I have joined my school newspaper, and have been given an entire page to dedicate to video games.
As an aspiring video game journalists (yikes!) joining my school newspaper was a relatively easy step. Now I have to figure out what kind of coverage I should be working on. Let me give you a bit of information about the paper...
We are having 5 issues for the year, so I will not be able to cover every game in a very timely manner. For instance, I won't be able to cover Halo: Reach as by the time the issue comes out, it would hold much relevance.
My deadline for content is November 3rd, so I need to decide what games I should review for the November issue.
Games
Medal of Honor: October 12th, 2010 By the time our issue comes out, Medal of Honor will have been out for over a month. I might have a quick blurb about it, but I doubt I will do a full review. I'm also not sure what significance this game will have for the mainstream. I will have to wait until I get to play the singleplayer.
Fallout: New Vegas: October 19th, 2010 Fallout 3 was very popular among my classmates back in 2008, so there should be some interest in New Vegas. A review 20 days later shouldn't be that bad for such a (hopefully) large game, but the gap is still rather significant.
Fable III: October 26th, 2010 I'll be honest: I have never played a Fable game, despite it being fairly popular with some of my friends when Fable II first came out. Given my lack of experience with the series, I'm not sure if I should review it. On the flip side, I doubt anyone reading the paper will really care about that at all. It comes out late in October, so the review should be somewhat timely.
Rock Band 3: October 26th, 2010 I think everyone I know is burnt out on music games. I also don't know if I want to shell out for another plastic instrument. I will probably pass on covering this for the paper.
I was going to have one or two highlighted reviews, most likely of Fable III and Fallout: New Vegas. I will have a blurb about Medal of Honor, maybe talking about the Taliban "controversy".
Then, I will have a section looking forward. There I can briefly talk about Black Ops, AC: B, and maybe the World of Warcraft expansion.
So, sound like a good start?
What do you guys think about the choice of games I will be reviewing? How about the format?
Any tips about how to make this appealing to an average reader?
First we had to get bracelets at the entrance. They used the bracelets to regulate the amount of people they let in. Once we got the bracelets, we walked around the block to get in line.
I dislike lines for the most part, although there was this really hot girl ahead of us who liked Borderlands and Fallout. There was also the multitudes of big screen displays typical of Times Square. These would loop the same ads, and it got fairly tiring after an hour.
Step 2: Wait in the line some more, and see some Bungie guys
After two hours, some Bungie folks started making their way down the line. They were taking pictures with people and signing t-shirts.
Inside after three hours...
We got inside after three hours of standing in line. There was a bar that was serving free soft drinks. I saw Larry Hyrb (Aka Major Nelson) in the lobby and introduced myself, saying how much I liked his podcast, when in fact I disliked it a fair bit. I got some more swag (read: blow-up energy sword) and talked to some people who were from a video game website based in New Jersey, I had never heard of it.
Kid Cudi! Won't be making it...
It was now 11:50, Major Nelson came on stage. He said he had some bad news. He said Kid Kudi wasn't able to perform at that time. A lot of people started booing, as I suspect there were many who were here for Kid Cudi, and not so much Halo: Reach.
Then everyone got in line to get their copies of Halo: Reach or the Halo Xbox 360. We waited in another line for that. My friend got his copy signed by a lot of the Bungie guys. Meanwhile, Kid Cudi apparently decided to show up.
Kid Cudi is back!
After the performance he came down into the audience, there weren't too many of us, and signed people's shoes and stuff.
It was a pretty cool experience for my first launch party, and probably the most elaborate I will go to for a while. (Maybe Black: Ops will have something big, who knows...)
What was everyone else's midnight experiences like?
3 Comments
Hey everyone/ people who this feedback might be valuable to, I have some feedback on the mobile site. I will break it down nice and neat, and include pictures.
The main reason I subscribed to Whiskey Media is for the mobile site, and right now, it could do better. The entire site took a two months to build, so I don't imagine these (mostly) small changes would take too long to implement.
Note: Most of this stuff is not bug-related, but I thought this was the best forum to put this topic in.
General Feel
The feel of the site is nice. The UI feels very much like Giantbomb. Video quality is pretty good.
Videos
I have issues with videos playing, some requiring me to tap the the video icon multiple times in succession to get the video to play. This might be because of the slowing down of the site, I'm not sure.
