http://kotaku.com/more-then-anything-ive-read-this-is-the-deal-breaker-511778528

Yes, it's Kotaku. But well, they're reporting everything that everyone else is reporting, straight from the horse's ass...er...mouth.  Yes, MS has finally confirmed everything that we've all been hoping for was just rumors and bullsh it.  Well, now it's just sh it.  MS may not issue used games fees (hurray?), but we'll most likely see publishers themselves try it. This is actually where I'm hopeful they won't, considering EA's thrown out the online pass.  There's ridiculous restrictions when it comes to giving games, and trading games will be practically impossible. Oh yeah, and if I want to GIVE you a game, you better have been a friend of mine for at least 30 days... This is ludicrous.  Oh, and the rental market is now fuc ked. 

And then there's the final confirmation.  The one that's the deal breaker for everyone that I've heard against the Xbox One.  The 24 hour connection check.  Oh, and if you're playing one of your games on someone else's system, that goes up to an hourly connection check. 

Let me just address this one right now before someone posts it. 

"But, if you have the Internet to complain about the Xbox One, you have the Internet to play Xbox One."

True, but the difference is, I care about the gamers who DON'T. I don't support this kind of jackassery. There are MILLIONS of gamers WORLDWIDE without the necessary 1.5 Mb/s connection MS requires to utilize Xbox One online. They won't be able to enjoy Xbox One as a result of this. The reason why you're hearing perfectly enabled gamers complaining about the mandatory connection checks is because we're exercising something called sympathy.  It's a powerful emotion that helps keep us from devolving into nothing but a bunch of greedy, selfish uncaring jerks. Do you REALLY need the Xbox One that badly that you would support such unfriendly business decisions? Do you not care that MS is basically pissing on your consumer rights?  Will MS even have games good enough to justify this?

So, this brings me to my blog title. Will the games be good enough?  Right now, the only game that comes close enough to generating any interest into the system is Quantum Break, and that's only because of the pedigree of the developer. Now, I hear that DICE has something in store for us at E3, and it's been rumored - and I stress rumored - that Mirror's Edge 2 will be Xbox exclusive and if this is the case, it will test the limits of my resolve, because I REEEEEEALLY want that game. To put it into perspective, the only game that I want more than Mirror's Edge 2 is The Last Guardian. I do not want to back down, cave in and buy a machine that I'm strongly against just because of a few choice titles. I also want to own them if I ever would buy them, but MS has made it clear at this point they no longer want their customers owning anything they buy. 

Let me just go back to the "I have online, so I'm not affected" bit. You don't know that.  You have no idea what kind of things can happen that can disrupt your enjoyment of the Xbox One. Your router could fry as a result of power surge. Your ISP could down, or you lost your job and had to cut back on montly expenses. Your job has relocated you to a remote town where there is no Internet, or at least BB. Some construction worker severs a fiber optic cable leaving you without net for several days. Something may happen that will cause you to say, "Fu ck, why did I buy into this?" It may never happen, and you might enjoy the Xbox One without a hitch for years. But why do you want to game under a Damoclean Sword? Why aren't you bothered with the fact that MS will be watching your every move, making sure each person playing isn't some kind of pirate? 

So, no. I don't care about MS's offereings this E3. I don't think there's one single game that's going to be amazing enough for me to be able to look the other way on the DRM issues and the 24 hour connection check and the trading and loaning restrictions. It's not going to happen this year. It may not happen next year.  If it will ever happen, it will be when MS's cloud is long dead and powered down, which will be the only way you'll be able to play the Xbox One completely free of an Internet connection.... or will it?  

Will any game be good enough to buy, knowing you'll never be able to play it again in the future? To be rendered a worthless piece of plastic only fit for a coaster? NO game is good enough for that! 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Wow. This is something else.

You see, Microsoft has really done something I've never seen before in my entire history of gaming: they've developed a product with such an overwhelmingly negative reception that you are literally seeing even the most devoted of Xbox 360 owners start to question their loyalty toward them.

Today we got some answers, and boy, were they the wrong ones.

Microsoft announced that you will be required to "check in" with them in order to use your Xbox One offline. 24 hours on your own console, 1 hour on another owner's console. Doesn't this seem wrong to you? This is like having to call your mom every day just to "check in." It's something with an unquestionably high inaneness quotient. Is Microsoft this untrusting of its consumers that they need to make sure that we're online all the time?

