• 3Jun 13

  Not sure if...

  On steam right now you can pre-purchase "Total War: Rome 2". Last time I checked it was £44.99 yet today it is £29.99 despite the fact nothing has changed and it's still pre-release. It's lovely and cheap for what looks like a great game but with the game announced as the fastest pre-ordered game in franchise history I can't feeling sorry for all the poor sods who ordered it a couple of weeks ago. Do they get reimbursed or...?
  
  Not sure if Good Guy Steam or Scumbag Steam
  • Posted Jun 3, 2013 1:35 pm GMT
  • Category: Games
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 2Jun 13

  The Lack of Cover Based Shooters at E3 2013, About Time!

  The cover system might not be going anywhere but the shooters based purely around the mechanic seem to be on the way out.
  
  
  
  With E3 in a few days and new consoles just around the corner its a good time to sit back and take a peek at what the games industry has in store for us over the next few years. One thing I've noticed looking at the lineup for E3 is almost a complete lack of cover based shooters and to be honest, its about time.
  
  We've already seen the cover mechanic in a few up-and-coming games such as Killzone and The Last of Us so its safe to assume cover isn't something that's going to disappear completely but the shooters based entirely around the mechanic might be a thing of the past. With this in mind I thought it would be proper to see them off with a bit of history and explain a few reasons why I'm hoping this is the case.
  
  The game that kicked off the cover based shooting mechanic was undoubtedly Gears of War, released all the way back in 2006 (yep, it does seem like yesterday). At the time it was pretty revolutionary but as GameSpot's review pointed out it wasn't the first to do it but added "no game has made this sort of gameplay quite so exciting". Part of the reason it was so successful is that it feels really cool. Popping in and out of cover makes the game tense and makes you feel like you're behaving like a "real army-man". It led to some really great games such as Mass Effect and Uncharted - even leading to cover based shooting being introduced into GTA 4 - but its a mechanic that I'm starting to get very bored of.
  
  I recently played Spec Ops The Line and to me, although the game is half decent, it shows the inherent flaws in cover based shooters. Hiding behind a wall to shelter from gunfire seems like the right thing to do however it creates a rather big problem. If enemies did the same then nothing would happen and the game would become very boring, very quickly - just look at trench warfare in World War 1. Honestly the only reason they weren't having fun wasn't the bombs or mustard gas it was the boredom. If more had happened it would be remembered fondly... probably.
  
  In order to make the game more fun you have to have something to shoot at so some developers resort to sending lots and lots of arguably stupid human shaped targets in your direction. The game is quickly reduced to a few simple rules. In cover you dont lose heath and stay in cover long enough the AI will pop their heads up for you to shoot them. It quickly becomes a test of reaction times and pattern recognition more than anything else.
  
  
  
  Part of the problem is the regenerating health trend that is currently the go-to design for shooters. You've stayed out of cover too long to shoot that pesky soldier who keeps ducking at inopportune times and all the while his many buddies have been filling you with bullets. Your screen has gone black and white, there's some blurring complemented by some blood on the screen and the sound is a bit muted. Best way to stay alive is - you guessed it - get back behind cover until your health restores. Rinse and repeat. The only times I remember dying playing Spec Ops was when I was impatient and started shooting before my health was regenerated.
  
  All of this serves to discourage movement and some of the most successful cover based shooters of recent years are those which employ mechanics to actively encourage it. Feeling like a real army-man might be cool but sliding around the ground in slow motion propelled by rockets as you do in Vanquish is even cooler. The same goes for Max Payne 3 in which cover is really just used as a rest stop between diving through the air while firing dual pistols.
  
  Max Payne and Vanquish were a whiff of fresh air amongst all the stagnation by actively encouraging movement and thats what I've seen so far in the Last of Us and Killzone. Cover in the last of us appears to be used for sneaking around enemies or to get up close unseen while what we've seen of Killzones large and open environments makes it look like movement and flanking are better courses than remaining still.
  
  

  Cover based shooters are a genre which I've thoroughly enjoyed over the last few years but to me they are the epitome of genre-fatigue. With this in mind the less of them I see at E3, the better.

  • Posted Jun 2, 2013 5:41 am GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 1Jun 13

  Used game fees might look bad, but we shouldn't have to care

  I, like the majority of you I'm sure, will do my absolute best to spend as little of my money (or more often than not my parents money) on any individual game so I can play more while paying less. Because of this when I first heard the Xbox One will have a fee for used games I found myself glancing at my bank balance in desperation but I've started to think us gamers can gain from it as much as developers/publishers and the only ones really losing out are the retailers who facilitate and profit from the selling of used games.

