Growing up during the age of the Super Nintendo brought me into the fighting game genre. The popularity of games like Street Fighter II and Mortal Kombat attracted a lot of attention, especially when those games were brought to home consoles. People may remember the controversy surrounding Mortal Kombat for fatalities and the lack of blood on the SNES version, but for me being a kid who didn't know any better, I just sat there and played the CPU on ever-increasing difficulties to improve my skills. Over time I drifted apart from fighting games and the scene. I played Super Smash Bros., but that really wasn't the same. What brought me back was Street Fighter IV and the hype surrounding it. A few years later and here we are, at the end of another generation where it seems history is repeating itself.
Throughout the PS1/PS2 era, fighting games became a lot harder, becoming more technique-based and frame precise. They required a lot more skill and thus, the genre fell out of favor until the return of Street Fighter IV. When it revived the genre, fight sticks, tournaments and online video streams became popular ways to engage ones' self in the culture that is the fighting game. But what made these games popular again? A lot of hype and dumbing down the difficulty that made them inaccessible in the first place, which is the point of this article. Today I'll be looking at the accessibility of certain fighting games based on five criteria:
- How good the training/trials mode is
- How punishing is the AI on the lowest difficulty
- How clear the directions in the game are
- How easy is it to make inputs for combo strings?
- How easy is it for new players to get better?
For clarity's sake, I will be using the most recent release of a mainline series, so that means I will not be looking at Street Fighter X Tekken. Let's get started, shall we?
Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition 2013
#1 - Training Mode: 2.5/5
#2 - AI Challenge: 4/5
#3 - Directions: 1.5/5
#4 - Combos Strings: 3/5
#5 - Increase of Skill: 4/5
The AI in Street Fighter IV series has by and large been consistent. It offers varying degrees of challenge that do improve your play, but the game can get a bit overbearing on some of the harder difficulty levels, as well as being a bit too forgiving on easier ones. Combo strings are somewhat forgiving except for the more trickier combos, but the game does a good job at balancing efforts so you don't necessarily need to use them. A major problem this game has is its' training mode and the directions it gives the player. There's very little of it. While it may tell you a button prompt string, it never tells you to get in stances needed to perform certain moves, nor does it make it easy to find out. While Street Fighter IV does a lot right, and is the preferable pick-up fighting game for anyone, it does a lot wrong to try and get new players good.
Virtua Fighter 5: Final Showdown
#1 - Training Mode: 4/5
#2 - AI Challenge: 3/5
#3 - Directions: 3/5
#4 - Combo Strings: 2/5
#5 - Increase of Skill: 3.5/5
Virtua Fighter 5 excels at its' training mode, which not only asks you to perform certain moves, but allows you to see them in action and understand where certain inputs are needed. While it may be hard to execute these moves, it is a major step above every other fighter out there in terms of trying to get the player to understand frame data. A problem the game has comes from its' AI, which is somewhat punishing, and makes it harder for new players to feel like they're getting any better. Street Fighter IV has the same problem, where AI on the same difficulty can range from a joke to murderous. It's discouraging that there isn't a solid balance between characters and makes it harder for players to know if they're getting better at it or not.
Dead or Alive 5
#1 - Training Mode: 4/5
#2 - AI Challenge: 2/5
#3 - Directions: 3/5
#4 - Combo Strings: 4.5/5
#5 - Increase of Skill: 3.5/5
A lot of DOA5's increase in skill comes from the AI, or the luck of the draw. The AI here has 2 distinct movesets: Almost nothing at all or Magic. By magic I mean the AI reads your button inputs from time to time and counters every single move you have. The game does this on every single difficulty, and only gets worse the tougher you make the AI. Other than that, the game is extremely accessible with it being a 4 button game, or 2 if you just want to attack. The game's training mode is very basic, but it is very encouraging since you only need to perform moves to do them, not hit your opponent. Although the game could be a bit more clear on directions as it is confusing at times to know what inputs are which for combos, but once you get combos, they're easy to pull off. More importantly, the more you play, you do seem to get better, even though the AI does get in your way randomly at times, which makes it rather frustrating. If you're looking to get into 3D fighting games, this is probably your best bet.
