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.

USC Interactive Media Division Cutbacks?

I went to the LA convention center to day to attend a forum regarding new programs for HACLA

(local public housing org). That's because I'm a volunteer Board Member of a small non-profit funded by HUD (federal public housing org), At any rate, on my way back I noticed that the Interactive Media locale on the corner of Figueroa and 23rd street is no longer there

With times like these, I'm assuming the worst. If it's true, then it's unfortunate that such a young new department in higher education has had to experience cutbacks

Sony, Drop the Price, Man

As a disclaimer, the PS3 is my console of preference.

For, a large, multinational corporation, Sony seems a little too concerned about its own image. There's no need to save face. Yes, the Playstation 3 is a great value at its current price, when you consider its tech and just that. However, prices are relevant to the market. They always have been and always will. Don't stick to your guns if it means going against gamers hoping to become PS3 owners.

I myself am hoping to purchase a PS3 this year, if there's a price drop. That's right, I don't own it, yet I consider myself a PS3 owner already. I react to their decisions as if I had a stake in it because I will, soon enough. Even at 400 dollars, it's just too expensive for me and I'm sure there's many others like me.

Yes, I know PSN's free, there's no need to buy a charger for the controller, it plays blu-ray, and it has all my favorite franchises. I've done the math and seen that's a great deal. That's why I want it, but I also want Sony to remain competitive and I want the install base to grow to the point that companies like Activision will no longer be able to use as a scapegoat for their poor sales -- EA's not complaining. I don't want Sony to take Nintendo's role for the last two generations Nintendo was more of a niche company than a mainstream platform.

Looking at Microsoft's and Nintendo's price points, Sony's console is just too expensive. Release another SKU with a smaller hard drive and a cheaper paint job if you have to.

No, I don't think it would be eating your own words if you dropped the price. I don't think anybody, who matters, would call it a bad move or a blow to Sony's image as a respectable company, or whatever.

I understand Sony would also like to begin profiting from their hardware sales. I think they need to reassess what the best route for making money will be for Sony. Licensing fees have traditionally been the way to profit for console manufacturers. On the other hand, Nintendo's third-party support isn't that great and companies have been complaining that only first-party games sell on the Wii. Maybe Sony is trying to profit from hardware sales and first-party games like Nintendo. The only difference is 150 dollars between consoles and 10 between each new release. Now, they've decreased the price of their SDK to help make PS3 development more accessible, but they've missed the high development costs and small(er) install base. Development costs are not going to get any lower.

So drop the price, Sony, please.

Natal's Business Sense

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

There's one thing about Natal that bothers me. Yeah, it looks like good occasional fun now and maybe good hardcore gaming in the future, but what bothers me is how its being presented as innovative. The technologies being introduced by the big three are all old. The innovation is in how they will be applied, not the tech itself. What bothers is me is how Microsoft has been pushing it as a flash of genius from Microsoft specifically for their Xbox 360 owners.

Image by weexinsitu via Flickr

It bothers me because that's probably not true, not when Microsoft was pimping this tech to businesses in the form of Microsoft Surface. Yeah, you remember that? No, that's ok. It doesn't look that tech has done very well. At any rate, it can detect motion, recognize objects, etc. I actually don't know too much about it other than it shares a similar niche and Microsoft's vision of the future.

It sure makes business sense for them to repurpose that tech for gaming. They answer Nintendo's wiimote and save their investment in the tech. However, it seems to me they tend to prefer what makes more business sense for them over what's best for gamers. I'm referring to their choice to support HD DVD only to stick a thorn in Sony's side. Sometime's though, it's good for gamers (X360 owners). Like the millions they spend on exclusivity deals. In this case though, it's going controller free to stand apart, and maybe to avoid spending too much on the tech. Like their shady deals with IBM that got them Cell processor tech for much cheaper than Sony. It's not like IBM is afraid of shady business, either. They, sold mainframes to Hitler, after all. That's supposed to be joke, but it's not. I hope 360 owners don't get gypped out of the best that motion control has to offer because it doesn't make business sense for Microsoft.

I hope 360 owners get what they want, but I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft flat out refused to develop a physical controller despite demand for it.

Woman fined 1.92 million for file sharing

Image via Wikipedia

I read this story in the news today. I'm not sure what the music industry is trying to accomplish now. I thought it was to clear to everyone that it wasn't piracy that killed the music industry, but their outdated business format. It just doesn't make sense to pay 99 cents per song anymore, not with legal sites like Last.fm and torrent sites like thepiratebay.org -- nobody ever thinks they're going to caught and they're probably right.

I don't think this is going to deter piracy at all. If anything its just bad PR and fines for the consumers.

This particular fine is as ridiculous as their continued endeavor to stop piracy. It's another stunt like the arrests of piratebay founders. It's not even slowing piracy down. If there's been any decrease in piracy its because of sites like Last.fm -- and there's Hulu.com for movies and TV shows.

Hopefully, this kind of diversion will no longer be necessary when they properly modernize their business format like they should've when they saw this trend becoming a problem.

Motion Control is the near future

I keep reading about how motion-control may ruin gaming for any gamer who grew up with systems preceding the Wii. It is frightening to see the way people jump around in those Project Natal commercials. But as it is now, playing the Wii isn't so exhausting, unless you're playing those stupid party games where the aim of the game is to see who can make the biggest ass of him/her self. Developers aren't about to abandon the hardcore demographic and sell just carnival game shovelware for all 3 consoles. I'm sure their smart enough to figure out how to manage motion control for games that gamers traditionally play for hours at a time.

The bottom line is that the pros far outweigh the cons. Sure, you're going to have to do a little exercise, but the overall benefit is much deeper gameplay than could ever be achieved with conventional controllers -- maybe not on the Wii, but definitely on PS3 and 360. Character control limitations are what lead to gameplay limitations. And two hands can only make use of a certain number of buttons and joysticks. Conventional controllers only support games with manifest context sensitivity, with indisputable success. Just about every game has at least one context sensitive button. My point is that there isn't a game out there where you can execute all the fundamental movements that an anthropomorphic character could do.

Don't worry, I'll dumb this down. Basically, what I'm saying is that there isn't a game where you can walk, look, jump, lean, crouch/sit, move your arms, grab items, use items, and combine these movements to execute just about any action you would ever want to make in a video game. However, motion control can make this possible. This gen, I think Sony has the best chance of achieving this depth of gameplay. Aside from having the greatest precision, the Sony Motion controller reassigns much of what would normally be controlled by buttons and maintains buttons and hopefully joysticks for just the essentials.

I believe the ideal setup would be two Sony motion controllers with several face buttons, a trigger, and joystick on each. You can control movement and coarse look with the corresponding joystick. I find with the Wii that I'd prefer to look with a joystick and handle just the fine aiming with the IR sensing. The face buttons would handle actions like sitting, crouching, jumping, grabbing items. The triggers would be to use the items, tools , or weapons in hand. The motion sensing would be used to move your characters arms around to aim, swing, or just to reach for something. Leaning would hopefully be handled by the eyetoy's less advanced body motion tracking.

Imagine being able to grab a tool, say a hammer, and use it to nail something down. You'd be able to drastically alter the environment and use it to your advantage. Like LittleBigPlanet, except fully 3d and through your character instead of through a menu system. Whether you would create for art or war ,its invaluable, really. How such freedom would impact gaming, I can only begin to imagine.

It doesn't take much imagination to realize what this can do for gaming. So don't fight it, and definitely, don't fear it. Just take action, voice your opinion, and do your best to make sure the game industry continues in the right direction.