  If you're primarily a console gamer such as I theres really only two ways to get a game cheaper and its either wait a few weeks then buy a used copy or wait a few months until the price drops and buy a new copy. My original fear when I heard about used game fees was that by introducing a fee stores such as Amazon and Play would feel less pressure to reduce their prices over time as the competition from used games would be lessened. I might find myself having to wait even longer to get a bargain; Not that I'm a business major so I'm hoping I'm wrong.

  What's more is that I have saved a large amount of money in the past by trading games directly with friends. I always felt ripped off when trading games in with a retailer such as GameStop but with friends there was no middle man to take a cut. Now I would find Microsoft (or possibly Sony) muscling in on our trading. However I also use my laptop to game but its not particularly high spec so I only really use it for indie titles that are PC exclusive. One thing I've noticed is that after a year I am yet to buy a solid copy of a disc. My service of choice is Steam and I'm always astounded as to how cheap the games are so I would love to have a similar facility on my console.
  

  I'm sure you're aware there's a lot of evidence to suggest both Microsoft and Sony are really encouraging consumers to favour digital downloads. Microsoft announced the Xbox One will have 500GB storage and although Sony are yet to announce the PS4s storage, I would be surprised if it wasn't of a similar size. This is a pretty large increase when compared to the original 40GB PS3 and 500GB of storage is still somewhat expensive so its obvious both Sony and Microsoft are expecting that were going to need it. What's more is that the PS4 has a secondary chip which allows games to be downloaded when playing another game and I have also been informed of some kind of technical wizardry allowing almost instant gameplay when you buy off the store.
  

  I've heard that the benefit for them is clear: When a game is sold for the first time a proportion goes to the developers and producers but when a game is re-sold through Amazon or GameStop then the only ones making money are the retailers. A digital download of a game obviously can't be resold and online passes were a way of discouraging consumers from buying used games and I think in the long run it could also stand to benefit gamers as well. For those reading who have used Steam I'm sure you agree with me as to how cheap it can be. As no one is losing out due to games being resold without them getting a cut they can afford to lower the price and throw crazy, cheap offers in our direction. And thats not all.
  

  One of the few topics that has the majority of gamers united is the hatred for day one DLC. Its one of the few debates where Xbox and PlayStation users unite and put aside our differences in favour of a common enemy yet its almost a necessity in order for developers to make money off consumers who insist on buying used games. DLC has to be bought by each user and cant be resold and call me an optimist but Id like to believe if the selling of used games were a thing off the past then free DLC would be a lot more common.
  

  Unfortunately this is mostly hypothetical and somewhat optimistic. Theres a bit of leap before a Steam-esque utopia can be found on consoles at its made somewhat clear by the various pricing of Far Cry 3. Far Cry was released in November 2012 and in this time Amazon.co.uk has reduced the price to £15.00 for a physical disc nevertheless the PlayStation Store is still charging a whopping £59.99. Its hard to excuse when Steam is charging £20.00 for a digital download where the only difference is the platform.

  I've heard people argue that you can't compare consoles to computers but I'm not entirely sure why anymore. Steam offers controller support for games, a friends list and achievements which were all features previously only seen on consoles. What's more the recent big picture mode allows full controller support while browsing the store, library and community pages. Combined with the fact that consoles are now favouring architecture similar to that seen in PCs it looks like the gap between platforms is shrinking. Its therefore surprising that the business model of selling and distributing games is so different when the platforms are becoming so alike.
  

  The worst case scenario as I see it is a horrible mid-ground in which cheap solid copies sold by retailers will be gone and in its place will be the Microsoft and PlayStation store which insist on charging full price as we are currently are seeing. The alternative is cheaper prices on release and instant downloads (hopefully with a few mind boggling sales thrown in).
  

  I'm not sure about everyone else but I am really excited about the future of gaming over the next year or so (if not slightly tentative) and I was probably in the minority to be saddened by EAs announcement of the abolishment of online passes. That being said I do think that Microsoft's attempts to reduce used game sales by simply announcing a fee for an unlock was somewhat heavy handed. Offering competitively priced alternatives on their store in order to encourage people to want to buy digitally rather than forcing them to would have got a much better reception. Also an appeal or two speaking directly to gamers with a bit of explanation as to why used game sales are so damaging to them - and what benefits we as consumers would see - could've gone a long way.

  • Posted Jun 1, 2013 7:25 am GMT
  • Category: Editorial
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts »