he hasn't played many games, so he wouldn't have experienced the stories (read: ideas) that the games express through their design and execution. In much the same way that I couldn't rightly disregard the novels of Tom Hardy as being worthless (they are) before I had read a few examples, Ebert shouldn't disregard video games before he has experienced them.

--

At one point in the article, Mr. Ebert noted that he was surprised that gamers cared weather or not video games could be considered art. Video game commentators have generally recoiled at this contention; vociferously denying that they care weather their beloved genre is considered art or not. Me thinks they doth protest too much. Of course they care, and I believe they should care.

To love something, and not defend it, is plaintively stupid. Art is seen as the pinnacle of culture. The expression of a societies ideas (and ideals). Video games, being such a large and growing part of western culture, have a place in this, and like any new medium, need to have their place in society defended. More to the point, if games were accepted as art, maybe it would be easier to protect them from the hyper-crazed parental groups who can't seem to understand that not all video games are for kids, and, much like movies and other mediums, that there is a place for games aimed at adults.

PS3 game reviews

Yesterday I was running a fever, so work was a no go. I can't think of a better day to stay inside and recuperate. After getting over a foot of snow dumped on BOCO over night, I certainly wasn't going to face a long (and, considering the condition of my vehicle, potentially perilous) commute while feeling like shit. On the plus side, after sleeping in til Noon-30 (MWAAAHAA), I was able to spend some extra time with my new toys.

As I mentioned Tuesday, I got 3 games with my system (God of War III, Uncharted 2, and Heavy Rain). Interestingly enough, with the ever-increasing trend of making open-world games, the three are all linear (and I wouldn't have them any other way). Over the past week, with extended sessions Sunday and yesterday, I have had a chance to play them all, and here are my impressions:

Heavy Rain: Maybe the most unusual gaming experience of my life, Heavy Rain harkens back to Film Noir style mysteries. Under constant pouring rain, you take the part of 4 characters tracking the "Origami Killer." But unlike previous takes on the mystery genre (notably pint-and-click adventures) you are more active in the game. Through a series of button presses, stick swirls, and controller tilts (taking advantage of the 6-axis nature of the PS3 Controller) you guide the characters through the story, performing actions from the mundane (setting the table) to the vital (dodging a knife, or breaking through a wall to escape a fire). I don't use the word performing lightly; the game feels as if you are performing the actions themselves, as in a movie, rather than just button mashing.
(Hit the button (Represented by the circle on the screen) correctly, and you defend yourself, fail, and get hit)

Additionally, as opposed to other games with puzzles (like the other two I'm about to cover) the in-game puzzles don't drastically jerk your senses out of the games immersive world. Often times puzzles become contemplative moments, points where your thinking happens "outside the game world" (if that makes any sense). Because the world of Heavy Rain is so well crafted, tense moments with puzzle solving make you think on your feet "in the game." I felt genuine tension as I tried to save my characters at different points from certain death.
(While a tad bit gloomy, the game provides a great game-play experience)

The story is incredible (minus some retrospective plot holes), and the graphics are top notch (I almost think they didn't decide on a killer til later on in development). While there are a few moments of glitch, for the most part quality motion-capture ensures a quasi-realistic feel. One complaint I have is the voice acting. The game was made in France using mostly European actors. However, the game is set in Pennsylvania. All I know is no Pennsylvanians have the accents that the actors used. The children voice actors are especially jarring. This is the only real drawback to the game, as I wish they had used American voices to portray Americans.

There is a surprisingly high level of re-playability for a game that is so dependent on story and set-pieces. Whith multiple endings and ways to play out scenes, along with multiple difficulty levels which change required inputs, the game stays fresh through a few play-through. Heavy Rain is an excellent experience, and I highly recommend it, specifically because of its unique way of handling the genre.

