Xbox 360 – Page 5 – Colin McMahon

If Grand Theft Auto IV was a Ten, Saints Row the Third is at least an Eleven

Posted on May 3, 2013 by Colin McMahon

Let’s take the clocks back to 2008, more specifically April 29, 2008. Grand Theft Auto IV, the juggernaut, the first true successor to Grand Theft Auto III, the first Rockstar title on the then new generation consoles (that people cared about, sorry Rockstar Table Tennis), an all around huge deal. Everyone was excited an with good reason. Not only was it a new Grand Theft Auto but it was receiving such enormous critical praise. A+ from 1up.com, 10/10 from Edge magazine, 10/10 from Game Informer, 10/10 from IGN, 10/10 from Gamespot… I could keep going but you get the picture. Grand Theft Auto IV wasn’t reviewed as a good game or a great game, it was billed as a perfect game. So yeah, people were understandably pumped. Then it came out and we all got our hands on it and it was… good.

Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed what I played of Grand Theft Auto IV but that’s just it: I didn’t even beat this game. The story wasn’t strong enough to pull me in and motivate me through it. Well, it might have been if not for all the bogus side quests that filled Grand Theft Auto IV. I’m talking the whole character reputation system: the fact that you had to keep doing really stupid things with cousin Roman, a character who was spectacularly annoying. Seriously, it’s GTA IV, I didn’t spend 60 bucks to take Niko’s idiot cousin bowling. But the game is full of such instances and really, none of them are that fun.

The problem caused an abrupt shift in tone. Grand Theft Auto IV had a dark, at least semi-serious tone with gameplay that was anything but. Ever tried to drive around the city without crashing into anything? It’s really hard, much harder than killing thirty gangsters in a firefight or flying a helicopter. in other words, almost as hard as bowling. Yeah GTA IV operates under different rules than the real world, certain things are just harder to do.

Scenes like this were common and prevented any serious tone.

Now did this make Grand Theft Auto IV a bad game? No, it was still really fun and possessed many gameplay mechanics that were cool to fool around with. I have very fond memories of the multiplayer in GTA IV. My point is: it wasn’t perfect yet the “critics” bilked it to us as such. This is not the only time this has happened. Like it or not, there’s a lot of money that go into AAA games and sometimes part of that dough is spent paying off the reviewer. I’m not just being paranoid. Gaming sites like Giant Bomb were founded because of this occurance (Jeff Gerstmann, the founder, was fired from Gamespot for giving Kane & Lynch: Dead Men a bad review when he wasn’t supposed to).

So let’s fast-forward a few years to late 2011 and the release of Saints Row the Third. For any out there who don’t know, the Saints Row series is very similar to the Grand Theft Auto series. Both are large, open-world sandbox games that pit the protagonist in the role of someone constantly subverting the law. The difference: GTA IV tired to be serious while Saints Row the Third features Burt Reynolds as Mayor Burt Reynolds. Also while GTA IV made you do bowling and dating side missions, Saints Row the Third is happy to give you a tank and let you rampage to your heart’s content. Point is: Saints Row the Third knows exactly what it is and it all the more fun for it.

Now, what kind of reviews did Saints Row the Third get? Pretty positive. The game posted an 84 overall on metacritic and gamerankings. It did not, however, have any notable 10/10 reviews. This is fine because Saints Row the Third is not a perfect game by any stretch (there’s several bugs involving your “homies” that can really screw up missions). It is, however, a far more even experience than Grand Theft Auto IV, featuring more engaging gameplay and a much more consistent tone.

You can ride a hoverbike and be chased by a laser-shooting jet cause why not? — You can ride a hover bike and be chased by a laser-shooting jet cause why not?

So where’s the love? Nah, I’m just kidding. It’s better that games like Saints Row the Third get rated as they deserve and not as the marketing dictates. Luckily we have moved away from the days of constant 10/10 reviews for AAA games. Does it still happen? Sure but not nearly as frequently. This is a good sign that we, as consumers, have grown more intelligent in our approach to game reviews. Here is a good piece of advice: don’t believe any 10/10 reviews. That implies perfection and I don’t think I’ve ever played a perfect game.

You can also jump kick a guy in a hot dog suit. Yep.

So if you have any cravings for a GTA-style game to hold you over until Grand Theft Auto V‘s release, do yourself a favor and play Saints Row the Third. It is an example of a superior game with inferior dollars. While it may not have been a AAA release like Grand Theft Auto IV was, it still has something that game didn’t. Well it has a lot of things that game didn’t, ninja gangsters for one thing. And there’s not a bowling alley in sight.

No Roman, let's not. — No Roman, let’s not.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Marketing Method: Bethesda Softworks

Posted on April 26, 2013 by Colin McMahon

Video games, am I right? For many people out there, is there any product you would more eagerly shell out your hard earned dollars for? Most of us (myself included) love video games. The best ones are immersive, thought-provoking and wildly entertaining. Sure they cost sixty bucks but for hours of content. Few companies do a better job of backing that up than Bethesda. Think about the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, how many days did the average player sink into that? Bethesda Softworks, the video game publisher in charge of both the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series, is a top-of-the-line video game publisher. Most of their hits are really hits. We’re talking a AAA company. So why am I talking about them then: mainly to use as an example to reflect a much larger critique on the entire video game industry. My criticism is simple. Do you love Bethesda games? Can you not wait for Fallout 4 or the Elder Scrolls VI to come out? Well you should. You should wait. In fact you should wait until a year after they are out.

Now hold on there, we’re all eagerly awaiting Bethesda’s next big thing so why am I urging patience? Surely as fans, it is our job to go out there and show our monetary support for the video games we want. Yeah, Bethesda’s fans are very good to Bethesda. The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim has sold at least ten million copies (as of last July). There was even a super awesome collector’s edition released for all the true Dovahkiin out there. Here, take a look at it below:

This is cool looking product. I mean dragon statue, that’s it right there. More exactly, however, this collector’s edition included the following: a making-of-Skyrim DVD, The Art of Skyrim official book, a statue of Alduin (everyone’s favorite dragon to kill) an official copy of the Skyrim map and a free passcode entitling the diehard, day-one buyer to all of the Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim‘s upcoming dlc (downloadable content for those out there who don’t know the lingo) for absolutely no charge. Wait… scrap that last part. Only people who waited got that. Oh and they also only have to pay forty dollars: http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2013/03/12/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-game-of-the-year-edition-listed-by-amazon-dated-for-june-2013/.

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim Game of the Year Edition, all dlc included for only two-thirds the price of the original game. This is not the first time Bethesda has done this. Indeed they have a very good track record since Morrowind. Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Fallout: New Vegas have all received a “Game of the Year Edition” that features every piece of dlc included in addition to the discounted price tag. Is Bethesda the only publisher pulling this trick: no. Is it unfair to the fans: yes. Is it our fault that they do this: yes.

Yeah true, so the person who waited doesn’t get the Alduin statue but really – what do you do with that? I’m curious to know. Really it just becomes a dust collector. The same can be true for any so-called “collector’s edition”. None of them ever include a free dlc pass (yes I acknowledge that some of them include codes for day one dlc but that’s it). Instead they all include stupid things that look cool enough to prompt a purchase but then are usually regretted upon later.

Collector's Edition: check. Good Edition... still waiting. — Collector’s Edition: check. Good Edition… still waiting.

Bethesda is very guilty on both these fronts. They love to release collector’s editions and they love to release Game of the Year editions. They are entitled to do this and they should so long as both options are financially rewarding. This falls on us as the market. We have to change how we purchase games. The way the market is structured now: day one purchasers always get the short end of the stick. For a culture that works on hype and generating excitement, all logic in the video game world demands patience.

For my part, I have become wise to Bethesda’s game. I paid twenty dollars for Fallout 3: Game of the Year Edition and do not regret that purchase. I am now also planning to purchase the Game of the Year edition for Fallout: New Vegas. Doing so will allow me to play the entire game (all dlc included) and not experience the glitches that were reported by all day one purchasers. This is not fair but it is economical.

Bethesda was behind the Doom 3 BFG Edition, which included Doom 3, both of its expansions as well as the original Doom and Doom II. — Bethesda was behind the *Doom 3 BFG Edition*, which included *Doom 3*, both of its expansions as well as the original *Doom* and *Doom II*.

Now you can counter this argument. For instance, not everyone buys dlc. This is true and there is definitely enough game for your buck in Bethesda games without paying for additional hours. So really my whole point with this article is to continue to encourage informed decision. This is an era of recession and economic uncertainty. If you still want to buy Fallout 4 on day one, more power to you, but understand that you will not be making a financially logical decision. Kudos to you though for supporting the video game industry. It’s great that Bethesda’s fans are so awesome to Bethesda… but shouldn’t Bethesda be awesome back to their fans? No, they shouldn’t. Companies are not our friends, they exist to make money so that they can continue to provide the products we desire. It’s our job to be smart about it, it’s our job to be smarter than publishers like Bethesda.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

Oversaturation: First Reactions to Batman: Arkham Origins

Posted on April 10, 2013 by Colin McMahon

In 2009, then little known developer Rocksteady Studios released Batman: Arkham Asylum for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. The game made a splash and for good reason. Not that there hadn’t been a Batman game before, there had – Batman Vengeance, Batman: Dark Tomorrow and Batman: Rise of the Sin Tzu just to name a few of Arkham Asylum‘s more direct predecessors. All these Batman games ranged in from mediocre to downright horrible. Batman: Arkham Asylum wasn’t the first good Batman game, it was the first great Batman game. For the first time, players really felt that they were inhabiting the role of the Dark Knight. Add the incredible voice talents of Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill mixed with tight level design and an entertaining story by comic book guru Paul Dini and Batman: Arkham Asylum quickly became an essential for any video game fan.

Fast forward two years and we get the sequel. Batman: Arkham City was bigger than Arkham Asylum is nearly every way. More Batman characters, more cool locations, more excellent voice work. What would be Mark Hamill’s swan song as the Joker became an incredibly entertaining game and another excellent addition to the Batman video game universe. However, things were not as tight (video game wise) this time around. Remember fighting Deadshot and Hush in the game? I don’t. The design structure of the story lead very easily to whole sections being omitted on the first time around. Sure with more playthroughs, it’s easy to go in an find everyone but I have always wondered at this design decision. Why spend all that time making a game, crafting the characters with so much care – if your design will make it so easy to skip the entire experience? Don’t get me wrong: Arkham City is a great game but ultimately I feel that Arkham Asylum was a little tighter and better crafted in terms of delivering the complete experience the first time through.

This guy was in the game? Really? Where?

Anyway, we’re not here to talk about either Arkham Asylum or Arkham City, we’re here to talk about the recently announced Batman: Arkham Origins. I’m just going to come out and say it – I am not excited to play Batman: Arkham Origins. How can that be? I just said I consider Arkham Asylum and Arkham City to be wonderful games. Yes, that is true but think of the ending in Arkham City. Did that ending scream sequel?

Obviously with a name like Arkham Origins, we’re most likely going into prequel territory but still. Is it really necessary? Origin stories have been already done to death in Hollywood (did we really need to see Peter Parker get bit by a spider AGAIN in the Amazing Spider-Man) and I feel there is not much more wiggle room in video games. I don’t care about how the slums of Arkham City began, in all honesty I feel that having a city full of criminals as a solution to crime is the dumbest idea I’ve ever heard. The only reason I enjoyed Batman: Arkham City was for the rich narrative that Paul Dini wove into the place. As far as I know, he is not connected with Batman: Arkham Origins in any way and neither for that matter is Rocksteady Studios.

That’s right, it’s a different developer this time around. Warner Bros. Interactive is directly taking the reigns for this third Arkham installment. This doesn’t meant that we’re guaranteed an inferior product; Warner Bros. could very well do an excellent job with Arkham Origins. Yet it does beg the question – why not Rocksteady? Warner Bros. Interactive cannot be unhappy with the developer after two stellar (and profitable) Batman games. The answer is that Rocksteady is busy… busy making another Batman game. This untitled project will be set in the Silver Age of the Caped Crusader (silver age refers to a period in comic book development in the 1950s). That sounds pretty awesome – so wait, we’re getting two new Batman games? Oh by the way, that one doesn’t have Paul Dini either – http://www.vg247.com/2012/08/03/batman-arkham-city-wont-return-for-silver-age-prequel-rumour/.

Anyway – we’re getting two. One from Rocksteady and one from Warner Bros. Interactive. With no official announcement yet for the Rocksteady game, we can expect not to see it until next year at the earliest. Batman: Arkham Origins, however, is slated for release this year for the Playstation 3, Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii U video game consoles. With no announcement for the Playstation 4, we can assume that Arkham Origins will be created on largely the same technology as Arkham City – meaning one should not expect a huge leap in terms of visuals.

Also do not expect Mark Hamill to return as the iconic Joker. The voice actor made it very clear last time out that Arkham City would be his last appearance voicing the clown prince of crime.

Heath Ledger may be the face but Mark Hamill is the iconic voice of the Joker.

So we’re going to be missing a few things. Not that many Batman essentials will not return (players can expect to see Jim Gordon, Penguin and Black Mask in this new game) but again I question – do we need this? With Rocksteady Studios working on a new Batman game, do we need this to hold us over?

It seems the fate of big series to become prone to oversaturation. What do I mean by that? Simple: when a game sells well, the publishing studio naturally wants another one. The number of additional games usually reflects how large the series has become. Look no further than our yearly installments of Call of Duty, Halo and licensed sports games. Not to say these games are bad but did we really need Call of Duty 2, Call of Duty 3, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare, Call of Duty: World at War, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Call of Duty: Black Ops II in the last eight years? Not to mention the one that will inevitably be released this November? Are those games really that different from each other?

Here is my fear with this new Batman. With Arkham City, I felt that Rocksteady Studios was concluding the story they began in Arkham Asylum – they did a great job. With Batman: Arkham Origins, it honestly feels like a grab at our dollars before the release of Playstation 4 and whatever the next Xbox is called. Maybe I’m wrong, hopefully I am… but I rather doubt it. The AAA video game market is dominated by series and sequels. It seems like even the Dark Knight is not above the lure of another dollar. So I ask you – do you really need two more Batman games? Especially when the untitled Silver-Age Rocksteady game will most likely be exclusively for next generation consoles? Warner Bros. Interactive is betting you do. I believe they are willing to bet sixty dollars on it.

Thoughts? Comments? Am I full of shit or onto something? Let me know now in the feedback section of this article.

PS – Many apologies for not posting anything on Monday. I am currently completing a University degree. However, since what I was working on for school is revelent to our media-oriented blog. I will include a link to my work here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV7Dw13XK3I. Enjoy that.