"...because every Xbox One owner has a broadband connection..."

And this isn't something that you say to a potential consumer either, because I can guarantee without a shadow of a doubt that this is not true. This is false. False. Every Xbox One owner will NOT have a broadband connection and basing a majority of your reasoning of this form of DRM on this falsehood is something that will follow you for a long time. I'm sure you all remember the rather embarassing Xbox Live outage we all received a few years ago. You know, the one that we sat through for days, only to receive that crappy Undertow game as a consolation. Microsoft's track record on online security and stability doesn't fit with their always-online mantra. There WILL be internet outages somewhere. There WILL be people who don't have stable enough internet connections to be online all the time but still want to play Halo. There WILL be exceptions and Microsoft is not accomodating this rather large number of exceptions to their own ridiculously constructed rule.

Oh, and the used games. This is something that blew my mind; despite supposedly having the "answer" to used games, we're still wandering a murky fog of ambiguity and confusion. So, Microsoft will only allow Xbox One games to be traded in at participating partnered stores? While the fact that you can access your game library through the cloud is generally interesting, this used game policy just seems to be putting up bars in the windows of the bank, for lack of a better analogy. And this is also a one-time trade, and your friend must have been a friend for a minimum of 30 days. Perfect. A way to alienate the gaming audience further by putting restrictions on something as intimate and light-hearted as loaning a game to a friend. Yes, this is supposedly coming after launch, but that's not something that we should have to wait for. That should be a standard, something that we shouldn't have to jump through hoop after hoop for just so we don't sidestep these ridiculous policies.

The whole Giant Eyeball in the Living Room (aka Kinect) deal is still something that lacks clarity and assurance. Microsoft reiterated that Kinect's camera and mic can be deactivated, but we also heard that Kinect is required for the console to function. So does that mean that if the Kinect malfunctions that the console itself is done as well? Doesn't that sound like another Microsoft hardware issue that many of us have experienced so many times before?

People get on Nintendo's case for staying in the past with many of their decisions, but Microsoft is doing the complete opposite. They're stuck in the future, a future where they make the rules and the artistic and consumer freedoms are barricaded behind intrusive DRM, obnoxious peripheral requirement and an overarching lack of trust with the people who actually buy Microsoft consoles.

I'm going to make a rather big comparison here: Microsoft's actions with the Xbox One are not unlike those instated by those legislators who developed the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). Yeah, you remember SOPA. The proposed act said to destroy online freedoms? The act that Wikipedia and many other sites shut down in protest against? Yes, Xbox One is the SOPA console and here's why:

When SOPA was brought to light, the supporters aimed to stop piracy by delivering strict regulations on online users. Though legislators and CEO's of major conglomerates loved it, there were many who didn't and not just Wikipedia and Google. Musical artists, online publishers and TV personalities were against it. Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, MGMT, the members of SNL parody artists The Lonely Island: they hated SOPA. The very people SOPA was aiming to defend were against this act. Why? Because they valued artistic freedom and integrity over industrialized commodity. They didn't want legislative protection. They just wanted people to see and hear their works.

Aside from the consumer backlash, look at other developers who are against the Xbox One functionalities. Tim Schafer (Double Fine), Steve Gaynor (Bioshock Infinite), these developers have made high quality games, but they also value the consumer experience. They don't want protection from a major company; they just want to make great games and show avid gamers what they've made in the fastest, most efficient and most assuring way possible.

Microsoft is losing this fight before even showing up to the front lines. I've never seen a console so vehemently despised so early in its birth. I can't imagine a world with so much disapproval, but the joke's on me: this world is now.

P.S. 200th blog. Way to go, me.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

I know most these sites,magazines and such give virtually the same score to virtually sport games like soccer/football every year, I play them and go eh same as last year why am I wasting my money on this rubbish. I don't use certain reviews as a guideline. If it has an interesting concept or I am a fan of a particular series I will play it and judge it for myself.

I mean I didn't throw a 10 at Mass Effect 2 because all the sites were doing so. I did it because it was an amazing experience with an excellent camapaign and brilliant characters. I have given games like Killzone 2 a right bashing because it bored me to no ends and I even went on end to say L.A Noire was dissapointing even though people didn't agree I don't care they are not me and it's my opinion.