Tekken Tag Tournament 2
#1 - Training Mode: 1.5/5
#2 - AI Challenge: 1.5/5
#3 - Directions: 1/5
#4 - Combo Strings: 1.5/5
#5 - Increase of Skill: 1.5/5
TTT2 is not for the weak at heart. While it tries to ease people into it through it's Combot Training mode, it's poorly implemented. Directions are given out while you're active, meaning it's very easy to miss directions that you can't read over again, until you lose at least. You read correctly, you can lose in the tutorial of this, which is roughly 3 hours in length assuming you don't lose. The AI is also another one of those 'MAGIC' systems where the AI will read your inputs from time to time, but it's worse here since the game will prevent you from recovering more. The fact that TTT2's combat is extremely stiff, meaning it's hard to pull off combos and enjoy it, it's a hard sell to anyone who's looking to get into a 3D fighting game. It's for experts only, and it doesn't really seem to understand that it does a poor job of getting people into it.
Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3
#1 - Training Mode: 2.5/5
#2 - AI Challenge: 3.5/5
#3 - Directions: 3.5/5
#4 - Combo Strings: 4.5/5
#5 - Increase of Skill: 3/5
UMVC3 has the same problem SSF4 has, in that the game gives you very little direction on how to get better or perform some of the most basic moves. While you can succeed without them, you'll quickly come to realize that these mechanics are things you learned by random chance instead of careful understanding of the mechanics. The AI is mostly fair, and is heavily dependent on your skill, but since the game is very lenient with combo strings, it's a nice time to be had by all, especially given its' flashy nature. I can't recommend this higher than SSF4, but if you understand that game well enough, this is a fair enough compliment to it to help you understand both better.
Super Smash Bros. Brawl
#1 - Training Mode: 1/5
#2 - AI Challenge: 5/5
#3 - Directions: 2.5/5
#4 - Combo Strings: 4/5
#5 - Increase of Skill: 5/5
I know people will instantly discredit me by bringing this up, but hear me out. The key that makes Brawl stand out here, even if you don't like it or don't consider Smash Bros. to be a fighting game series, is that the game clearly defines AI difficulty, and because of it you can feel yourself getting better at the game, allowing you to increase the challenge at your leisure through basic play. It also never feels like the AI is performing moves you yourself can't, which is something a lot of other fighters do. While there is a sandbox type training mode, it's mostly throwaway. The same goes for directions, while simple, the game simply doesn't make it easy for you to find out where these directions are in-game. At least with other fighting games, you at least understand how to perform a punch, a kick, a fireball, etc. Brawl, and the series as a whole doesn't do that, so it is something they could improve upon. If you're looking to get into fighting games, this is a good starting point, but perhaps not the starting point one would technically look for since it's not as skill dependent as most.
While there are a lot of fighting game fans out there, there are a lot of ways for that group of people to increase. Fighting games have done a lot to try and cater to new players, but there is still a ways to go before it can be something a lot bigger than it currently is right now. Hopefully series like Tekken take note and follow before there is no one else to play it. As it stands, fighting games are popular, and will only get popular if they become more accessible to those interested in playing, but may not know how to play.
If you would like me to look at another fighting game that I may have missed, please post a comment below and I'll see if I can check it out.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
PS4: Fourward
After months of speculation, Sony has unveiled the Playstation 4...sort of. While Sony unveiled a few games, partners, system features and tech, they never showed the box. While unimportant at this stage of the game, it was one of a few questions raised going through the show and afterwards. Some have been answered, others not so much. So let's run down the list of important features and announcements, shall we?
The Name: Playstation 4
While may proclaim that "Four" in Japanese is close to the meaning of "death" Sony threw caution to the wind of this fake myth by calling it the Playstation 4 or PS4 for short. I applaud Sony for keeping it simple and avoiding naming confusion like the Xbox 360 and Wii U.
The Dualshock 4
The leaks provided by Destructoid and later Kotaku were true, the Dualshock 4 will have a Move light on top of it, concave triggers, a larger d-pad, a touch-pad, wider handles, a headphone jack, a speaker and share/options buttons (replacing the Start/Select buttons). Overall I prefer the look of the prototype as it was more basic and had a Vita-like d-pad. The Move light looks like something out of Tron, so it sticks out in an unnatural way. The sticks look fine and the pad keeps its' traditional face buttons. It looks like it'd make a great replacement for 360 controllers on PC as well.
The Hardware
The PS4 will surprisingly have 8gb of GDDR5 ram, up from the rumored 4gb. This is a huge change since it not only matches Microsoft in terms of ram amount, but destroys them at the same time in terms of speed; Microsoft is rumored to have 8gb of GDDR3 ram, which is much slower. The CPU will be x86 based and the GPU will support 1.84 TFLOPS, up from the rumored 1.8. However the CPU will only have 8 cores from the rumored 12, showing a significant change in focus from the PS3, which is in-line with PC specs today in terms of design philosophy. It's a nice step up in power from PS3 and should be a lot easier to develop for, but this does come with a price.
No Backwards Compatibility
While not unexpected, it was announced that PS4 won't support PS3/PS2/PS1 games natively, but instead will be rolled in phases through Gaikai. With that, you will be able to stream older digital titles you buy instead of having native compatibility/support for these titles. It's a bad idea all around as streaming technology is nowhere near where it needs to be to work, especially for graphically intensive games. For older titles, it makes no sense to not have local support and is a slap in the face to long-time Playstation fans, especially when the system is more than capable of emulation PS1 and PS2 games locally.
Share
One of the buttons on the Dualshock 4 is "Share," which is a new PS4 feature to the hardware. The system will constantly record the last 10 minutes of gameplay for you, so you can upload screenshots and videos to various sites directly from your console. It's also possible for your friends to jump in from across PSN and help you out in spots that you get stuck in. These all sound like good ideas, but the implementation of it seems perplexing and very pie in the sky. They sound like ideas of local play but implemented through the internet, something that's novel for some things. But ultimately it seems like it could cause privacy issues as well as alienate many single-player gamers, especially since PS4 comes with its' own camera.
Not Kinect
During the Presentation, a new look Eyetoy was seen in Presentations and looks to be part of the final package. It features 2 cameras on a long bar that will keep track of your controller. It remains to be seen if you can be the controller or not, but it shows that Sony is up to its' old tricks again when it comes to "innovation" by using what others have and claim it as their own. For what purposes will it be used remains to be seen but it is disheartening to see.
Used Games
After the conference, it was confirmed to Eurogamer that PS4 will play used games. A truly positive note for once.
The Games
For the most part, the games were steps up from current generation consoles. I don't believe they were jumps people were expecting, but things like Killzone Shadow Fall, Infamous Second Son and Square Enix's laughable retread of the Luminous Engine were disappointing. The only bright spot was Capcom's internal engine tech demo of a game called "Deep Down" which seemed similar to Monster Hunter and Dark Souls. It's questionable if it was a target render or real time, but it was still the only thing worth watching as Watch Dogs, Ubisoft's initial gateway drug into Next Gen floundered with screen tearing and framerate drops. At least Sony teamed up with Blizzard for Diablo 3 on PS3 and PS4, right? Right? For the most important part of the show, nothing showed me why this platform is worth buying on Day 1, especially since my older games will have to be rebought if I want to play them.
Overall - 6 out of 10
Sony's conference was a lot of fluff. While it all sounded nice in theory, there wasn't much real world execution seen. I remain skeptical of next gen even more so than before. While developers have been given more power and tools to work with, it seems once again, before last gen, that not many are going to use these tools for anything other than pretty graphics. The cost of entry to PS4 remains a question, as well as the cost of the services they are proposing. If they are high, Sony may fail once again and be forced to bow out from a race that they were formally called "King."
The Name: Playstation 4
While may proclaim that "Four" in Japanese is close to the meaning of "death" Sony threw caution to the wind of this fake myth by calling it the Playstation 4 or PS4 for short. I applaud Sony for keeping it simple and avoiding naming confusion like the Xbox 360 and Wii U.
The Dualshock 4
The leaks provided by Destructoid and later Kotaku were true, the Dualshock 4 will have a Move light on top of it, concave triggers, a larger d-pad, a touch-pad, wider handles, a headphone jack, a speaker and share/options buttons (replacing the Start/Select buttons). Overall I prefer the look of the prototype as it was more basic and had a Vita-like d-pad. The Move light looks like something out of Tron, so it sticks out in an unnatural way. The sticks look fine and the pad keeps its' traditional face buttons. It looks like it'd make a great replacement for 360 controllers on PC as well.
