Apparently England lost the football. All I can say is...
THANK FUCK FOR THAT!
Maybe now our over-saturated news outlets can start reporting real news for a change.
Ha! Only kidding. It'll be more "the government is shit and we're all doomed" coupled with "BINGE-DRINKING YOUTHS!". When our press shows genuine disappointment that England fans in South Africa didn't cause a single bit of violence, it tells you something. Mind you, it seems the violence has moved to Wimbledon. Yes, Wimbledon. The tennis. Really.
Regardless, I'm still happy we're out of the World Cup, because if anything annoys me every four years, it's this. OMG WORLD CUP WE GOTTA WIN THIS YEAR CUZ WE DID IN 1966 SO WE CAN DO IT AGAIN YEAH! And of course if, like me, you couldn't give a flying toss about a bunch of "millionaires ruining a lawn" [Charlie Brooker, 2010], you get labelled as "unpatriotic" while the troglodytes all go off and binge drink and punch each other in the face in the name of the UK, therefore showing the world we're all a bunch of boozed-up, mindless thugs, which of course we're not, that's just a small minority. And they call ME unpatriotic, despite the fact that I acknowledge that England gave the world The Beatles and Shakespeare, and has two of the world's greatest educational institutions in the form of Oxford and Cambridge. THAT'S something to be proud of. Having 11 blokes who are good at kicking a bit of leather about isn't. Sure, it's nice to win competitions, but can we PLEASE, in the name of all that is good and holy, stop acting like this bloody tournament is a life or death situation.
And I don't want to see first thing in the morning when I turn on the news, a bunch of people in the studio, in the players' dressing rooms, on the plane the players are returning on, wherever, analysing every single frame of the match in minute detail just to figure out where they went wrong. I've got your reason right here. The England team? A bunch of stuck-up, overpaid, whiny prima donnas who care more about who they're shagging instead of the job they're paid to. Everyone's blaming the manager, the referee, the linesman, the bloke in the crowd second row from the left with the vuvuzela, but no one is blaming the players, ie. the guys actually playing the game they lost. It's bizarre.
Of course, it's no big deal to me whether we win or lose, and I especially don't care how. All I would like is for people to calm down and shush about the whole affair. The media, and a number of ordinary people too, need to accept that not everyone cares about this bloody game and would rather not hear about it every five seconds. Especially now we've lost, so there's no reason to bang on about it now. Thank you.
Monday, 28 June 2010
Friday, 25 June 2010
Race For The DAREing Knights Of Suburbia
Why I'm simultaneously sad and happy I'm not at Glastonbury:
On the Main Stage tonight, the Gorillaz are playing, on the Other Stage, The Flaming Lips (aka The Best Band I've Ever Seen)
Tomorrow, the Main Stage sees Muse, while the Other Stage sees the Pet Shop Boys.
Why I'm sad:
- All these bands are AWESOME and I would give anything to see them all (again in the Lips' case)
Why I'm happy:
- I'm glad I don't have to make the IMPOSSIBLE decision between Gorillaz and Flaming Lips and then the decision between Muse and the Pet Shop Boys. I can't choose! That's mean!
Not that I have to worry, I'm not there, but seriously, Glastonbury, did you do that deliberately just to make me feel so emotionally conflicted? D:
On the Main Stage tonight, the Gorillaz are playing, on the Other Stage, The Flaming Lips (aka The Best Band I've Ever Seen)
Tomorrow, the Main Stage sees Muse, while the Other Stage sees the Pet Shop Boys.
Why I'm sad:
- All these bands are AWESOME and I would give anything to see them all (again in the Lips' case)
Why I'm happy:
- I'm glad I don't have to make the IMPOSSIBLE decision between Gorillaz and Flaming Lips and then the decision between Muse and the Pet Shop Boys. I can't choose! That's mean!
Not that I have to worry, I'm not there, but seriously, Glastonbury, did you do that deliberately just to make me feel so emotionally conflicted? D:
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Of Retrospectively Changed Opinions and The Third Dimension
Never let it be said that what I say is gospel, that I never say things that I later regret and/or change my mind about. I quickly skimmed through some of my older posts and noticed some of my initial opinions on Final Fantasy 13, in which I called it my third favourite FF game, that I didn't get the criticism, that, well, it wasn't shit.