Also I don't throw high scores at Mario or Zelda games because I am biased. I think most in the series are excellent games. I mean I gave New Super Mario Bros 2 a 7.0 and Paper Mario Sticker Star a 6.5. I gave them those scores because they were forgettable I didn't give them those scores because IGN,Gametrailers,Gamespot or EDGE gave them that same said with Mario Galaxy,Uncharted 2 and Resident Evil 4.

I am just here to clear things up and say that who cares what these sites/magazines give these games they are not us and it shouldn't put us off buying certain games either.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

When it doesn't work...when you miss that tricky jump you just can't seem to judge for the 5th time, when you're forced into clunky combat with only your bare hands against heavily armored SWAT teams with automatic weapons, when you're stuck in some pokey corridor and for the life of you just can't see the way forward, the game sucks big hairy donkey balls.

And yet, it somehow compels you to push on. I'm really looking forward to completing this game, and damn I'll be glad when it's over. 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

- Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag - ACIII was 2012 Game of the Year, though I was slightly disappointed by it. I'm hoping that the pirate theme takes the many great things from ACIII while correcting its flaws. I'd like to have many options as to how to assassinate a target; I do NOT want to be told what to do and how to do it. I expect this game to be the main attraction at Ubisoft's conference with a live demo.

- Batman: Arkham Origins - From one Game of the Year follow-up to another. I LOVED Batman: Arkham City as a big Batman fan and as a gamer. It's truly one of the best games I've ever played. That said, I hope that Arkham Origins plays it safe. With a new developer and the same engine, I'm not expecting this game to be better than Arkham City. However, if the new development team sees what made BAC so damn good and decides to simply offer more of the same while maintaining the same quality, Arkham Origins could wind up being similar to Fallout: New Vegas (which would be excellent). I expect a huge gameplay reveal at either Sony or Microsoft's conference. I also want to see a floor demo of the 3DS/Vita spin-off Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate.

- Battlefield 4 & Call of Duty: Ghosts - I did not pick up Battlefield 3 or Black Ops II. After the excellent Battlefield: Bad Company 2 and the awful Modern Warfare 3, I found myself very tired of military shooters and online gaming in general. In fact, I've probably only played near 4 hours of multiplayer since the start of 2012. I want that to change; I miss quality online multiplayer dearly. When I purchase my PlayStation 4 at launch, I want to buy one of these two games with it. Similar to 2011's MW3 vs BF3, they will fight for my $60 (I hope its $60). I expect live demos from both but I'd be really interested if either show off their multiplayer.

- Beyond: Two Souls - With Sony's focus obviously on the upcoming PlayStation 4 and PlayStation Vita, I do expect them to show some love for the PlayStation 3 and how "they have big plans for the PS3 moving forward" and all that crap. While I already pre-ordered the game and want to see as little as possible, I do want to finally see the game in action.

- Destiny - I'm not sure what to make of this game. It's an incredibly ambitious idea from Bungie, but I fear that it will be lost in between the two generations. I want to know more about it. I hate MMOs, so if it does turn out to be just that, I will probably not be interested. However, I do know that Bungie is a trendsetter in the gaming world and believe that this game could have some really unique ideas. I'm interested to see just what the hell this game actually is aside from some concept art.

- DriveClub - I've recently spent a lot of time with Need for Speed: Most Wanted, which somewhat rekindled my love for racing games. I might be open to the idea of purchasing a racing game with my purchase of a PS4. With DriveClub, I know that the developer behind them (of MotorStorm fame) is very talented and capable of creating one spectacular racing game. I do not know much more else about it and I do want to know more. I expect a gameplay demo and a slew of information about it.

- Grand Theft Auto V - Can we please get some gameplay?

- Killzone: Shadow Fall - I never played Killzone, I played and enjoyed Killzone 2, and I have Killzone 3 in my backlog. The reason why I haven't yet played KZ3 is because it just looks very generic and similar to Killzone 2. I'll get to it eventually (hopefully it will prove me wrong), but from what I've seen of Shadow Fall, the game looks very, very different from what the franchise has been in the past. It looks less linear and it looks like an Uncharted-esque adventure game with some platforming included. We know that it will launch with the PS4, but we do not know much about the plot. I expect to see a lot of this game at E3.

- Knack - From the team behind the Ape Escape series (which was sadly absent from the PS3), comes a very intriguing platforming game that I couldn't be more excited about. Aside from Sly 4 and two Ratchet & Clank games, the PS4 completely ignored a genre that was so successful on the PS3: 3D platforming with cartoonish characters. From the gameplay and overall details revealed at the PS4 Reveal Event, it looks refreshing and intriguing. I need to see more of this at E3.

- Madden NFL 25 - Hate all you want, I'm a massive American football fanatic (Go Bills!) and I buy Madden every year. After a slew of sub-par editions from 2006 to 2011, Madden NFL 13 finally tried to introduce some new ideas and features. It turned out to be somewhat of a "bitten off more than they could chew" situation (while not completely failing). It wasn't great, but it was a step in the right direction. If they can correct some of the issues with the new physics engine while adding the impressive, new gameplay engine showed at the VCR reveal, we could finally have a decent Madden on our hands for the first time in nearly a decade. I expect EA's conference to focus heavily on their robust sports lineup of NHL, Madden, FIFA, NCAA Football, UFC, and NBA Live.

- Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain - Before I start, allow to me brag about being 100% accurate about the game's title. Seriously hough, I am extremely excited for the follow-up to MGS4, which is still one of the best games available on the PS3. I want to see everything about this game, I'm that excited. I want to know more about it, I want to see it in action, and I want to see how Ground Zeroes is related to it. Konami's Pre E3 event revealed that David Hayter is indeed not returning to voice Snake, but that Kiefer Sutherland did the performance capture and voice. This is causing all sorts of uproar, but I am completely okay with it. Konami is obviously trying to make the game visually stunning by going for a performance capture similar to L.A. Noire and Beyond: Two Souls. David Hayter does not fit that bill, Kiefer does. Moving on.

- Pokemon X/Y - Gotta catch 'em all, this time in 3D! Gamefreak is completely overhauling the Pokemon series with 3D gameplay instead of the classic grid-walking. I'll no doubt miss walking in perfect squares, but I am very excited to finally see Pokemon taking a bold step. I want to know more about the new region, new Pokemon, and I am interested to see if they incorporate an interesting plot similar to Ruby/Sapphire and White/Black.

- Super Mario U & Super Smash Bros. U - It's do or die for Nintendo. They need a new 3D Mario and Super Smash Bros. and they need them to be exciting, high-quality, and fast. This triangle of needs is always an interesting complex for video games. Very few games have all three, but if there's one company who can do it, it's Nintendo. They need these two games to sell Wii U units to avoid it becoming niche. I'd hate to say it, but it's becoming a scary possibility that they could become a games-only company similar to Sega. Expect both of these games to come out swinging.

- Watch Dogs - The game looks incredible and I can't wait to see more at Ubisoft's conference.

- The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt - I never played either of the Witcher games and it has been assured that that will not be a problem for new players. From what I read in the GameInformer reveal, I'm pretty damn excited to see the game the has what it takes to put Skyrim to shame.

- The Witness - An indie game that caught my eye at the PS4 reveal event. I really want to see more at Sony's conference and it seems to be a huge possibility given Sony's massive support for indie games with the PS4.

- inFamous: Second Son - Last but first, in that this is the #1 game I am most looking forward to see at E3 this year. I loved all three inFamous games on the PS3 and I am certain that Second Son will be just as good and offer plenty of new and exciting features. The new protagonist, near-future Seattle setting, smoke powers, and distopian concept are all very, very interesting details that I would love to know more about. But I also want to know how the game relates to Cole's adventures, which other powers the protagonist channels, if player choice will remain a huge aspect, and I want to know more about the antagonist(s). It's THE game of E3 for me and THE game that will certainly put a dumb smile on my face when the lights dim.

Now for the games that I am (again) getting my hopes up for without talking about them. These are the games that will put a tear in my eye if they are revealed:

- Fallout 4

- Jak & Daxter 4

- Kingdom Hearts III

- Red Dead 3

---------------------------------------

Expect a Post-E3 blog with my top 10 games of E3. Thanks for reading and please comment with which games you are excited to see at E3 this year

- Dylan

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

@sarahofmars

Princessdeadite0.tumblr.com

C:

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

US Start Time: 7:30 PM PST 
Platform: PC

Just as a friendly reminder, tomorrow night at 7:30 PM PST we will be getting together with some GSPN members to play some Team Fortress 2!