The Hardware
The PS4 will surprisingly have 8gb of GDDR5 ram, up from the rumored 4gb. This is a huge change since it not only matches Microsoft in terms of ram amount, but destroys them at the same time in terms of speed; Microsoft is rumored to have 8gb of GDDR3 ram, which is much slower. The CPU will be x86 based and the GPU will support 1.84 TFLOPS, up from the rumored 1.8. However the CPU will only have 8 cores from the rumored 12, showing a significant change in focus from the PS3, which is in-line with PC specs today in terms of design philosophy. It's a nice step up in power from PS3 and should be a lot easier to develop for, but this does come with a price.
No Backwards Compatibility
While not unexpected, it was announced that PS4 won't support PS3/PS2/PS1 games natively, but instead will be rolled in phases through Gaikai. With that, you will be able to stream older digital titles you buy instead of having native compatibility/support for these titles. It's a bad idea all around as streaming technology is nowhere near where it needs to be to work, especially for graphically intensive games. For older titles, it makes no sense to not have local support and is a slap in the face to long-time Playstation fans, especially when the system is more than capable of emulation PS1 and PS2 games locally.
Share
One of the buttons on the Dualshock 4 is "Share," which is a new PS4 feature to the hardware. The system will constantly record the last 10 minutes of gameplay for you, so you can upload screenshots and videos to various sites directly from your console. It's also possible for your friends to jump in from across PSN and help you out in spots that you get stuck in. These all sound like good ideas, but the implementation of it seems perplexing and very pie in the sky. They sound like ideas of local play but implemented through the internet, something that's novel for some things. But ultimately it seems like it could cause privacy issues as well as alienate many single-player gamers, especially since PS4 comes with its' own camera.
Not Kinect
During the Presentation, a new look Eyetoy was seen in Presentations and looks to be part of the final package. It features 2 cameras on a long bar that will keep track of your controller. It remains to be seen if you can be the controller or not, but it shows that Sony is up to its' old tricks again when it comes to "innovation" by using what others have and claim it as their own. For what purposes will it be used remains to be seen but it is disheartening to see.
Used Games
After the conference, it was confirmed to Eurogamer that PS4 will play used games. A truly positive note for once.
The Games
For the most part, the games were steps up from current generation consoles. I don't believe they were jumps people were expecting, but things like Killzone Shadow Fall, Infamous Second Son and Square Enix's laughable retread of the Luminous Engine were disappointing. The only bright spot was Capcom's internal engine tech demo of a game called "Deep Down" which seemed similar to Monster Hunter and Dark Souls. It's questionable if it was a target render or real time, but it was still the only thing worth watching as Watch Dogs, Ubisoft's initial gateway drug into Next Gen floundered with screen tearing and framerate drops. At least Sony teamed up with Blizzard for Diablo 3 on PS3 and PS4, right? Right? For the most important part of the show, nothing showed me why this platform is worth buying on Day 1, especially since my older games will have to be rebought if I want to play them.
Overall - 6 out of 10
Sony's conference was a lot of fluff. While it all sounded nice in theory, there wasn't much real world execution seen. I remain skeptical of next gen even more so than before. While developers have been given more power and tools to work with, it seems once again, before last gen, that not many are going to use these tools for anything other than pretty graphics. The cost of entry to PS4 remains a question, as well as the cost of the services they are proposing. If they are high, Sony may fail once again and be forced to bow out from a race that they were formally called "King."
Friday, February 15, 2013
Console Gaming's Troubles are about to get Worse
Console gaming has a lot of problems associated with it nowadays. "Cinematic experiences." "Mainstream gaming." "DLC," "Online Passes," "appeal to newcomers," and more. A lot of problems exist because of the DS and Wii, and the notion that there was a large portion of people out there that want to play games, but didn't because nothing appealed to them. Their success led Microsoft and Sony to adopt their own method of motion control gaming, Kinect and Move respectively. While Move is now nowhere to be seen, Kinect seems like it's about to get a new pair of glasses with Microsoft's next generation console. But don't worry, Sony might be coming along for the ride too.