Then more recently I played through Valkyria Chronicles (easily the greatest PS3 RPG, seriously putting FF13 to shame) and then moved onto Final Fantasy 6, which I've yet to finish even though I've had the game since 2001.
Final Fantasy 13 is now my third LEAST favourite in the series, with VI now taking the third spot behind X-2 and IX. Why? Oh, let me count the ways.
The huge variety of what you get to do in FF6 is quite surprising. I've been swept along with this game, never knowing what comes next. The battles are great fun, allowing a huge degree of party customisation and tactical freedom. The plot is interesting, and I actually care about the characters even though they're silly-looking 16-bit sprites.
So why has my opinion on FF13 changed so drastically just by playing this number in the series? Simple. FF6 reminded me of what the series used to be like. It's got everything I liked about IX (which is pretty much deliberate, since IX took its cue from the "old skool" FFs such as VI), and how drastically things changed for FF13.
This is coupled with the fact that I gave up on the side quests in XIII. Simple fact is, the game is mostly pointless busywork. Every single sidequest is "kill something". The problem is, the battle system, which had so much promise, gets tiresome by the end of the game due to the simple fact that you have to second guess the developers ALL THE TIME. There is no room for error, there is no tactical freedom, and in fact in some instances the game is just plain malicious, causing enemies to do more damage than you can deal with to present a sort of fake difficulty. I'm not adverse to a challenge, but by the end, FF13 stopped feeling like a challenge and more like a massive "fuck you" until you throw up your hands and have to resort to a guide because everything you try fails within seconds despite being fully "levelled".
Case in point, in VI, I recently encountered the FlameEater boss, which I struggled against. I didn't realise how much damage it was capable of. A bit of levelling (not much, just enough to get some Ice 2 spells) and some equipment management sorted it. It was still a challenge, but a challenge I enjoyed. My reaction to beating it was "YES! I did it!" rather than most of the final enemies in FF13, which prompted the reaction "Thank fuck that's over!" more often that not. The final boss was an exercise in futility until I read the "correct" way of doing things.
The problem is, RPGs shouldn't have "correct" ways to beat enemies. There should be multiple ways to beat enemies, allowing a player's own personal play style to take charge. And this is why I brought up Valkyria Chronicles, which I played immediately afterwards. Whenever I got stuck, particularly early on when I wasn't used to the battle system, I'd look up guides. No two guides were ever alike. Everybody had their own solution to a problem. Indeed, the Batomys fight, which was very difficult, was won by me combining two people's solutions into a single new one. I got an A rank for it too. Much of that game felt like a real challenge, and I felt a sense of pride whenever I won a battle. I got addicted to it just as much for the gameplay as I did the plot (which, really, was the only thing keeping me going in FF13). The game was a joy from start to finish, simply because I wasn't trying to second guess Sega, the game allowed for a variety of different tactics. Unlike FF13, it seems.
So, essentially, my final verdict for FF13, at long last, is that while it looks impressive and the plot was highly enjoyable (except the ending, which was impressive on an initial viewing, but then later on I realised that...wait, it didn't actually make any sense...), the game itself was lacking something. I can only hope that Versus corrects some of the mistakes.
But on another note, it was E3 recently, as noted in my criticism of Microsoft's demonstration, which I still stick by. And now they've announced it'll cost twice as much as the Wii to buy a 360 with Kinect despite it playing largely the same games, I'm even more convinced it'll flop. Again, let me reiterate. The casual gaming market are more concerned about the price of the fun little novelty toy than the processing power. Your average casual gamer will see the Wii, with its sports sim, fitness trainer and dancing games for £100, and then see the 360 with its sports sim, fitness trainer and dancing games (and virtual pet, but let's remember, the DS has one of those too) for £200, and they'll pick the cheaper option. THAT'S HOW THE CASUAL MARKET WORKS. If Microsoft think otherwise, then they are seriously deluded. (On a similar "Microsoft are deluded" note, I've heard that the redesigned "Slim" 360 hasn't removed the overheating problems of the original model. Despite, you know, having 5 years to fix that problem and all...)
