• 5Aug 09

  On Release Dates and Developers Missing them

  What is it with developers announcing release dates, getting their fans excited, only to delay the game a few months later? There's been quite a bit of that this year, but none of it really bothered me until it happened to a game I was very highly anticipating: Starcraft 2.

  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but developers aren't forced into announcing a release date, or even a release window, at least that I've seen. So why do they announce a timeframe that they know they can't make?

  I understand that there are setbacks, such as Starcraft 2 and having to make it work with the new Battle.net (or so Blizzard says), but no one FORCED Blizzard into announcing a release window of 2009. I also get that developers may want to stake their claim in a slot to possibly ward of competition, but I don't see how it's worth it to do that if the developer is going to cut it that close and possibly compromise the quality of their product (I'm not talking about Starcraft 2 here, just generalizing).

  When a developer delays a game, not only does it reflect poorly on the company, it also brings up questions about the quality of the game. Did something go wrong? What do they need that extra time for? Are they not happy with the product? Ultimately, because of the established history of delays,savvy consumers are less inclined to go out and buy the game Day 1. There may be exceptions to that with certain developers, but those developers aren't usually the ones making the delays in the first place. There is a distinct correlation between quality of the development team and the amount of delays their games have (as always, there are exceptions).

  The bottom line: Don't announce anything about the release date, even a release window, until you are 100% sure you can make it.

  • Posted Aug 5, 2009 2:27 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 29Jul 09

  The Game that Needs a Sequel Most

  I'm not an advocate of making sequels just because the first game was good. If a game works perfectly and wraps everything up in a single entry, I'd prefer that it remain a standalone game (but that's not saying I won't play the sequel when it comes out). However, there are also those superb games that just don't get a chance to tell the whole story in one entry. There is no better example of this than Freedom Fighters.

  Freedom Fighters was well received when it was released in the fall of 2003. The game is set in an alternate present time where the Cold War actually came about and the Soviet Union started conquering countries one by one. At the start of the game it's finally the United States' turn. The Soviets invade and the game chronicles the story of plumber-turned-soldier Chris Stone and his guerilla fight against the invaders.

  Freedom Fighters 2 was actually scheduled to be made, but it was cancelled to make Kane and Lynch: Dead Men. Why Io made this decision I can't say, but it proved to be a pretty bad move, and the Freedom Fighters fans paid for it.

  In all likelyhood, the game will never get a sequel, which is a real shame. The first game, despite being an unfinished tale, is a gem of its generation. If you've never played the original, it's still worth playing if you can get your hands on a copy.

  Maybe in an alternate present time this would be a blog boasting Freedom Fighters 2 as one of the all-time greats.

  • Posted Jul 29, 2009 6:23 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 2 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet
• 4Jun 09

  Post-E3 Most Anticipated Games

  I'm tempted to say that this was the best E3 I have seen. So many games, a lot of big announcements, and a return to the old (bigger) format. It's definitely made me reconsider what games I'm looking forward to most. This list is one of the hardest I've ever had to put together. Cutting this list down to my top 5 was extremely difficult, but here they are in ascending order:

  5. Splinter Cell: Conviction
  
  Any number of games could have gone in this slot, but I chose Splinter Cell because of the drastic changes that the team at Ubisoft have made to the Splinter Cell formula. You now are much more equipped to take enemies head on, but you can also do the stealth bit if you want to. A couple of slick new design choices, like displaying mission objectives right on the environment (like on the side of a building that you have to infiltrate, for example), seamless transitions from cutscenes, and the "last known position" feature (puts a silhouette where the enemy last saw you, which you can then use against them) make this extra appealing.
  
  4. Left 4 Dead 2
  
  I'm still playing the original (at least I was until my xbox red ringed last week) and it shows no sign of getting boring soon. This was one of the big shockers at E3 for me. I'm so happy it's getting a sequel so soon. The promise of melee weapons, more campaigns, more story, a new set of survivors, and Valve as the developer make this a guaranteed purchase for me.
  
  3. Halo: Reach
  
  This was a shock announcement from Bungie. I thought they would keep the focus on ODST that's releasing this fall, but they decided to tease a new Halo game. It's a prequel to the original Halo and seems to follow the plot of the Eric Nylund novel "The Fall of Reach". Can't wait to hear more about this.
  
  2. Heavy Rain
  
  This is one of the most unique games I got the chance to see at E3. It's much less a game and more of an interactive story, but that's what makes it even more appealing to me. You basically control four characters and, depending on how you go about doing things (the ultimate goal is to catch a serial killer that all four characters are somehow connected to), you will end up with a different story. You can even let characters die. If all four characters die, then that's just how the story ends. There's no game over screen. The only thing keeping this out of the number one spot is the plot itself. It seems to be a bit generic and none of the characters seem that interesting, but the prospect of being able to mold the story to how you see fit almost completely makes up for it.
  
  1. Alan Wake
  
  This was my #1 going into E3 and it, barely, still holds that spot after it. It's been a long time since anything new was shown, but a stage demo gave me confidence that this is going to be one amazing game. The plot seems compelling (a horror novel coming to life? Yes, please), the lead character is interesting, the mechanics are unique (using light to take the darkness off of things, including enemies, which makes them vulnerable to damage), and the setting is absolutely creepy. If all goes well this is going to be a future GOTY contender.
  
  
  So there you have it, my most anticipated games. This E3 has shown just how strong the industry is. Hopefully it will only get better. I had a lot of fun watching the Gamespot live coverage and talking in the chatroom. Really looking forward to playing the games we've seen over the last few days. Until next time, keep your bank accounts full.
  

  EDIT: I'm not sure how I managed to do this, but I unintentionally left Uncharted 2 off of the list. Since I've already got 5 on there I'm just going to turn this into a top 6. So the list would go like this:

  1. Alan Wake
  
  2. Uncharted 2
  
  3. Heavy Rain

  4. Halo: Reach
  
  5. Left 4 Dead 2
  
  6. Splinter Cell: Conviction.

  • Posted Jun 4, 2009 8:34 pm PT
  • Category: Games
  • 1 Comment
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • Tweet

See Previous Blog Posts »