A lot of the dangers that I described can really be bundled into one core problem with game design. Games nowadays are designed for one playthrough. You buy it, you enjoy it, you sell it back to Gamestop for the next game. Essentially, it's a beverage. You get one, open it, take a few minutes to enjoy and then you're done. A few hours later you get another one. There's very little staying power with games nowadays and publishers see that as a problem. So they like to add things like downloadable content to games so you'll keep it a little while longer in the hopes that you won't sell it until the price of it becomes negligible or you buy the DLC and keep it. Another thing is online passes, which is something EA created and others adopted in 2009 or so to prevent people who bought games used from playing games online without paying a $10 fee. If you bought the game new you got a code. This was done to entice people who look at used game prices compared to new ones and go with the latter. Until then, used games were sold at $5 cheaper than normal, but with a $10 online pass that'd make it more expensive. But used game retailers just lowered the price of these games an additional $10-$15 so the fight over $5 came back to square one. While retailers were offering less money to people for used games after that, margins stayed consistent for these retailers.
But why am I describing to you a basic business scenario that occurs multiple times a day? Because it appears that this business practice is being threatened with the upcoming generation of consoles, outside of the Wii U mind you. While games today have no staying power, publishers have constantly wanted gamers to keep their games forever, even though the problem is simple: Their games may not be worth keeping. I'm not saying all developers are bad, but some developers have problems understanding what's wrong with their games and thus blame others for poor sales results. Right now, sales of the Wii U hardware and software are poor. Why? There's no key software driving Nintendo fans and hardcore gamers to buy the system and the third party software that is there are mostly late ports that run on par or worse than what other versions offer, in addition to being more expense on Wii U. That's not really a recipe for success. But why customers for these results? Why punish them by discontinuing support when the effort put forth was not good enough to begin with? This isn't just a Wii U problem, but an industry-wide epidemic that has gone on for too long.
Unfortunately, it looks like this will lead to the industry's downfall. Rumors are circulating that next generation consoles will prevent used games from being played on them. Additionally, games on them may always require an online connection to play games on them. And finally, these systems will not be backwards compatible with current generation hardware and games. These changes to the landscape of gaming look only to limit an already shrinking marketplace. This generation has seen a tremendous growth in the number of people who play games. But at the same time it has seen a growth in anti-consumer behavior by both developers and publishers that have driven these consumers away. If any or all of what is listed above come true, the hardcore gamers of today will leave and thus the industry will fail once again.
Used games are big part of the economy in the games industry. They drive people to trade in games they no longer desire to play towards the purchase of newer games. Publishers are not too keen on used games sales. By implementing policies like Day 1/on-disc DLC and online passes, it inconveniences the consumer, as well angers them that content was potentially cut from the game's initial release. Gamestop was recently quoted as saying as many as 60% of consumers would refuse to buy a game console that didn't allow for used games to be played on them. It may not happen, and while I don't like used games, a game preventing used games to be played on it means that console will not come into my place of residence. Even though used games is a huge discussion openly, it's not the most pressing issue, always online connectivity most certainly is.
While we live in an ever-connected society, the internet is ever fickle. It's not consistent or commonplace as water or electricity. It will be over time, but now is not the time. What's being proposed with an always-online connection is simple, in order to keep playing the game you want to play, your internet must always be up. If it wobbles, lags or falters, your game becomes instantly unplayable. This is a policy that Ubisoft adopted for PC games for roughly 18 months before dropping it due to complaints and the fact that hackers got around it very easily. This is a huge problem and it's ultimately not something that will be discussed when someone goes to buy one of these machines in the future. The idea that a game can instantly become worthless because your internet doesn't work or because their servers are taken down is insulting. EA takes down their sports games' servers every 3-4 years, depending on popularity. This basically makes every EA game going forward potentially worthless and its' worrysome. Another example: What if Original Xbox games required you to be online in order to play them? Right now, if that were true, those games would be 100% unplayable in any capacity since Microsoft pulled the plug on the original Xbox Live service. Who's to say it won't happen again?
Considering that these systems won't be compatible with current generation games, it makes it even more likely that this will happen. Considering that Nintendo offers backwards compatibility with Wii games, their Virtual Console games, their DS and DSiWare games, a company that isn't quite up to par in terms of online standards believes in such a practice when Sony and Microsoft don't is maddening. Why? Because iOS allows for backwards compatibility. So does Android. If you bought a game or App on an earlier version of that software, it works on newer devices. How can Microsoft and Sony take such a step back when it's becoming commonplace and not a rarity? Digital Goods are being tied to the consumer, not the hardware. If Microsoft and Sony try to take away these goods from consumers going forward it will only put them in more of a hole. And it will leave everyone in the industry wondering 'how did this happen?'