Because of this, I expected to see Sony pull a similar stunt with Move. Boy, was I surprised. Sony seem to have got the basic idea that releasing casual games for the Wii market will be a failure, especially as their console already costs £100 more as it is. So what did they reveal? There'll be a Killzone game with Move controls, there'll be an RPG that sounds very similar to Okami on the Wii, and, BEST OF ALL, Heroes On The Move, an action/adventure/platformer starring Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter and Sly Cooper. If this game alone requires Move, then Sony just found a way for me to buy their overpriced Wiimote. No seriously. And there's suggestion that there may be other well loved Sony characters included too (come on, Sackboy!).
Speaking of Sackboy, LittleBigPlanet 2 is also on its way, which I never thought would happen. But apparently the creation part's been expanded significantly, and the original game will still be supported with the new one. Essentially they're tying the new game in with the existing community, rather than splitting it down the middle. This is a fantastic idea, and now I'm looking forward to more adventures with the little burlap chappies.
Another sequel to a current gen game I now class as one of my all time favourites is also on its way. Gabe Newell, a long-time critic of the PS3, stepped on stage and announced that not only is Portal 2 coming to the PS3 (despite earlier suggestions that it wouldn't be), but it's also getting all the bells and whistles of the Steam version, while the 360 will not. I don't know what's made him change his tune, but giving us what will apparently be "the best console version" of Portal 2 makes me very happy indeed. I can forgive his previous comments just for that.
Oh, and Gran Turismo 5 finally has a release date. Who saw that one coming? :p
There's a whole bunch of 3D stuff too but I'll get to that in a bit.
Nintendo revealed a few awesome things too. More Zelda, more Metroid, more Kirby, more Donkey Kong Country, this is all good. They also achieved the impossible and are apparently working on Goldeneye for the Wii too. I doubt Rare are involved though.
Problem was, Nintendo seemed to dominate much of their news with information on the 3DS, a new version of the DS that allows glasses-free 3D graphics. And this is where the rant comes in.
Am I the only person in the world who doesn't feel that 3D is the FUTURE OF EVERYTHING? Because, I don't know about you, but if something was a fad in the 50s and then came back inexplicably, I don't call that the future, I call that a recurring fad. In other words, Sony can push their £2000 3D TVs and full 3D PS3 games, while Nintendo promote their 3DS to all hell, but I'm still NOT INTERESTED.
Why should I pay £2000 for a TV that's blurrier and more desaturated than my existing TV, which was cheaper? Why should I have to wear stupid glasses to enjoy something that I currently can enjoy just by wearing my slightly less stupid prescription glasses? And that's a point, will I be able to wear those stupid glasses over the ones I already have to wear? Because, you know, it's not a REVOLUTION to me if all I see is various layers of blurry indistinct shapes. Sure, these arguments don't apply to the 3DS, but I'm still not thrilled by it. Remember the Virtual Boy? Yeah, exactly.
3D in general is a gimmick, simple as that. It doesn't improve anything. Motion controls, as awkward as they are, at least affect gameplay, but 3D just...doesn't. It can't. It can layer things and make some things appear closer than others, but at the end of the day, it's just a fancy optical illusion. HD looks better anyway (and indeed, a number of movie directors have already said they won't touch 3D with a ten-foot bargepole due to the existence of HD), and is probably just as good at immersing you in the game/film.
I genuinely can't think of a reason why we need 3D. HD made sense, as image quality has constantly been improving. But 3D is a fancy parlour trick they're charging you £2000 for. And until someone can provide a legitimate reason as to why it's so important ("immersion" doesn't count - my HDTV and surround sound do that just fine), I seriously hope the fad dies out before too long, as I'm already sick of hearing about it. And that goes for both films and games.
Then more recently I played through Valkyria Chronicles (easily the greatest PS3 RPG, seriously putting FF13 to shame) and then moved onto Final Fantasy 6, which I've yet to finish even though I've had the game since 2001.
