The Two Blades Episode

[fishbang]

Disturbing innuendo involving edged weapons can be found at this link (http://ingamechat.net/audio/IGC20090414.mp3).

By far the most electrifying news for the cast this week was the proper announcement of Assassin’s Creed 2, complete with all its bona fides and with enough preview information to keep us in thrall until the moment of release, or at the very least until the Electronic Entertainment Extravaganza force-feeds us all the media we can stand. And by far the most disturbing image is of where UbiSoft might situate the inevitable "third blade" for the protagonist of AC3.

Show favorite topics “MMOs” and “digital delivery” feature heavily again near the end of our time, and in skimming the episode before posting it occurred to me that beside the point of certain ideas being timely or important, we have a tendency to abuse our favorite subjects and wail our opinions like they’re some kind of prayer or plea. It’s as if talking about what we love most or what we’d most love to see in our future could bring it to pass that much sooner, or could deliver it to us when there’s no hope of it being real.

There’s certainly no shame in wanting it, but there’s sometimes an awful lot to be found in sharing it to no good end. I can’t speak for others, but the reasons for my own love affair with the MMO are made pretty clear here, and I could swear that I’d never talk about it again if only each of my friends in the world would play what I wanted them to.

[Chris_D]

Hi guys, thanks for another fun episode talking about CoH. Wondering if you'd considered remixing the "my name is..." song to maybe include the new guys? In fact I'd be perfectly content to have this as a standard ending to the podcast. The first time I heard it was just hysterical.

Wanted to mention about the DLC / XBLA stuff. On this show and another show I think you guys have been a little overly pessimistic about the future of your DLC on 360. I agree it's reasonable to be concerned about the whole DLC thing generally. Specifically regarding the 360 though, one of the reasons Microsoft changed suppliers for the 360 from Intel / NVIDIA to IBM / ATI was to regain control of ownership of the components and have a more beneficial agreement in place. Basically, NVIDIA was screwing them a bit before and Microsoft was never able to break even on the cost of the original XBox. Now, I believe that Microsoft has full ownership of the design of the 360 CPU and GPU so even if they did fall out with IBM or AMD / ATI then they would have the option of having another company take over the design of the successor (however undesirable that would be). This wasn't the case with the original XBox when the components were effectively off the shelf PC stuff.

Despite significant differences between the original Xbox and the 360's architecture, MS busted their balls to get some level of backwards compatibility for a lot of the games (in a few rare cases even delivering an improved experience - Halo 2). With all the shit they've had slung at them over BC, I think this was really commendable. Now, they have control over the design of the console you can bet that the 720 (insert stupid console name here) will be designed to be almost seamlessly BC with the 360. Also, with the economy being the way it is and cost of development spiraling, you know we won't see such a big leap between the 720 and 360 as previous generations. Think maybe a few extra CPU cores, higher clock speed, beefier GPU. More of a Gamecube -> Wii transition than an Xbox -> 360.

Having said all the above, I'm pretty confident all your 360 games and your DLC (including arcade games) will seamlessly make the transition to 720. At least I would expect the level of BC as seen on the original PS3. Hell, you can even still download Halo 2 maps for your copy of Halo 2 and play it on 360.

[Iron Past]

I always thought the license transfer thing was put in place as much in preparation for the next generation of hardware as much as to address complaints about this generation's DRM.

Anyway, glad I could give you fodder to talk about. I realize the move to all DD probably won't happen soon, but I always see many hurdles before it comes to fruition. I have a skewed perspective not having access to broadband, though. We don't even really live out of the way, either. It's not sparsely populated or anything, just not dense enough for Verizon to bother upgrading the lines in the foreseeable future (I call and ask every few months); in fact, I can drive five minutes into an area that is serviced just fine.

One of the things that turns me off on it is that I have to rely on more intermediaries to get my games. Right now, I know that I can go to the store and buy a game. With digital distribution, I have to pay for internet service, hope it's not capped, hope the line isn't down, hope Live/PSN/whatever is running smoothly, etc. I realize that it's already happening in some instances (with downloadable games), but having only that avenue to get games from feels strange. Also, I can testify that I would have bought many more Arcade games if I didn't have to disconnect my 360 and drive accross town every time I wanted one; then again, would I have bought as many if I had to go to the store to do so? I don't know, like you said, it's some crazy stuff. I'm down with a port at Best Buy to plug HDD into, though.