We are going to be playing on both the PC and on the X360 (Special thanks go to Chicknfeet for setting that up).

If you're interested in playing, be sure to sign up here.

I'm also looking for a volunteer to stream the game as well. If you are interested in taking on this task please let me know at your earliest convenience.

If we get 50 people to sign up to play I'll award a TF2 emblem. 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

The first factor is that Halo Reach sold better than Halo 4. Halo Reach raked in less money in first day sales although Halo 4's first day saled included global sales. This means that Halo Reach potentially sold more copies, which would lead to a bigger community. The game is also in bargain bins so people would rather spend less money on Reach than Halo 4.

Another factor is the gameplay style. Halo 4 strayed far from Halo:CE's roots. While the loadouts might make gameplay fun, its not Halo. Halo was everyone starting out with a pistol and running around the map trying to find the sniper. The gameplay tries so hard to mimic Call of Duty with killstreaks and all, although Call of Duty does it better. Why would gamers want to play Call of Duty: Halo Edition when they can just play Call of Duty: Black Ops II? The latter has perfected the CoD formula whereas the former has an identity crisis. 

The third option is simply that Bungie makes better games. No offense 343, but Bungie is a damn good studio. Everything that comes out of there is perfect. Perhaps they just create a better multiplayer expereince? I'm curious how Destiny does because that will show whehter people bought Halo all these years because of the Halo or the Bungie name on the box. Which has a better following?

It's always sad news when an online community dies, but Halo 4 is not even a year old and smaller than Reach. It's not dead, but perhaps this is a warning for 343. Pick it up and return to our Halo's roots.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Enter Playstation Plus.

That's right! This week's free game is none other than Deus Ex: Human Revolution! It's like Sony can read my damn mind. This has been such an awesome year for Plus, Spec Ops: The Line, Vanquish, Sleeping Dogs... now this? I may never let my membership expire; I've got too much to play!

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Watched Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter on Friday evening, excellent movie, interesting take on American history and plenty of violence! Well worth a watch.

Then on Sunday afternoon finally got round to watching The Hobbit on 3D BluRay on our ( fairly ) new 3D TV. Hadn't seen the film before and really enjoyed it. The 3D effects were very good and had a constant "oohhh" and "my god" etc from my kids

Oh yeah - my second eldest became a teenager on Friday so that's 2 in the house now.....RUN

That's all for today  

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Yet I would tell you this: you may not necessarily have a favorable hindsight about the game if you are on the verge of being enticed to play this latest game from Klei Entertainment.

That said, I would mention my very brief two-cents on Don't Starve; this is not a review, of course - that's for me to write much, much later, and with far more text than this blog post would carry.

IT IS NOT EXACTLY MINECRAFT OR TERRARIA

There is some hulla-baloo in the indie community about the comparisons made between Don't Starve and Mojang's flagship product or Re-Logic's baby. However, I would tell you this: no one is absolutely right on whether or not Don't Starve is comparable to either game.

The hardcore purists of Don't Starve would tell you that Minecraft or Terraria is child's play compared to Don't Starve, but that's only because they play their sessions on either the default settings or if they are even more sadomasochistic than one would expect, the even harder settings.

If the player is to set the settings to very favorable conditions that do not apply overbearing pressure on the player to spend his/her efforts on merely surviving, e.g. no hound attacks and such other wussy choices, he/she can well play the game like Minecraft - and get bored quickly.

Don't Starve is strictly a 2-D game that uses sprites and it doesn't even have a grid-like system for building things as seen in either Terraria or Minecraft; in other words, it doesn't have the gameplay elements that is needed for artistic expressions such as those that could be achieved with either Terraria or Minecraft.

On the other hand, a player with a lot of time to burn can attempt to create art out of the map system, but I don't think that anything more could be done.

You can attempt to create some weird silhouette art from uncovering the fog-of-war, but don't expect praises for having so much time in your hands.

PLAYING DON'T STARVE DOESN'T MAKE YOU A MORE AWESOME PERSON

There are those persons that take pride in playing very difficult games and persevering in them. They may even consider that "success" in such games is a badge of honor or something equivalent that makes them stand out from other gamers.

