Final Fantasy XV: Episode Duscae Demo Impressions

Earlier this week, we were given our first real taste of the long-in-development Final Fantasy XV. How does it sit with me, someone who has been a long fan of the series, and one who has also believed that Final Fantasy has been on a steady decline for quite a while?

Find out after the jump!

Disclaimer: I apologize in advance for any odd pacing in this article, as it's pretty difficult to write about a game that's a small piece of a bigger whole. Not to mention, the full game isn't even finished yet.





There was something about Final Fantasy XIII that I hated, it's just hard to put my finger on. Maybe it was the needlessly confusing story. Maybe it was the linearity of the game. Maybe I didn't like how it seemed that Square Enix really wanted to impress us with a bunch of flashing lights throughout, all in an attempt to make things appear more "magical." Maybe I just hate Lightning (aka, "the female Cloud Strife," a character I already didn't like). Whatever it was, FFXIII wasn't my favorite in the series by a long shot. I enjoyed the battle system, but that's about it.

Since that game, my thoughts have been along the lines of, "The FF series is doomed." There were a lot of "changes" in the last single-player FF title to the familiar formats lain out in previous games, so for a person that has played every single game in the series (including the online games), XIII was a pretty big punch to the gut.

When XIII was announced, so was the title that would eventually go on to become known as Final Fantasy XV. At the time, it was called "Versus XIII," and I remember thinking, Man, that looks way more interesting than FFXIII. With its modern aesthetic, it's probably a good thing it's a side-game, though.

Versus XIII would continue to be known as a "side-game" until E3 2013, when it was revealed that it had transitioned into the main series, and had a roman numeral slapped to the end. By that point, I didn't really care. I thought, Well, maybe Square Enix just can't come up with a good main-series idea, and they're tired of developing Versus XIII, so they'll just kill two birds with one stone. 
Right or wrong, the game was taking way too long to develop, and fans were getting antsy, so they probably made the right decision.

Another FF title that was related to the FFXIII mythos, a PSP game called FF Type-0, was eventually announced to be coming out in America as an HD remaster for the current console lineup. Probably it's biggest selling point: the fact that it would contain a playable demo of FFXV.

Up until the demo's announcement, I'd been pretty impressed with what I'd seen so far of XV's development. The graphics looked amazing, and the modern setting looked interesting. So even if XV changed the FF formula in terms of gameplay even more than XIII had, at least it would look good, though my faith in the series to bring anything worthwhile to the table again had long gone out the window.

One of the things that really interested me about what I'd been seeing in videos was the "open world-ness" of it. I'm a huge fan of open-world games and the immersion they provide. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, GTA - all these games pretty much throw you into a world and say, "Go." I love that kind of freedom while playing a game, as it feels very much like "escaping reality." That, and I just love to explore virtual worlds. I doubt I'll being going to Skyrim, or living in a post-apocalyptic wasteland anytime soon in real life (at least, I hope not).

FF games - with the exceptions of XII and XIII - had previously been broken up into gameplay types: towns/castles/dungeons, the overworld map, and battle scenes. In a sense, there were some open-world elements with the overworld, as you could pretty much go wherever and whenever you wanted, but the transition between the three types listed above wasn't seamless. And of course, that's mainly due to technological limitations at the time.

FFXII and XIII tried to introduce a feeling of being in the game's world, but the seams were still very apparent. XII had "zones," or very small areas that were put together more like an MMORPG than anything else; and XIII was the most linear, straight-forward FF game to date, ditching any kind of overworld altogether. Seriously, all that game is is "walk forward, fight, walk forward, fight. Cutscene. Walk forward, fight, keep repeating." There was no real exploration to speak of until the game was almost over.

When I was a kid playing FFIV (or II, as it was known at the time), my imagination was a lot bigger than the game itself. I saw past the graphical limitations and made up everything else in my head. For example, when I would guide the giant, overworld version of Cecil (who represented his entire party on the map) into a forest, I would imagine he and his party members actually traversing through trees and underbrush while getting ambushed by monsters, represented whenever I'd be thrust into the random battle scenes. I know this may seem silly, but this dependency on the player's imagination is what I really believe Hironobu Sakaguchi had in mind when he created the series. Just like Miyamoto did when he created the original Legend of Zelda (which is also going the open-world route with its next installment. Whoo hoo!).

Todays graphics capabilities take out some of that need for imagination. I'm not saying that having an imagination is a bad thing (in fact, I very strongly encourage it); all I'm saying is that developers don't really have to assume the player is going to imagine something, when they can easily just go ahead and show it to them. 
A good example of this is the resting system that was in place in earlier FF games. In those games, to replenish the party's HP and remove any status effects that they might have, you had the option of using a tent. When you selected the item from your inventory list while on the overworld map, the edges of the screen would go dark, the tent would be illuminated by an unseen spotlight, the "we're going to sleep" jingle would play, the view would return to the overworld map and you'd be back in control of your party with fully replenished health. The underlying image that this all conjures, however, is that of the party members building a tent in the wilds, maybe sitting around for a bit and reflecting on their most recent adventures, and going to sleep to get ready for more traveling the next day.

So I've gone on and on about old FF games and ranted about imagination, but what does this have to do with the Episode Duscae demo? My example of the resting system and guiding Cecil through a forest from earlier games pretty much sums up my feeling on FFXV so far...

...they finally got it right.

FFXV feels like no other game in the series. That includes the older titles, as well as the more futuristic-set games like VII, VIII, X, and XIII. While there are some futuristic elements seen in the demo (as well as various gameplay trailers), the main aesthetic is more "grounded in reality." I hate when people use that terminology, but in this case, it really works in a good way.

The demo starts out when the four main characters wake up... inside of a tent. Let me just stop for a minute and say that the simplistic idea of them waking up in a tent had my heart swelling up in the first 30 seconds of the demo. It may seem silly, but if you were paying attention to the earlier bit I mentioned about the old FF games, then it's like Square Enix read my brain when I was a kid and gave me exactly what I wanted to see! But wait! There's more!

So the characters wake up in a tent where they've setup camp out in the wild because their Mercedes-looking car had been previously totaled, and is now in the care of a mechanic. The mechanic has placed a pretty high price to have the car fixed, but lucky for our characters, a Behemoth has been spotted in the area, and the bounty for taking it down will more than pay for the repairs. Our characters have been hunting the Behemoth and searching the wilderness for clues to lead them to its location, and have taken a break to recharge.

Yeah, by this point, I'm pretty ecstatic about the way the game's going - just off something as simple as the characters taking a rest and the game's emphasis on exploration right off the bat. But even now, I'm thinking that maybe this is just a cutscene thing. No big deal. Neat that they put that in, but it's a one-off.

After the party exchanges some dialogue, we're put in control of the game's main character, Noctis, and given a tutorial on how to play the game, as well as on how the combat system works. I'll just go ahead and say that if anything in the demo needs some work, it's the combat system. I won't go into big details about how it operates; I'll just say that the responsiveness of it is a bit clunky. Luckily, the demo's gameplay mechanics are supposedly based off of an obsolete build of the full game. And since, according to the game's director, the full version is only 60% done, that should be taken into account when considering the unpolished combat system. 

That being said, the combat is interesting. While very different than the turn-based systems of yore, it shows a lot of promise and can get pretty intense! Another interesting thing to note is that you only control one character, as opposed to all four. In the final game, you will supposedly be able to control the other party members with a gambit-style system - akin to FFXII - that allows you to assign behaviors to the other three characters. In the demo, the other characters fight alongside Noctis pretty well, though I wish they were a bit better at healing him when he needs it, rather than continuing to fight relentlessly while I get my butt handed to me.

As the characters begin their hunt for the Behemoth and begin exploring the region, night eventually begins to set in. That's right - there are day-to-night transitions! Like Capcom's game, Dragon's Dogma, you don't want to be caught running around in the wilderness after dark. If you are, you'll be swarmed with more powerful monsters who are drawn to the light of your flashlight, sometimes resulting in 15-20 minute-long battles. That's where the resting system comes into play.

So it turns out that the characters waking up in a tent at the beginning of the demo wasn't just a one-off. In fact, it's a pretty essential part of the gameplay. Like the tents in previous FF games, finding a suitable camping location and resting for the night not only restores your HP and heals you up, but it protects you from some of the dangers that night brings. Not only that, but it's also the way your characters increase their levels.
During each period of rest, the scene switches to a campfire where the characters prepare a meal from ingredients found throughout the region, and that monsters drop after they're defeated. These meals serve as buffs to your characters' stats during combat afterwards. When the rest period is completed, the experience points earned from fighting for the day are totaled and added, and your characters get stronger from the levels they gain. Pretty neat way of going about it, if you ask me!

Outside of normal gameplay, the area that Square Enix made available in the demo is pretty darn huge! Taking into account the fact that you're ambushed by enemies quite regularly, it took me around 30-45 minutes to walk just the area's perimeter! Square put up some invisible walls that keep you from venturing outside the demo's boundaries, but from what I hear, the game is completely open-world, offering much more than what you're initially faced with.

Eventually, after the characters find the Behemoth's lair, you're treated to the first actual dungeon. This dungeon, however, is much more "practical" than in previous FF games. Really, it's just a cave. Now that may seem pretty bland, but I actually found it pretty cool that, given the "grounded in reality" feel, there weren't that many frills attached. It was more like what you would expect from a somewhat realistic take on a Final Fantasy staple.

From what we're allowed to see in the demo, I feel that Square might have finally hit the nail on the head. Sure, they've changed a lot of things, but I can't help but feel like this is the most "Final Fantasy" Final Fantasy game I've played since the old days. It's like they took all the old gameplay mechanics and modernized them to fit with current technological and gameplay standards. Doing this, Square Enix has finally created / are creating something that can definitely be called unique. 

My overall feelings on FFXV at the moment are a bit hard to explain without sounding ridiculous, but I'll attempt to do so. Just try really hard to not say, "What the crap is he talking about?!" Just bare with me.

FFXV makes me feel like a kid again. I'm not saying that in the sense of "oh this Final Fantasy game is so great and reminds me of FFVI and how awesome that was when I was a kid;" it reminds me of what it was like to be a kid with a huge imagination. FFXV takes all the things that I thought nobody else thought of, and thrusts them in front of my eyeballs. 
It also reminds me of what it was like to get together with some friends and pretend you were going on an adventure. You'd see the woods behind your house and say, "Hey! Let's go into that forest and search for treasure," or something to that effect. In reality, you were in the woods behind your house, but in your mind, you might have been fighting imaginary goblins, or dragons, or whatever. 
I had no greater feeling like this than going into the cave in the Duscae demo. To be honest, I've never had a weird, nostalgic-like feeling like that in a video game. It was a truly unique experience that, to be honest, is quite difficult to put into words. Play it for yourself, and see if those same feelings come welling up like they did for me. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but when you play the demo and look past the fact that it's still an unfinished product, hopefully you'll see that there's at least something unique and special there. It's not just a good Final Fantasy experience, it's just a good experience overall.

