Used Games

It's been a while since we've heard much about used games in the media, but every now and then I still find a tidbit online that alludes to it. Since I haven't written anything in a while I figured this was as good a thing as any to do. Before I get started, let me also just say I have no sympathy for people complaining about what used games stores (EBGames, GameStop, etc.) pay for old games; they have a business to run and they are trying to maximize their profits, if you don't like what is being offered, keep the game, it's that simple, if they really want them, they'll offer more.

First, let me say the whole used game thing essentially bugs me, no one else gets second value from their product, used cars, movies, or my old camping equipment, the only time a manufacturer sees value from me is during the initial purchase. Having said that, in this day and age there is a lot of after market support put into games, patching, DLC, and so forth, however this is not the consumers problem; perhaps proper QA should be conducted before releasing, and the bulk of DLC is purchase anyway.

I think the problem we are really facing is an adherence to an outdated model; games are still manufactured and distributed under much the same premise as they were in the Atari days, however technology has outpaced dramatically, the proof being the ease in which games are patched. Digital downloads will eventually solve this altogether, but it will be a while before that is a proven fact.

If you want to see what I believe represents the true wave of the future look no further than Blizzard. They aren't doing things perfect, but they are well on their way to it, they only problem they have is charging so much for their initial product, especially considering the monthly fee you also take on. Consider, however, how much free content goes in with every patch and you have a sustainable business model. IN Blizzards case I believe they should be offering their base software free, or, at most, charging 25% of what they currently do.

Here's how you fix it, sell your initial product for a much smaller fee, something in the XBox live marketplace fee, under 20 dollars, then offer patches and/or DLC (your choice of terminology) at a nominal fee. I would envision the bulk of the DLC to be created during the development cycle so all you're doing is recouping your costs, and ensuring that anyone who purchases the game secondhand has to pony up for it. Legitimate patching, such as bug fixes, would obviously be free. If people are willing, I could even see a small subscription fee, especially considering the way multiplayer content has taken over the market.

Is it perfect? No, but what is? Some publishers have already started doing this anyway, and like it or not, if you want to continue playing video games (which I know I do) you're going to have to pay for them somehow. If nothing else this would force more accountability into the system and give publishers a true measure of what people are looking for.

A Word or Two on Cut Scenes

Where would video games be without cutscene's? Not nearly as far as we are now that's for sure, they build tension, tell a story, give invaluable information for proceeding through the remainder of the game, and they're just plain entertaining. In short, the video game as we know it today would be nothing without the cutscene. Having said that however, cutscenes are a delicate scalpel that too often get treated like a broadsword, hacking and slashing legitimate gameplay to make room for their own purposes. Cutscenes are meant to by symbiotic, benefiting both game and gamer, yet all too often they become parasitic, killing both.

An example would be in order, and, right off the top of the list, I would have to say the best use I've seen in recent gaming would be in Red Dead Redemption. It actually makes sparing use of cutscenes, choosing instead to use travel time to relay information and what scenes there are end up being more memorable and interesting. This is contrast to COD: Black Ops which chose to use almost no cutscenes and attempted to deliver all its information through the course of events, it just doesn't give the player enough engagement to get involved. Mafia II struggled a bit with this balance, the scenes were a bit long at times, even though they told a great story, and they might have killed the game if it hadn't been for the fact they were skippable (I found this particularly true with the expansions).

This is the cardinal rule that gets broken all too often, and one you'll hear players complain about above all others, when cutscenes cannot be skipped over. Put as little or as much s you want in there and let the player choose how they want to treat it, especially if you're trying to sell replay value.

A bad example? The worst I've ever seen is in a game called Bonetown, an X-rated game about sex and drug use, nothing innovative or compelling (beyond the nudity), but largely playable; that is to say largely playable other than the frequent, unskippable, and boring custcenes. They're meant to be funny and entertaining, but the game is just difficult enough that you often end up sitting through the pedantic dialog over and over again, waiting to see if you'll get it this time. I guess people who write porn aren't really cut out for interactive creativity, who'd have thought?

Pay attention to the next game you play and judge for yourself, if you don't enjoy it due to boredom or difficulty, there's at least an even money chance this is due to the data being relayed to you as a player, a well made cutscene might engage you more or help you out of a bad spot. If you are enjoying it, it's very likely due to well placed cutscenes, providing engagement and information that makes you want to stick around.