Well, in the eyes of wiser people, their experience with these games make them stand out alright - as stupendously stubborn and perhaps even perversely determined people.

If you so much as touch that second button ("Customize World"), you may be called all kinds of things by the purist fans of this game.

The default settings of Don't Starve's world-generating feature generally makes the game tougher and tougher as the player character survives for more and more days, purportedly to match the increasing experience and familiarity of the player.

Also, it would appear that major content updates for the game introduce much tougher biomes or new mobs that are more troublesome than the last ones.

Sure, they come with new rewards - but they often require players to jump through a few hoops. For example, the new Cave biome comes with renewable sources of rocks and flint stones, which were non-renewable before, but they have to be obtained through obviously dangerous rockfalls.

[ Watch Video ]

Also, Klei Entertainment nerfs reliable winning strategies regularly, the most notable nerf being the drawback that was introduced to make Meat Effigies riskier to use.

Not as good an insurance policy anymore, eh, Willow?

Also, Klei Entertainment nerfs reliable winning strategies regularly, the most notable nerf being the drawback that was introduced to make Meat Effigies riskier to use.

It would take a special kind of person indeed to keep looking forward to and liking the kinds of things that Don't Starve would throw at oneself.

"LEARNING IS REWARDING!"

That would be something that the hardcore, unapologetic fans of this game would say to you when they try to encourage you to play this game.

I would tell you this though: if you don't take the wussy (but probably wise) way to learn about the content in this game by checking the Don't Starve wiki whenever you see something weird and bizarre on-screen, chances are, your dude/dudette DIES from your lack of knowledge and/or stubborn refusal to read spoilers.

When TV Tropes uses Don't Starve as illustration for one of its entries, you know that this game is HARD.

In addition to the excuses that Klei Entertainment has used to paraphrase its refusal to include built-in game-saving as rogue-like gameplay, Klei Entertainment also has an excuse for not including a tutorial or official manual with the game package that can be summarized as follows:

"Learning is rewarding" - of course.

TAKE-AWAY: If you want a very, very convincing survival game, Don't Starve is indeed one. However, if you want Don't Starve to be a rewarding game, you have to be a glutton for punishment.

P.S. I am aware that even though this blog post is not exactly favourable towards Don't Starve and Klei Entertainment, I may well have promoted Klei's game anyway. I am conscious of this, and I will say that I happen to support Klei's efforts to create a very convincing survival game - even if I don't personally like it.

P.P.S. I am still affected by the LiveFyre comment glitch.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

NEW CHARACTERS: While the original WeaponLord only had room for seven characters, the team had plenty more ideas for other barbaric fighters. These included a spear-wielding orc, two gargoyles stacked on top of each other, and a demonic pit beast that would have been the tortured pet of Zarak. Having more dual-wielding characters was also something the developers wanted.

EXPANDED STORY: As outlined in this document, the canonical story would have Korr's long-lost brother, Kang (who was also Bane), returning to lead his brother's tribe after Korr is mortally wounded; Zarak's father, Raith, who is mentioned throughout the original game, would become a fully-fledged character; and Zorn would have also returned, however, as Goddard noted, "he would have been changed by his encounter with the possessed shield." The idea of WeaponLord 2 being able to read your save data from the original game and tailor the story based on how you played and which endings you received was also tossed around, though Goddard admits this would be a nightmare to program.

SMOOTH DIFFICULTY CURVE: This was a big issue for Winstead and Goddard. WeaponLord was a complex game, and the designers think its sequel could retain the first game's play style without being so impenetrable. As an example, they mentioned how, in Street Fighter IV, a new player could pick up the controller and start throwing fireballs and doing ultra combos without too much effort; they could feel badass right away. Then, when those new players saw combos using one-frame links and focus attack canceling, they were incentivised to improve their skills so they too could use those techniques. The original WeaponLord didn't have this; if you weren't already proficient at the game you got destroyed.

2D VERSUS 3D: The debate between making WeaponLord 2 a 2D or 3D fighting game is still up in the air. Should it be a fully 3D fighting game, like SoulCalibur, or a game with 3D character models fighting in a 2D arena, like Street Fighter IV? That decision hasn't been made, yet. In either case, Goddard is confident he could use 3D characters and still retain the same soul of the original game--while also adding in a ton more animations.

