Picks of the Week

• James Bond 007: Blood Stone (Xbox 360/PS3)
• Papo and Yo (Game Trailer)

Articles

• The Final Final Boss (Alex)
• In Memoriam (Aaron)

5. Monaco (Pocketwatch Games, PC/Console)

For an arbitrary “I’m indie” pick, I look to the hopefully soon-to-be released Monaco. Coming off of a win at the Independent Games Festival, Monaco is a four-player cooperative heist game. I was hooked at “heist game”. The game has different character classes with different abilities, and it’s up to you and your friends to work together to pull off the job. It sounds cool and presents an interesting aesthetic, which I’m not sold on yet, but I like that it’s trying something different. While a PC release is definite, a console deal is still being worked out, although it seems most likely that a majority of people would want to play this over Xbox Live since it is viewed as the superior online experience.

4. The Last Guardian (Team Ico, PS3)

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that there is no way that this game is going to be bad. If ever there is a studio that has never made a bad game and one that takes their time with the sequels, it’s Team Ico. Their previous two games have been critical successes despite often being overlooked come award season, and I think that The Last Guardian is going to be equally as big and well received, if not more so than the games that came before it. We’ll be sure to get a great world along with characters and a story that we will care about, and more than likely cry over in the end. While we don’t know too much about the game yet, it’s safe to say that it’s going to be good. I can’t wait to see more gameplay footage, probably at E3, and finally get a firm release date. Perhaps we will see more when the Ico/Shadow of the Colossus pack is released.

3. Batman Arkham City (Rocksteady Games, Xbox 360/PS3)

If there is one game on my list that has me most worried, along with Aaron, it’s Arkham City. Arkham Asylum was a phenomenal game. I gave it Game of the Year in a year that it went up against Modern Warfare 2. That’s how highly I regard the original. But, everything that made the first game so great seems like it could take a backseat in the sequel. Now players will be in an open world with side missions to distract you from what I’m hoping is a great story. It’s a very risky move and one that could go horribly wrong, but I am putting complete faith in Rocksteady to pull it off. They took me by complete surprise with the first game, and I think they can do it again. I can’t wait to see how the open world functions, and going toe-to-toe with the new villains should be amazing. Throw in Hugo Strange as the driving antagonist, and they could have another Game of the Year contender on their hands.

2. Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception (Naughty Dog, PS3)

The original Uncharted is one of my favorite games; there’s no secret there. It’s also no secret that I didn’t care for the sequel nearly as much. Sure, it was good, but to me, it lost all of its charm by taking on too many giant set pieces set in locals that I didn’t care to be in. However, Drake’s Deception sees Nathan and company head to the desert, something that excites me. As long as they don’t put me in more cities through flashbacks, being in a more traditional treasure-hunting environment is a step in the right direction, in my opinion, for taking the game closer to the first one. Mix in with that the fact that Sully is rumored to have a big part in this game, and I’m sold. Because I love that world and those characters so much, there isn’t a whole lot that they could do to disappoint me, so now all I have to do is sit back, await the novel, and count down the days until November.

Earlier today, we told you about a slew of greatest hits titles on the way. The value train keeps rolling along with ModNation Racers and Uncharted 2: Game of the Year Edition.

For starters, ModNation Racers is now just $40 for the PS3 and $20 for the PSP. That’s a pretty good deal on a solid game with a lot of replay value.

Also, Uncharted 2 is getting the Game of the Year treatment. For $49.99, you’ll get a copy of the game and a “super voucher” that will get you the following DLC with a street value of $35:

PlayStation Heroes Skin Pack

Uncharted: Drake’s Fortune Multiplayer Pack

Uncharted 2 Siege Expansion Pack

Currency Multiplier which grants Double XP up to level 10 in Multiplayer

Golden Guns option for the AK-47 and the 92FS 9mm pistol for use in Multiplayer

Early access to “Revenge” Booster – you still have to purchase it with in-game cash!