Inefficient use of space
In the mobile site demo video, @Snide was saying how they didn't want to have ads because they took up space. However, they didn't seem too concerned with space, as there is a ton of places where there is not very efficient use of space.
Let's see some examples, shall we?
Click picture to see full image Here is the front page. I scrolled down to see the recent videos and stories. I can see a maximum of 4 stories max.
Please excuse my frustrations with the image placement in this thread...
I'm not making good use of space, but I can't figure out how to put the picture where I want. So there. The information here useful, we have the author of the story, and the date it was posted. We also have the number of comments, and the title of course. However, there is still quite a bit of excess space. Surely the word "demo" could be placed on the same line, right? (Note: I understand that the webpage is automatically generated from the official site)
Even with the word demo on another line, there is quite a bit of space between the title and the author. That seems pretty unnecessary.
In short: cut down on all the space between lines. This goes for forum posts as well.
I can only see three topics. That seems very low. Even in horizontal view I see no more than 2 topics. The text in horizontal seems too big in my opinion.
Front Page
The front page doesn't seem very front-pagey. I have no idea what the featured video is, and there is only one video. I would love to see something like the full site, with three featured items and such. Including a title for the videos is also very important so I know what I want to see.
Another issue is that the front page seems drastically slower in terms of being updated with content compared to the dedicated video or news pages on the mobile site. For example, in the video page I can see the Halo: Reach mailbag. On the front page, however, it is not to be seen. (note: this example will probably be out of date by the time you read this)
Forums
A bar like this for top forums, as well as favorites. Asides from the fact that there is a lot of un-used space on the forums, things are alright. I wish there was a top bar to navigate to the top games forums, which would be nice and wouldn't take up too much room.
Actually, throw in a bar like that to access your "favorite" forums as well.
I know this is a known bug that is fixed in the next refresh of the site (when will that be, exactly?) but no one can post on the forums, or create a new topic. I haven't been able to try this, because I can't post, but is it possible to @snide on the mobile site? What about quoting?
Hopefully the key features of the forums transfer over.
Podcast
I like the new thing for streaming the audio, so it is no longer a full screen quicktime window, and I can now navigate with Safari and still listen to the podcast.
Major problems though: The audio will sometimes just stop (maybe a buffering issue on my side). But when it stops, and I go back to the podcast tab (in mobile safari, just to clarify), the page will reload! When it reloads, I have to find my spot in the podcast. This is a major issue, especially if the podcast does not go free (and thus no iTunes support).
Profile
The profile page is surprisingly sparse. I like how it can be accessed at any time by clicking on your profile picture at the top. (small note, the badge for subscribers doesn't show up on your profile)
But there really isn't much to do on your profile page. Here are things that logically should be on the profile page: -Update Status -View your lists, view your blogs, and view all comments associated with them.
Being able to manage lists and post blogs would be nice too, especially for those people with iPads. (I don't have one, but I could imagine blogging from my iPad.
Inbox
It's kinda strange tapping that small inbox icon to get to your inbox.
It would be nice to easily delete messages, like with a small red "x" like on the normal site.
Messages that link to parts of the giantbomb site that aren't on the mobile version will result in web error. So either expand the mobile site, or...well, not sure.
The is also a lot of space in the inbox, but that seems to be a common theme for the site.
Other stuff:
I guess there isn't a chat feature on the mobile site, huh?
Image support would be nice too, being able to browse your images. I guess there is no way to upload images through safari, which is disappointing. I am sure there are ways around this though, like an e-mail address that you can e-mail your photos to that will add them to your site. (@doubters Facebook does this)
Like I said, I don't have an iPad, so I doubt this site is really that great on it. (I might be wrong) so an iPad optimized site would be nice.
More images/icons! I know images make the site slower to navigate, but a more visual home page would be great. I would love to see 3-5 featured items with pictures (like the most popular videos and reviews/news stories).
Thanks for reading this Giantbomb community, and the Giantbomb engineers who put a lot of work into the site to make it work. (or was it Snide who made it?)
I hope that as a paying customer now, my feedback will have some value, and maybe even warrant a response?
(hehe, I love how I can feel even more entitled now. oh boy)
Game Center is now out for the iPhone and iPod touch, and while having leaderboard and achievement support is nice, I love multiplayer.