Also, food for thought: even with Pay-Per-View, Video on Demand, downloadable movies, movie sites like NetFlix and so on, DVDs and players still sell well. Do you see Blu-Ray and DVDs going the way of the Dodo soon? I'd think that would happen before it does with games, but who knows.

[kyrieee]

The way you described what you liked about CoH seems like it had little to do with the actual game (you probably even said as much). I had the same thing going on with Diablo II where for a year or two all my friends played it all the time and it was a blast. I'm really looking forward to Diablo III but I think that what made me like Diablo II so much had to do with my friends, so Diablo III probably won't be the same thing even though I'm hoping that it will be

Kind of like how Deus Ex had a huge impact on me because I was only 13 when I played it, and it's most likely that I'll never get into a game that much ever again, which is a bit sad

[Vigil80]

I'd just like to chime in on the short discussion about collectibles. Specifically, the casts' pretty unanimous "fuck them."

I'm grabbing the last of the 221 diamond briefcases in Far Cry 2, mainly because they're required to buy all the items from the armory. That's a little more insidious than GTA4 pigeons, which seem to be more of an extra thing to do if you feel like it. At least the GPS gadget in FC2 has an indicator that lets you know when you're getting close.

It's a trend that I think GTA started, in fact. Now there's diamond briefcases, agility orbs in Crackdown, flags in Assassin's Creed, whatever happy magical pickups you're grabbing in Prince of Persia, bobbleheads and books in Fallout 3, even memories in Lost Odyssey.

I've really grown to hate the whole egg-hunting game, and it's beginning to seem like a cheap way to tack on content to a game and make the player run all over the world they've made. What's simpler for a dev than doing a flyover of the game world and dropping these pickups like apple seeds?

I realize it's like escort missions or exploding barrels. It's one of those conventions that isn't going away any time soon. I just hope they can start finding new and interesting twists on the idea, or at leasy keep the number of hidden pickups lower than hundreds.

[Psykoboy2]

That whole argument of collectibles in games could also apply to the achievements/trophies, as well.

[Ravenlock]

Achievements I'm fine with, as long as they're rewards for things you actually want to DO in the game because they're cool, rather than grindfests or incredibly unlikely events that you have to essentially "hack" into being.

Some of the achievements in Left 4 Dead are brilliant, for example. It felt really great to get Man Vs. Tank and Dead Stop, because those are recognitions of really cool things that are fairly rare in the game but which a player can accomplish with some luck and skill. An achievement for driving a Delorean 88 miles an hour in a thunderstorm is also pretty goddamn brilliant. ;) They can be neat little acknowledgments of stuff you would have wanted to do anyhow, and now have some incentive to try.

Contrast that to the Team Fortress 2 achievements, which are so ridiculously hard and/or unlikely to get in "normal" play that every time an update is released, every server is just full of people ignoring the actual GAME so they can get the new achievement. The act of trying to get the achievement breaks the actual flow of the game rather than supporting it. Instances like that, for me, are where the achievement idea falls apart.

[Vigil80]

QFT, Ravenlock.

I would expand by saying that achievements for activities that are unique and original, and/or that you might end up doing anyway are nice. But if there wasn't some reward that I really wanted, I would almost never participate in collectibles hunting as it exists in most of the games I've played.

The only exception I can think of is if the act of travelling within a game were so fun that I found myself simply doing that, and collectibles were simply destinations to give me an excuse to travel. Assassin's Creed almost pulled this off, as just getting from A to B in that game is entertaining. The sheer number of collectibles in that game unfortunately overwhelm the entertainment value of running and climbing on rooftops.

[Psykoboy2]

The only exception I can think of is if the act of travelling within a game were so fun that I found myself simply doing that, and collectibles were simply destinations to give me an excuse to travel. Assassin's Creed almost pulled this off, as just getting from A to B in that game is entertaining. The sheer number of collectibles in that game unfortunately overwhelm the entertainment value of running and climbing on rooftops.

Try Spider-Man: Web Of Shadows and it's....wait for it....2000 collectibles. This is okay though because the web slinging is really fun in that game and I'll just go all over the place traveling and picking up the collectibles when I see them.

[phoenyx]

I still play Spider-Man 2 on the GameCube for tha reason. Swinging around the city is so fun, and stumbling upon a token is just a fun bonus.

The bouy tokens can die a long, painful, horrible death however.

[lucklesswonder]

Third blade for AC3? I have the feeling someone's gonna be screaming, "I'm the alpha male! I'm the alpha male!"

[Xydarc]

IGC has given much love to City of Heroes, and have been jonesing for Champions Online. Why no mention of DC Universe Online?

[Psykoboy2]

IGC has given much love to City of Heroes, and have been jonesing for Champions Online. Why no mention of DC Universe Online?


Well, our love for CoH comes from a very nostalgic past of playing that game together when it first launched. Our interest in Champions comes from that fact and it being developed by the same group, plus our hands on time with what little we played of it at PAX.

DCU Online...I haven't seen much of, had any time with it, nor am I too familiar with who ever is developing it. I have interest, yes, but I just haven't heard much about what's going on with it.

[Straximus]

For me, a big factor is that DCU is still about a year or more away from manifesting itself, while Champions is nearly upon us. Any game that far out just isn't real enough to me yet to generate much excitement. It's too easy for me to be disappointed by getting excited that far out.

[Xydarc]

DC Universe Online (http://dcuo.station.sony.com/)

[Ravenlock]

Regarding your discussion about 6 Days in Fallujah (such as it was), I think most of the concern comes from people being confused by the rather contradictory - and still as far as I know not reconciled - positions put forth by the developer and the publisher after the game's announcement.

As I understood it, the devs at Atomic Games made quite a point of saying that they were trying to be very realistic and true to an extremely sensitive piece of modern history, and how they had talked to the soldiers, talked to residents, even talked to insurgents (??) to try and get the details right. They seemed to really want to project an image of having taken on a serious, solemn responsibility.

Concurrent with that, Konami's VP comes out and says "We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience. At the end of the day, it's just a game."

I think it's fine to just try to make an entertaining game about war, I mean that's the formula behind several of the most successful franchises in modern gaming history. I think it's also fine to try to make a realistic, serious game about combat more in the vein of Operation Flashpoint or the early Rainbow Six games, where rules of engagement can matter and single bullets can kill you.

I'm not sure that I think it's okay to claim you're making a very serious take on modern warfare - not even fictionalized modern warfare, mind you, but an account of an actual battle not even 5 years old - and then have recharging health and soldiers blowing buildings up left and right with no regard for innocents and no penalties for killing civilians, which is what I've heard was what was basically shown at the press event for 6 Days.

[Xydarc]

Regarding your discussion about 6 Days in Fallujah (such as it was), I think most of the concern comes from people being confused by the rather contradictory - and still as far as I know not reconciled - positions put forth by the developer and the publisher after the game's announcement.

As I understood it, the devs at Atomic Games made quite a point of saying that they were trying to be very realistic and true to an extremely sensitive piece of modern history, and how they had talked to the soldiers, talked to residents, even talked to insurgents (??) to try and get the details right. They seemed to really want to project an image of having taken on a serious, solemn responsibility.

Concurrent with that, Konami's VP comes out and says "We just want to bring a compelling entertainment experience. At the end of the day, it's just a game."

I think it's fine to just try to make an entertaining game about war, I mean that's the formula behind several of the most successful franchises in modern gaming history. I think it's also fine to try to make a realistic, serious game about combat more in the vein of Operation Flashpoint or the early Rainbow Six games, where rules of engagement can matter and single bullets can kill you.

I'm not sure that I think it's okay to claim you're making a very serious take on modern warfare - not even fictionalized modern warfare, mind you, but an account of an actual battle not even 5 years old - and then have recharging health and soldiers blowing buildings up left and right with no regard for innocents and no penalties for killing civilians, which is what I've heard was what was basically shown at the press event for 6 Days.
If that last part is true, it's very disappointing.