The answer is simple: You bit the hand that fed you. They don't feed you anymore. They saw your petulant attitude and let you starve. "It was for their own good" they said, and they were right. The console market is shrinking, and the games industry is in danger of collapsing. Big budget games are dying and for the past 3 years software sales have plummeted. So why do industry big wigs think this is going to continue? It's not. And ultimately, that's when gaming dies once again. Because like most dinosaurs, the answer is simple: Adapt or Die. No one is truly adapting to the marketplace. They're only dying.
A lot of the dangers that I described can really be bundled into one core problem with game design. Games nowadays are designed for one playthrough. You buy it, you enjoy it, you sell it back to Gamestop for the next game. Essentially, it's a beverage. You get one, open it, take a few minutes to enjoy and then you're done. A few hours later you get another one. There's very little staying power with games nowadays and publishers see that as a problem. So they like to add things like downloadable content to games so you'll keep it a little while longer in the hopes that you won't sell it until the price of it becomes negligible or you buy the DLC and keep it. Another thing is online passes, which is something EA created and others adopted in 2009 or so to prevent people who bought games used from playing games online without paying a $10 fee. If you bought the game new you got a code. This was done to entice people who look at used game prices compared to new ones and go with the latter. Until then, used games were sold at $5 cheaper than normal, but with a $10 online pass that'd make it more expensive. But used game retailers just lowered the price of these games an additional $10-$15 so the fight over $5 came back to square one. While retailers were offering less money to people for used games after that, margins stayed consistent for these retailers.
But why am I describing to you a basic business scenario that occurs multiple times a day? Because it appears that this business practice is being threatened with the upcoming generation of consoles, outside of the Wii U mind you. While games today have no staying power, publishers have constantly wanted gamers to keep their games forever, even though the problem is simple: Their games may not be worth keeping. I'm not saying all developers are bad, but some developers have problems understanding what's wrong with their games and thus blame others for poor sales results. Right now, sales of the Wii U hardware and software are poor. Why? There's no key software driving Nintendo fans and hardcore gamers to buy the system and the third party software that is there are mostly late ports that run on par or worse than what other versions offer, in addition to being more expense on Wii U. That's not really a recipe for success. But why customers for these results? Why punish them by discontinuing support when the effort put forth was not good enough to begin with? This isn't just a Wii U problem, but an industry-wide epidemic that has gone on for too long.
Unfortunately, it looks like this will lead to the industry's downfall. Rumors are circulating that next generation consoles will prevent used games from being played on them. Additionally, games on them may always require an online connection to play games on them. And finally, these systems will not be backwards compatible with current generation hardware and games. These changes to the landscape of gaming look only to limit an already shrinking marketplace. This generation has seen a tremendous growth in the number of people who play games. But at the same time it has seen a growth in anti-consumer behavior by both developers and publishers that have driven these consumers away. If any or all of what is listed above come true, the hardcore gamers of today will leave and thus the industry will fail once again.
Used games are big part of the economy in the games industry. They drive people to trade in games they no longer desire to play towards the purchase of newer games. Publishers are not too keen on used games sales. By implementing policies like Day 1/on-disc DLC and online passes, it inconveniences the consumer, as well angers them that content was potentially cut from the game's initial release. Gamestop was recently quoted as saying as many as 60% of consumers would refuse to buy a game console that didn't allow for used games to be played on them. It may not happen, and while I don't like used games, a game preventing used games to be played on it means that console will not come into my place of residence. Even though used games is a huge discussion openly, it's not the most pressing issue, always online connectivity most certainly is.
While we live in an ever-connected society, the internet is ever fickle. It's not consistent or commonplace as water or electricity. It will be over time, but now is not the time. What's being proposed with an always-online connection is simple, in order to keep playing the game you want to play, your internet must always be up. If it wobbles, lags or falters, your game becomes instantly unplayable. This is a policy that Ubisoft adopted for PC games for roughly 18 months before dropping it due to complaints and the fact that hackers got around it very easily. This is a huge problem and it's ultimately not something that will be discussed when someone goes to buy one of these machines in the future. The idea that a game can instantly become worthless because your internet doesn't work or because their servers are taken down is insulting. EA takes down their sports games' servers every 3-4 years, depending on popularity. This basically makes every EA game going forward potentially worthless and its' worrysome. Another example: What if Original Xbox games required you to be online in order to play them? Right now, if that were true, those games would be 100% unplayable in any capacity since Microsoft pulled the plug on the original Xbox Live service. Who's to say it won't happen again?