So, why hasn't WeaponLord 2 (or WeaponLord HD) happened yet? There are lots of reasons: time, money, and the fact that Namco--publisher of the original WeaponLord--still holds the rights to the WeaponLord IP. Goddard and Winstead considered trying to buy the rights from Namco after launching their joint-venture Crunch Time Games. However, when Crunch Time's first game, Shred Nebula, didn't take the world by storm, the idea of buying back WeaponLord was put on the sidelines.

A crowd-funding campaign was also considered, but ultimately deemed unfeasible as well. As Goddard explained, "In early Spring of 2012, [Winstead] and I were considering a Kickstarter to build a 3D WeaponLord that would have featured a professional fighting 3D engine that, after the project was completed, would have been open source for the community to do non-profit games with (the 3D equivalent of MUGEN, but with much easier work flow and pro-grade tools).

"However, if we were going to ask for crowd funding to build that, it was critical we be able to ship it and not run out of cash. The estimates got up to the $5 million mark and we decided that was not the right way to go. That project was very much motivated by building a fighting engine equivalent to unity for the community and the goals blew out the budget. Neither [Winstead] or I were in a position to take on, despite having built many combat engines and worked on so many fighting and combat games."

The fate of WeaponLord is still up in the air. The creators definitely want to make sequel, and it sounds like a lot you readers out there want to play another WL game as well. Rest assured that if the stars align and the opportunity presents itself, Goddard and Winstead will dive into WeaponLord 2 as soon as possible. They've learned a lot over the past 18 years, and have received a lot of feedback on the original game. "Honestly, that's the worst thing," said Goddard, "we didn't get the chance to take that feedback and do the right thing by growing the franchise into what players wanted." Hopefully, some day, they'll get that chance.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

In the eyes of the modern gamer, though, this new duo should not come as such a significant surprise. Both companies are products of the same gaming era, and everything they have gone through has somehow reflected on rather similar philosophies. Back when Nintendo and Sega were learning the quirks of the still young industry, hardware power was awfully limited, and - as it has so often happened in human history - difficulty and constraints are the perfect breeding grounds for creativity, which caused both companies to produce games that besides covering a huge amount of genres, presented the fantastic unreal element that had to be taken advantage of in an era where realism was out of the question. As time went by, and Sony and Microsoft arrived on the battlefield with an horde of franchises grounded on reality, Sega and Nintendo remained solidly faithful to their original core of games, which ended up developing into a more family-friendly branch of the industry.

The two companies that created franchises with somehow parallel spirits always had an angry river between them that stopped the construction of any possible bridges, but that river ended up settling down when Sega dropped out of the console race in order to focus on its game-making magic. Aside from the fact Sega no longer manufactures any kind of hardware, another huge difference separates the modern version of the two giants. Sonic and Mario battled over the gaming market for over a decade like two legendary heavy-weights fighting for the boxing crown during the course of many title matches, with the belt always alternating between one and another. However, on the transition to 3D, Mario was able to maintain his top-notch shape, while Sonic struggled to find direction and motivation, leaving Mario without an equal. This distinction, much like Sega's withdrawal from console production, served as the initial supports for the connection that would be built between Sega and Nintendo.

Sega's fumbling created gigantic opportunities for an approach, and - as of today - the approach is being performed. Though the recent Sonic Colors was an undeniable peak to the hedgehog on the aftermath of Sonic Adventure 2, it was still not even close to reaching the level of modern platforming masterpieces, which is a standard a character like Sonic should always aim for. If outside the gaming industry it is a good practice of the market for a company to seek the aid of third-parties whenever there is trouble in the deploying of some new technology, then there is no reason whatsoever why Sega should not try to use the same strategy to achieve the goal of finally giving Sonic the game he deserves. And this seems to be precisely the case with the partnership that has been revealed a few days ago.