Pangea Software (the people who made those Nanosaur that shipped with the old macs), well, those guys updated three of their old apps to have multiplayer via Game Center, so I re-downloaded my copy of Cro-Mag Rally to try it out.
Epic Citadel Now, did I mention that Pangea updated its old apps? Yeah, well Cro-Mag Rally doesn't look too good. It was an early iPhone game, released in July of 2008, so I guess I shouldn't expect too much in terms of eye-candy. I guess Epic Citadel spoiled me. Actually, bullshit, this game simply doesn't look good. So, how does it play?
After about 4 minutes, during which I wrote the first part of this blog post, I was able to find three other people and do a race. It was pretty lo-key, since the maps are fairly large, and not very busy with only three other people.
Apparently there is some type of VoIP chat support, I saw a mic icon in the corner of the screen, and tapping it seemed to raise or lower the game volume. I tried saying stuff, but I guess my fellow racers were focusing on the action rather than the chit-chat.
Asides from the lengthy time it took to find three other people to play with, everything else was very smooth. The interface to look for players, or invite your friends, seems really nice. My only issue is that I have no idea if my friends are free to play a game, which discourages me from sending an invite. If Game Center could let me know if my friends are playing a game, I might feel more inclined about sending them an invite.
I will try Nanosaur 2 next after some more Cro-Mag, so stay tuned.
1 Comments
"That's why you will want to play Battlefield 3 on the Playstation 3"
(Jack Tretton at Sony's E3 2011 Press Conference) "The folks over at DICE have been working on Battlefield 3, and is shaping up to be the best Battlefield game yet. As you know, Battlefield 3 is coming to all three platforms. On the PC, it will feature 64 player-matches. On the 360, it will only support 32 players.
So when Electronic Arts came to us asking for us to raise the bandwith caps on Battlefield 3 in order to deliver the best Battlefield experience on the Playstation 3, there was no way I could say no.
And with that, I would like to announce that the Playstation 3 version of Battlefield 3 will support up to 64 players!
A simple bandwith test will be performed when you launch the game to determine your connection. If it meets requirements, and over 60% of connections in the United States do, then you will have the option to join 64 player matches.
And that's why you will want to play Battlefield 3 on the Playstation 3!
[End Speech]
Alright, so you might have read that knowing it was total bullshit. Well, of course it is bullshit because it is in the future. So it is future bullshit.
But maybe after E3 2011, it wouldn't be bullshit.
The Playstation Network and Sony have less restrictions:
Electronic Arts has a close relationship to Sony, and Sony is also much more open about it's platform. Valve announced Steamworks support for Portal 2.
Although we aren't quite sure what that means. Maybe if you buy a retail version of Portal 2 for the PS3 and link it to your steam account, you will be able to download it on your Mac and PC? Maybe saves will be synced to the cloud? Does this allow Valve to patch in updates quickly, and maybe even free, addition content?
Final Fantasy XIV, the Final Fantasy MMO, is being released on the PS3 and PC. Square Enix wanted to have it on the 360, but was not able to because of Microsoft's control over Xbox Live. Sony is releasing DC Universe Online, an MMO on the Playstation 3. They also released MAG with 256 player support, so essentially an MMO.
Sony is obviously giving gamers a lot of reasons to use the PS3. Whether you want an MMO, a shooter with high-player caps, games that have additional bonuses, or even games that will be supported by Valve directly.
Electronic Arts should talk to Sony
Electronic Arts should negotiate a deal with Sony to raise bandwith caps for Battlefield 3. DICE has stated that they had 90 people playing a LAN match on Bad Company on the 360, so console hardware can handle it.
A bandwith test might have to be introduced to ensure a good experience when playing online. I am not sure how much bandwith would be required for 64 people matches, but I am sure it is not out of reach for most people that have a broadband connection.
A majority of people in the United Sates have access to broadband connections.
Electronic Arts is obviously going to have to do some serious work to ensure that all of their servers are fully optimized for a lag-free environment. They have a big task in front of them when it comes to that.
I believe this works to Sony's advantage since MAG, despite being a very good game, wasn't quite the system seller that they had hoped it would be. While it is true they have Killzone 3, it wouldn't hurt to have Battlefield as well.
I don't know anyone who would buy Battlefield 3 for their 360 if they knew they were only getting half of the experience by having half the playercount.
What do you think of this idea? Do you work for Electronic Arts? Are you hiring? PM me!
I have had an Xbox 360 for about two years now. It was my first console, and really my first videogame experience outside of World of Warcraft and Train Simulator.
But let's talk about the exclusives for the 360 for a second...
Exclusives:
Halo: I bought ODST, and I thought the story was alright. The multiplayer was fun, but not deep or tactical enough. I loved Gears of War, and while I never got into the competitive side of things, I thought Horde was genius. (I still love Horde).
Those are all the exclusives, right? I played Alan Wake, and while it was cool, the story wasn't that great towards the end, and there just wasn't enough content. I'm not into racing, and uh... I guess that is all of the exclusives, right?
After last year, and hearing the praise for Uncharted 2, I really wanted a PS3, but I didn't have the money for one. Now I have the money, and all of the upcoming games look amazing.
Killzone, Resistance, LittleBigPlanet 2, Infamous2, and Portal with steamworks support. I also have a secret fantasy that Battlefield 3 will have a higher player-count on the PS3 than the 360, since Sony is cooler about bandwith caps and stuff.
A few things I don't think I will like about the PS3:
The one thing I so far dislike about the PS3 (I don't own one yet, mind you) is the firmware updates. There are a lot of stories complaining about the super long waits for updates and stuff. I also don't feel that the PS3 online is that great, Xbox wins because of Party Chat, and that is all. If the PS3 got 10-people voice-chat support... oh man, that would be amazing.
But for now, I just plan on using it for exclusives, or if a game is better on the PS3 (because of steamworks support for Portal, or something like that).
I know a lot of people who like their PS3 because of the trophy system (which seems much improved over XBL achievements).
I also don't own a Blu-Ray player, so that is an added bonus. And built in wifi? Great! I might take my PS3 with me instead of my 360 just because it has more stuff in one package.
But right now, I am a PS3 fan-boy without even owning one. PS3 FTW!
Why Mass Effect 2 was a disappointment, but why Mass Effect 3 will be amazing:
Preface:
I am going to be comparing the games purely on story. There are clear technical improvements, graphical improvements, and dumbing down between the two games, but those are irrelevant to this discussion. The story of Mass Effect 1, Mass Effect 2, and Mass Effect 3 are the only things that matter in this post.
Mass Effect 1
The first Mass Effect had the advantage of being a totally new world, with new creatures and technology, but it doesn't use those as a crutch; and also has an engaging story full of twists and hard decisions to make.
Let's start with the bullet points of significant plot twists.
Saren kills Nhilius and gets in a super strange space-ship, Sovereign.
"the beacon" is discovered by Shepard, which has some strange effect on him.
Then there is some basic character recruitment stuff which will give you your crew members.
Shepard becomes a Spectre
Shepard also learns about the protheons, and their viscous cycles of domination. After some adventuring and deciding the fate of an entire species, as well as sacrificing one of your crew members:
Shepard learns that Saren is a tool of the Reapers.
Suddenly the guy we thought was the "big bad" now is the "medium bad" and there is an even larger, more sinister thing at work.
Reapers built the mass relays
The citadel is a relay.
Shepard learns most of that from a cool conversation with Vigil.
Then the player has to defend the Citadel: We fight Saren and destroy Sovereign. The player also has to decide the fate of the Council, and also who they want to nominate for the position.
What a ride, right? Let's see what ME2 has for us...
Mass Effect 2
Mass Effect 2 has one of the coolest openings I've played. It is pretty epic, and sets up the character creation/recreation really well, but it is downhill from there...
The Illusive Man is introduced, but we don't know his motives. Will he turn on Shepard? Who knows!
Shepard has to collect some people.
Collectors are collecting people for something... who knows what...
Shepard has to collect some more people.
Shepard has to collect a few other people.
Don't forget to upgrade your ship... yeah..
We the data chip or whatever to use the Omega 4 Relay.
We fight through the collector ship, maybe some of your people die, or maybe they don't.
Giant robot that runs on human blood.
Robot dies.
Decision: Explode, or irradiate? There's no way to know how either choices will effect the game, and they only change how the Illusive Man reacts to you.
