A discussion of games and such, read and enjoy! (and comment, if you wish)

• 5Mar 08

  Army of Two has no local co-op play

  Let me say that again: Army of Two has no local co-op play.Perhaps this will better explain things. This is from a news post on the Penny Arcade webcomic site:

  "Just got back from the store with two copies of Army of Two, my mind already blossoming with mercenary exploits, when it suddely became clear that the game has no local play option. No local play option. Even on the same God****ed LAN, both accounts need to be Gold Tier Live accounts. You seriously have got to be ****ing kidding me." (Tycho)

  I had about the same reaction reading this, and if it turns out to be true, EA has officially gone too far. I was starting to get worried when Rock Band released an ***load of music for paid download like, a week after the game came out, since it was obvious they had just left those songs out of the game so they could milk us for more money. I was willing to put up with it, since at least the songs were good and I had the money for it, but people there is a god****ed line, and EA has crossed it. What about all the people who want to play locally but have no online connection? What about people who don't want to buy a subscription to Xbox live to play one game? This is unacceptable.

  I was already less than excited about this game, but now, I'm freaking boycotting it. What's worse is that people are probably still going to buy it, and then pony up for the live accounts. It's sickening. We have to teach EA a lesson the only way we know how. Do not buy this game. Demand that we not be forced to pay 60 dollars for a broken game, and demand that they put a basic compnoent back in. I was willing to give EA's money grubbing reputation the benefit of the doubt, but this proves it. Do not support this blatant extortion of peoples money. It is wrong.

  • Posted Mar 5, 2008 6:58 pm PT
  • Category: Editorial
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 1Oct 07

  Star Wars Syndrome: Halo's got it, and we suffer for it

  It's been about a week since the absurdly profitable release of Halo 3, and I can guess by now that every slavering Halo fan from hardcore to casual has bit down into the piece of meat Bungie and Microsoft have thrown at us. Now, I know what I'm about to say is going to cause most Halophiles' ears to bleed, so, brace yourself...

  Halo 3...was mediocre at best.

  A bold statement, I know. But has anyone else bothered to look past the shiny new graphics and fairly useless new weaponry and really looked at this game? 4ish hours of prettier gameplay (that was actually pretty fun) that ruins any fun you may have head with spectacular flop of an ending that rivals the abruptness of Halo 2. Not only was this game shorter than the first two, but half of Microsofts' marketing was a lie. Where were the forerunners? Where was that huge battle at New Mombassa that stupid "Believe" site got us all revved up for? Wherever it was, I guess Bungie and Microsoft decided it was more important to capitalize off the fact that everyone was going to buy this game no matter what. Kind of like Star Wars 3, where George Lucas had the chance to actually make a quality film after the public outcry about how stupid the first 2 were; instead of take the time to write and make a good film, he hashed out Revenge of the Sith in the ususal cheesy, stupid flair he did 1 and 2 in, knowing people would go to see it no matter what he did.

  This is what I have come to call Star Wars Syndrome: Where producers or designers shove out a half-made game or movie because they know they have a big enough following that they'll make a profit no matter how lame the product. Halo 3 was not something to "believe" in, it was a lame, barely improved version of its predecessor, and did not in anyway deserve the hype, or the billions of dollars it earned.

  • Posted Oct 1, 2007 7:51 pm PT
  • Category: Rant
  • 0 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
• 8Aug 07

  It's only a game

  Recently, i have seen worrying amounts of callousness coming from fellow gamers. Nearly every time I express a feeling of remorse at seeing an innocent die, or something terrible happen to someone in in a game who didn't deserve it, I have been criticized for it, even been called "messed up." My own brother, has repeatedly spewed out that phrase i have come to hate: "It's only a video game." It is exactly that attitude that gives gamers and our world a bad name. I don't care where you come from, the act of killing an innocent or a child should carry a feeling of guilt. I don't care if you are reading a book, watching a movie, or performing the act yourself in a game, you should feel bad about it. If not, you
  are the one who's messed up, not me.

  It's not that I'm against violence in games. I like to pick up a good FPS as much as anyone, and am chomping at the bit to get a hold of Stanglehold when it comes out. The Godfather is also one of my favorite games to this day, and I love the Hitman series as well. I simply believe that actions that are inherently wrong should not be glorified or go unpunished. At least in The Godfather, your family stood for something, and had it's own morals and values, and if you were to go on a killing spree, the police came down on you hard. and in Hitman, all of your targets deserved what they were getting, and the world was not going to miss them.

  The whole "It's not real" excuse simply does not fly anymore. With the increasing graphical quality demonstrated in games, virtual death is becoming more realistic day by day. I'm not saying that we go so far as to make laws against it or anything, because it is, god help me, "just a game," but the death of someone, real or imaginary, should carry some meaning, and not just be dismissed away as nothing.

  • Posted Aug 8, 2007 3:52 pm PT
  • Category: Rant
  • 2 Comments
  • Tag
  • Print
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Digg

See Previous Blog Posts