God of War III: The God of War series has long been one of my favorites. Building on the Action-adventure genre, the series is well known amongst PS2 owners for its non-stop action, hard core violence, outrageous story, and great controls. The series, in its 3rd and potentially final main console installment, focuses on Kratos, a fallen solder in the Spartan army, and his ceaseless search for revenge against essentially the entirety of existence (mortals, gods, titans: you name it, he'll try to kill it). Tricked by Aries into killing your wife and children, the 1st game involves killing the Greek God of War and installing yourself as his replacement. Betrayed by Zeus, the 2nd is all about finding a way to destroy Olympus itself. The 3rd game is all about putting that plan into action.

I can't stress the violence portion enough. Within an hour of game play, I had ripped the head off of a Greek God (Poseidon), disemboweled a centaur, and burned a helpless captive alive. Kratos is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a nice man. Game play focuses on multiple ways to brutalize your even increasing number of enemies. The controls are well engineered (if not a little over engineered), and allow you to flow easily between moves. The resultant game play is a mix between traditional adventure games (like Zelda) and fighting games (like Street Fighter). Power-ups and new weapons abound as you attempt to stunt the entirety of the forces of Olympus, and you can learn numerous tricks and combos to keep the hordes at bay.

(Look away children)

I had been waiting for this game for a while, dreading my potential inability to purchase it because of my previous lack of a PS3. I must say it looks stunning. Attacks look smooth, and the surroundings are awe-inspiring. Played on an HD television, GoW3 blows you away in terms of graphics, taking the brutal nature of Kratos up a notch. Entire levels take place on large, moving, creatures, adding in a sense of the massive scale of battle.

There are a number of drawbacks, however. After two titanic games, the novelty of the experience is starting to wear thin. There's only so many ways to skin a cat (literally in this case), and the ceaseless blood-letting is honestly getting a little tiresome. I'm just looking for a more fulfilling adventure. At this point, I'm not even sure if I'm on Kratos' side of the whole thing (maybe that's the point?). Don't get me wrong, I love the game, and the series as a whole, but I'm really hoping that this is the final installment on the major console. If you haven't played a GoW game before, I would recommend playing the original. The original, not without its own faults (lack of major bosses), provides an inventive experience, setting the tone for the next generation of video game advancements. The resultant follow-ups have basically been the same, plus more graphics and blood. The series is essentially a Michael Bay movie franchise at this point, and needs to end (sorry).

(Don't be mad Kratos, it was still fun)

Uncharted 2: Wow is this game awesome! Playing as Nathan Drake, you trek across the globe as some mix of Indiana Jones and John McClane. Drake takes the role of Indy as he consults his notebook and wits to solve archeological puzzles and traps (there's even the stereotypical spiked ceiling coming down on you scene). All he's missing is a hat. He then takes on the role of McClane as he shoots down baddies and is constantly getting himself into worsening states of injury. Essentially, this is what Indiana Jones 4 should've been, packaged in video game form.

The adventure is based on an epic search for the mythical lost city of Shambala, which houses your typical set of treasures and ancient artifacts. Along the way, the game plays out like a movie. The cut scenes are dramatic, and the voice acting pitch perfect. The story sucks you in, keeping you glued to your controller. More than that, the lush surrounding visuals and setting drop you into a perfectly crafted world. Believable in almost every sense, the visuals are a crowning achievement, besting either of the two previously discussed games.

(There is almost no difference between game play and cut scene graphics)

Game play combines 3rd-person shooter action (like, say, Gears of War) with platforming adventure (Assassins Creed-ish), and does both near flawlessly. I'm not typically a fan of shooter games, but the action in this game is more than accessible, and kept me engaged. The platforming and puzzles, while not the best I've ever seen, are well executed, and there were few moments of frustration. Add to that a good multi-player system to maintain re-playability, this game hits all the spots.

(Blowing up tanks is cool, especially when half the trick is finding ammunition)

If I could only have one PS3 game, this would be the one I'd pick; I can't recommend this game enough. While not necessarily revolutionary in any one aspect, the whole is more than the sum of its parts, and Uncharted 2 is top rate. Even people sitting on the couch next to you will get a kick out of this one, as the story is more than entertaining enough to suck passer-byes in. Developer Naughty Dog deserves high praise for this one.

PS3!

Recently I was able to purchase a PS3 and a shiny new LCD television. Go me! I've always been of two minds about the PS3. I've always believed that Sony overshot the market (Sony... overshooting the market.... no way!) when they designed the followup to possibly the greatest gaming system in history (Seriously, the PS2 will still hold up as a great system a decade from now). While I knew the technology was there, and that leads to high potential for the system, the market just wasn't ready for it. Overpowered, overpriced, and a tad ostentatious; I got the feeling that the PS3 was just a vehicle to push blue-ray on the market (Even blue-ray was a solution without a market when it was released in 2003).

I simply figured that the Xbox 360 was a better machine for the market at the time. Prices were only slightly higher than the previous generation of consoles and the Xbox technology fit into the current level of game design technology. Designers loaded more appealing launch, and close post-launch, titles on the the 360. Games even looked better, as designers had trouble adapting to the PS3 hardware leading to frame rate issues (see especially the Madden '08 PS3 disaster). Sales figures have backed this up as the 360 has outsold the PS3. (The Wii has almost has out-sold the two, combined. But that system has little 3rd party game support, and is mostly for little children and 30 year old wannabe hipsters who just want something for parties.... in an ironic sort of way. If you want to "game", you need a "real" system)

But then an interesting change occurred: Sony lowered the price of the PS3. The system had always been produced at a loss. Estimated cost of production was over $800, and Sony had been selling the system at $600 or less. But new developments in technology, along with the scrapping of backwards compatibility, lowered production costs to around $250. This allowed them to change the overall design of the system, lower the cost, and slip into direct price competition with the 360 by Christmas-time of '09. Also, as the last 4 years have gone by, game developers have caught up with the PS3. Frame rate issues are fewer, and there are more enticing PS3 exclusive titles.

Which brings me to last week. The great corporate reptile that I work for decided to hand out bonuses (YES!), and I decided the time was right to delve into the PS3. Funny thing was, now that the price has been lowered, production of the PS3 can't meet demand. I literally couldn't find one to purchase online. I tried all the big box stores, even the super big box stores. No one had a new PS3 (many gaming stores were glad to offer me a used system, fuck that). You would think that with system moving games like Heavy Rain, MLB: The Show, and (especially) God of War 3 coming out that Sony would've ramped up production. Guess not. Finally, after a week and a half of hardcore web-searching, I found one on my 3rd check of Target.com (They get a plug 'cause they actually had one. Kudos, Target).

It arrived on Friday. Ooooooo is it pretty. The new slim design certainly makes for a good look, and thankfully they have done away with that stupid "Spiderman" font (Seriously, those movies sucked). Upon powering the bad-boy up, the sounds of a symphony warming up greet you, as if a veritable performance of gaming awesome is about to begin. Sleek and smooth, the system connects to the interwebs for free (are you paying attention Microsoft?). Games look wonderful. So far I have played Uncharted 2, God of War 3, and Heavy Rain (All PS3 exclusives, mind you). On my shiny new HD tv (1/2 off through newegg!) everything looks great, and the experiences are immersive. Also, I realized yesterday afternoon that the blue-ray player inside every PS3 will enable me to upgrade my Netflix account!

Coming up later this week, I'll have a review of the 3 games purchased (Hint: They're all spectacular)

I haven't given up on my Xbox 360. It's still a great system. But for now, my shiny new PS3 will demand my attention, and I'm more than willing to oblige.

Monday Grab Bag: Oscars, Buffs Win!, and Bears spending a lot of money

After a pretty solid weekend, there's plenty in the bag to discuss...

Oscars: While not necessarily germane to the blog, I am a major movie fanatic and I watch these every year. "The Hurt Locker" rightly smashed Avatar last night. A major technical achievement does not mean it was a great movie. I would've liked to have seen a little more payoff for "Inglourious Basterds," but I recognize that Tarrantino is caught in that nebulous place where he is too established to get the fresh face love, and not long-toothed enough to get the "achievement" love. Also, J-Lo looked like she was wearing bubble-wrap.