Final Fantasy 13 is now my third LEAST favourite in the series, with VI now taking the third spot behind X-2 and IX. Why? Oh, let me count the ways.
The huge variety of what you get to do in FF6 is quite surprising. I've been swept along with this game, never knowing what comes next. The battles are great fun, allowing a huge degree of party customisation and tactical freedom. The plot is interesting, and I actually care about the characters even though they're silly-looking 16-bit sprites.
So why has my opinion on FF13 changed so drastically just by playing this number in the series? Simple. FF6 reminded me of what the series used to be like. It's got everything I liked about IX (which is pretty much deliberate, since IX took its cue from the "old skool" FFs such as VI), and how drastically things changed for FF13.
This is coupled with the fact that I gave up on the side quests in XIII. Simple fact is, the game is mostly pointless busywork. Every single sidequest is "kill something". The problem is, the battle system, which had so much promise, gets tiresome by the end of the game due to the simple fact that you have to second guess the developers ALL THE TIME. There is no room for error, there is no tactical freedom, and in fact in some instances the game is just plain malicious, causing enemies to do more damage than you can deal with to present a sort of fake difficulty. I'm not adverse to a challenge, but by the end, FF13 stopped feeling like a challenge and more like a massive "fuck you" until you throw up your hands and have to resort to a guide because everything you try fails within seconds despite being fully "levelled".
Case in point, in VI, I recently encountered the FlameEater boss, which I struggled against. I didn't realise how much damage it was capable of. A bit of levelling (not much, just enough to get some Ice 2 spells) and some equipment management sorted it. It was still a challenge, but a challenge I enjoyed. My reaction to beating it was "YES! I did it!" rather than most of the final enemies in FF13, which prompted the reaction "Thank fuck that's over!" more often that not. The final boss was an exercise in futility until I read the "correct" way of doing things.
The problem is, RPGs shouldn't have "correct" ways to beat enemies. There should be multiple ways to beat enemies, allowing a player's own personal play style to take charge. And this is why I brought up Valkyria Chronicles, which I played immediately afterwards. Whenever I got stuck, particularly early on when I wasn't used to the battle system, I'd look up guides. No two guides were ever alike. Everybody had their own solution to a problem. Indeed, the Batomys fight, which was very difficult, was won by me combining two people's solutions into a single new one. I got an A rank for it too. Much of that game felt like a real challenge, and I felt a sense of pride whenever I won a battle. I got addicted to it just as much for the gameplay as I did the plot (which, really, was the only thing keeping me going in FF13). The game was a joy from start to finish, simply because I wasn't trying to second guess Sega, the game allowed for a variety of different tactics. Unlike FF13, it seems.
So, essentially, my final verdict for FF13, at long last, is that while it looks impressive and the plot was highly enjoyable (except the ending, which was impressive on an initial viewing, but then later on I realised that...wait, it didn't actually make any sense...), the game itself was lacking something. I can only hope that Versus corrects some of the mistakes.
But on another note, it was E3 recently, as noted in my criticism of Microsoft's demonstration, which I still stick by. And now they've announced it'll cost twice as much as the Wii to buy a 360 with Kinect despite it playing largely the same games, I'm even more convinced it'll flop. Again, let me reiterate. The casual gaming market are more concerned about the price of the fun little novelty toy than the processing power. Your average casual gamer will see the Wii, with its sports sim, fitness trainer and dancing games for £100, and then see the 360 with its sports sim, fitness trainer and dancing games (and virtual pet, but let's remember, the DS has one of those too) for £200, and they'll pick the cheaper option. THAT'S HOW THE CASUAL MARKET WORKS. If Microsoft think otherwise, then they are seriously deluded. (On a similar "Microsoft are deluded" note, I've heard that the redesigned "Slim" 360 hasn't removed the overheating problems of the original model. Despite, you know, having 5 years to fix that problem and all...)
