Idea for Home Space: Gamer Hall of Fame

I've been thinking recently of ways to improve Playstation Home. I recall being quite excited when it was first announced because of its potential. Unfortunately, very little of it has been reached so far. Fortunately, it's always been clear that the developers are more than willing to make changes as they attempt to find Home's niche. Hence, they call it a beta. My visits have proven to me that Home has failed to bring the PSN community together as intended. However, I remain optomistic that eventually they'll find what works, like FDR during the Great Depression.

My first idea is a space dedicated to recognizing average gamers that have managed to make great accomplisments within the gaming community. It could be due to a gamer's leaderboard position, trophy collecting, tourney wins, popularity, and any other related category. Nomination could be done by popular vote while induction could be determined by a panel or the popular vote, as well, or a combination of the two.

At any rate, it struck me as great idea to boost morale amongst PS3 owners in regards to playing on PSN and inhabiting Home.

Game 4.0

Although this is a fast evolving industry there have been only three major advances thus far that constitute an entire unit in version number nomenclature. First, was the actual development of games. Second, a 3rd dimension was added and virtual world became as geometrically complex as the one we live in. Then, the development of an integrated online world for you to create and share your gaming experiences with the world. And soon we will see the next iteration of game.

Since the n64, gameplay has more or less plateued. Sure animations are much smoother now. Visuals and sound are beyond compare and we have motion sensing. However, our abilities to interact with the world are just as limited. It's been 13 years of walking around a wondrous virtual landscape wishing I could make full use of its resources only to realize my virtual incarnation has only preset movement sequences that are completely unfit for anything other than the predetermined purposes of the video game. I've taken countless souls using crowbars, hammers and many other tools waiting for a day when I can make proper use of these instruments.

There are games that make constructive use of a gamers creativity. Little Big Planet, The Sims, and even Halo's Forge, to an extent, are all testaments to a gamers ability to do more than kill and destroy. Even so, there's a foreseeable advance, closely related to creating and sharing levels as seen today, that will enable an interactivity that rivals our ability to interact with the real world.

It may seem farfetched, but its foundation is well set. Huge open world games like GTA have been around for a long time now and can function even without strict limitions on the gamer's capabilities. Using AI to ease character control and in-game level editing are far from being recent innovations. It's a matter of putting the pieces together. With AI facilitating your ability to use tools, the latest physics enabling you to interact with everything in the virtual world, and huge landscapes for you and your friends to play in, gameplay could involve anything from a simple deathmatch to building a civilization. All in real time, through gamers' ability to control their characters and interact with the virtual world.

The only thing left is precise and capable controls. This level of depth in gameplay requires that a gamer be able to control the character's hands, while still being able to walk, look, jump, crouch, etc.Current controllers simply don't have enough buttons and joysticks, not that we'd be better off with more buttons and joysticks. Fortunately, Nintendo has shown the way with their wiimote. While the wiimote itself lacks such capacity, it has already sparked a new wave of controllers .Personally, I'm betting Sony's wand, when used in pairs, can support this level of control.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

2 games in 2 weeks

I just completed RE5 yesterday and I completed Uncharted a few days ago.

Uncharted was great from start to finish. It's length was just right as the lack of enemy variety would have made it tedious to complete otherwise. I wish however, that the boss fight had been more exciting. The final quick-time event was pretty cool, but the rest of the boss fight didn't seem climactic at all. All you had to do was wait behind crates and shoot the non-boss enemies while what's his name had to reload. After having played some great levels which involved traps, cliff hanging, and strategic gunfighting, I was hoping for an epic conclusion. Even so, the game remained exciting all throughout and that's all I can ask for.

It only took me three days to beat RE5 and that's mainly due to an all nighter on the first day in which I completed more than half the game alongside my brother. However, after several accidental deaths while solving the light and mirror puzzles in the caves we avoided the game for a couple days.

There's isn't one huge, noticeable flaw in RE5, which is why I'm surprised it's being considered one of the biggest disappointments this year. It can't be credited with RE4's originality, so it doesn't have that element of a pleasant surprise. The enemies though are more varied this time around, the boss fights are about the same. Co-op is the big new addition, but it really didn't emphazise teamwork, except for when you split up and have to work together to get back together. I think it was the co-op or it may have been the daylight or lack of a creepy mansion that made the puzzles suffer a bit, though. Which is a shame because the puzzles were backed by horror in RE4 and that's what made it a Resident Evil game and not just an action game with zombies. RE5 reallly lacks that horror behind the puzzle solving and maybe that's it's one identifiable flaw and shortcoming as a sequel to one of the greatest games ever.

It's final boss fight was also a little weak, but that's a problem I've seen in so many games that I can't hold that againsts them. I've got three words for developers: three stage battles. Sure RE5's final boss battle was two stage, but both lacked the need for strategy or skill. Button mashing doesn't make me feel accomplished.