(How did she go all evening without popping it all? From: some blog via google image search)

Big CU win vs Texas Tech: Let me start out by saying that Saturday's win vs Tech was great to be at. Dwight Thorne closed out the Ricardo Patton era out with a win (he was the last RP recruit still playing), CU clinched the 8th seed and a rematch vs Tech in the conference tournament on Wednesday, and a nice crowd got a good show as Cory Higgins dropped 30 (vaulting into the top ten of all time CU scorers) and Al Burks threw in 24 (becoming the highest scoring freshmen in CU history). There were a few defensive lapses, but CU held strong in the 2nd half and wound up scoring 101pts, which was pretty cool. It's going to be hard to repeat this type of performance on Wednesday (usually teams struggle to win in the tournament against teams they just saw and beat), but I expect Coach Bz will get the team ready for the biggest game of their season. A win on Wednesday, and the NIT should call (Not to mention, another shot at Kansas).

(I'll miss ya, DW. From: BDC)

Texas Tech has 8 coaches: That's right, 8 coaches. They don't even list them all on their website, but there they sat on Saturday, 8 strong. It looked like a clown car was emptying when they came out of the locker room. All-in-all, Tech brought 8 coaches, 2 trainers, 3 broadcasters, and a towel boy (In addition to, you know, the players). I'm not entirely sure what they all do, after all, there's only so much coaching one person can provide. Hasn't Pat Knight ever heard of diminishing returns? Think of it this way: Tech scored 90 points on Saturday, so that's an average of 11.25 points per coach. Not very spectacular, especially when compared to CU's 20.2 points per coach (CU had 5 coaches on bench). Tech's 8 coaches sure haven't helped them much this year: Tech went from being ranked in the pre-conference season, to barely finishing over .500 overall. Just saying...

(That'd be them in the red polos. From: Me)

Cory shows his inner MJ: It's widely known that Cory Higgins practices over the summer with his father's friend and boss Michael Jordan. Knowing this, it's easy to notice a little of the MJ has rubbed off on him. On two occasions on Saturday, Cory drove down the baseline, and dunked over a defender that had been grabbing onto him. He'd hang on the rim while glaring at his opponent, as if to say "keep grabbing". Those were two spectacular FU dunks (The Jordan special). Usually, Cory appears to be a little laid back on the court. But, if you piss him off, he's got a fire and a glare that only MJ could've taught him.

Cubs Tax: I don't want to get to heavily into this topic, but essentially the Cubs are close to getting the State of Arizona to impart a tax on tickets for the rest of the Cactus League to keep them in Mesa, Arizona and build a new spring training facility. This past week, 4 teams (The White Sox, Reds, Angels, and Dodgers) boycotted some league-wide kick-off breakfast to protest this tax. You'd think that I'd be ready to burn down the Arizona Capitol over this, but, honestly, I don't care. My beloved White Sox already screwed over Tucson to move closer to Phoneix, and then had the gall to massively hike ticket prices (which, in turn, will keep me from attending Spring Training in the near future), so they don't have much of a leg to stand on. The only problem I have is the Cubs forcing the fans of other teams to pay for their new facility, rather than the other clubs. (The other clubs reap a big benefit from the traveling Cub fans going to the "road" spring training games). Do notice that now the Cubs are screwing over other fan bases, and not just their own.

The Bears sign every free agent: Over the weekend, the Bears made a big splash in the free agency market by scooping up TE Brandon Manumaleuna, RB Chester Taylor, and DE Julius Peppers. Lots of money going out of Virginia McCaskey's pocket there. It's nice to see the normally frugal Bears try to utilize free agency to actually improve the team (after trading away their entire draft last year in the stupid Cutler trade, did they have any other option?), but where's the wide receiver that is so badly needed? I guess getting a new receiver would just get Cutler to sulk some more, as he would surely throw even more interceptions trying to find his new play-thing down field.