Uncharted: Eye of Indra – Motion Comic Bundle (which includes Episodes 1-4)

Uncharted: Eye of Indra – Rika Raja and Daniel Pinkerton Character Skins

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves – Avatar Pack 1

Uncharted 2: Among Thieves – Avatar Pack 2

Uncharted Avatar Pack 3

Uncharted Avatar Pack 4

Pinball Heroes – Uncharted for the PSP

If you’ve held out on either of these games, now would be the time to pick them up. We gave both Uncharted 2 and Modnation Racers our “Buy it” stamp of approval, so you should probably just go ahead and do that.

via Playstation Blog

Related Links

• Gunnar Optiks
• The Misadventures of P. B. Winterbottom

Other aspects of a game can come together and make up for an area that is lacking; there is no questioning that.  But, in breaking down a game section by section, each one of these should be compared to the best in its field.  If a game tries for realistic graphics and doesn’t come close to Uncharted 2, fail.  If a game tries to do platforming and falls short of a Mario game, fail.  Obviously other teams can reach this standard, so there is no excuse.  If the money isn’t there, then aim lower. Work within your means. We need to stop letting games skate by in certain areas because maybe developers will start to see exactly where they need to improve.

I know that that sounds harsh, but think about it in terms of other media. If you went to a movie and nearly half of it was out of focus, you wouldn’t enjoy that movie. You would probably rate the camera work a 0. Or, if you were listening to a song and the guitar player kept missing notes or playing too fast, you would probably think that the song failed. No matter how good everything else was in the movie or the song, the viewer or listener would certainly be taken out of it or dislike it all together. And this is understandable. As consumers of media, we expect a certain level of polish to what we pay for. When that isn’t there, it’s certainly hard to just let that slip by.

My question, then, is why do we always let it slip by with video games?  Is it because so few quality titles come out each year that we are forced to take what we’re given?  Or is it that our reviewers aren’t real critics and just like review on the gut level, as Aaron had written about previously?  In all honesty, it’s probably a little bit of both, and it needs to end.  There is no reason that we should have to settle as gamers, especially when we’re shelling out 60 dollars and hours of our time for something.  We need to start being more critical of things ourselves.  Reviewers, we’ve said a million times here on Pixelosophy, need to start being reviewers and not just gaming enthusiasts.

If these two things can start happening, maybe publishers and developers will start to see that we won’t just buy something that’s pretty enough or handles alright.  We should demand the best as gamers.  We all know the gold standards in each category for games.  We can look at Uncharted 2: Among Thieves for the best graphics or Modern Warfare 2 for the best controls and start to hold other games accountable that try to emulate this and fail. If a game doesn’t meet these standards, or even your standards as a gamer, don’t fork over the cash just because.  Rent it, borrow it, find some other way to play it without giving the makers the satisfaction that they did a good job. Now, if you find that you enjoy the game for other reasons despite its shortcomings in a certain area, by all means, buy it.  But, if we continue to review bad games well and hand over money for every mediocre title, that’s exactly what we’ll continue to get. However, it is the job of reviewers to let us know how far a game falls from that gold standard.

Uncharted 2 is about to get Title Update 3, it balances some of the boosters in the game, and adds clan tags. The biggest feature and anyone who has played the multiplayer will agree, is decreased load times. From the time a vote has been made for which of the maps will be played to the time you are on the map playing has been “significantly decreased”. You can read all about title update 3 on the PS Blog.

The two games that really caught my attention on this subject are high profile sequels: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves and Bioshock 2: Sea of Dreams. The original installments were single-player games driven by wonderfully developed narratives. Bioshock hit the mark in its attempt to drop players into the middle of Rapture and the mysteries within it while Uncharted delivered the experience of living through an Indiana Jones-esque adventure flick. Both games triumphed in championing the notion that games could be taken seriously as a legitimate narrative medium. Then the sequels were announced, followed by the announcement that each would feature an online versus component. This lead to the simple question: why? What is the purpose of shoehorning a versus mode into a franchise that was founded on story? Furthermore, who is the addition of these modes catering to?