Because of this, I expected to see Sony pull a similar stunt with Move. Boy, was I surprised. Sony seem to have got the basic idea that releasing casual games for the Wii market will be a failure, especially as their console already costs £100 more as it is. So what did they reveal? There'll be a Killzone game with Move controls, there'll be an RPG that sounds very similar to Okami on the Wii, and, BEST OF ALL, Heroes On The Move, an action/adventure/platformer starring Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter and Sly Cooper. If this game alone requires Move, then Sony just found a way for me to buy their overpriced Wiimote. No seriously. And there's suggestion that there may be other well loved Sony characters included too (come on, Sackboy!).
Speaking of Sackboy, LittleBigPlanet 2 is also on its way, which I never thought would happen. But apparently the creation part's been expanded significantly, and the original game will still be supported with the new one. Essentially they're tying the new game in with the existing community, rather than splitting it down the middle. This is a fantastic idea, and now I'm looking forward to more adventures with the little burlap chappies.
Another sequel to a current gen game I now class as one of my all time favourites is also on its way. Gabe Newell, a long-time critic of the PS3, stepped on stage and announced that not only is Portal 2 coming to the PS3 (despite earlier suggestions that it wouldn't be), but it's also getting all the bells and whistles of the Steam version, while the 360 will not. I don't know what's made him change his tune, but giving us what will apparently be "the best console version" of Portal 2 makes me very happy indeed. I can forgive his previous comments just for that.
Oh, and Gran Turismo 5 finally has a release date. Who saw that one coming? :p
There's a whole bunch of 3D stuff too but I'll get to that in a bit.
Nintendo revealed a few awesome things too. More Zelda, more Metroid, more Kirby, more Donkey Kong Country, this is all good. They also achieved the impossible and are apparently working on Goldeneye for the Wii too. I doubt Rare are involved though.
Problem was, Nintendo seemed to dominate much of their news with information on the 3DS, a new version of the DS that allows glasses-free 3D graphics. And this is where the rant comes in.
Am I the only person in the world who doesn't feel that 3D is the FUTURE OF EVERYTHING? Because, I don't know about you, but if something was a fad in the 50s and then came back inexplicably, I don't call that the future, I call that a recurring fad. In other words, Sony can push their £2000 3D TVs and full 3D PS3 games, while Nintendo promote their 3DS to all hell, but I'm still NOT INTERESTED.
Why should I pay £2000 for a TV that's blurrier and more desaturated than my existing TV, which was cheaper? Why should I have to wear stupid glasses to enjoy something that I currently can enjoy just by wearing my slightly less stupid prescription glasses? And that's a point, will I be able to wear those stupid glasses over the ones I already have to wear? Because, you know, it's not a REVOLUTION to me if all I see is various layers of blurry indistinct shapes. Sure, these arguments don't apply to the 3DS, but I'm still not thrilled by it. Remember the Virtual Boy? Yeah, exactly.
3D in general is a gimmick, simple as that. It doesn't improve anything. Motion controls, as awkward as they are, at least affect gameplay, but 3D just...doesn't. It can't. It can layer things and make some things appear closer than others, but at the end of the day, it's just a fancy optical illusion. HD looks better anyway (and indeed, a number of movie directors have already said they won't touch 3D with a ten-foot bargepole due to the existence of HD), and is probably just as good at immersing you in the game/film.
I genuinely can't think of a reason why we need 3D. HD made sense, as image quality has constantly been improving. But 3D is a fancy parlour trick they're charging you £2000 for. And until someone can provide a legitimate reason as to why it's so important ("immersion" doesn't count - my HDTV and surround sound do that just fine), I seriously hope the fad dies out before too long, as I'm already sick of hearing about it. And that goes for both films and games.
Tuesday, 15 June 2010
I Like To Move It, Move It
So Microsoft have finally revealed their Project Natal to the world, now with a name (Kinect) and a list of games.
Oddly enough, when they first announced this thing, my reaction (as a non-360 owner) was simply "that's nice, but it's a bit like the EyeToy, isn't it?" Lo and behold, what have we got? An EyeToy with Wii games. OMG THE WORLD OF GAMING HAS CHANGED FOREVER!!!!!!!!
Or not. No, you see, despite Microsoft trying desperately for the past year to convince us that in the future, we'll all be flinging ourselves around the room to control a game, all I ever saw was a knockoff. A potentially expensive failure of a knockoff at that. And now it's been officially unveiled? Well, I was right. Apart from the "failure" bit, we've yet to see that.