(Someone's got a case of the Monday's)

MLB 2k10: I only have a x-box 360, so my sole baseball video game option is the 2k series. (Widely regarded as the superior baseball sim, MLB: The Show is a PS3 exclusive) I haven't been buying baseball video games over the past few years, but I decided to give this one a shot. I really like the pitching mechanics (you use your right stick to perform pitch specific motions), and the hitting system is O.K (I prefer the stick version to the button mashing of other series). The "My Player" mode (where you create a player and them try to take him from minors, to majors, to the HOF) is also kind of nifty. The opponent A.I, however, is a disaster. You have hitters swinging at 3-0 breaking balls, fielders not covering the line with 2 outs, and pitchers swinging away all the time. It's as if the makers of the game have no idea how baseball is actually played. I'm sure the game will provide hours of enjoyment, but, honestly, it's crap until they can make an A.I. system that actually plays professional baseball, and not sandlot crap.

Have a happy Monday!

Red Ring of Death, and the return of an old friend

Back at the beginning of this blog (has it really been 3 weeks?) I mentioned that I would be focusing on 3 things: sports, beer and video games. As of yet, I have made no mention of video games whatsoever. That ends today.

Tonight I'm expected to get my Xbox 360 back from Microsoft. 2 weeks ago I turned on my Xbox only to discover the dreaded 3 red lights signifying "General Hardware Failure." Basically the 3 red lights turn your Xbox into a giant off-white paperweight. This is my second experience with the 3 red lights.

(The Xbox will be in range in 5 minutes... link)

The vulnerability of the Xbox 360 hardware is a topic that has been beaten to death by gamer media. Many people have expressed outrage over the past 4 years that a major corporation shipped faulty product. In response, Microsoft has spent millions in providing free shipping and repairs for consoles that breakdown with the 3 flashing red lights. This is based on a 3-year warranty system extended from the purchase date of your console. Since my particular console was purchased roughly 2 1/2 years ago, I got my repairs and shipping provided free of charge.

Free is all well and good, but I've spent the past 2 weeks without my Xbox. So, in desperation, I turned to an old friend, my PS2. I found it collecting dust in a random desk drawer. In the quick turnover of the electronic world, we forget how awesome the PS2 was. The thing was a hoss: always turned on, rarely froze, never destroyed game/DVD discs (all 3 an issue with the Xbox). All-in-all a great piece of electronic design.


(Wow, it's an antique!)

Since I don't "game" in HD (I may be the last of my kind at this point) the transition to the previous generation of console wasn't as jarring as expected. PS2 was designed with standard definition in mind, so menus are clear and readable on my TV. The one thing I noticed right away is the lack of much depth to the visuals. Compared to current-gen machines, the PS2 seems 2D. Curve textures just weren't what they are on current game engines. Luckily I don't play much online, so the lack on online made no difference to me.

The games I primarily stuck to in my trip down memory lane were: GTA San Andreas, FIFA 07, and Red Dead Revolver.

1. San Andreas stands up very well. Character graphics are a little clumsy, and obviously GTA4 has superior overall graphics. Story, what I play adventure/action games for, is as good as I remember, and the game maintains a great pace and feel. I miss the expansive feel of the game world, and, looking back, I wish they had incorporated that sense of space into GTA4
   
2. FIFA 07 is a little bit of a disaster. FIFA 10 puts it to shame, both in terms of computer AI and controls. Game-play elements, like a manager mode that actually works, saved my experience, but the frustrating inability for computer controlled defender to follow their marks almost got me to throw my controller. In addition, the new version of FIFA has 360 degree movement controls, thereby feeling much less arcadey (I just made that word up). One thing to note: 07 had a better soundtrack and crosses sometimes worked!
3. Red Dead Revolver was probably the best of the 3 trips down memory lane. This 3rd Person Shooter homage to classic spaghetti westerns was still fun and engaging. In retrospect, 5 years of control innovation has greatly helped out the shooter experience, but, wonky controls aside, the game still kicks ass. The upcoming sequel will be more of a "sandbox game" than a shooter(See the early 360 game "Gun" for reference point on the genre). The original, however, still has some life left to it if you're looking to kill a few hours.

I'm glad I kept my old PS2. As a back-up DVD player, it performs admirably, and classic games are still playable (Hell, every once in a while I'll bust out my N64 (*cough* emulator *cough*) and play through Zelda one more time). When my Xbox comes home later this evening, I'm sure I'll cast aside my old PS2 again, but at least I'll know that it will be there if needed to stave off boredom.