Considering that these systems won't be compatible with current generation games, it makes it even more likely that this will happen. Considering that Nintendo offers backwards compatibility with Wii games, their Virtual Console games, their DS and DSiWare games, a company that isn't quite up to par in terms of online standards believes in such a practice when Sony and Microsoft don't is maddening. Why? Because iOS allows for backwards compatibility. So does Android. If you bought a game or App on an earlier version of that software, it works on newer devices. How can Microsoft and Sony take such a step back when it's becoming commonplace and not a rarity? Digital Goods are being tied to the consumer, not the hardware. If Microsoft and Sony try to take away these goods from consumers going forward it will only put them in more of a hole. And it will leave everyone in the industry wondering 'how did this happen?'
The answer is simple: You bit the hand that fed you. They don't feed you anymore. They saw your petulant attitude and let you starve. "It was for their own good" they said, and they were right. The console market is shrinking, and the games industry is in danger of collapsing. Big budget games are dying and for the past 3 years software sales have plummeted. So why do industry big wigs think this is going to continue? It's not. And ultimately, that's when gaming dies once again. Because like most dinosaurs, the answer is simple: Adapt or Die. No one is truly adapting to the marketplace. They're only dying.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Super Bowl XLVII Analysis
Hello for the final time during this NFL season. Today I will be looking at Super Bowl XLVII (47), featuring a matchup between the San Francisco 49ers and Baltimore Ravens. It's been a long year, and I'm sort of sad to see it end; but at the same time, thank goodness it's finally ending. Let's cut to the chase, shall we?
AFC Champions: Baltimore Ravens
- AFC North Champions
- 10-6 record (13-6 including the Playoffs)
vs.
NFC Champions: San Francisco 49ers
- NFC West Champions
- 11-4-1 record (13-4-1 including the Playoffs)
Scheduled Kickoff: 6:15pm Eastern Standard Time, Sunday, February 3rd
Baltimore Offense vs. San Francisco Defense
Baltimore's strength during the regular season predominantly lied on their running back, Ray Rice. Rice ran for over 1,100 yards and 9 touchdowns, and had over 475 receiving yards and 1 touchdown this season as well. In the postseason however, it has been Joe Flacco, a quarterback of seemingly questionable talent, that has led the Ravens to victory over the past couple of games, notably in Denver where his late game touchdown pass saved their season. They will match themselves up against a San Francisco defense that hasn't played great over the past month of the season, but stepped up big against Atlanta in the NFC Championship game, allowing 0 points in the second half, allowing them to make a comeback. Over the last few years, a hot defense with solid offensive play has determined who would win the Super Bowl. Last year, it was the Giants, the year before it was the Packers. Considering Baltimore has the hot hand this year, I give the advantage to the Ravens here. Joe Flacco has been a big game quarterback for a long time, having played well in almost every playoff game he's been in. It should be no surprise to anyone that he's played well this off-season and yet, his play has been surprising to most. In reality, he's the most clutch quarterback remaining in the playoffs and has been since it started. He's won a playoff game every year he's been in the league, he's won on the road, against Pittsburgh, Denver and now New England. So why is his play when it counts the most surprising when he's always done it? It's not.
San Francisco Offense vs. Baltimore Defense
The battle here is a tale of age. A young, hot offense with an athletic quarterback versus an aging defense with its' leader riding off into the sunset afterwards. This, if you find it hard to understand, is the same battle that the Baltimore Ravens faced 4 weeks ago against the Indianapolis Colts, although the challenge here is a bit harder. San Francisco is primarily a run first offense that can throw well. Stopping the run for the Ravens has been a problem for the last few seasons due to an aging front seven. This should play into San Francisco's hands if the game is close for most of the first half. However, if the game gets into a battle of offense fisticuffs like I think it will, San Francisco has to deal with Baltimore's corners which are some of the best in the league, including Ed Reed, who is notorious for interceptions in big situations. While he may not make his presence known, he's there. While the Ravens were lit up by Peyton Manning's arm, needless to say, Colin Kapernick is no Peyton Manning. This is where I give the Ravens the advantage. While the 49ers are a great running team and can dominate the Ravens defensive front, if it gets into a battle where they need to play from behind they won't be able to throw on Baltimore's defense.
