Should You Buy a Console on Release?

So the start of a new generation: the Wii U is released today here in the UK or a week ago in the US. The Wii U sold 400,000 units in the US last week, which isn’t bad, until you compare it to the 750,000 and 525,000 the Xbox 360 and PS3 sold, respectively. The issue seems to be a lack of hype. Here in the UK, advertising has been to a minimum. The adverts that have shown have been awful and seem to be still aimed at casual gamers. After being burned by the Wii, as a hardcore gamer, I’m less than impressed that the people at Nintendo seem to be forgetting us again.

So many people are left in limbo as whether to fork out £250 to buy a new console which is still unproven. Then again, there are bragging rights as to being the first to own a particular console within your group of friends. However, the novelty wears off soon and there are reasons to wait.

Firstly comes the price, at £250 the Wii U isn’t badly priced, in fact it’s pretty damn cheap, especially when considering the Xbox and PS3 are roughly £200 (if you want a real version that you can actually use). You may not have been mistaken for thinking that the Wii U is part of this generation of consoles. Nevertheless, just because it’s cheap, doesn’t necessarily mean its price won’t drop. It may be cheap now, but it could get cheaper. On the other hand, Nintendo could keep the price constant since they are already selling at a loss. The main issue here is of the $800 release price for the PS3, which subsequently dropped price, very quickly! Sony claimed that this was due to the Blu-Ray drive, so if the next Xbox or Playstation have something new and modern, that really could bump up the price. It may be worth waiting till post-Christmas, when prices (should) shoot down.

The cover of the Xbox 360 manual

Then there’s the bugs, here is most famously the case of the RED RINGS OF DEATH! Microsoft were keen to get the 360 out early, in doing so they overlooked a mechanical fault regarding the cooling of the 360. The red rings essentially meant that the Xbox would not work because it was too hot (usually), thus, it would shut down to prevent damage to its internal components. It also faced other issues such as the E74 graphics error (which I ‘caused’ to occur on my cousins Xbox). All in all, it left you with a hefty bill from Microsoft because it always happened a day after your warranty ran out. Such was the outrage, Microsoft were eventually forced to provide three years of warranty on Xbox’s (even then, I’m sure some people still got issues after 3 years and 2 days). Though this sounds like a mistake on Microsoft’s part, Sony had their own Yellow light of death which affected many (and increasing number) of original PS3s. Though this yellow light problem occurred much later in a consoles life than the red rings, it still happened and as PS3s get older, more and more are succumbing to their demise. Again, as life would have it, this would set you a hefty bill from Sony’s doors (unless of course you go to the very helpful ‘Playstation Pros’ in Bow, London). The reason to wait would be that the new crash course diet Xbox and PS3 have not reported the same problems, yet.

Now comes user interface, any operating system comes with bugs on release and consoles are no different. Though there are few major bugs, it is often wise to wait a couple of months before developers fix all the more major issues. In terms of user interface, the Xbox shipped with a dashboard that wasn’t the best. It was ugly and difficult to navigate. Fortunately, Xbox continue to update their dashboard, to keep it modern and fresh, the result being that it is the best UI on any of this generations consoles. However, it took a long time for Microsoft to perfect the formula and release the second dashboard, so it may be worth waiting to see how the UI of a console may adapt before opting to buy one. On the other hand, you could argue that Sony has not changed its UI. This is partly due to the fact that the PS3 released last of the consoles and incorporated some of the better features of the original Xbox dashboard. Though some may argue that the lack of change is because the PS3 UI works, it does now feel dated compared to the Xbox Metro( I don’t care about its legal name) UI. To be honest, it does work, but the technology sector, which is based on innovation, should not be taking a ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’ approach.

I know Lewis Smith, I thought a Wii would be a good buy too

Finally, we have the games, this is something that caused many to regret buying a Wii. 1^st party developers can only produce so much and the bulk of a console’s game list is bulked up by 3^rd party developers. It often takes time for developers to truly understand the console and also to choose whether they want to provide long term support for the console. The Wii in its first year (or two) released several great first party games including Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros, Mario Galaxy and Zelda: Twilight Princess. However, slapping Mario on every game can only take you so far and up until the release of Zelda: Skyward Sword, the Wii lacked any incredible game. In general it lacked any truly great third party game and it took some time to realise that the big developers didn’t want to develop for Wii. This left hardcore gamers outraged that their console was sitting their gaining dust, while they played a 360 or PS3 (a proper console). When the Wii released, the motion controlled seemed like something an incredible variety of games could utilise, but developers didn’t really take it well and no one but Nintendo could find an application for them outside the genre of casual party games. The same is true for Kinect, it seemed incredibly promising as Project Natale, but developers still haven’t learnt to use its motion capture abilities (thought the use of it as a microphone has become increasingly popular). In essence, it takes time for developers to learn how to use new hardware and its time that may be best spent waiting for a game that can utilise the hardware. (I write this paragraph as someone who was duped by Nintendo and Microsoft into buying a Wii and Kinect, woe is me). 