Here's hoping that the full version of Final Fantasy XV expounds upon the potential found in Episode Duscae!

-Josh

  

No "Top 5" for 2014?

So last year I wrote an article in which I listed my top 5 games of 2013. Unfortunately, mind-blowing games for me this year were kind of lacking. Sure, there were good games, but nothing that took my world by storm. If one were to ask me what my favorite games are right now, I’d probably say Dragon Age: Inquisition and Super Mario 3D World, but that would be biased towards what I’m actually in the middle of playing at the moment.

So what to do, then? Why not talk about what I’m currently bouncing back and forth between? As of right now, I’m probably actively playing more games at once than I ever have in my entire life.

Find out what I’m playing after the jump!

Bouncing back and forth between games is something that I don’t necessarily recommend. Lots of times, doing so will make you not really appreciate something to its fullest - something I’m hoping doesn’t happen to me. Luckily, a few of the games I’m bouncing between are ones I’ve played a gazillion times before.

With the recent addition of the iPad Air to my tech collection, I’ve gained yet another platform with which to play games. It just so happens that nearly every old-school Final Fantasy title in existence is available for Apple and Android devices, so I’ve been playing some of those. In my rotating queue are Final Fantasy IV: The After Years (a 3D remake of the 2D original), Final Fantasy V, Final Fantasy VI, and the new(er) Final Fantasy Dimensions. Truthfully, I’ve spent most of my handheld/mobile time playing Final Fantasy VI, but how could I not? Like Chrono Trigger, it’s one of those classic RPGs that, once you start playing, you just can’t put it down!

Another mobile time killer that I’ve been really digging on is Angry Birds: Transformers. I’m a huge Transformers fan, and I really like Angry Birds, so the combination of the two franchises really appeals to me. The gameplay for AB:TF is quite a bit different from the traditional AB games, but it’s an absolute blast. I just really wish the game didn’t try to goad you into buying crystals (with real-world money) to keep you constantly playing. Instead, you’re forced into long periods of upgrading your Transformers that keeps you from playing the game for long stretches if you don’t want to let go of your money. Personally, when it comes to a game like that, micro-transactions are right out, so I have to sit and wait a lot with that game… But I usually just switch to FFVI instead!

On the PC front, you’d think I’d be playing a lot of games on my Mac, right? In case you didn’t read my last “Lack of Apple Hate” article, you should know that that isn’t happening at all. I found out very quickly how much the MacBook Pro is NOT good for gaming. That being said, I’ve still got my ASUS laptop, and I’ve been enjoying several recent purchases on it. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, The Sims 4, Final Fantasy XIII (again), and Final Fantasy XIII-2 are all finding their respective ways in and out of my eyeballs. A recent time card for Final Fantasy XIV will probably have me returning to that game soon, as well.

As I mentioned above, I’ve been playing Dragon Age and Mario 3D World on the consoles. I got them both for Christmas (along with the PS4 version of GTAV), and both are great games. Dragon Age is a little overwhelming in terms of content, and 3D World is shaping up to be - in my opinion - one of the best 3D Mario games yet.

There are also a few games I need to get back to on consoles. Games such as Alien: Isolation (though I still don’t know if I’ll actually go back to that one or not), Shadow of Mordor, Assassin’s Creed: Unity, etc. There is also one game on the 3DS that I really want to get back to: Bravely Default. It’s pure, old-school RPG goodness!

I’m really looking forward to doing reviews on all of these games in the future, but as you know, I like to finish the games before I do. I’m thinking, however, that I might have to change that rule a little bit going forward. As rapidly as my game collection increases, I’ll never be able to finish games in a timely manner for review purposes. So what I’m planning on doing is writing more “Thoughts” articles. With that format, I can at least let everybody know what I’m thinking about a particular game at the moment, and if I have time for a full review later on, I’ll put that out there.

So 2014 may not have blown me away with its release lineup (yet), but I’m playing more games at once than I ever have. 2015, on the other hand, will see some releases that I’m hugely excited for: The Witcher 3, Mortal Kombat X, Final Fantasy XV (maybe… probably not. I’ll believe it when I see it), and more! So there are at least three candidates for my top 5 next year!

Here’s to hoping that everyone had a great Christmas! We’ll see you in 2015!

-Josh

By the way, if I were really forced to pick a Game of the Year for 2014 right now, I’d probably pick The Vanishing of Ethan Carter. So there ya go.

Assassin's Creed: Unity - Initial Thoughts (PS4)

The day after the game's launch, I was finally able to boot up Assassin's Creed: Unity. I'll give a full review once I complete the game, but what do I think about it so far? Find out after the jump!





Last night, I played AC: Unity on PS4 for about 2 hours or so. To sum it up quickly, I'll just say that Ubisoft consistently screws up Assassin's Creed year after year. I don't know why; I just know that that seems to be the case. Since Assassin's Creed III, there seems to be at least one aspect of the game that gets pooped on with every subsequent release. This time, a couple of things got pooped on.

Graphics

Man, the graphics are gorgeous... when you're standing still. The frame rate is atrocious 85% of the time. I had heard that the game would run at 30fps, but consider yourself lucky if you get that. In other words, it's not "locked" at 30 fps, and often dips below that target number, meaning the game chugs a lot . I even encountered a bug that dipped the frame rate to what seemed like 2fps as I was climbing a steeple and trying to jump off to the side! This literally happened every time I held the R2 and X buttons while trying to move off the steeple. If I climbed either up or down, everything was fine.

About a month ago, Ubisoft released the system requirements for the PC version of the game. I rolled my eyes when I saw that the minimum requirements involved having an Nvidia GTX680 graphics card. That's the same one I have, and it's still considered high-end/top-of-the-line! That particular card is also 4-5x more powerful than the two consoles the game was designed for. There is no reason whatsoever that Ubisoft couldn't have optimized the game to have minimum requirements of low-end GPUs. Given these horrible frame rate issues,it seems that they didn't optimize the game for consoles, either.

Gameplay

Even more so than ACIII and ACIV: Black Flag, the parkour controls are terrible. Let me clarify by saying that it's not necessarily the controls, but the detection on climbable surfaces. The game tries to make the decision of what you want to climb on, pulling you like a magnet towards a surface if you're just a little too close to it. The first two games, as well as Brotherhood and Revelations, didn't have these problems. I don't understand why this aspect of the game gets progressively worse.

Another issue in gameplay is the combat. While I felt the timing for countering enemy attacks was buggy in ACIII, IV, and Liberation, that has been fixed in Unity. Timing works fine, but combat is extremely slow and sluggish. Rather than feeling like I'm controlling a nimble, well-trained assassin, I feel like I'm controlling a mentally-challenged tank. 

Positives

A lot of the reviews out there have knocked pretty hard on the story. I think it's ok, even though it shares a lot of similarities with ACII's story. Even the main character, Arno, seems like a carbon copy of Ezio. However, the story is - so far - shaping up to be better than ACIV's, which I didn't care for much at all.
And again, the graphics are pretty when you're standing still.

Review

I don't want to throw out an all-encompassing opinion until after I finish the game, so I don't want to say something like, "This is the worst Assassin's Creed game ever!" I don't think that would be fair, since I've only played roughly two hours of the game. Maybe I just have to get used to the gameplay issues. Maybe Ubisoft will release a patch that will clear up the frame rate problems before I write my review. These are possibilities I'm going to keep open, and I'll provide you with a more in-depth (or at least, as "in-depth" as I usually am) look at the game in the coming weeks.

-Josh
    

Alien: Isolation (PS4) - Thoughts

Alien: Isolation – Thoughts (PS4)

Alien: Isolation is a game I probably won’t be able to finish. Is it better than Colonial Marines? Is it scary? Are the negative reviews it’s been getting from some sites accurate? Find out after the jump!

From its initial announcement, I’d been excited about Alien: Isolation. I’ve always been a pretty big fan of the films (particularly the first), and it looked as though the game would be a pretty accurate representation of the world that Ridley Scott directed us through in his 1979 film, Alien. Now that the game has been released, and I’ve had a pretty decent amount of time to play it, I can say with all certainty that it is. However, that may be its biggest downfall.

Somewhat like the original film, Isolation has the perfect blend of slow, building tension and well-done payoffs to that tension.  The problem lies in the fact that the main campaign is somewhere around 20 hours long. While yes, that could be seen as a good thing, given that one usually wants to get the most out of his/her $59.99 for a single game, there’s only so much slow-burning tension that one can take before it becomes outright frustrating!

In a recent posting of the Penny Arcade webcomic, Mike Krahulik and Jerry Holkins humorously criticized their opening hours of playing the game, and how you literally play for a little over an hour before you actually see the famously frightening, titular creature. As Holkins’ comic strip alter-ego Tycho suggests after Krahulik’s Gabe complains about this, “It's called suspense, Gabriel. And they are building it. Soon, you will know fear.” Personally, I’m fine with not seeing the Alien for that long, as it does lend itself very well to the feeling of the original film.
(To see the Penny Arcade comic, click here!)

After said hour or so, the Alien makes his big reveal, and it’s done extremely well; he drops out of a ventilation duct and slowly rises to his feet, immediately beginning his hunt for you. Whenever he appears, the best thing – the ONLY thing – to do is hide. If it sees you, you can kiss your video game life goodbye and begin loading up your last save point, hoping that it was close enough to the point where you died. In other words, it kills you immediately; you can't hurt it.

The first couple of times that this happens really aren’t that bad. But when the game starts throwing objectives at you that are literally “go get the thing in this room and put it in the room next-door, so that you can open a door all the way across the level’s map,” it gets frustrating while constantly having to avoid the Alien and certain death.
In my opinion, a better approach would have been to design the game in such a way that the Alien doesn’t always show up and hamper your objectives. Instead, have him show up when you least expect it. The way it is, you can always tell he’s going to pop out when your objective is to get somewhere in a hurry, or when the objective is seemingly simple.

In all fairness, this kind of gameplay is what makes these kinds of games these kinds of games. Titles like Outlast and the Amnesia series all have that “constant tension,” but something about this type of gameplay for more than a few hours just becomes maddening. It’s probably the fact that, while slow-burning tension works very well in a two-hour movie, a twenty-hour game like that only makes you want to shut it off after two hours.

Is the game scary? I personally don’t think so, even though I’ve always considered the Alien to be the scariest movie monster of all time. And here, it acts exactly as you would expect it to - hiding and crawling through the station's ductwork, carefully seeking you out, etc. There are plenty of jump-scares, yet nothing that I was actually “terrified” over.
The Silent Hills (P.T.) demo on PS4 was frightening – this is not.
That being said, the game makes me extremely nervous, but only because I don’t want the Alien to kill me in one shot and make me start waaaaaaaaay back at the last save point I found.
And it’s for that reason that I probably won’t finish the game – I’m “on the edge of my seat,” but not for the reasons I’m probably supposed to be.

So there you have it – my thoughts on Alien: Isolation. In a sense, the reviews have been accurate, or at least they align with my own personal experience playing the game, and it's definitely a more polished effort then the last Alien game, Colonial Marines. However, I think IGN’s review in particular was pretty harsh, seeing as how they gave it a 5.9.
Through I don’t like reviewing games until after I’ve finished them, I’d probably give it a 7.5/10. The graphics are great (even though the PS4 version suffers from frame-rate problems during cutscenes), the controls work well for the type of game it is, and the game makes you feel as though you actually are living a part of the Alien universe. So in the sense of being a game which accurately represents the feeling of Ridley Scott’s original film, Alien: Isolation delivers. Unfortunately, it’s like watching Alien on DVD or BluRay 10 times in a row; it’s a great movie, but after the second or third time watching it, you’d probably want to watch something else.

-Josh

Note: If you have the Nostromo Edition of Alien: Isolation (or want to buy the DLC), play the Crew Expendable mission and the Last Survivor pre-order bonus. You’ll be able to see pretty much all that the game has to offer in a much shorter amount of time, meaning that the slow-burn feeling the game strives for is much more effective. 

Note 2: Looking for a good Alien game? Go check out Alien vs. Predator for Xbox 360, PS3, and PC/Steam. It’s short, but it’s effective, doesn’t get boring, and you can even choose to play as the Alien!

Incomming

Hey, folks!

Just wanted to apologize for the lack of posts lately. School has been killing my free time lately (only 2 more classes to go until I graduate, though! Whoo hoo!)
There are several reviews that I've written, but haven't gotten around to posting yet. They'll be up soon.

In the meantime, here's what you can look forward to:

Bravely Default (3DS) - Review

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes (PS4) - Review

Skyborn (PC) - Review

Titanfall (Xbox One) - Review

-Josh

Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag (Review)

Platforms: PS4, PS3, Xbox 360, Xbox One, Wii U, PC

Another year… another Assassin’s Creed. Is that a good or bad thing? Find out after the jump!

**WARNING!! There may or may not be spoilers for the game contained in the review. Do not read if you don’t want to have anything revealed too early!**

I’ve finally gotten around to finishing Assassin’s Creed IV on PS4. The review may seem late, but I really don’t like to review games that I haven’t finished. Some sites do that, but The Inner Dorkdom likes to give a bit more time for games to gestate, rather than throw up a review for the sake of having it available during the game’s release window.

In fact, here’s my process for writing a review:

1. (Obviously) Play the game.
2. Start writing the graphics, sound, and gameplay/control sections, as the game doesn’t have to be completely finished in order to get a handle on these.
3. Finish the game.
4. Write the story section and final thoughts.
5. Publish the review.

In order to review Assassin’s Creed IV fairly, I have to come at it from two different angles. On the one hand, I have to review it as someone who reviews videogames on this website. On the other hand, I have to review it as someone who is a massive fan of the Assassin’s Creed franchise. For the most part, I’m pretty torn about what I think of the series’ latest entry. From a game standpoint, well… it’s got a lot of problems. From a fan’s perspective… I’ll just save it for the breakdown.

Breakdown -

Like every AC game, historical figures make appearances. Anne Bonny is pictured here with main character, Edward Kenway.

Story:  6/10
Like most games, the story and mythology behind Assassin’s Creed have always been the main things I enjoyed the most about the series. I love how Ubisoft has been able to dig themselves out of seemingly impossible situations when they run into the brick walls that they create during nearly every game. I’m not being sarcastic here. I honestly think they’ve handled the series well in terms of story.
…Until AC4.
At first, I thought that the pirate themed story was going to be hugely epic, and for a while it was. After the first 10 hours or so, however, things started to become extremely boring and just plain ol’ uninteresting. I enjoyed the character of Edward Kenway (a lot more so than Connor of AC3) and hope a few more games are released to flesh his character out, but the other characters (mainly the villains) were sort of flat. None of them really grabbed my attention.
Questions that were raised in AC3 were very quietly answered, but never really talked about all that much – particularly the cliffhanger we were all left on for a year. Do we find out what happened to Desmond Miles? Yes, but it’s a pretty brief explanation. Do we find out what’s going on with Juno? Kind of, but it’s more like we find out what’s NOT going on with Juno, due to a very not-so-cleverly-devised way of continuing the series and setting up future sequels.

(SPOILERS!!!)
My biggest complaint with AC4’s story was the fact that it’s only “kind of” an Assassin’s Creed story. The main character isn’t even an assassin for about 95% of the game. Maybe I missed something while playing, but I don’t think that Edward Kenway actually EVER became an assassin during the story. One could tell that he was on his way to doing so. For about half of the game, I thought this was an interesting angle, but (again, unless I missed something) his joining of the order is never actually shown. And from the epilogue in the middle of the game’s ending credits, we’re still given no clear indication that he “took the oath.” We know from Oliver Bowden’s novel, “Assassin’s Creed: Forsaken,” that Edward was an assassin and adhered to the creed, but are the novels considered canon? In this case, and for the sake of AC4’s story, I certainly hope so.
(END SPOILERS!!)

In summation, I felt that the story of Assassin’s Creed IV was just really lazy and was only somewhat of an afterthought when Ubisoft decided to make a game with a primary focus of ship-based combat (more on that in a bit). It really didn’t have the “umph” that previous games have had, and seemed more like a side game that was only somewhat related to the series.

(Just as a side note: When I finished the game, I actually said, “What the crap? That’s it?!” The game kind of ends without warning and doesn’t really build towards an ending.)

Visuals: 8.5/10
I have to pretty much score this one in the same way I did for Assassin’s Creed III, since it looks as though it uses the same engine.  The thing that perhaps stands out a bit more for ACIV as opposed to III (and what gives it an extra ‘.5’ edge) is the beautifully rendered Caribbean setting. It’s much better looking and immersive than the colonial setting of the previous game. Though the scenery is prettier to look at, the character models in-game are a bit stiff looking – at least for the NPCs. At times, the NPCs look as though they were pulled straight from a PS2 or original Xbox game. I’m really interested to see what an Assassin’s Creed title will look like next year, when Ubisoft develops one (hopefully) specifically for next-gen hardware.

Sound: 7/10
The sound design is great, effects-wise. Gulls and other birds, ocean waves, and cannon fire all sound extremely authentic. The voice acting is pretty good, too. Unfortunately, the area in which ACIV’s sound lacks is the music. Personally, I thought that Lorne Balfe’s score for ACIII was excellent, as was Winifred Phillips’ score for AC: Liberation. It’s a shame that Brian Tyler couldn’t capture the same magic. The score is not bad by any stretch; I just thought the themes in ACIII and Liberation were much better and more memorable. I’m really surprised that, with as much critical acclaim as she received for her soundtrack to Liberation, Ubisoft didn’t give the scoring duties to Phillips. I’d really like to see what she would do with a main, numbered title.

Way too much of this....

Gameplay: 6.5/10
Black Flag goes back to the exploratory greatness of ACII-Revelations and brings back an almost overwhelming sense of things to do in the Caribbean world they created. From assassination contracts to finding buried treasure, almost everything you could think of to do in a pirate game is here.
That being said, I don’t like ship combat. To me, it feels extremely clunky and I found myself absolutely hating anytime a ship-related sequence would start. The ship combat was something that was praised (for some reason) in ACIII, so naturally, Ubisoft had to implement it into the newest iteration (plus, the fact that this is a pirate game, ship combat and travel makes since). I didn’t like it

...not nearly enough of this for my tastes.

then and I don’t like it now.  I also don’t like that so much emphasis is put into Edward’s ship, the Jackdaw. Having to constantly upgrade your ship, as well as your character, just seemed like a bit much. But I have to admit, disabling an enemy ship, boarding it, taking out its crew and looting its cargo are very fun and rewarding experiences.

Control: 4.5/10
I already mentioned the ship combat, but what about control of Edward himself? Remember in my ACIII review when I talked about Connor running up walls or jumping off things I didn’t want him to? Yeah, that hasn’t been changed. In fact, it seems like it’s worse. There is a chase scene about midway through the game that frustrated me to no end with how many times I had to do it just to get it right. The scene wouldn’t have been all that difficult if the controls were better, but the game forces you to do everything perfectly in order to succeed. I really hope the developers go back to the original “puppet-style” controls from pre-ACIII for the next game, or that they at least try and tighten up some of the controls.

I’m a fan of the Assassin’s Creed franchise, so of course I liked ACIV. I’ll continue buying new entries in the franchise for many years to come. I mainly just felt that there was “too much pirate in my assassin game.” For new players, though, a lot of the game’s flaws might end up being a huge turnoff. That’s actually what I remember thinking while playing: “Man, if I’d never played an AC game before, I’d probably hate this one.”

So is it worth $60? Personally, I don’t think so. I’d say that around $30-$40 is a bit more reasonable, given the quality of the game. A mediocre and lazy story, average music, frustrating ship combat, and poorly implemented control features rank Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag as one of the lowest in the series for me.

Final Score: 6.5/10

**NOTE: I have played and completed the singleplayer DLC, Freedom Cry. In my honest opinion, if that would have been the basis for AC4’s plot, I think I would have enjoyed the game much more. Unlike the main game, it seemed to have more emphasis on actually being an assassin. I award Freedom Cry a score of 8/10.

 

-Josh

 Screenshots taken from Google Images.

Josh's Top 5 Videogames of 2013

We’re over halfway through the first month of 2014, so now would be a good time to give a list of my top 5 favorite games from 2013, right? Well, maybe I should have done that towards the beginning of the month, but whatever. Here they are after the jump: Josh’s Top 5 Videogames of 2013!

This list goes from least to greatest, and just like everything else, these are the 5 games that I enjoyed the most. I’m sure nearly everyone’s top 5 would vary, including the other contributors to The Inner Dorkdom. However, these are the games that I would recommend everybody to pick up and give a shot if they were only able to play 5 games from 2013.

5. Killer Instinct (Xbox One) – Double Helix Games
It might be a bit off-putting to include a game from the next-gen consoles on a list of greatest games from last year, but I think this one is well deserved. In my opinion, this is the best fighting game released since 2011’s Mortal Kombat. True, KI released with several missing features, but the game is tight and does its job extremely well with its fighting mechanics. It’s still the only Xbox One game that I own, and for the time being, I’m ok with that.

4. Tomb Raider (2013) (Xbox 360, PS3, PC, Soon to be PS4 & Xbox One) – Square-Enix / Crystal Dynamics
Square-Enix must be crazy. They didn’t consider the Tomb Raider reboot a financial success when it sold something like 2 or 3 million copies. I guess they were expecting Final Fantasy numbers, which even they have dwindled a bit in the past few years. Personally, I loved the reboot. I thought that adding a survivalist element, along with a much more personal and epic story, really lent itself well to a series in desperate need of revitalization.

3. The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds (Nintendo 3DS) - Nintendo
I have yet to post my review for this 3DS game, but I’ll go ahead and tell you: it got a perfect 10. I absolutely loved this throwback to my all-time favorite Zelda title (of which I consider one of the best games of all time). It just goes to show that the 3DS is the place to go if you really want to get a bang for your buck when it comes to gaming. I hope Nintendo continues to release this kind of quality throughout the 3DS’ life, but come on – can’t we get titles of this magnitude on the Wii U?

2. The Last of Us (PS3) – Naughty Dog
This is the game that most websites cited as their top game of 2013. It’s definitely deserving of that spot, as it did new things with storytelling in a videogame and, in my opinion, solidified the fact that videogames are true literature. As I noted in my review, the game mechanics are all things that everyone has played before, but the execution was excellent, weaving in with the great story like no other game has before.

1. Beyond: Two Souls (PS3) – Quantic Dream [My Personal GOTY]
Should this even really be here? I mean, it’s not really a game is it? No, it’s not. It’s an interactive movie that you play on a game console. That being said, I can’t get past the phenomenal story that just happens to be the most original thing I’ve heard, seen, or read since… Well… It’s been so long, I can’t remember.
I know I’ve said it before, but Hollywood should really start employing writers and directors from the videogame industry. Titles like The Last of Us, Bioshock: Infinite, Mass Effect, and of course, Beyond: Two Souls, show a quality and originality that the film industry seems almost incapable of producing these days. It’s because of this originality in story that I have no choice but to give it the “Josh’s Personal Inner Dorkdom Game of The Year Award.” I’m just holding out that Quantic Dream will create a sequel at some point in the future, no matter how unlikely that is.

Head-To-Head: The Newest Round of The Console Wars

All three next-gen consoles are now on the market. The Wii U, Playstation 4 and Xbox One are all set to have another near-decade of life in the gaming world, but which one should you own? Is there one console that is the definitive gaming machine? Do they all suck eggs? Make the jump and find out!

The console wars and videogame company competition have both been around since the option of home gaming was available back in the 70s. While I wasn’t around back then (80s kid, here), I do remember seeing commercial after commercial and print ad after print ad detailing jabs from Sega at Nintendo. However, I don’t remember Nintendo ever firing any shots back… but there was a reason for that: Nintendo’s products spoke for themselves. From 1985 to around 1996, Nintendo ruled the world and Sega desperately wanted a piece of the pie, trying to convince people that their inferior console was the way to go.

See what I did there? Even I referred to Sega’s products as inferior. Does that make me a Nintendo fanboy?

The simple fact is, I’ve always been able to set fandom aside in favor of a realistic outlook. At the time, Nintendo’s products WERE superior to Sega’s. A simple Google search of the Super NES and Sega Genesis’ technical specs will tell you that. But it hasn’t always been about tech, has it? Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t.

In the 32 and 64-bit era of gaming, Nintendo was dethroned by Sony and their PlayStation console (Sega was no longer a threat due to the Saturn’s lack of popularity and the downfall of the Dreamcast would mark their last adventure in the console market). Which one was technically superior? The Nintendo 64. Which had more games, more companies developing for it, and ultimately sold more hardware and software? The PlayStation. Did this have anything to do with those commercials of Crash Bandicoot trashing Nintendo? I highly doubt it. Let’s just say that Sony owes Squaresoft (now SquareEnix) and Final Fantasy VII a humongous favor.

During the 128-bit era, Microsoft entered the fray with the original Xbox. Technically, it was on par with Nintendo’s Gamecube, both of which were more powerful than Sony’s Playstation 2. Which was the more successful console? The Playstation 2. Again, developers had chosen Sony in favor of everything else. I think that here, it had more to do with Sony being the first out of the gate and having a significant head start on their competition.

A similar situation could be seen with the previous generation’s console market. The Xbox 360 was the first console released this time around; therefore most developers went with the “new” tech, just as they had with the Playstation 2. Nintendo’s Wii was, indeed, the highest selling console, but the company chose to market the system as something the whole family could enjoy, rather than something strictly for gamers. This led to a good number of people buying the system so that they could play Wii Sports Bowling, not really caring whether they played the newest The Legend of Zelda or Super Mario title. As a result, software sales suffered and Microsoft continued to rake in the money off of the Xbox 360 software and its $80 million consoles sold.

Sony also saw an initial decline in sales due to trying to push their Blu-Ray format through their Playstation 3 and overcharging for the console. Over time (and a few price drops), however, the PS3 began to reach neck and neck with the Xbox 360.

So here we are in the present. Three new consoles from Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are on store shelves once again. Fanboys the world over will lock in heated battles filled with hyperbole and idiocy as they try to determine which plastic box is “better.” It remains to be seen how this “console war” will turn out, but I thought it would make for an interesting article to compare the three and see how they measure up with one another by using categories common to all three systems.
Just to let you know, I’m writing this for gamers who only care to own one system per console generation as they try to judge which one they might consider picking up. As I stated with my console reviews, these are MY OPINIONS. I’m not trying to take sides here; I’m just trying to offer an objective viewpoint from the way I personally see things in the console world/videogame industry. Remember, I HAVE NO FAVORITES! I own all three. They didn’t get sent to me for free by Nintendo, Sony, or Microsoft for review purposes. I bought them with my own money; therefore it would be foolish to say I spent money on something I knew I was going to hate.
(And yes, I saw the video of that kid who bought a PS4 on launch day just to smash it on the sidewalk, so I know stupid people like that exist. What an idiot. Trust me; I’m not like that guy. I value my dollars.)

1. Power/Graphics

Wii U –
Unfortunately, Nintendo, with its last two consoles, has been one generation behind. The Wii wasn’t up to technical snuff with the Xbox 360 or PS3, and instead was more on par with the company’s previous console, the Gamecube. The Wii U, while more powerful than the original Wii, is on par with the Xbox 360 and PS3, only ever so slightly more powerful. While games look a ton better than they did on the Wii, the Wii U still uses what is now considered “outdated” tech from around 2006/2007-ish.

PS4 –
More powerful than the PS3, the PS4 is the first console that I know of which outputs natively at 1080p (I had thought this about the Wii U at one point, but found out otherwise). As I’ve mentioned before in other articles and reviews, resolution may not be that important to some people, but resolution is also kind of like one of those hidden picture puzzles – once you see it, you can’t “unsee” it. The PS4 also offers graphical capabilities more comparable to visuals which can be found in newer PC hardware. Still not quite on that level, it’s a pretty large step up from the 2006 technology which the PS3 used for 6 years.

Xbox One –
If it wasn’t for the fact that the Xbox One doesn’t output natively at 1080p, there probably wouldn’t be a discernible difference between it and the PS4, since what’s under the two systems’ hoods are nearly identical. Though, I have to wonder: Is it that the Xbox One CAN’T run 1080p properly on certain games, or is it that no games support it right now? If no games support it, I have to ask, “why not?” This is something that really doesn’t make that much sense to me.

The Winner: PS4
Graphics aren’t everything - that’s a given. My favorite consoles of all time have been the Super NES, Gameboy Advance, and the DS/3DS, all three of which weren’t/aren’t capable of the stunning visuals seen on next-gen consoles. But in order to keep with the theme of looking at the console wars realistically, I believe that graphics ARE important nowadays to the success of a console. Games should always be fun; you’ll get no argument from me there, but games that look as good as they play can be a turning point for a lot of people. That being said, at these early stages of these new consoles’ lives, the PS4 seems to have the upper hand in the graphics department.

2. The Controller/How You Play

Wii U –
Rather than focus on graphics aspects and capabilities, Nintendo has chosen to put their efforts into the way we play games. When reading that sentence, you might think, “Well that’s good, right?”
I’m down for experimentation when it comes to game consoles, but Nintendo, in my opinion, hasn’t quite gotten it right yet. The motion controls of the Wii were neat, but that’s all they were – neat. It won over a casual fan-base, but the Wii-mote’s design was a little too off putting for some gamers, myself included.
The Wii U introduces yet another controller design, this time with more traditional features integrated into a tablet. I’m not a huge fan of the tablet for games. Instead, I use my touchscreen Wii U gamepad to navigate menus and my Netflix queue. Having a second screen for something like the DS or 3DS, a handheld system where you only have to shift your eyes to see the second screen is great, but having two visuals going on in my hands AND a television can be quite a bit distracting. I will say, however, that the ability to play some games on just the gamepad is a neat feature, though it neither makes nor breaks the controller or system design.
One problem that I believe Nintendo experiences with these radically different controllers is that developers feel like they need to add controller functionality to their games in order to support it. Apparently, this is why the Tomb Raider reboot never showed up on the console. Rather than develop something with an easily mapped control scheme across all platforms, developers know that they need to do something which will, at least in some way, show off the features of the gamepad. It’s my opinion that developers would rather take the easy route and not develop for the Wii U. Is this the best decision? Probably not, but at the same time, it’s kind of understandable. Why make a port of a game with features that just seem tacked on?

PS4 –
This is the first major redesign of the Playstation controller since the Dual Analog version on the original PS1. Built with comfort in mind, Sony also added a touchpad in the center for menu navigation with the possibility of game integration.
While I’ve never been the biggest fan of the controller’s analog stick placement, I admire Sony for keeping a familiar approach each time it releases a new controller. It’s not the most innovative way to go about things, but it’s also not too much too soon. The Playstation controller has slightly evolved with each new iteration, getting us used to new things rather than putting it all out there at once.

Xbox One –
Microsoft also took a familiar approach this time around, with some improvements made on the Xbox 360 controller. I still think they could have done a better job with things like the d-pad, but features like the rumble triggers are a neat addition. There’s not really that much to praise or curse about this controller.

The Winner: PS4 & Xbox One
How we play our games is, indeed, important. I think Sony and Microsoft get this one simply because they’ve given us something which we’re familiar with.
In the grand scheme of things, the Wii U gamepad is really not that far behind in this category. It does have the ability to play some games without the need of a television, and its button layout is more along the lines of what we think of now as a traditional console controller. I just really don’t see the touchscreen thing ever really taking off when it comes to consoles and it can, at times, become a hindrance in both the gamers who play and the developers who make games for the system.

3. User Interface and Features

Wii U, PS4, Xbox One –
Honestly, I think all three consoles are struggling a bit in this category, the PS4 less so than the Xbox One and Wii U, but not by much at all.
I think that the Xbox 360 had the best UI on a console to date. It was simple to use, I didn’t have any problems finding anything, and could basically pick it up straight out of the box and know where everything was located. When the Wii U came along, I was hoping that Nintendo had taken a page out of Microsoft’s book and created an interface which would at least make getting to your friends and engaging in multiplayer easier. In a way, they made it easier to get to your friends list (doing away with the horrid “friend codes” system), but everything now basically uses an app.
Want to look at your friends list? Open the app. Want to check your messages? Open the app. Then wait entirely too long for it to load. True enough, the time spent waiting for the app to load is only a matter of seconds, but this is, in my opinion, a step backwards from the instantaneous and effortlessness social features of the Xbox 360.
However, Microsoft isn’t innocent in this situation either. The Xbox One now has the same sort of setup, requiring you to open an app for almost everything you do. So does the PS4, only I noticed that it isn’t quite as bad on Sony’s system. It’s still not great, and doesn’t put it enough ahead of the competition to amount to anything, but it’s true nonetheless.
Some of the other features of the PS4 and Xbox One include internet streaming directly from a console to either TwitchTV or Ustream, cable box integration on the X1 and Game DVR (also on X1). These are all neat features, but I’m a gamer. I like to play games. These are all things that I personally have little to no interest in. Game DVR is pretty cool, but I could live without it. Streaming might be neat, but if I wanted to stream, a capture card is relatively inexpensive nowadays.

The Winner: Wii U & PS4
This one is tough to award a winner since all three have problems, but I have to give it to the Wii U and PS4. For some reason, the Xbox One’s interface just seems too cluttered. The entire thing being designed to function predominantly with Kinect is also a negative. It takes longer than what should be needed to figure out where everything is and how everything works, while the Wii U and PS4’s UIs are pretty straightforward, though still not exactly easy to navigate.

4. Games

Wii U –
It’s been no secret that the Wii U has been struggling over the past year in terms of games. I don’t believe that has anything to do with their quality or lack thereof, but instead the problem lies in Nintendo not releasing games from their big franchises on a regular basis. At this point, with a dip in exclusive 3^rd party support, Nintendo is having to rely on 1^st party titles in order to stay afloat – titles that they haven’t released. Don’t get me wrong, there are some interesting games in the pipeline, but by this point, a year after the console’s release, we should have seen some by now. Especially franchises like Zelda, Metroid, or Starfox. So far, we’ve only seen one game that I would consider a “triple-A” exclusive: Super Mario 3D World. All the really interesting games have been coming out on the 3DS. The new Legend of Zelda title being the most recent. And honestly, there’s really no reason that couldn’t have been successful on the Wii U.
Rest assured, there are a lot of people out there who love Nintendo franchises, myself included. The Wii U is the only place you’re going to get them. The question is, “when will Nintendo release them?”

PS4 –
I’ve already talked about what I thought of the launch lineup, so there’s no need to get into that. The only thing we can really do here is speculate on the future. Will there be new games from Naughty Dog on par with The Last of Us? A new Uncharted game has been announced, so I’m sure we’ll see new IPs. What about Quantic Dream? Probably.
I could go on and on about what games are probably coming out for the PS4.

Xbox One –
Microsoft could probably call their console “The Halo Gear Box” and it would be a more fitting title. The Halo and Gears of War franchises are pretty much what the system is known for. There’s no question that these two series will end up on Xbox One at some point. Other than sporadic exclusives, I really don’t see the Xbox One’s game library being any different than the PS4’s. One only needs to look at the PS3 and Xbox 360 for reference.

Winner: PS4 & Xbox One
When it comes to games, you won’t be able to go wrong with these two consoles. It all really boils down to (between those two) if you want your games to look slightly prettier or not.
Nintendo has gotten the reputation of being a “kiddy,” or “family friendly” company, which is probably true. Or at least, it’s more family oriented than the other two big names. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but it kind of limits Nintendo in terms of diversity. The Xbox One and PS4 (and by relation, the PS3 & 360) will have a selection of all types of games from adults to younger children, whereas the Wii U’s games are usually centered around “all ages” with a focus on younger kids. The games that will be available for Wii U will be predominantly Nintendo franchises and have a more (for lack of a better term) “child-like” quality about them. There’s nothing wrong with that, but again, I can see where it’s kind of limiting to some degree.

Overview & Final Thoughts –
The only real way to run the gamut on gaming is to own all three consoles (and a PC, to a certain extent), but I understand that’s not always feasible. So after all is said and done, which console should you buy as you move forward into the future of gaming?
(Here’s the part where everyone who was expecting me to award an overall winner groans and gets extremely disappointed.)
I can’t answer that.

Just like this article and the opinions expressed in it, what you choose to play and the types of games you enjoy are for YOU to decide. All I can say is this: If I were going to have just one console of these 3, I would probably go with the PS4, with the Wii U at a close second. The PS4 performs just fine for me and the Wii U is the only place I’ll be able to play the Nintendo franchises I enjoy.
If you like diversity, the PS4 is probably for you.
If you want a console that is built to showcase new titles in classic Nintendo franchises with a more family friendly emphasis, go with the Wii U.
If you enjoy the competitive multiplayer scene and really like shooters, you’ll probably feel right at home on the Xbox One.

Personally, I enjoy all these types of games. So in all honesty, one is really no better than the other when you get right down to it. Games are games, fun is fun, and what we enjoy is what we enjoy. All three systems offer a varying degree of fun, each catering to a certain style. While that may impede or help a console manufacturer’s product sales, it shouldn’t have any bearing whatsoever on the fun that these consoles can bring you.

-Josh
 

 

Playstation 4 - Console Review

Back in August (I think), I preordered both of the new “next-gen” consoles. I did so partially as a collector, and also to bring those of you that read this site a completely unbiased, fan-boy-free lookover of what they had to offer. This Friday marked the release of Sony’s Playstation 4, but how does it perform? Is the $399 price tag justifiable?

Before I continue, I just want to note that there will probably be a few comparisons to the PC and the existing consoles – not from a fan-boy perspective, but from a technology perspective. Since the Xbox One will be released this Friday, I’ll be doing a sort of “head-to-head” article on what I think is the best deal in terms of quality – PS4, Xbox One, or Wii U.
Also, keep in mind: As with all of my reviews, these are just MY OPINIONS and the scores are assigned accordingly, given MY tastes. Ultimately, what box you choose to play your games on is your decision. And as long as you’re having fun playing the games, that’s all that matters, right?

To start, I probably need to address one of the most talked about features of the PS4 since its release: its functionality, or lack thereof.
Earlier during the launch week, the winner(s) of the Taco Bell “Play The Future” promotional event were sent their PS4s, but complained of various problems with the unit - the story being picked up by a multitude of gaming websites and media. Problems reported by the media ranged from a lack of video from the system’s HDMI output port, to the system “bricking” during the installation of certain apps and firmware, and even to the rubber feet on the bottom of the console being misplaced, therefore making the system wobble when placed on the floor or a desk and pushed down.

Needless to say, I feared the worst.  I hoped that the $399.00 I spent wouldn’t be in vain and I would actually get to play my PS4 on launch weekend without having to send it back to Sony under warranty. I must have been one of the lucky ones, as I (at least so far) haven’t experienced any problems with mine, aside from not being able to log in to the Playstation Network for a few hours after unboxing.

Now for a bit of a breakdown:

Launch Library – 7.0
Let’s face it, console launch libraries aren’t really a good indicator of what a system will be capable of in the future. Like with the Wii U, most of the games on PS4 are ports of previous-gen games, with only a few brand new, built-for-the-new-console titles. With that said, for a gamer with options (like myself), I found it hard to justify buying certain games knowing that I could get the “better looking” version on PC if I just waited a few weeks. I ended up buying the games I did just so I would have something to actually play on the PS4 and the system wouldn’t sit around collecting dust until something truly interesting was released.

Console Design – 7.0
I have to admit, I’m not a huge fan of the design. It’s sleek, small, and will easily blend in with all your Blu-Ray players and cable boxes, but I just think it looks too much like a crooked, 1980s VCR. In all fairness, and like people, it’s what’s inside that really counts. But with such a unique design (for a console), I think it’s worth giving the box a score. I mean, you do have to look at the thing. In comparison to the other consoles, I think the 2^nd PS3 design, both versions of the Xbox 360, the Xbox One and the Wii U all look better on the outside than the PS4.

The Controller – 9.0
Here’s the physical design aspect that really shines. For the first time since they introduced the Dual Analog controller with the PS1, Sony has completely redesigned the thing you use to play its consoles. We’re not talking simple additions like analog sticks or the Six-Axis feature; they physically redesigned the entire thing.
The button layout is mostly the same, but the pad’s handles, directional buttons, triggers and analog sticks have all been configured in a way to make the controller more comfortable and easy to use. New features such as the “share,” “options,” and “touch pad” have replaced the normal “start” and “select” buttons, however.
Those three new buttons are also why the controller didn’t get a perfect 10 for me. Since the days of playing the original NES, gamers have been used to having “start” and “select” (or “back” in the Xbox’s case) buttons in the middle of their gamepads. With the Dual Shock 4, Sony placed the “options” and “share” buttons on the top/middle, with the large, pushable touchpad dead center. While playing, I found myself going for the options button to pause the game, only accidentally pressing the touchpad instead. It’s not a terrible design decision by any means; it’s just something that will take a lot of getting used to. Also, I can’t help but wonder how much that will hinder fighting games (and tournaments) in the future since the face buttons and directional pad are so close to the button that pauses the game.

Interface – 8.5
The interface is good and works well, but there’s nothing really that special about it. There are some conveniences such as being able to switch seamlessly between the operating interface and whatever game you’re playing, but it’s not the best (first updated Xbox 360 XMB), nor the worst (Wii U) GUI I’ve encountered on a console. Really, it just feels like a slightly updated version of the PS3’s GUI.
[Unfortunately, I can’t really comment on some of the sharing features, as I haven’t been able to try those out yet.]
The thing that I did like the most about the interface, however, was the connectivity with the Vita. Much like the Wii U’s gamepad, the PS4 can connect wirelessly with the Sony handheld, allowing you to play almost any PS4 game without the need of a television. Unlike the Wii U though, every PS4 doesn’t come with a PS Vita and you have to lay out a couple hundred bucks to get that experience.

Power/The Insides – 9.0
I have touted the power of the PC ever since I started reviewing games on this site. That being said, for a console with a GPU that costs around $150, this thing packs a significant punch. I bought 3 games at launch: Assassin’s Creed IV, Battlefield 4 and Madden 25. All three games look and run great with a slight exception for ACIV. While it looks gorgeous in 1080p (after an update which 'unlocks' the resolution from 900p), the PS4 version is locked at 30fps. To some, this won’t be a big deal, but to me, having played every Assassin’s Creed game on PC at 60fps and above, there’s a noticeable difference in smooth animations. Battlefield 4, however, looks fantastic and in my opinion, looks nearly as good as Battlefield 3 did on PC.
Is the jump in graphics power that large from the previous generation or on par with the PC? Not exactly, but the fact that the games are outputting at a sharp 1080p, makes things look much more crisp and vibrant. Though, just like with the Xbox 360 and PS3, developers will learn certain tricks to make graphics look even better as they get more comfortable developing for more powerful hardware.

Overall, I like the PS4. The outward design isn’t the best I’ve ever seen, the controller is almost perfection and the games are pretty. There are a lot of neat features that the console is capable of, but none of them are a “system seller.”

 So after all that, is the PS4 worth $399? I would say yes. I believe that right now (my opinions could change after the release of the Xbox One), the PS4 has the most potential in the console world. Its capabilities for game development are rather high, lots of interesting games are in the pipeline and the price tag is rather affordable. The Wii U is still cheaper, but after a year on the market, it still only appeals to a niche group of gamers and can be seen as the console everyone will buy eventually if they like playing Nintendo’s first-party titles. The PS4, on the other hand, could possibly appeal to a more “everyday gamer” market.
It’s not trying to sell itself as a do-all this time around (like the PS3), it’s not trying to innovate the way you control games (Wii & Wii U) and it’s not trying to be the centerpiece of your living room (Xbox One). It’s just a gaming box with better technology for folks to enjoy. The last time I remember a company doing that with a console was Nintendo with the SNES… And we all know how awesome that system was!

Final Score: 8.1 / 10

-Josh

Next-Gen Console Reviews Coming Soon

Just wanted to let you guys know that the next few weeks will probably see The Inner Dorkdom releasing a good bit of content...
I'll be getting the PS4 this Friday, along with Assassin's Creed IV, Battlefield 4, and Madden 25 (BF4 and Madden, thanks to a great promo deal through Amazon). So along with these 3 games (though there probably won't be a full-blown Madden review), there will be a review of the console itself, just like there was for the Wii U.

Next Friday, I'll be getting my Xbox One with Killer Instinct and the MadCatz KI Fightstick. I'll be doing a review of all three.

Get ready. There's gonna be a lotta readin' soon!

-Josh

Josh's Inner Dorkdom Journal - Episode 8 (E3 2013 Impressions)

Time for another episode of the journal. So what have I been digging on lately? To be honest, not much. Since I’m on a break from school, I’ve been working full-time and that’s kind of taken up the majority of my days. There are a few things, however, and I can use this format (as well as an episode of The Inner Dorkdom podcast that we’ll be recording soon) as a way to relay my thoughts on some of the recent E3 news.




I didn’t watch the E3 conference this year, but I read most of the articles ‘round the internet about it. From what I’m reading, Sony clearly “won” this time.
Just how did they win? By completely standing up for the consumer, as opposed to Microsoft which seems to be very “anti” that mentality.

(Note: After writing this article, I went back and watched the archived conferences. Unfortunately, my following opinions and concerns have not changed.)

Let’s give a little backstory:

Back in May, Microsoft revealed the Xbox One, their newest console. This comes as a little delayed from Sony’s earlier reveal of the Playstation 4. As I said in an earlier article, I wasn’t particularly impressed with Sony’s initial conference that showed the world their new console, but I thought it was just “ok.” That being said, myself and many other videogame fans were completely floored (and not in a good way) by the ridiculous restrictions which were being proposed by Microsoft.

Honestly, I don’t know what they were thinking. A console that has to be connected to the internet to function?

Get out of here.

To be fair, Microsoft later stated that the Xbox One would not have to be constantly connected to the internet, but WOULD have to be connected at least once every 24 hours. This, in my opinion, is still quite unacceptable. I live in a quasi-rural area, so my internet connection is neither fast, nor the most stable. Because of that, an Xbox One would be extremely problematic for me. For example: Nearly every time it rains, I lose my internet connection. So if the weather happens to be bad for a couple of days, I just wouldn’t be able to play… At all. Not even single-player games that shouldn’t have to connect to the internet in the first place would be playable for me if the weather was bad.
“Metal Gear Solid V? If it’s raining for a few days, forget about it.” That’s basically what Microsoft is telling me.
That’s just terrible design. There’s no reason that a game console should ever have to be connected to the internet, at any time, to function.

Back to this year’s E3:

None of gamers’ concerns were alleviated at Microsoft’s second showing. All the restrictions and requirements were still in place: Required internet connection, no used games (unless the developer permits it by offering codes for a flat-rate), a really big push (though subliminal) for Windows 8, and an “always on” version of their Kinect technology. All these things were still around and I (and every other gamer) was being told that they were all “good things” and that I just “didn’t know I wanted them yet.”

Not to get too political here, but that sounds a lot like our government and the ridiculous policies they’ve tried to push in recent years.

The Playstation 4, however, has absolutely none of these unwanted features. Even in their E3 presentation, they made it a point to directly fire shots at Microsoft by pointing this out to gamers. Every shot was met with thundering applause, or so I read.
If I were there, I would have been in the crowd applauding right along with everyone else.

It would seem that this “console war” might be won by the following 2 things: Features and exclusives. Unlike previous console generations, hardware capability has been taken completely out of the equation. This time around, both the Xbox One and Playstation 4 have nearly identical specs under their respective hoods, so most games will be the same aesthetically.  Since that’s the case, one has to look at the two console’s features first.

In both systems, the features are, just like the hardware, nearly identical. You have uploadable content like the new video sharing and social media integration. You also have real-time video streaming on both, with Sony using Ustream and Microsoft using Twitch. Then there are the normal features like Netflix, Hulu, HBO-Go, Amazon, web browsing, etc.  With all these features in mind, exclusives have to be more of a factor.

I’ll readily admit, the Xbox One has more, interesting looking, exclusive titles so far than the Playstation 4. D4, Dead Rising 3, Forza 5, Halo 5, Killer Instinct, Quantum Break, and Sunset Drive are all exclusive to Microsoft.

Killer Instinct is kind of an interesting one.

A sequel to a series that’s been dead since the late 90’s, KI has been something that fighting game enthusiasts have waited for a long time. When the new game was announced as an Xbox One exclusive, the fighting game community went absolutely nuts. I saw several forum and Twitter posts saying that they were now sold on the new Microsoft console. Clearly this is an overreaction, since they seemed to forget about the crazy restrictions they had been complaining about only a few hours before the game’s announcement. Finally, the realizations of complicated tournament play (needing to have the console bought and downloaded for every console at every station at the tournament venue and a constant internet connection) began to rear their ugly heads and doubt began to set in. This doubt became even more substantiated when it was announced that Killer Instinct would be a “day-one download” title which would be “free-to-play.” Only one character (Jago) would be available until the player bought the rest of the characters. When gamers went into an uproar, Microsoft and the game’s developers quickly changed their rather poor wording, saying that KI would basically be a “demo” on day-one and the player would buy the full version of the game if they wanted to at a later time.

Why not just call it a “demo” in the first place? Come on, Microsoft. Get yourselves together.

The Playstation 4 doesn’t boast the larger number of exclusives that the Xbox One does. Drive Club, The Order: 1886, Gran Turismo 6, Infamous: Second Son, and Killzone 4, were the only ones that I could find. So does this mean that Sony’s in trouble? I say no. As I told a friend of mine, there’s only ONE company that can sustain a console on its exclusives, and that’s Nintendo, but that’s because their exclusives are mostly first-party titles that have been around since 1984. On the Xbox One, the only two exclusives that are “blockbuster” titles are Forza and Halo. Dead Rising 3 will be a good seller, as will the 2 new IP’s, Quantum Break and Sunset Drive, but these exclusives won’t be the “system sellers” that a game like Final Fantasy VII was for the original Playstation back in 1997.
Is Halo a system seller? In a sense, yes, but the people who are fans of that game were fans back on the original Xbox with Halo and Halo 2. These fans carried over into the 360 era, but very few jumped on board with Halo 3 or 4. I’m not trying to discount the power of the Halo franchise, I’m just trying to point out that like many exclusives, save for Nintendo’s, Halo is a niche title. The same can be said about Uncharted or God of War for the Playstation. It would be much different if something with the general power of a franchise like Final Fantasy, a third-party franchise, were going exclusive to either Playstation 4 or Xbox One, since that series carries much more clout than games that have ALWAYS been exclusive to one platform or the other.

So maybe exclusives WON’T win the war. Then what will?

If it weren’t for Microsoft’s crazy new policies, I would say that the race would be pretty neck-and-neck. Before hearing about the Xbox’s new, weird way of doing things, that’s exactly how I figured it would be. The simple fact is, gamers and everyday people generally don’t like to be told what to do when attempting to enjoy themselves while playing a videogame. This much is abundantly clear given the recent backlash to the Xbox One.

Perhaps the largest critical backlash from both the gaming press and gamers themselves came shortly after the Xbox presentation at E3. Don Mattrick, President of the Interactive Entertainment Business at Microsoft, was interviewed by GameTrailers.com and asked about some of the backlash towards the new console, particularly the constant internet connectivity issue. He was quoted as saying, “Fortunately, we have a product for people who aren’t able to get some form of connectivity; it’s called Xbox 360.”
This quote and arrogant, yet not surprising, attitude from a big-wig at Microsoft sent gamers into a frenzy. People that had recently supported the Xbox One 100% decided to drop their preorders and go the way of the Playstation. They were basically being told that if you couldn’t connect to the internet, you would be stuck with an outdated console which would probably lose support within the next 3 years and that Microsoft wasn’t going to back down from their outrageous requirements for the Xbox One. I, like all those angered gamers, thought that this was terrible marketing and customer relations. Again, it’s not surprising coming from Microsoft, as they’ve had this kind of mentality since they entered the world in 1975. World domination has always been their top priority, but it’s finally catching up to them.

With all that being said, I don’t mean to skip over Nintendo, but the simple fact is that they didn’t really have that much to show. What they did show was awesome, but nothing uber-exciting, or anything we didn’t already know was coming. I honestly think that it’s become the case that Nintendo is just… well…A NINTENDO company. I really don’t think they’re that interested in grabbing gamers of all types, and more focused on making consoles that play Nintendo-franchise games. Really, I’m fine with this. It’s not the greatest marketing attitude to have, but let’s be serious here: Nintendo franchises are powerful. The people who want those games are going to buy whatever console Nintendo builds in order to play them. If that’s what Nintendo is content in doing, then more power to them.  Personally, I would rather see Nintendo embrace all of gaming and build a console which would compete with the likes of Sony and Microsoft, but (to use a cliché that I hardly ever use) it is what it is. I own a Wii U and I’m excited for Super Mario 3D World and the new Legend of Zelda game that’s in the works. Plus, the 3DS is the greatest handheld every created (and currently has some of the best games on any device), so I can’t really complain. I’ve got my Wii U to play Nintendo stuff and I’ll have a PS4 and PC to play everything else.

*Post-E3 and Aftermath Edit*

As mentioned in the note above, I’ve since watched both Sony and Microsoft’s respective E3 presentations. Pretty much everything I read was accurate and was portrayed just as well in a written form as it was while watching the events unfold visually. In other words, my opinions remain the same. Microsoft chose to stay away from such topics as being connected online and outrageous DRM policies. Instead, they decided to infer to gamers that their system was “so good” that these things wouldn’t / shouldn’t matter. However, according to gamers, these things DO matter. 

Since the presentations ended, fans and the independent gaming press have shown their absolute disdain for Microsoft’s poor choices. I point specifically to internet gaming personality, Angry Joe and his recent interview with “Major Nelson” (Larry Hyrb), Microsoft’s Director of Programming for Xbox Live, as a prime example.
In the interview, Joe asks Hyrb some very difficult questions from his fans which put the Microsoft rep into a clearly uncomfortable and quite defensive position. The questions are simple and to-the-point and deal with gamers’ various concerns, such as the required online and DRM.

Joe tries extremely hard (until he’s discouraged by the Microsoft PR lady standing off-camera to move along) to not let Hyrb slide with his dodgy answers, but ultimately has to cut the interview short. This is due in part to the fact that Hyrb is about to partake in a “live event” on the showroom floor and, from what the rest of Joe’s video suggests, the angry PR lady who dislikes his questions.

Joe never comes off as antagonistic or that he’s looking for a debate, but instead as a concerned gamer. The fact that “Major Nelson” didn’t really want to answer his questions and the PR lady didn’t want them asked in the first place, seems like a confirmation of the attitude Microsoft seems to have at this point: “This is the future. Either get with it, or keep playing your Xbox 360 which will probably lose support roughly 3 years into the new generation of consoles. Even though all you gamers out there say you don’t want this stuff, we know what’s best for you.”

My response:
Sorry, Microsoft, I’LL decide what’s best for me. I don’t need you to tell me what I want. Also, stop dodging questions. You know everyone is angry with you over the decisions you’ve made, make moves to correct it instead of trying to shove it down people’s throats.

While playing Injustice online recently (on Xbox 360, mind you), I was talking with a friend of mine, an avid Xbox supporter, about these concerns. As we were talking, I noticed that every time I talk about these things, I may come off as though I’m a “Microsoft hater.” Nothing could be further from the truth. I happen to not like a lot of their business decisions (something which I’ve felt for almost 20 years), but I don’t like to see anyone “fail.” Truthfully, all of my concerns about the Xbox One boil down to one HUGE concern that I think is shared by 90% of gamers, but they don’t know how to voice it without sounding like raging “fanboys:” We don’t want these things to become console standards.

If Microsoft continues to be the same dominant force in the console market as they were with the Xbox 360, then it’s a given that the generation of consoles post-Xbox One and PS4 will be forced to adopt the same policies. The reason there is a severe outcry right now is because we’re all trying to voice the same thing: We don’t want this. From anyone. Ever.

That about wraps it up for this episode of Josh’s Inner Dorkdom Journal. Sorry that it was such a long read, but hopefully you’ll get something useful out of it and take these things into consideration before you purchase your next gaming console later this year. Hopefully, I’ll be back soon with a review of the game I’m currently playing: Naughty Dog’s, The Last of Us!

Trying to be an optimist in an overcrowded and slowly dying videogame world, I am,

-Josh

Josh's PS4 Thoughts

Console hardware is becoming increasingly difficult to discuss. As of right now, the Wii U has already been released and the PS4 was revealed only recently. How do the two compare and how will they stack up to Microsoft’s new Xbox? It’s really hard to say given the fact that no one outside the gaming industry has actually played anything other than the Wii U.

Some of the features revealed to be capable of the PS4 are kind of neat, but will they be enough to make the system sell? It seems as though Sony is going down the same road as Microsoft did last generation with more of a focus on social networking features. Stuff like being able to share gameplay videos across various media outlets such as YouTube and Facebook, or being able to spectate and take over the control of a friend’s game are cool ideas, but how much of that will simply be a novelty that will quickly wear off?

One thing about Sony’s presentation that I noticed was the very odd balance contained within. On the one hand, Sony was taking the Nintendo approach of, “this will change the way you play games,” but on the other, there was a focus on the PS4’s raw power, likening it to higher-end gaming PCs. While for most it would seem as though the presentation contained a good balance of the two, I felt like Sony is finding it hard to market this new console to consumers that have grown accustomed to current-gen hardware. More like, “how do we sell this thing? Is it the features, or the power?”
At least the “used games lockout” rumor proved to be false.

Going off pure features other than those mentioned above, it looks like there won’t be much more to offer than the PS3. The idea of playing games streamed to the Vita is ok, but it is a feature that requires one to actually own a Vita. Sony could possibly move a few more units by implementing this kind of connectivity, but given the Vita’s lackluster library, that’s highly doubtful. The PS4’s lack of backwards compatibility could also be problematic for some gamers. The Wii U succeeds here given the fact that it will play previous generation titles, as opposed to the PS4 which will not play PS3 games. In my opinion, every console should at least be capable of playing games from the previous console. I was disappointed that the Wii U can’t play Gamecube titles, but at least you can still boot up Wii software. In the final days of a console’s life, being able to play previous-gen titles on the new machine can keep the last generation alive for just a bit longer and ease people into the transition of a new box. Odd that Sony opted not to do so.

On power, there’s no question that the PS4 is in the lead so far. True enough, we don’t know what the exact specs on the Wii U are (which I’m getting really tired of saying, by the way), but then again, we probably never will. Nintendo has never been forthcoming with its system specs, something which Sony had no qualms with in their presentation. The PS4 will make a pretty big jump in improvement over PS3 architecture, making it a much easier system to develop for (according to developers, themselves), given its new, “not-cell” processor and various memory improvements.

In the graphics department, who can really say? It’s highly doubtful that the Wii U is capable of the near-PC quality visuals displayed by the PS4 demos, but you never know. As Nic and I talked about on the most recent episode of the podcast, we’ll never truly know until Nintendo develops and releases a game specifically built for the Wii U. But Nintendo’s system’s true power could possibly make itself known even further down the road seeing as how Nintendo has only just started experimenting with shaders and lighting effects.

So how does all this stack up to the new Xbox? There’s really no telling at this point since there has been no official news on anything pertaining to Microsoft’s new console other than a reveal event, similar to Sony’s, which is just around the corner. Judging by the rumors, the new Xbox will have nearly the exact same hardware that’s stuffed inside the PS4. Unfortunately, there are still some terrible rumors such as having to be constantly connected to the internet in order for the console to function and forced Kinect integration.
A lot of people ‘round the internet are already seeing the PS4 as the “one to beat” this generation, but I really think people are underestimating Microsoft. This is a company that has built a gaming empire with its Xbox Live online service. With comparable hardware under the hood and the consistent online features of the Xbox 360, there’s still a lot that remains to be seen. Also, there’s no doubt that Microsoft will take the same extreme measures in securing 3 rd party support as they did last generation. Sony has seemed to take similar measures, which will make the whole thing very interesting to watch.

Overall, I think the PS4 reveal was a good one, I just wasn’t overly impressed. The thing is though; I wasn’t really expecting to be. I remain skeptical that consoles will bring new things to the table that become mainstays of gaming, but I won’t know for sure until they’re hooked up to my television/monitor and the controllers are in my hands.

Sony has been the first to show what next-gen console gaming is capable of, something that Nintendo has yet to do, and Microsoft’s plans are still unknown. That being said, this year’s E3 will probably be one of the most interesting in recent history. E3 will give Nintendo a chance to reveal new games which will start to show the direction they want their console to go and the new systems will have a chance to build hype. I think that once the new Xbox is revealed and there is much more of a chance to compare and contrast all 3 systems, perhaps my excitement level will increase. All that can be said at this point is, “we’ll see….”

In order to wrap up, this brings me to something that people really need to realize: None of what you’ve just read, or what Nic has already written, or even what websites like IGN have written, really matters at this point because of 3 things:

1. The PS4 and Xbox HAVE NOT been released yet. No one has actually played the 2 consoles, aside from the aforementioned gaming industry (developers).
2. We don’t know how popular these features might eventually be. The PS3 was the first console to truly implement integration features (web browsing, streaming video, apps, etc.) and at first, they were services that nobody thought they would use from a videogame system. Now, these features have become the standard across the PS3, Xbox 360, and Wii U. A year down the road, a “share button” could be what turns the tide for consoles. That’s highly doubtful, but entirely possible given consumer’s mindsets these days.
3. All these “impressions” are based off of how well Sony presented their product. Did these features make you want to buy their console? Based solely on a presentation, that’s really hard to determine. Just like point #1 states, we have not actually used the console yet. I remember my initial impressions of the original Xbox as not being that great, but after I actually bought one, I ended up enjoying it. You know what made me want to get a Nintendo 64 initially instead of a Playstation? Playing Mario 64 for hours on end at Wal-Mart. Until one can actually review the console, then these impressions are, for the most part, meaningless.

After E3, when perhaps journalists will be able to spend some hands-on time with the PS4, these impressions will take on a bit more validity. Even then, however, the features that Sony has revealed of the PS4 won’t be known until one buys the console, plugs it in, and starts to play. Remember, “Knowing [about a console] is only half the battle.”
“G.I. Joooooooooooooooooooooooooooooe!”

-Josh

Nic's PS4 Thoughts

Last week, after weeks of anticipation, Sony unveiled their next home console, the Playstation 4. So what do we here at The Inner Dorkdom think of all this?

Well, I'll give you my take. I'm going to do this in two parts. First, my attempt at an objective assessment, and second, my personal feelings.




My Objective Assessment
Though I try to be objective and unbiased in assessing and analyzing the world of gaming, I will again readily acknowledge that I'm the closest The ID has to a Nintendo fanboy. I've had all of their home consoles, and a good number of their handhelds. I love their software, and the sense of fun they still, to this day, bring to the world of video games. On the other hand, though I don't really have the desire for Sony or Microsoft to go down in flames or anything, I'm not always their biggest fan. Their competitive approach to the gaming industry, particularly in the realm of PR, just doesn't sit well with me. But I believe I am still capable of looking at things in a way that is at least pretty close to objective.

Here's my nutshell objective analysis: While there are definitely some nice features to the system, the challenge that Sony faces is that except for the Vita stuff, the Move/Eye stuff, and first party titles, there's nothing about the PS4 that couldn't be done currently, as in right now today, on a high quality PC.

Let's break that down.

The Vita Stuff
Streaming from the PS4 to the Vita isn't a bad feature at all. It has a strong convenience factor, and it allows the distinctive (when compared to a dual shock) controls and features of the Vita, particularly the touchscreen, to be brought to bear on console games. It increases control options, not diminishes them. I, and many others, already enjoy the similar functionality of the Wii U Gamepad. And given the rise in general popularity of touchscreen gaming thanks to tablets and smartphones, Vita control, like Wii U Gamepad control, has the potential to be popular with the mainstream. So bringing in a second screen, loosing the console from the moors of the television, can be a good thing.

But the thing is, we don't know (at least as far as I know) if the PS4 Vita connection will allow for unique second-screen content (like, main game on the TV, inventory and map on the Vita). It's possible all you'll be able to do is duplicate the main screen onto the Vita. I tend to think Sony will try to make unique second-screen possible, because without it much of the potential of 2-screen gaming goes out the window.

But even assuming they do have unique second-screen functionality, there's a major business and developer problem with how it will be implemented in the world of Playstation. That is, unlike the Wii U's Gamepad, the Vita will not be included in the box with every PS4. This is huge. Given the Vita's currently low sales numbers, and even allowing that PS4 connectivity may spur them a little, it's likely to be the case that only a small percentage of PS4 owners will also have a Vita. As I say, this is a problem from both a business and a developer side of things.

And it's the same problem Nintendo faced during the days (literally) of the Gamecube/GBA connectivity push. The concepts were intriguing. And, as Josh and I can attest, Zelda Four Swords Adventure was a ton of fun. But it never really caught on. Few games ended up utilizing the connectivity option. Of those that did, most used it for an option side-quest side-game type of thing (like the Tingle Tuner in Wind Waker). As far as I can recall, only two games made it front and center (Four Swords Adventure, Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles). It didn't catch on, due in large part to the fact that, compared to the total install base, few Gamecube owners had the necessary hardware.

On the developer side of things, if you as a developer know that the Vita specific game features you'd have to work so hard to devise and include will only be enjoyed by only a small fraction of folks who play your game, you may be less likely to even bother with them.

And from a business standpoint, if Vita connectivity costs more money but isn't something for which there's a large demand, it makes no business sense to spend the money on it. (Unless, of course, Sony pays you big bucks to do it anyway.)

"But hey," you might say, "as you just conceded, these connectivity features might drive Vita sales." Indeed, that is a possibility. But given the rumored pricetag for a PS4 (which isn't unreasonable by itself), and the fact that Sony has said it is only dropping the price of the Vita in Japan, the initial investment a consumer would need to make in order to get these features might be more than many will be willing to make.


Move/Eye
I don't say this as a Nintendo fanboy, but as someone who's paid attention to trends in gaming over the years. Let's be honest, Kinect and Move coming to market, if not their initial development also, would not have happened were it not for the Wii. When Nintendo unveiled the Wii remote and first announced that their new system would employ motion controls, the collective 'gaming' world laughed. "You have to move your hands? That's like a baby's toy." And then the Wii came out, turned into a mainstream phenomenon, and then lo and behold Microsoft and Sony introduce the world to their own motion control systems. Kinect went a slightly different route, what with the "you are the controller" body sensing technology and all. But Sony, well, at the risk of oversimplification, they inverted the Wii's camera and emitter configuration, added in tech similar to what Nintendo would later bring to the Wii in the form of Wii Motion Plus, and called it a day.

Sales of Move have been, well, honestly I find it difficult to find the right descriptive word. They haven't been pathetic, but they haven't been overly impressive. As of this past November, Sony had sold worldwide 15 million Move units. Total PS3 sales are approx. 77 million units as of last month. So, roughly, one in every 5 PS3's out there has a Move setup. Not too bad. (Although the Wii has sold approx 99 million units, with 99 million of them having a motion control setup.)

What's my point? My point is that motion gaming was huge. It was especially so for Nintendo, but Sony and Microsoft had some success with it also. But that's the past. What about motion controls now, and in the future? Are they going to continue to be big sellers? We just don't know. Maybe they will, and upgraded motion tech will really help Sony. On the other hand, it may end up that the folks who are game savvy enough to notice and appreciate the upgrade do not now and will continue to not give a rear end about motion control, and the folks who like motion control won't be able to appreciate the upgrade enough to want to go out and plop down the money for a PS4.


First Party Titles
If the quality is there, this can be a good thing for Sony. A gaming system is only as good as the games for it. And in a climate where the console market is increasingly in competition with the getting-less-expensive-every-day PC gaming market, where the line between consoles and PC's is increasingly becoming fuzzier, anything Sony can do to differentiate themselves in a positive way is a good thing.

But I don't think this is their ace in the hole. Josh and I were talking about this phenomenon on the podcast. And if you recall he argued that a situation where there's a greater emphasis on, a greater need for first party titles, while an opportunity for all three console makers, is one that really only benefits Nintendo. I'd say that while Sony and Microsoft do have the ability to produce good first party content, he's right. This best helps Nintendo, the company most known for their quality first party software.


Everything Else Is Possible On a PC
Sony revealed the PS4 specs right out the gate. They read like current high-end gaming PC specs. And while that does mean PS4 games will look nicer than PS3/XBox360/Wii U games (a point I'll come back to in a minute), it also highlights what I was just talking about: the line between console and PC is not what it once was. Gone are the days when a PC version of a game was invariably inferior to the console version(s). Gone are the days of console makers creating and tweaking their own gaming-dedicated computer systems...making their own custom hotrods, as it were. What we have with today's consoles are actually slightly customized non-user-upgradeable PC's running custom operating systems. And really, this is something that's been happening since the days of the PS2, XBox, and Gamecube.

So...


Integration with Existing Social Networks : Some people will eat this up. Others will just not care about it either way. And others will think it silly. "I don't want to be blowing up people's Facebook news feeds with a bunch of updates about my progress in Little Big Planet," they'll say. "And I don't want my news feed similarly blown up by other people with their gaming accomplishments. I mean, let's face it, Facebook is already growing more annoying and pointless by the day. Just a bunch of stupid pictures, political rants, and hashtags #imsosickofhashtagstheyreallyaregettingonmynerves. It won't be enriched in any way by adding realtime updates on what type of tires people are selecting in Gran Turismo. Besides, it won't be long before we reach critical mass, the bubble bursts, and folks abandon Facebook faster than they did MySpace, current home of digital tumbleweeds." Either way, this can also be done on PC fairly easily.

Gaming on a big TV: HDMI has rendered this difference between PCs and consoles a thing of the past.

The Share button: A cool feature in the eyes of many gamers, no doubt. But, except for the convenience of having a dedicated physical button on the controller for it, this is also something that can be done right now on PC's.

Nice PS4 graphics: These also can currently be done with a powerful PC. And as far as the advance from the PS3 to PS4, I think Colin Campbell of IGN put it well in his relatively positive review of the PS4 reveal event:

It dawned on me, even as I sat enjoying the games, that PlayStation 4 is going be just as neat as we’d all hoped. But also that the incredible PS1-PS2 jump is never going to come again. Nor the enormous PS2-PS3 leap.
The astonishing visual fidelity being shown in New York, is quite a bit nicer than the gorgeous fidelity I can find on my PS3 at home. These are lovely-looking games. But they are not so much greater than PS3 that my tongue is lolling around my curly chest-hair.

I'm not trying to say that the PS4 won't be capable of great game imagery. And I'm not trying to underestimate this jump in tech because I'm a Nintendo fan and the Wii U isn't nearly as powerful. I have no doubt that many folks, game players, developers, and publishers alike are excited about the power of the PS4. And as well they should be.

But 1) we are reaching a point of diminishing increases, as Mr. Campbell points out. Videophiles can tell a difference between PS3 and PS4 graphics. But will the more mainstream market be able to? And, perhaps relevantly, will the parents of kids who want their parents to fork over several hundred dollars for a new Playstation be able to? (The Turbografx 16 was more powerful than the NES, but my friend David Harmon's dad couldn't tell a difference.) And in the end how much will this increase in horsepower translate into better games? All unknowns.

And 2) the specs on the PS4 will, presumably, be static for the life of the console. But, PCs can be upgraded incrementally. As PC prices come down, more and more people are starting to realize that.

None of what I've said means I think Sony is doomed. Not at all. But they, like the other two console makers, do face challenges in this new generation of console gaming.



My Personal Take
I own a PS2. I bought it many years ago, several years after I bought a Gamecube, at the suggestion, some might even say pressuring, of one Mr. Josh Shaw. He enticed me by pointing out all the games I'd previously been missing out on that owning a PS2 would now allow me to enjoy. Indeed, a back catalog of PS1 games, in addition to PS2 exclusives. That's quite a few games.

I have four PS2 games (Dragon Quest VIII, Final Fantasy X, the Friends Trivia Game, and Simpsons Road Rage. I have two PS1 games (Blaster Master, Chrono Cross).

So as you can see, my past gaming history has not made me predisposed to get all fired up about the reveal of the PS4. It's not that I hate Sony's games division and all that they stand for. I just don't really care about Playstation as a brand. I have no brand loyalty. And, for me personally, the games and franchises I really enjoy and feel like I gotta have aren't Sony first party games and franchises. I'm not saying I hate their games. Indeed, many of them I haven't even played, which makes it impossible for me to have an informed opinion about them. So it's not a matter of hatred or dislike. It's, again, a matter of ambivalence.

So when, before the PS4 reveal, they put out Internet ads that say, "Oh, yay, another Mario game. Step up to Playstation," it does nothing for me. At least, nothing positive. I don't get excited just at the mention that Sony is making a new Playstation. I'm neither insecure enough, nor manipulable enough, nor gotta-have-cutting-edge enough to be persuaded by them telling me that getting a Playstation is "stepping up." Yes, I understand that the PS4 is going to be more powerful than the Wii U is. But in my mind getting a more powerful system isn't necessarily "stepping up" to something better. Horsepower is important to me, no question. But in the end what I care about are games, games that match my tastes. "Stepping up" to me means getting a system that delivers the games I enjoy playing. Computing horsepower doesn't guarantee the existence of such games. Which brings me to the first part of their ad. See, I'm one of those folks, like millions of other people, who look forward to new Mario games. So a new Mario game actually does make me say, "yay" (ok, not literally, but you know what I mean).

So I went into the reveal without any hype in my heart. If I had any emotional predisposition going in, it probably was one of skepticism, and a hope that whetever they had wouldn't just blow Nintendo out of the water, since 1) I like Nintendo and want them to be successful, and 2) I can't stand all the machismo and adversarial urination contest-style attitude people on the Internet tend to approach videogame discussions with.

I didn't get to watch the presentation itself, as I was busy with other things. But I did read all about it, watch some of the demo footage, etc.

My personal feeling is still best characterized by a lack of enthusiasm. The PS4 is a great PC that will only run games and video applications, no doubt. But for a bit more money I could build a comparable PC now, one that will do more than just play games and run Netflix, one that will run games not available on the PS4 (like Star Trek: Online baby!), and one that I can upgrade as I go along.

As for the games, I've lost confidence and interest in the Final Fantasy brand. So a new FF game does little for me. Watch_Dogs looks like it could be really interesting, even if it skews close to the "dark and realistic" ends of my gaming preference spectrum. But I'll be able to get it on Wii U, with some fun Gamepad functionality probably thrown in. So no worries there. Knack looks ok. Beyond that though, I don't remember anything jumping out at me one way or the other.

And, again, the franchises I care most about, from big-budget-retail to download-only, for the most part either come from Nintendo or will be available on Nintendo systems. (As a side note, there were several download-only titles this generation that I was interested in that weren't available on the Wii. Given that the difference in tech between the Wii U and PS4 is not nearly as large as that between the Wii and the PS360, I'm hoping that situation will occur less in this generation.)

The PS4 won't play PS3 games (whether disc or downloaded), and it is not compatible with the Dual Shock 3. Since I don't own a PS3, this doesn't mean much to me either way. But I completely understand the disappointment current PS3 owners are feeling over this.

I have a 3DS, and with a large number of good games available for it both now and in the coming months, I just don't see me feeling the urge to want a Vita. So the Vita stuff doesn't entice me.

I seldom feel the desire to share my gameplay videos with the world. So although I understand that many folks do, and although I realize that if sharing was as convenient as pushing a button I'd probably be more likely to give it a try, it's a feature that doesn't really grab my attention. 

And, well, that's my take. I don't think the PS4 is stupid. I don't think people who are excited about it are stupid. And I don't feel like I have to throw either it or them under the bus as a part of being a fan of another console maker (in my case, Nintendo). People are entitled to their gaming preferences (ID Primary Directive #3). But for me, the PS4 currently doesn't do anything for me.

Until next time, Gamepad firmly in hand, I remain,

 - Nic


END OF LINE