Oh noes, a lot of ships be attacking teh universe!
Discussion
I assume that after reading that, you can understand how the story differs between the two games, and how the first Mass Effect was much more engaging in terms of pure plot and story.
Mass Effect 3 did excel in its large selection of flushed out characters, but when the whole game revolved around those characters, with very little other story stuff happening, it greatly diminishes the story experience.
Good movies, books, T.V. shows, and comics, all have great characters, but also have an engaging story that is enhanced by those characters.
The Mass Effect 2 story just feels weak.
But because of Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 will be the best Mass Effect game.
Movies and books all have a beginning, middle, and end. If you look at the Mass Effect series, you can see that starting to form. Here, take a look:
In books and movies: (commonly)
Beginning: The basic plot and characters are introduced. The plot is clearly established as the momentum for the story. Middle: The characters are flushed out, and the plot is further developed. End: Now we know the characters, so the plot can take center stage.
Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2 very easily fit into those first two spots.
Now that the characters have been flushed out and established in Mass Effect 2, Mass Effect 3 can now focus on an engaging story line, and less about character recruitment.
"What's difference does it make what device I am using to access your site?"
Paid-subscriptions to unlock a mobile portion of sites to help entice users to pay up.
Hulu Plus
Clearly Hulu wasn't satisfied with the amount of money they were making with their ad-only model, so they made the switch to a subscription based model, without changing the free-model. But I would love to watch Hulu on my Xbox or iPhone, but the idea that I have to pay for the ability to access content on the device I want to seems absurd. I could hook my computer up to my HDTV, but that is just a lot of work.
Mobile devices are becoming more prominent, and more people are browsing the internet on their smartphones than ever before, and doesn't reflect well on Hulu when they put up a pay-gate to use the site on mobile devices, when it seems like they should be trying to expand and get more market-share.
Hulu realized that opening up a huge back-log of TV episodes wasn't enough to warrant a $10 a month subscription, so they had to limit mobile and console versions to people who subscribed to Hulu Plus.
With Netflix, while there are tiers for having more DVDs out at a time, all of the streaming is totally universal. (besides $4.99 plan, but really...) I don't feel pressured to pay an addition $5 a month to stream on my PS3, or my iPad, so it just feels fair.
Now, it seems ridiculous to see Giantbomb, and other Whiskey Media Sites, follow the same route of Hulu. Instead of embracing mobile devices, they are cutting off that feature to help justify their new, upcoming subscription model, when it is clear that they do not have enough other features to warrant a paid subscription.
What will Battlefield 3 be like on the consoles? What about on the PC?
Hello, and welcome to my series of long running and speculative blog posts about the Battlefield franchise. Today, I will be discussing what Battlefield 3 might be like on the consoles... and on the PC.
Now, we are pretty sure Battlefield 3 is going to be a multi-platform game, although there has been no official confirmation by Electronic Arts or DICE. But the language used in the beta promotion, and the fact that keys will be given away on all three platforms for MoH, makes it pretty clear that BF3 will appear on the consoles.
EA isn't abandoning the PC... they are just unifying it with the Xbox 360 and PS3!
I had always wondered how EA was going to balance the Bad Company franchise, and the straight-up Battlefield franchise. At first I assumed that Bad Company was going to be console exclusive, and that Battlefield X would be on the PC. But when Bad Company 2 came to the PC, I could see the line starting to blur. The PC people enjoyed the game, but they knew it wasn't the Battlefield 3 that they had all been looking for.
Now, if the straight-up Battlefield franchise is coming to the consoles, is there any point for Bad Company? Would EA have both Bad Company and Battlefield, or will they choose one and focus on that title?
So imagine that Battlefield 3 comes out Fall 2011, and then Bad Company 3 comes out in Fall 2012, or even earlier. That doesn't make any sense, does it? Bad Company can't compare to full Battlefield games, so it makes a lot of sense for EA to unify the games.
Unification... it sounds good from a business standpoint... imagine "Battlefield" gaining the recognition as "Call of Duty". With straight-up "Battlefield" there are no Bad Companies, or anything else to get in the way. Battlefield 3 will come out on the three platforms in 2011, and then Battlefield 4, and so on. It just makes thing a lot more.. simpler.