Bring Hitman Back

Image via Wikipedia

I remember the Hitman series as a refreshing break from my usual diet of shooters and sports games and the occasional RPG. Blood Money, Hitman's final iteration was definitely its greatest. Although, it was not nearly as dark Contracts, it was the most cinematic and fun. It controlled far better than the any previous Hitman game. Each level was essentially one huge puzzle for you to solve. And Blood Money had some great puzzles, with varied environments, tasks, enemies and more cool than an advertisement campaign targeted at adolescents.

I wasn't a fan of it's trial and error gameplay, though, but I have no idea how to work around that and maintain its trademark gameplay style. Also, if they could find a way to make multiplayer work and go beyond the obvious guards vs. hitman, but work out a way for multiple hitmen to compete for a target (sort of like smokin' aces except with Hitman's stealth). It would come back bigger than it ever was.

2 games in 2 weeks

I just completed RE5 yesterday and I completed Uncharted a few days ago.

Uncharted was great from start to finish. It's length was just right as the lack of enemy variety would have made it tedious to complete otherwise. I wish however, that the boss fight had been more exciting. The final quick-time event was pretty cool, but the rest of the boss fight didn't seem climactic at all. All you had to do was wait behind crates and shoot the non-boss enemies while what's his name had to reload. After having played some great levels which involved traps, cliff hanging, and strategic gunfighting, I was hoping for an epic conclusion. Even so, the game remained exciting all throughout and that's all I can ask for.

It only took me three days to beat RE5 and that's mainly due to an all nighter on the first day in which I completed more than half the game alongside my brother. However, after several accidental deaths while solving the light and mirror puzzles in the caves we avoided the game for a couple days.

There's isn't one huge, noticeable flaw in RE5, which is why I'm surprised it's being considered one of the biggest disappointments this year. It can't be credited with RE4's originality, so it doesn't have that element of a pleasant surprise. The enemies though are more varied this time around, the boss fights are about the same. Co-op is the big new addition, but it really didn't emphazise teamwork, except for when you split up and have to work together to get back together. I think it was the co-op or it may have been the daylight or lack of a creepy mansion that made the puzzles suffer a bit, though. Which is a shame because the puzzles were backed by horror in RE4 and that's what made it a Resident Evil game and not just an action game with zombies. RE5 reallly lacks that horror behind the puzzle solving and maybe that's it's one identifiable flaw and shortcoming as a sequel to one of the greatest games ever.

It's final boss fight was also a little weak, but that's a problem I've seen in so many games that I can't hold that againsts them. I've got three words for developers: three stage battles. Sure RE5's final boss battle was two stage, but both lacked the need for strategy or skill. Button mashing doesn't make me feel accomplished.

MAG

I remember feeling unimpressed when I saw MAG presented at Sony's Press Conference. The demo seemed choreographed so the action was pretty weak. However, everyone cheered when they showed the map and revealed the unfathomable amount players, represented as dots. As I see more of Zipper's diary entries, my impression is definitely changing to their favor. Here's their latest one:

Cutting the Middle Man: Impending Death in the Game Industry

Image via Wikipedia

Downloadable content is one of the biggest additions to consoles this generation. I'm sure there's many gamers out there that envision a gaming future without the need for a disc format to store their favorite games. However, when considering the entire industry, one huge factor becomes evident.

What will happen to the retailers?

PC games have definitely been heading in that direction with publishers cutting out the middle man with their own, online, store fronts, like Valve's Steam. The change in consoles would be much quicker since each console has an online store open to all its publishers. It's just a matter of consoles having enough hard drive space to hold the average gamer's library, right out of the box.

Will, then, Gamestop go the way of Tower Records?

Gamestops and stores like it sell mainly console games. If console games become downloadable only, then video game retailers would have to rely on just console sales. At the very least, these retailers will have to downsize tremendously.

The day of disc-free console gaming is still in the unforeseeable future, but I can't imagine a way in which Gamestop could transform itself so that it is saved come such a day. Perhaps, if the big three allowed Gamestop to host the online stores in their respective online services, but that is as ridiculously unlikely as capitalim's "invisible hand" allowing for anything more than an illusion of freedom. It's not all fun and games, though.

Downsizing means these retail employees, many of them gamers themselves, would lose their jobs due in part to their demand for progress in the industry -- the irony.

What can you do? [Although, you probably don't want to do anything about it.]

Well, you can try and stop technological progress -- but that would make you a ludditte. You'd have to be some crazy, self-righteous conservative. I bet your also a delusional, religious extremist . . . you bastard. I'm only joking. I may not believe what you say, but Voltaire would have died for your right to do so. And I respect him for that.