So there is some glory in having a console before all your friends, that for  a few months they will be clamouring over at your place hoping to get a glimpse. At the end of the day it’s a risk, some consoles just die out like Sega’s Saturn or Dreamcast and other just aren’t what you think they’ll become, like the Wii. Hype and excitement may take you over, but patience is a virtue, and one that may be key when dealing with the virtual world.

Half Life 3, is There any Point?

Last week was all about GTA, but some of you may have caught a glimpse on some news from Valve. They are reportedly working on a new engine, what is most probably, Source 2. For those of you who don’t know, Source is Valve’s video game engine. They have been using it since their conception and with tweaks and mods, it has even been able to survive a jump in generation. Without getting into a lot of nerdy detail, game engines are the building blocks behind a game. It is a piece of software that allows games to easily and quickly made. It is within an engine that games are created, making it easier to create physics and visual models, amongst other things. 

However, whenever Valve makes any announcement it always involves Half Life 3 speculation. If you don’t know what Half Life is, God help you. Since Half Life 2’s gripping ending in episode two, fans of the series have been clamouring away at Valve’s headquarters like the infected from Left 4 Dead, trying to get Valve to satisfy our thirst for Half Life. But yet, no luck, the last five years have been littered with all kinds of speculation of a sequel to Half Life 2 Episode 2, of which Valve has rarely commented. It seems that every E3, Gamescom and every other gaming event is filled with ideas about Valve’s appearance at the shows and what they may be unveiling. However, Half Life 3’s existence seems to be as elusive as that of the G Man.

I'm here one minute, gone the next...

Though the recent announcement of Source 2 may suggest that Half Life 3 could kick it off, the community seems to be disheartened. It would make sense that this is where Half Life 3 begins, a new generation, a new engine, just as with the original Half Life. Despite this, after five long years of anguish and disappointment, people seem to be giving up on the idea. It seems more and more likely that the game may never come, and maybe that’s the way it should be.

So maybe Half Life 3 should never be made (cue a roar from and angry mob of Valve fans at my door). Sure it sounds mad, but maybe it should stay a memory. Currently the Half Life franchise is untainted and amazing, heralding a change in the industry, a revolution. On its release some called it the greatest PC game ever made, and some would still maintain that. But making sequels is always a risk. Developers need new ideas that keep the series fresh (Modern Warfare 3 anyone?), while not angering fan-boys who love the quirks of the original. Sequels must keep current fans happy, while also attracting new ones to the franchise. This is a particular problem with strategy and simulation games, where current fans want more complexity, whereas new players want to be able to jump right in. You wouldn’t be mistaken for thinking that sequels are a cop-out in the media industry. The film studios have been using them for decades as a means to not producing totally new ideas, and video games have been doing the same.

The problem is, two factors can affect expectations of a sequel from its fans, the quality of the original and the length of time people are waiting, both of which only pile the pressure on Valve. When the original is of such a high quality, obviously people expect the sequel to be at least the quality of the previous. With Half Life 2 being called “the best PC game of all time”, its easy to see why this increases the expectation of HL3. Also, with five and soon to be six years gone by, people expect more. Technology advances, the developer continues to learn and expand on their knowledge. As people wait, they start to have imaginations and dreams of what a sequel may be like, what it may entail. Also, other high quality games come out, there is stiff competition, competition which only increases every year. We live in a world where mediocre video games no longer cut it. As fans we expect the best, and nothing less.

"Look Daddy, another modern time, realistic, fast-paced FPS"

We’ve seen games not live up to their hype, not make quite the same impact as the sequel. When the Modern Warfare part of the Call of Duty series was released, it was a huge hit (and still is). It changed the landscape of first person shooters just as Halo had done before it. It made modern, realistic gun fights cool and brought in shoot, quick kill, kill another million style play. Yet alas, after Modern Warfare 2, the quality dipped. Both Treyarch and Infinity Ward failed to innovate as they had before, the genre they had made popular had enveloped them, and turned them into “just another FPS”. Black Ops and MW3 were nowhere near to the standards of their predecessors, with Black Ops II having mixed reviews as to whether it has revitalised the franchise.

Games that have suffered from long waits have also suffered in poor quality. Most recently and notably appears to be Duke Nukem (it took) Forever (to come out). Duke Nukem 3D had a strong fan base back in the 90s and Duke Nukem Forever was an inevitability. However, problem, after problem, after problem meant DNF was almost dead and buried, never to see the light of day again. Of course, someone thought it right to bring it back, just as it was conceived back in the dawn of the dinosaurs. DNF was released as if it was supposed to be released ten years ago. The physics were clunky, the gameplay was dated and the ideas just weren’t fresh. The problem with making a game that was originally thought of a long time ago, is that it comes out as that game. Since the video game market is so dynamic, you just can’t do that.

The odds are stacked against Valve if they really do decide to make Half Life 3 (I’m not holding my breath for it though), chances are something about the game will mean it doesn’t have the same effect as Half Life 2. The probability is that it won’t impact the industry in the same way. The likelihood is, is that it won’t be the game we were expecting. But if there’s any company that can pull it off, it’s one that is dynamic, one that manages to stay ahead of the game, one that lives up to expectations. It’s the company that brought you Portal, Team Fortress and Left 4 Dead. It’s the company that revitalised PC gaming with Steam. If I’m to trust any developer to give Half Life 3 the justice it deserves, I’m glad it’s Valve.

Streamline or Kitchen Sink?

With the huge explosion of GTA V (that’s five not ‘v’ for those of you who called GTA 4 ‘GTA I-V’), there’s been much talk about the new features of GTA V from its predecessors. For example, we now have three characters whom we can seamlessly switch between to access different missions. The Edinburgh developers have also promised the largest Rockstar map to date, especially when including topography.

Argh, Shudder...

We are also to see many returning features, as expected. The key here is many and not all. With the excitement of new features, most of us have accepted that some features will not return. In particular it is the romance and changing physique that will not return (amongst others I’m assuming). Romance has existed since GTA San Andreas, the most important being a mission where you had to seduce a bondage loving casino worker to obtain here security code (which was particularly impressive on my part as I did this walking round in nothing but heart spotted boxers). It is common for games to drop unpopular features, notably planet scanning from Mass Effect 2 (from which I still have nightmares), but romance was nothing of the sort. You could argue it was a little bland, after all, getting Niko to take his girlfriend bowling didn’t quite match up to the feats of ‘Four Leaf Clover’. However, it was, for the most of it optional, and a nice feature to have, a good change in pace in gameplay, to show that your character was not just a maniacal killer who suddenly gained morals at each cut-scene, only to lose them again afterwards. It added to the experience of being an immigrant coming to terms with American life or being a gangbanger who wanted to get out of the game. To get rid of it didn’t initially make sense.

When playing GTA IV, I felt the loss of features considerably. San Andreas is still to this date, one of my favourite games of all time, so GTA IV had a lot to live up to. In San Andreas we were almost witnessing GTA becoming a third person shooter, RPG, simulation, so in the words of my causing “GTA IV should’ve been a cross between GTA and The Sims”. Essentially that is what I was expecting, I was expecting more freedom, more development and essentially more stats. However, as good as IV was I felt let down. I had fun, but I’d always feel restricted, knowing that I wasn’t gaining respect, wasn’t getting built (or fat) and that I couldn’t buy more properties (which I could even do in Vice City). As much I liked IV, it felt like a step in the wrong direction.

However, I thought, it’s Rockstar, those Scots must have a reason for having done this and for also doing it in GTA V. What makes GTA different is it’s so story driven. The story often has a deep political commentary and this often shapes what you do in the game. I’m assuming each GTA starts with the Houser brothers writing the story and then giving it to the development team to work on. Hence, unlike other games, it’s a case of ‘how can we use new features to promote this social commentary and complement our story’ rather than ‘here’s some new ideas, let’s weave a story around it.’ Thus, the features have to match the story and the message of the game. Vice City was heavily based on increasing you property portfolio because the story was about drug cartels, earning dirty money and mass materialism in the 80s. 

San Andreas on the other hand was about the gulf of rich and poor in LA and the way capitalism destroys the poor and teaches to fend for themselves on nothing. This lead onto the gang territory feature in San Andreas, which implies that those in poverty stick together (in gangs) to protect their communities (leading to turf wars). It was also about CJ getting out of the hood and making a better life for himself, hence why you could improve CJ’s stats, to make him better, to get him out of Ganton (Compton of the GTA universe) and into Vinewood (Hollywood). 

"I have millions in the bank, but I like living in a rat-filled cesspool"

GTA IV was about immigrants finding a life in America and the difficulties they face in fitting into American culture. It was not about improving yourself, it was not necessarily about dirty money (though there was a lot of it) it was about becoming an American. Hence, Rockstar streamlined the features to suit the gameplay to the story, which invariably meant cutting some great features out. It is possible that the lack of some previous features was just Dan Houser presenting a very harsh reality to immigrants, that no matter how much money you accumulate, you will always be an immigrant, you will never quite fit in and you may never quite make life better for yourself. Hence why even after accumulating millions, Niko still has a belly and lives in a grotty old flat.

So, I can understand why GTA V has missed out romance and many of the features of San Andreas, though they do promise that money will be more useful. The characters in GTA are middle aged(ish). In a time of recession (which is where the game seems to be focussed at) you don’t need to improve yourselves, people just want more money in a new way because their previous means has been destroyed – thus being the reason for the focus on heists. 

Rockstar has always been one of the great innovators of the industry. It created open world games (arguably) and introduced us to political messages in games. Video games started as pieces of technology, the idea in technology is to put all the best features into a flagship model, the kitchen sink approach. However, as video games mature, they become more and more of an art, where we are less limited by technology and developers pick and choose what they want to put it. They streamline their product to be exactly what they want, to be exactly how they envisioned it, essentially, missing out features in games could be a sign of the evolution and maturing of video games.