We have a mission where you go cut this guy’s face off and give it to somebody so he can make a boot out of it, because he wants to walk on the guy’s face[.]
Alrighty then.
The Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB; not to be confused with INRI) gave the finger to a "T for Teen" rating for Fallen Earth, an MMO/FPS-hybrid thingy that's apparently set in a post-apocalyptic Grand Canyon. There's no sex in the game, and it's not about the violence, either. They broke out the "M for Mature" branding iron because the game apparently has a surplus of corpses strewn about:
'There’s one town that’s literally hung with 200 corpses,' said the game’s lead designer Lee Hammock while demoing the game at E3. 'The (ESRB) was like, 'That’s too many corpses. You hit your limit.''
So, it's the implied violence that makes the game inappropriate for 13 to 17 year-olds, rather than the actual violence (like gathering the raw materials for a face-boot) portrayed during gameplay.
Recently, Read an article in a magazine (I'm too lazy to get specific and have to quote the source) that discussed the link between MMORGS and PC game Sales. I think to myself : " All my friends who are opposed to trying WOW use the argument that they hate playing a game with a monthly fee" Since I began playing WOW in September, I have spent roughly 175 bucks on the game including all the expansions and monthly fees. I'm paid thru August of this year. When you refer a friend you get free gametime, and there are perks to playing with friends in WOW that involve leveling your characters. The game presents as much or more challenge for me now in my Ninth Month of gameplay. I have been focusing on 1 character and still have a long ways to go, since Matty and I spend so much time doing PVP (player vs. Player) Even at the bargain price of 30 bucks per game, I would still have purchased at least 4 or 5 games for my PC in this time... What's the biggest objection to World of Warcraft ? I'm curious to know what all you pussies are afraid of. :)
It's not out in the US yet, but from what I've read, the German release of Arma II is bugged to hell and gone. Still, I've not seen anything this impressive among the billions of game videos I've watched this year.
I'm going to take a moment to give Treyarch credit for releasing another batch of maps for Call of Duty: World at War ... as long as there's a PC release, of course. That last bit I say only as a matter of principle, as I have no actual interest in playing WaW anymore. But since post-release content (particularly when it's free) is one of the metrics I use for separating the good developers from the bad - and I've generally been critical of Treyarch - I feel compelled to give them the props they're due.
Now for the thing I actually wanted to write about. The majority of the footage from this trailer showcases the new zombies map. There's some new stuff in there, and although the changes are incremental, we're definitely seeing some non-trivial growth in the gametype. Combine that observation with the fact that there are significantly more custom zombies maps than traditional multiplayer maps floating around, and you have to wonder where this half of the series is headed.
Although rumor has it that Call of Duty 7 will be a Vietnam-era offering, the continued popularity of the zombies mode in WaW all but guarantees it will show up again in 2010. The only question is whether it will continue as a novelty add-on, or whether it will garner a substantially greater portion of the development budget this time around.
I'm betting on the latter, and wondering if the "Call of Duty" brand is going to be recognizable a few years down the road if I'm right.
As reported here and just about everywhere else, several thousands of people have pledged to boycott Valve's Left 4 Dead 2, which is due for release in November.The boycotter's manifesto is available here, but distilled to its essence, it consists of a demand that they get all the new content for free.Failing that, of course, they want it at a reduced price.Under no circumstances – so the story goes – will they pay full price for the sequel to a game they've deemed unfinished.
To be fair, there is an argument to be made that releasing a sequel only a year after the first game is very un-Valve-like.TF2 has seen several content updates since the game's release in 2007 (with more on the way), and L4D(1) players got a large upgrade in the form of the "Survival Pack" a few months back (again, with more on the way). And that's to say nothing of the continuous and frequent patching of every major title in Valve's stable. All of that has traditionally come gratis to those who bought the original games.
And that has left some with a sense of entitlement.
Although it contains the caveat that "[j]udgment cannot be passed on the quality of Left 4 Dead 2 until its release," the manifesto goes on to assert that the "announced content of Left 4 Dead 2 does not warrant a stand-alone, full-priced sequel[.]"Restated, the argument is that four new characters, 20 new weapons, new zombies (with revamped kill mechanics for the old ones), a new Director, and five new campaigns (that's 25 maps, BTW) – among other things – does not a sequel make.
Taken in isolation, that argument is pretty stupid. In an industry where the prevalent formula is core gameplay + facelift = sequel, L4D2 is entirely unremarkable.For those who've claimed that all the additional stuff was easy for Valve to create (thus devaluing the effort), I invite them to make one map in Hammer that's not only functional – in campaign, versus, and survival modes – but also has the quality and balance of any one of the stock L4D maps. Make sure you keep track of your time, so you can multiply the final tally by a factor of 25. If you prefer, you can pay someone else to do it … at an hourly rate typical for the industry. Times 25.
The aforementioned absurdity is, however, layered beneath what I take to be the main, mostly unspoken argument: that L4D(1) doesn't have enough to it to be considered a "full" game. In other words, a series of free content updates – ala TF2 – is necessary to justify the initial $50 outlay. My response to that is this: I've logged over 92 hours in the game since I bought it, which works out to about 54 cents per hour for my investment. I only play the game occasionally, and only with a handful of friends, and I am quite certain that many of the boycotters have played L4D far more than I have. If you still feel you're not getting enough bang for your buck, try going to 92 hours worth of movies, and check your wallet when you're done.
It would be entirely reasonable to argue that the rabid loyalty of Valve's fan base is an indispensible component of Valve's success, so their gripes should be taken seriously. The inverse, however, is also true: the fan base has been that loyal because Valve has been that good through the years. On balance, Valve is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
Being spoiled does not entitle us to behave that way.
ADDENDUM: I forgot to mention that none of the boycotters responsible for (or supportive of) the video up top seem to realize that they've cast themselves as the nazis. Apparently, a sense of irony is not a prerequisite to joining that Steam Group.