Though the development of the recently announced Sonic Lost Worlds is accredited solely to the always polarizing Sega Team, it is not very hard to see that Nintendo might be more involved than it seems. The first evidence is visual; Sonic Lost Worlds looks like a faster version of Mario's two greatest games of his thirty-year career, the two Super Mario Galaxy titles. The second, is political; Sega has announced a set of three Sonic games that will be exclusively released exclusively for Nintendo platforms, and no company in the world would make such a decision without any sort of return, given that going multiplatform is always more profitable. As a consequence, it is not far-fetched to narrow it down to two possibilities: either Nintendo has given Sega a huge amount of cash, or there is some technical and creative support effort going on behind the curtains. Given how Nintendo has constantly stated that it refuses to make deals with third-parties based on handing out money, it is likely that the reason Sonic Lost World will be a Wii U exclusive for life is that people from Nintendo EAD are in direct contact with developers from the Sonic Team sharing expertize and creative input.

How can Nintendo aid Sega then? Well, in endless areas. For starters, the environments present on Super Mario Galaxy are mostly very complex, and they require an extensive amount of camera work to be playable. While Nintendo's automatic camera for Super Mario Galaxy was not flawless, it was still a major technical achievement, and given how much trouble Sonic Team has had with cameras on a multidimensional plain, the help is certainly welcome. Secondly, Nintendo seems to know quite well how to do storytelling on platformers without falling into a pit of juvenile and cringe-worthy situations, and that is a corner the Sonic games have always inadvertently walked into ever since it was wrongfully established they were in need of some extra layer of plot development. And finally, no company has as much knowledge on the Wii U's hardware than Nintendo itself, and that partnership could end up unlocking enough bits and processing power on the Wii U in order to turn Sonic Lost World into a graphical juggernaut that could compete and surpass Pikmin 3 on the graphical achievement scale.

More relevant than the initial benefits brought to the Sonic franchise, though, is what could be in store for the future of this joining of forces. At first, Sega and Nintendo's teamwork has a set deadline and limit of three Sonic games. However, it is impossible not to sit down and imagine what else we might end up getting if these three initial projects, out of which Sonic Lost World is bound to be the highlight, wind up being judged as productive by both Nintendo and Sega. It could open the door for the reworking of a large number of franchises and the creation of some gargantuan IPs born out of this merging of creative forces. And it could all start right here. The Wii U is off to a very slow start, and while this exclusivity could pump some oxygen into Nintendo's system, the partnership could also work in the benefit of both Sonic and Sega. We could be witnessing the birth of quite a monster.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

In a recent broadcast, X-Ray argued that said developers 'were not playing by the rules' when marketing mobile games to children and claimed many were specifically targeting the naivety and inexperience of younger gamers. The report comes after many parents discovered their children were unwittingly spending anywhere between a several hundred to several thousands of pounds on mobile games and gaming apps prompting the Office of Fair Trading to launch an investigation.

X Ray's report focused on gamers in Wales where the average child spends over 9 hours a week playing games on their mobile telephones contributing to an overall industry worth close to  3 Billion.

One particular game under scrutiny was the Top Girl fashion app, a virtual modelling game where children can dress up characters and were soon asked to spend real money to keep their character's boyfriend happy with virtual gifts. One mother stated her child had run up a bill of  196 after one hour of play.

A focus of the Office of Fair Trading investigation is the marketing of games as 'free to play' without making young gamers aware of potential additional costs for certain game elements. Many mobile games are released with time limits which prevents continued play unless real money is spent. Such tactics are certainly nothing new in the games industry but Rob Angell, an expert from Cardiff University, argued that such marketing directed at younger gamers constituted a form of exploitation. He stated that while adults have the discipline and maturity to stop playing after their time has expired, 'children will be more impulsive and will make the purchase.'

Another subject of X-Ray's report was 'emotional blackmail' being employed by developers. The Simpsons: Tapped Out was accused of charging  500 for an in game magnifying glass. Refusing to purchase the item resulted in the message 'Congratulations! You made a baby cry!' Angell stated 'Children should not be made to feel guilty for not making the purchase. For me this causes some conflict with this game.'

X-Ray also spoke to parents who accused developers of chicanery when asking children to hand over real money for in game purchases. Many stated that prices for items are often displayed in the form of GBP rather than with a pound sign which one parent argued kids would not understand.

The Office of Communications (Ofcom) has since advised parents to disable in-app purchases on mobile phones and to remember that 'free to download' does not necessarily mean 'free to play'. The Association for UK Interactive Entertainment has stated they take the protecting of young gamers from marketing exploitation very seriously and is asking developers to install password protection software on future games.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot