The Music Genre and Why It Died (and Why It Was Unavoidable)

...For those about to rock.

Maybe this is a bit late, but lately I've been thinking a lot about whether I should let Rock Band and Rock Band 2 stay in my games library or if they should be traded in/sold. I invested a lot of time and money into them after all, and I still enjoy playing them from time to time.

Of course, the last time I even picked up my plastic Fender Stratacaster was about six or seven months ago.

So before we start blaming Red Octane and Activision for souring the music game genre with it's dozen or so Guitar Hero games released over the past three years, we need to think a little bit about why this genre was so beloved in the first place.

When Guitar Hero first appeared in 2005 it was something we in the west had never seen before. Playing some of our favourite songs ever with a plastic guitar controller allowed us to at least pretend we were rocking out to millions of people. It was one of those games that was fun to play with friends, and those who were good at it took pride in their scores and their skills at the game. Konami's GuitarFreaks game had already done something along the lines of this. But for most of us, it was fresh and new. Not to mention insanely addicting and incredibly fun.

Then in 2007 we saw the next step. Rock Band introduced us to having a full band to play with in these games. It was an even deeper experience, and brought something incredibly different to the genre. Rock Band also brought something else to the table: downloadable songs. Now, not only did we have a full band experience, but now, through Harmonix, we could buy hundreds of different songs and albums to play, added onto the eighty or so that shipped with the game.

A token price of about $180 got you all this

At this point in time the idea of games like Rock Band and Guitar Hero were still somewhat fresh and interesting. Unfortunately this is also about the time when we started getting things like Guitar Hero: Van Halen.

Don't get me wrong some of these titles weren't horrendous, but there is certainly too much of a good thing, and Red Octane and Activision didn't seem to understand this very well. In fact, the sheer number of games they put out may be part of the reason why Rock Band: The Beatles wasn't as big as it should have been. The Beatles edition of Rock Band was more than just a paintjob over Rock Band's already existing frame, it really felt like a different game in the music games genre.

In a way, Rock Band: The Beatles was the last gasp of air for the genre. Neither Rock Band 3 or Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock sold very well, despite the new keyboard in RB3 that really seemed like it could bring even more people over. DJ Hero was an interesting...spin...on the idea, but never really gained traction. It goes beyond that though. I used to see plenty of people playing Rock Band and Guitar Hero within a given week. Now when I see someone playing them I go "Oh wow! Someone's playing Rock Band!" People are not just refusing to buy new games, they don't play the ones they have to begin with anymore.

Like I said in the opening, the over-saturation of the genre certainly contributed to the end of the genre as we know it, but it's not the reason for it.

Ever remember a game series called Dance Dance Revolution? Remember how it used to be all the craze? My school even implemented it into our gym class at one point (I was in like sixth grade when they did this by the way). IT was that one game that was always around at parties, and everyone knew what it was.

Ever really see anyone playing it now?

Nope.

Now, granted, we have games like Just Dance that kind of take the experience to another level now, but think about it, when was the last time you got that arrow-mat out and played some good old DDR? I'll bet that most of you haven't done so in at least a year or two, if not more. There's a really simple, yet sad reason for it.

Because the novelty simply wore off.

Games like Rock Band and Dance Dance Revolution are doomed , in a way, from inception, because they rely on introducing people to an idea that is, initially, incredibly different, but overtime can not really change much. Eventually you look at your several Guitar Hero titles and think "Do I really need another one?" Guitar Hero attempted to do something with a story element, and introduced some pretty cool ideas in Warriors of Rock, but when you boil it down, your still jamming away on a plastic guitar while notes flash by. The gameplay can't ever change much beyond that.

Thats not to say that Rock Band and Guitar Hero will never ever be respected again, but the fact of the matter is, they were never going to have staying power. They were, much like Dance Dance Revolution, a fad.

Now to other things I want to sum up briefly here.

First up, Peter Molyneux is now saying that the demo we saw at E3 of Fable: The Journey was not indicative of the rest of the game, making it a point to make sure we understand that the game is not an on-rails shooter. Lionhead Studios is going to really have to work hard to get people interested again, because a lot of people were very disappointed by the reveal demo.

Second, cheers to everyone who's reading and spreading the word. Makes me feel special inside.

That does it for now. Keep reading, keep spreading the word.

Vaas: The Best Video Game Character Ever?

...Sorry Freeman, your out.

E3 has been, as usual, a flurry of activity. The barrage of information is oftentimes a bit overwhelming and sometimes people miss the best reveals or previews. I know I'm still sifting through a mountain of interviews, trailers, and reveals. Despite this I thought for sure I was going to be most impressed by various titles like Mass Effect 3, and Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim. However a bit later in the afternoon, I was browsing around, chatting with my friend Jimmy when I stumbled upon the Far Cry 3 gameplay demo. The gameplay was cool, the graphics were pretty solid, those things didn't blow me away per say, so much as they just looked really cool.

The voice acting and animation on the main villain Vaas on the other hand left me speechless.

"Have I ever told you...the definition...of insanity?" 

First off look at this guy. He LOOKS like an insane psychopath. Look at his eyes. You can see the fire and insanity in those eyes. His movement is also amazingly detailed...and slightly unpredictable. One moment, he's having a somewhat calm, albeit, disturbing, conversation with you, the next he suddenly blurts out, "...I am sorry....I don't LIKE....the way your looking at ME!" and then proceeds to go a little crazy, flipping over a makeshift table. He calms down for a minute walks over to the cement block your tied to, and shoves it off the cliff your next to. Which brings me to the voice acting. I am desperately looking to find out how gave Vaas' voice performance because whoever it is gave one of the best performances I have ever seen. Some people (not me... specifically anyway...) are comparing it to the kind of performance Heath Ledger gave in The Dark Knight. That's not blowing it out of proportion, that's how good it really was. And this is just the first ten or so minutes.

Think about that for a second. A lot of people are already blown away by Vaas and we've seen just one micro-fragment of the game. If the developers over at  Ubisoft Montreal pull this off right, and make Vaas' story and character development unique and/or interesting, he might become one of the best fictional characters ever. Obviously we still have a ways to go before Far Cry 3 is released, and in that time we'll see plenty of more gameplay videos, and learn lots of new information to be sure, but thanks to Vaas, I can't wait to see more, because I can't wait to see if the other characters can match up to his performance. 

Since this is a bit shorter than I want it to be, I'll wrap it up with the ten things I learned at this years E3...

10.) Nintendo's Wii-U is essentially a gigantic Nintendo DS.

9.) Star Wars Kinect is going to be the worst Star Wars game in a long time. Maybe even ever.

8.) Microsoft didn't care that Bungie "Finished the Fight."

7.) I never want to be the first person on stage at E3's press conferences.

6.) Peter Molyneux will need all the optimisim he has to get through his current Journey.

5.) Sony is still intent on getting into the handheld market. 

4.) Microsoft intends to make Cable obsolete.

3.) Nintendo might finally be trying to get M rated gamers interested in their consoles.

2.) Elder Scrolls Dragons are going to be the best creatures in a game ever.

1.) Microsoft still can't keep secrets.

That's all folks so until next time...

さよなら

Why Multiplayer Today Sucks (Don't Lie to Me, You Know It Does)

...And don't lie to yourself either. Thats not nice to you.

This is gonna be a long one, so if you want the tl;dr version, just scroll to the bottom now. It will save you about ten minutes of reading. (Just past the bold big letter section should be alright.)


I often have the following discussion with my friends when I am frustrated with whatever game I happen to be playing online:

"Man this game sucks. I don't remember it being this bad before..."
"Yeah I know what you mean. It's probably all the camping little kids."
"Maybe, but it's probably is just all the noobish tactics they use."

Up until today I usually thought that was the reason exactly. That people had just started using cheap ways to win, and I was trying to "play fair" (whatever that might mean is anyone's guess) and that made me feel frustrated. But today I was looking at all my games, particularly the ones that had multiplayer modes and it suddenly dawned on me that all these games multiplayer modes had a leveling system.

Why is that important? Because it means that if your a new player, or a player who doesn't play often, you are at a significant disadvantage compared to other players who play religiously or bought the game on launch day.

Then I thought some more. Take Call of Duty for instance. At the start of the game you have very limited choices in what you can use for weaponry and equipment (you don't even have the ability to create a customized class until about level 5). If your brand new to the game, then you have to use a preset class, usually containing a somewhat okay gun and some interesting perks. Thats not so bad right? No maybe not if everyone else was using the same five pre-made classes. Instead most people playing have their own custom class, and the players who (like me) have reached level 50 have access to just about everything in the multiplayer. If I'm not liking the way my game is going, I can simply whip out the create a class menu and choice from a multitude of death dealing weapons. Hell, while I'm at it, how about I equip some C4 charges or a claymore.

I can already see the argument of, "It's not that bad to level up. Stop complaining."
Alright, thats a nice sentiment. If you play ten hours a day maybe you can get to level 50 in a few days. The reality is, most people do not have that kind of time. I have friends who are on for an hour or two and then are done. They have lives and can't sit there and level and grind their way up to get the coolest weapons and perks. One friend of mine took a week just to make it to fifteen, and the leveling progress gets slower and harder the further on you go.

It's no better in any other games. Except maybe Halo.

There is a reason Halo is considered a harder game to play, and why gamers who play MLG or other professional level type leagues take Halo over any other game. It is all about how skilled you are. There are no perks to buy, no guns to unlock. The only thing leveling serves a purpose for in Halo: Reach is as a sign of progress and a why to shoehorn in a credit system and armor customization system. Say what you will about  Halo, if your not very good, you will not do well most of the time.

I don't consider myself to be a great Halo player, but among my friends right now, I'm probably the fourth, maybe fifth best. I can hold my own, I know some of the things that you should and shouldn't do. I know what guns are right for what situations, and I know where players tend to hang out on just about every map. On a good night, against players in my skill level, I can average a pretty solid twelve to twenty kills per match in slayer. Against a group of professional's I would be lucky beyond compare if I happened to get one kill.

But maybe that is what makes Call of Duty so appealing to casual players. It is a game where you have a better chance, once you can unlock some cool weapons anyway. Halo is daunting to new players because there is a huge gap between a player like me, and someone like Tom Taylor.

I know what I just started...no I'm not happy about it....

It may appear I'm rambling, but hold on. I have a point here (somewhere...)

Back in the day before you had leveling in multiplayer, you had only one way to beat someone in multiplayer. Through superior skill. Those old fighting games that used to be in the arcades fifteen years ago or so had no unlockable abilites or special moves. You won by simply being better. And if you wanted to win, then you had to practice and get better. Today, at level fifty in Call of Duty, you can set up a class where you could possibly spend half the match in the same place, and end up ruling the match, and if something's not working, you just buy a solution (or equip the tubes....)

Perhaps now I understand why I hate Call of Duty now. Maybe this is why I dislike it and everything it stands for. I apologize for what I am about to say here, but this needs to be said.

It Takes Much Less Skill to Win at Call of Duty than ANY OTHER GAME TODAY. 


I don't like saying it. I used to enjoy playing this series, but truth is, somewhere around Modern Warfare, skill went out the window to a degree. And the way the game is set up now, it almost encourages you to camp it out. Killstreaks have a lot to do with it too. And yeah, it does take more skill to win a round in Bad Company 2 or Halo, or any other game really, probably because of the serious tip of balance killstreaks can have. They aren't quite so bad in Black Ops, and the fact that you have to get your hands dirty to earn them all makes it a little better, but the game would still probably be better without them there at all.

And don't think that any other games that are guilty of this are any better. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 feels a bit more balanced to me because it requires more teamwork, and there are no perks or killstreaks, but players with better weapons usually come out on top more often than not. Especially true of the snipers in that game.

It's now clear why multiplayer sucks these days. To me anyway...

We've forgotten what made the old fighting games, or the old Call of Duty games even, truly fun and challenging. The fact that you could only win through superior skill and knowledge of the game. Nowadays, being better sometimes boils down to having the best gun in the lobby, or the best way to camp and earn killstreaks. Teamwork can sometimes affect the outcome, but more often than not (in team dethmatch modes especially) one person can just annihilate the other team and come out with the win because he had some bizarre gun and attachment combo.

Things probably aren't going to change anytime soon either. This is an era of gaming when people want customization and choice. Leveling systems provide that, and it also keeps players coming back for more.

And thats a little upsetting to me...

I promise next update will be much shorter and much much much less serious.

(Oh and just to note, I never said Call of Duty takes no ability or skill to play. Just less than other games. And no, I will not take it back.)