Conclusion and Prediction
Given my analysis, along with how the two have played in the playoffs, I believe this year's Super Bowl Champions will be the Baltimore Ravens. The Ravens have the hot hand right now, as well as having the experience of playing in the big game, along with the leadership to guide the young players to a Championship. While San Francisco is a young team, they have very little Championship experience to lead them through the hype and glitter that comes with it. The Ravens have wanted another Super Bowl for the last few years, and now that they have another chance, I can't see them leaving New Orleans without the Vince Lombardi Trophy.
Final Score: Baltimore - 24, San Francisco - 13
Enjoy the Super Bowl everyone!
AFC Champions: Baltimore Ravens
- AFC North Champions
- 10-6 record (13-6 including the Playoffs)
vs.
NFC Champions: San Francisco 49ers
- NFC West Champions
- 11-4-1 record (13-4-1 including the Playoffs)
Scheduled Kickoff: 6:15pm Eastern Standard Time, Sunday, February 3rd
Baltimore Offense vs. San Francisco Defense
Baltimore's strength during the regular season predominantly lied on their running back, Ray Rice. Rice ran for over 1,100 yards and 9 touchdowns, and had over 475 receiving yards and 1 touchdown this season as well. In the postseason however, it has been Joe Flacco, a quarterback of seemingly questionable talent, that has led the Ravens to victory over the past couple of games, notably in Denver where his late game touchdown pass saved their season. They will match themselves up against a San Francisco defense that hasn't played great over the past month of the season, but stepped up big against Atlanta in the NFC Championship game, allowing 0 points in the second half, allowing them to make a comeback. Over the last few years, a hot defense with solid offensive play has determined who would win the Super Bowl. Last year, it was the Giants, the year before it was the Packers. Considering Baltimore has the hot hand this year, I give the advantage to the Ravens here. Joe Flacco has been a big game quarterback for a long time, having played well in almost every playoff game he's been in. It should be no surprise to anyone that he's played well this off-season and yet, his play has been surprising to most. In reality, he's the most clutch quarterback remaining in the playoffs and has been since it started. He's won a playoff game every year he's been in the league, he's won on the road, against Pittsburgh, Denver and now New England. So why is his play when it counts the most surprising when he's always done it? It's not.
San Francisco Offense vs. Baltimore Defense
The battle here is a tale of age. A young, hot offense with an athletic quarterback versus an aging defense with its' leader riding off into the sunset afterwards. This, if you find it hard to understand, is the same battle that the Baltimore Ravens faced 4 weeks ago against the Indianapolis Colts, although the challenge here is a bit harder. San Francisco is primarily a run first offense that can throw well. Stopping the run for the Ravens has been a problem for the last few seasons due to an aging front seven. This should play into San Francisco's hands if the game is close for most of the first half. However, if the game gets into a battle of offense fisticuffs like I think it will, San Francisco has to deal with Baltimore's corners which are some of the best in the league, including Ed Reed, who is notorious for interceptions in big situations. While he may not make his presence known, he's there. While the Ravens were lit up by Peyton Manning's arm, needless to say, Colin Kapernick is no Peyton Manning. This is where I give the Ravens the advantage. While the 49ers are a great running team and can dominate the Ravens defensive front, if it gets into a battle where they need to play from behind they won't be able to throw on Baltimore's defense.
Conclusion and Prediction
Given my analysis, along with how the two have played in the playoffs, I believe this year's Super Bowl Champions will be the Baltimore Ravens. The Ravens have the hot hand right now, as well as having the experience of playing in the big game, along with the leadership to guide the young players to a Championship. While San Francisco is a young team, they have very little Championship experience to lead them through the hype and glitter that comes with it. The Ravens have wanted another Super Bowl for the last few years, and now that they have another chance, I can't see them leaving New Orleans without the Vince Lombardi Trophy.
Final Score: Baltimore - 24, San Francisco - 13
Enjoy the Super Bowl everyone!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)