Uh oh, simple?
To most of you reading this, "simple" is not a good thing for a Battlefield game. But they can't simplify things past BC2 and still call it Battlefield, right?
Let's talk game-modes.
I love Rush. It is a great game-mode to play when you only have 3 other friends that you are playing with. The objectives are clear and a lot of fun to attack. I love how the maps change as different tiers are reached, and how strategies need to adapt to new geometry.
Should Battlefield 3 have Rush? Yes, of course. I don't think they can release Battlefield 3 with just conquest mode. I am sure there are some other fun game-modes that DICE is working on for Battlefield 3 as well, and I am looking forward to seeing what they have in store for us.
Maybe Rush could have more than two points at a time? That would be interesting indeed, especially on larger maps.
Rush
Conquest
Moar!
Map size and design for Rush. Mega-scale destruction that changes the way the game is played.
In my opinion, the Bad Company 2 maps were too linear (most of them). They were still fun, but they lost some of the strategy when everyone is just being funneled through some sort of canyon. In terms of graphical capability, the consoles can handle larger maps, just look at Bad Company 1. Those maps were huge!
For Rush, I would love some wider maps with more flanking opportunities. Maps that are dynamic would be great, especially if destruction was implemented in an innovative way.
Imagine a map has a dam. Now, imagine that there are four M-com stations in the dam (or four objectives). Now, picture taking all four of the objectives and the dam exploding, causing a rush of water to flood a majority of the map, only to recede a few seconds later to reveal a totally new landscape.
Or maybe explosions can be used to trigger a rock slide along a choke-point, preventing heavy vehicles from passing until the other team can destroy the rock slide. I have a feeling we might see some type of this stuff. (MoH has some objectives that must be destroyed for the attackers to advance).
Map size and design for Conquest.
Aaah... conquest. The staple of the Battlefield franchise (well, up until Bad Company 1).
The BC2 conquest maps were small and linear. In Battlefield 3 that needs to change. With 32/64 players, maps can have much larger distances between points, without becoming empty.
Can consoles handle larger maps?
Well, yes. Bad Comapny 1 had some big maps, and they ran pretty well. But... Atacama Desert on the consoles can get pretty sluggish at times, maybe Atacama is nearly too much for the 360/PS3 to handle?
And add in 32 players... oh boy. I'm not a technical guy, but larger maps + 8 more players sounds like a bad recipe. Hopefully DICE and EA can figure things out, but I am a bit skeptical about it.
But, we can always look at MAG and their 256 player-count and know there is some hope there. If they can do 256, surely they can do 32.. right?
So, jets, right?
Maybe with larger maps and more players we will get jets.
No, we have to get jets. There were jets in Battlefield 2, they can't take them out, I won't let them.
And of course we will have the tanks and helicopters that we love.
Worst case scenario?
Well, is that Battlefield 3 is actually Bad Company 3. That means small maps, 24 player-count on console, no jets, etc. That would suck, and that is what hardcore Battlefield 2 fans are afraid of.
But still...
But still... will Battlefield 3 be the next giant step in multiplayer gaming, just like Battlefield 2 was in its time?
Many people think that with the game tethered to the consoles, the innovation it will do will be severely limited.
Lastly, will Battlefield 3 be multiplayer-only?
I hope so. Imagine buying Battlefield 3 for $60, and knowing that all of that money is going towards your multiplayer experience. That means they didn't spend any money on people to write the scripts, or to do the voice acting, or the motion capture, or anything like that. All of the money can go to maps, weapons, vehicles, and online infrastructure.
Speaking on online infrastructure...
God fucking dammit EA/DICE. FIX THE LAG!
Imagine being able to the play the game a month from launch without any lag. Man... that would be something.
But seriously, they better beta that thing to death, and they shouldn't be stingy with the beta keys, everyone should be able to play the beta to make sure that the servers will hold up for launch week/month/year.
Alright...
Alright, well that about wraps up everything I can think of. We covered game-modes, map size and design, playercount, worst cases, BF3 being MP-only, lag, etc.
Have anything else to add? I spent half an hour working on this, I appreciate any comments, let me know if you enjoyed reading this. Disagree with anything I said? Let me know.
I enjoyed writing this, hope you enjoyed reading it.
Log in to comment