Green Lantern Trailer

Watched a new trailer for the Green Lantern today and while it looks leaps and bounds better than the one released last year I still have reservations. Here it is:

The movie looks cool and I think I may have gotten past Ryan Reynolds being chosen as Hal Jordan; I still think he's a tool, but I had reservations about Robert Downey Jr as Iron Man up until I saw the first movie and that worked out fantastically. My problem is a legendary issue with super hero movies, it just usually doesn't manifest until the a sequel, often the third, the rule of multiple bad guys. Check your super hero movie history and you'll quickly see what I'm talking about: Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, Spiderman 3, and Superman 2 for example.

In most cases (not Superman 2, that one ruled) this has brought a demise to a franchise, the creative teams start running dry and pull in multiple bad guys. They don't offer enough on their own to be spectacular, but bringing them all in at the same time dilutes the soup too much and you don't get a sense of flavor. You want an example of too many villains making a bland movie? Try Daredevil, Ben Afleck wasn't the worst part of that movie, he actually didn't make a bad Matt Murdock, it was too many bad guys mixing it up.

Based on the trailer alone I see Parralax, Hector Hammond, Sinestro, and what looks to be elements of the Blackest Night story lines, which could bring the Anti-Monitor into play. At best I think they are making a movie inaccessible to the uninitiated, too many weird and fantastic plot turns to explain in one movie without prior knowledge, and at worst they're going to skim over most of them like third rate characters in a bank heist movie.

Now to be fair it looks like Sinestro is going to still be a Lantern for the entirety of this movie, and I could be mistaken about the Blackest Night stuff, and therefore also the Anti-Monitor, but that still leaves Hector and Parralax to deal with. Take a look at the Iron Man plot, the villain barely counted as a bad guy, but it worked; I think they could have done something similar here, an origin story with some conflict. At this rate there won't be much room for sequels, even if they are warranted. I truly believe that a good writer could take any of these guys and make a great movie, especially when an origin story is being told at the same time. Nobody wants an Iron Man clone, but when a formula works it might be a good idea to apply elements of it.

I still plan on watching this movie and actually have a bit higher hopes for it now, but I'm keeping my reservations until it's over.

Battlefield: Los Angeles Review

Had a chance to see Battlefield: Los Angeles this weekend and I have to say I loved it. Admittedly this was a bit of a surprise to me, I was so highly anticipating this movie I never would have believed I could actually like it, but it was one of those rare cases where the hype lived up to itself.

Not a lot of plot in the movie, it was a conceptualization of an alien invasion from a soldiers point of view. A lot of confusing explosions, quick action sequences, and half seen horrors, exactly as you'd expect a full blown combat situation to look like.

The dialog and acting are heavy handed at times, but for the most part it worked. You don't go into this kind of movie expecting Shakespearean subtlety in wording and Sherlock Holmes puzzle solving, you want to see explosions and guns and that what this movie delivers.

Not much more I can say without going into details other than I would highly recommended seeing this in a theater, the action is meant to be seen larger than life. Watch it if you've ever enjoyed a first person shooter video game, if you enjoy seeing hero's and villains, and watch it if you like ass-kicking.

On the other side of the coin, check out Roger Eberts review here, but only if you need to be reminded that smart people can actually go out of their way to miss a point. Seriously, the only way I see he arrived at his conclusion is if he actually knew what the movie was supposed to be delivering and he specifically designed his review to see it from the wrong point of view.

The South and Pop Culture Gold

Lately, I've been watching a lot of True Blood and with a fair amount of enjoyment. This surprises me because I'm seriously sick of human/vampire romance/lust plots. A part of the appeal is the location, the deep south of the good old USA. I've always enjoyed stories that take place in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, and Alabama area. It might be because of the cowboy boots, damn I wish I lived in a place where I can wear cowboy boots and not slip on ice half the year. Anyway, let's take a look at some of the classics.

1) Preacher:

Simply put probably one of best if not the best comic book series ever. I've talked about this comic on the blog before and will likely do so again in the future.

2) Near Dark:

This is perhaps my 2nd favorite vampire of all time. Cheesy in many ways but Bill Paxton's lines are gold in this movie.

3) Vampires:

I think this a truly underrated Vampire movie. Added plus the Vampires are actually evil not love interests.

4) Kill Bill Volume II:

Definitely the best of the 2 Kill Bill movies.

5) North and South:

I suspect I likely wouldn't like this mini-series today but back in the 80s when I was a teenager with only 2 channels this baby got me through one winter.

I'm sure I could think of dozens and dozens more and if I got into westerns maybe even more.