Looking at the question of why these modes were added to the sequels, the most obvious conclusion is that they exist to give the player more value and to keep them interested in the game. Not to mention, when Bioshock was released, one of the major, albeit unfair, criticisms hurled in its direction was a lack of multiplayer. The critics leveling those complaints are the ones that, I attest, are doing nothing but holding the medium back as a true narrative art form. What would be the point of having a versus mode in Bioshock? Just to show that gamers are a juvenile lot that salivate at every chance to shoot at one another? How can we say that we are more than childish, no-attention-span-having, hyper-barbaric fantasy seekers when games that finally start to push at the “games as art” barrier are deducted points for not including shoot-everything-that-moves-mode? Oh, but this time we get to do it in an underwater city. Seriously, grow the fuck up. A game’s existence as a shooter does not mandate a versus mode any more than my existence as a male mandates that I grow a beard, no matter how manly beards may be. The games are meant to tell a story. Including a versus mode in Bioshock makes as much sense as including a versus mode in a game like Assassin’s Creed, but I don’t recall the community outcry for “Altair-online-super-stabby-slayer-mode.”

Speaking briefly on the idea of perceived value, who is really getting value from creating these new modes? Last week we saw that only about a third of all Xbox Live users even have a Gold membership. That is only a third of the 31 million Xbox 360 owners who even have the ability to utilize these features. Why is there such a rush to accommodate an overwhelming minority in the gaming community? It was also stated that even in a franchise like Halo, who popularized console-based online multiplayer, the number of unique online players is fairly small when compared to the number of units sold. Gamers need to break free from the perception of getting more bang for their buck, especially when the added bang doesn’t get used. Additionally, developers’ willingness to alter a game’s purpose in order to meet the needs of the I-have-to-shoot-everything lowest common denominator only serves to further cement video games at the bottom of the artistic medium list.

Now that I’m done ranting, I have to admit that the public’s perception of gamers who love a good deathmatch is actually not even my main concern here. The aforementioned fear I have of including these modes into these games is the potential cost of including them. Of course, dollars and cents is not the cost to which I am referring. The real potential cost here is the risk of compromising portions of the narrative mode in order to accommodate the inclusion of the multiplayer portion.

We’ve all played our share of mediocre games that attempt to win players over with quantity rather than quality. Games like the newly released Wolfenstein or even John Woo’s Stranglehold. These are games that both attempted to include a compelling single player campaign as well as deliver a solid multiplayer experience. Sadly, they didn’t achieve either one, and both games faded into the bargain bin ether rather quickly. It would be a shame if Bioshock’s or Uncharted’s single-player campaigns took any sort of noticeable hits due to the development team having to worry about catering to the multiplayer minority, especially if the new modes only manage to generate as much excitement as the multiplayer portions in games like Wolfenstein or Stranglehold.  All of that extra work will have been for nothing, and in the end, the gamer is the one who loses the most.

As I said at the outset, this is mostly a “what if” sort of concern. After all, the pre-release reviews of Uncharted 2 seem to be glowing. For Bioshock, gamers still have a fairly lengthy wait to see how the new additions pan out. However, even if both games manage to blow away expectations in the campaign department, I can’t help but feel that unless the multiplayer modes really add something to the overall experience, I will be cursing them with every slight frame drop, control hiccup or texture pop-in I come across.  Finally, keep in mind that I love multiplayer as much as the next guy. I’ve spent many a night glued to Call of Duty and Gears of War. I’m also not saying that multiplayer is somehow inferior to single-player or that those who enjoy it are in any way beneath players who prefer a good story mode. Instead, just be aware of a game’s intent or purpose. There are certainly games out there whose foundations exemplify all things multiplayer, I’m just not sure a game based around the philosophy of Objectivism and the idea of control vs. free will is necessarily one of those games.