Now, for those who think I'm some pathetic Sony fanboy who'll just ridicule anything Microsoft do, let me explain. The reason I believe Kinect will fail (and, on that note, PS Move too) is simply because the Wii already exists. Let me give you some insight into the difference between the casual and "hardcore" gaming markets.
The hardcore gaming market tends to be more swayed by industry press, websites, forums, a multitude of sources for their desired gaming purchases. A hardcore gamer will evaluate every reason why they should buy a console. Sometimes they will own more than one, because they saw games on each they felt the need to play (and this is why the 360 is the only current console I've got no interest in - none of the games stand out to me). The core market is very likely to spend hours playing a game, immersing themselves in that world. However, more core gamers, after the Wii's now poor showing of games (well, until Metroid Other M and that new Zelda come out most likely), are bored of motion controls and therefore are likely to pass Kinect by, since the core market is Microsoft's main audience.
But, I hear you cry, it's not for the core gamers, it's for the casual market! Well yes, but let me tell you about the casual market. They're exactly that. Casual. They're not the sort of people who'll play games for hours on end. They're also less likely to spend hours browsing through gaming news to find something fun to play. They're likely to pick up games that are deemed "simple" and "pointless" by the core market. But the casual market is influenced by another factor. Money.
The Wii succeeded because it positioned itself as a fun family console, something you can gather round and make yourself look like a fool in the company of others. But it was also cheap. It's consistently been the cheapest console of this generation. Its lack of HD graphics, technical pizzazz or anything else has kept costs down, and the casual market (as well as many of the core market) bought it.
In the past 4 years since the Wii's release, its price, like all consoles, has dropped. It's now roughly £100. By contrast, the 360 is already £20 more. Not a huge difference, but in today's economic climate, the casual market will pay attention to that. And of course, that's before Kinect's separate cost is thrown into the mix, which is estimated at another £100 on top of the console.
In short, the casual gaming market, when faced with the Wii and Kinect, will buy the Wii, simply for the price tag. And that's before you realise that pretty much everyone and his dog now has a Wii, so the casual market's basically going "why should I get a Kinect? I already have a Wii, it's exactly the same, right?"
Yes, MS may argue the subtle differences between the two, but at the end of the day, the casual market they're aiming at won't notice or care. Again, they'll see similar looking games and the cheaper Wii price tag and go there. It's not rocket science, it's basic understanding of consumer tastes.
And oh, the games. Yeah, this won't help its case. We have a sports game and a fitness simulator. Hm, sounds oddly familiar to me, where've I heard of games like that before? On top of that, we have a dance sim (while the godawful sounding Just Dance has already been riding in the charts for months for, oh that's right, the Wii) and a virtual pet (didn't Sony already release exactly that only a few months back in the form of the EyePet?). There's also Sonic Riders (which was always shit) but without a controller. OOH I'M SO THRILLED!
Again, I expect to repeat the same argument with the PS Move's lineup announcement, since that's largely the same thing too. It's just further proof that motion controls really do have little to nothing left to offer the gaming world. The Wii ran out of ideas, and it doesn't seem like Microsoft or Sony are going to provide any new ones. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for awkward fiddly motion controls and back to a focus on much more precise control pads.
Oddly enough, when they first announced this thing, my reaction (as a non-360 owner) was simply "that's nice, but it's a bit like the EyeToy, isn't it?" Lo and behold, what have we got? An EyeToy with Wii games. OMG THE WORLD OF GAMING HAS CHANGED FOREVER!!!!!!!!
Or not. No, you see, despite Microsoft trying desperately for the past year to convince us that in the future, we'll all be flinging ourselves around the room to control a game, all I ever saw was a knockoff. A potentially expensive failure of a knockoff at that. And now it's been officially unveiled? Well, I was right. Apart from the "failure" bit, we've yet to see that.
Now, for those who think I'm some pathetic Sony fanboy who'll just ridicule anything Microsoft do, let me explain. The reason I believe Kinect will fail (and, on that note, PS Move too) is simply because the Wii already exists. Let me give you some insight into the difference between the casual and "hardcore" gaming markets.
The hardcore gaming market tends to be more swayed by industry press, websites, forums, a multitude of sources for their desired gaming purchases. A hardcore gamer will evaluate every reason why they should buy a console. Sometimes they will own more than one, because they saw games on each they felt the need to play (and this is why the 360 is the only current console I've got no interest in - none of the games stand out to me). The core market is very likely to spend hours playing a game, immersing themselves in that world. However, more core gamers, after the Wii's now poor showing of games (well, until Metroid Other M and that new Zelda come out most likely), are bored of motion controls and therefore are likely to pass Kinect by, since the core market is Microsoft's main audience.
But, I hear you cry, it's not for the core gamers, it's for the casual market! Well yes, but let me tell you about the casual market. They're exactly that. Casual. They're not the sort of people who'll play games for hours on end. They're also less likely to spend hours browsing through gaming news to find something fun to play. They're likely to pick up games that are deemed "simple" and "pointless" by the core market. But the casual market is influenced by another factor. Money.
The Wii succeeded because it positioned itself as a fun family console, something you can gather round and make yourself look like a fool in the company of others. But it was also cheap. It's consistently been the cheapest console of this generation. Its lack of HD graphics, technical pizzazz or anything else has kept costs down, and the casual market (as well as many of the core market) bought it.
In the past 4 years since the Wii's release, its price, like all consoles, has dropped. It's now roughly £100. By contrast, the 360 is already £20 more. Not a huge difference, but in today's economic climate, the casual market will pay attention to that. And of course, that's before Kinect's separate cost is thrown into the mix, which is estimated at another £100 on top of the console.
In short, the casual gaming market, when faced with the Wii and Kinect, will buy the Wii, simply for the price tag. And that's before you realise that pretty much everyone and his dog now has a Wii, so the casual market's basically going "why should I get a Kinect? I already have a Wii, it's exactly the same, right?"
Yes, MS may argue the subtle differences between the two, but at the end of the day, the casual market they're aiming at won't notice or care. Again, they'll see similar looking games and the cheaper Wii price tag and go there. It's not rocket science, it's basic understanding of consumer tastes.
And oh, the games. Yeah, this won't help its case. We have a sports game and a fitness simulator. Hm, sounds oddly familiar to me, where've I heard of games like that before? On top of that, we have a dance sim (while the godawful sounding Just Dance has already been riding in the charts for months for, oh that's right, the Wii) and a virtual pet (didn't Sony already release exactly that only a few months back in the form of the EyePet?). There's also Sonic Riders (which was always shit) but without a controller. OOH I'M SO THRILLED!
Again, I expect to repeat the same argument with the PS Move's lineup announcement, since that's largely the same thing too. It's just further proof that motion controls really do have little to nothing left to offer the gaming world. The Wii ran out of ideas, and it doesn't seem like Microsoft or Sony are going to provide any new ones. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end for awkward fiddly motion controls and back to a focus on much more precise control pads.
Monday, 7 June 2010
And all the friends lay down the flowers
Stuart Cable has recently been found dead in his home. He was only 40 years old.
As a fan of Stereophonics, this is genuinely sad news for me, as part of the appeal of the band for me originally was their highly entertaining drummer Stuart Cable. OK, he was no longer in the band, replaced by Jose Espanol or whatever his name is (can never remember) but it's still very sad to hear he's died. He had a sizeable fanbase, both through people who liked the band and those who listened to his radio show in more recent years, so I imagine they, like me, are all shocked by this news.
RIP Mr Cable, wherever you may now be floating.
As a fan of Stereophonics, this is genuinely sad news for me, as part of the appeal of the band for me originally was their highly entertaining drummer Stuart Cable. OK, he was no longer in the band, replaced by Jose Espanol or whatever his name is (can never remember) but it's still very sad to hear he's died. He had a sizeable fanbase, both through people who liked the band and those who listened to his radio show in more recent years, so I imagine they, like me, are all shocked by this news.
RIP Mr Cable, wherever you may now be floating.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)