Thursday, March 7, 2013
11:59 PM No comments
A little disclaimer before anyone gets to into this, I am not saying any of these things will happen for 100% certainty, but are instead predictions and reflections on the game market. Now that the disclaimer is out of the way let the reading begin!
The cost of gaming has been generally for a long while around $60 (USA standard) so will this price go down in the future? Everyone thinks that the price should go down, and it will.... ish. Think of games that are free to play, but have a cash shop system. This may happen to anyone playing http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2011/06/10
So in the end, games can end up costing more then a simple 60$, and can cost more by DLC (down loadable content). A very good example of this would be Magica. Magica itself costs $9.99 to buy. To get all the DLC, the customer must pay $40 to get all the DLC separately or in a bundle of $34.99. For cheap games, the DLC can make the price as evidently shown sky rocket! So to answer this in a full but ambiguous answer, it depends. Depends on the consumer's willpower to think, process, and not buy on a whim (so for most people it may end up being more).
These games however even with the immense DLC have still reached under $60. So why are there still $60 games out there? The time it takes to produce the game, resources, and experience are what make games $60. Most blockbusters or triple A games are $60, as well as many titles for any consul. This is slowly but definitely changing, and the future for this question is a little too iffy for a full answer. Since big games are run by big studios that are run by publishers, the money may not be less for those big games. However, little games like Baby boo boo drip drop that has terrible game play or art, and limited hours will most likely within the next decade turn to digital purchases, and become cheaper then $60 for every consul game.
There is no need for a tittle, the picture says it all, so gotcha! Used games and turning them back in have been a huge thing in the past. Now with everything going digital, will used games become a major business again? Well why not? Okay, there is one reason why not, and that is everything is digital and established. So two in one, but the games being digital makes sales just another number, and what does it matter to buy a game back? The fact that this system has been established and was prosperous means that someone may make a business out of used games. That said, it has also been established to not buy back digital games so one brave entrepreneur must boldly buy and sell where no being has bought and sold before (used wise that is).
As much as people dislike the idea, these shelves of games may one day disappear. But why arn't games cheaper if bought digitally? A question that isn't answered with "they are greedy bastards." Instead the issue goes back to establishment. Games are established to be the same price digitally or physically because people would then only buy the games online. People would lose money (okay maybe a little greed is in here) from shipping, and physically making the game plus games on shelves cost money to mass produce, digital copies are once again just another number. In order to not make everything online, and slowly bring about change companies are making the prices equal, but will the game prices change in the future for digital vs. physical. In the long run the prices should change but most likely will not. Instead games will be harder to find physically since less are needed to be produced, and games digitally would grant more profit so why make a ton of physical games?
This has been a slight deviation from the normal game review, but hopefully it answers some questions on gaming costs and was enjoyable, keep reading every two weeks!
Thursday, February 21, 2013
9:39 PM No comments
Yes the dungeon master (DM) laughs at the fate of the heroes who dare enter his/her theme park! Really there is a laugh button and the game records how many laughs per minute the DM does. Besides this, the DM controls the theme park that was created in a dungeon like fashion, with pesky heroes now interfering with the nefarious plots for.... a theme park..... ok. There is the plot of the game, simple and full of nonsense just like the game. The DM tries to kill the players through traps, monsters, more monsters, special monsters, curses, buffs, and constructions within a mana and card system.
The heroic heroes are a fat mage, gruff warrior, or bank robbing rogue. These three classes have three sub classes where two can be unlocked in game play. The heroes are not overpowered. Lets let that sink in, because at times the heroes will feel weak like they should when confronting a whole theme park of monsters and..... stuff. Nevertheless, these players can persevere through teamwork since there are combos, and special abilities geared toward working together. On normal, when the game damage input/output is even the players should win, and do most of the time but higher difficulties is the issue. When playing on hard or very hard teamwork is essential or the DM will win.
The game's tone and picture imply that the game play is full of comedy and strange things like a phoenix giant chicken. This is true! The game does have a light hearted feel, and a lot of re playability. To encourage re playability, despite purchasing the game for around ten dollars currency can be earned in game (not bought) for new clothing, subclasses, perks and items. Another fun and speculated fact is that the game seems to be inspired by D&D and other games like Dungeon Keeper to a point, and combined together brilliantly. The game is centered in a theme park, there has to be some fun and facts, but thankfully NO CLOWNS.
The game is meant for multiplayer and the developers have said they don't intend to work on the bots and single player aspects of the game. The only problem with this deceleration is that the game has three out of the four maps without the player being the DM. With only one map where a player can be the DM, this is confusing. A big enjoyment is squishing friends as the DM, not just playing with them to hack and slash through a park which can be fun, but not wholly fulfilling. Aside from this issue, there were many bugs when the game started, and mostly they have been fixed. The last issue is communication. In order to talk, there is a key to start typing, keeping the player immobile, and then type out a message. The game is very fast paced, and either the players are on the same page with higher up levels, or they will die.
While this game seems fun, the drawback of communication drastically reduces the appeal. However, the idea of DungeonLand is solid plus sort of new, and can appeal to many people so the appeal aspect is kind of balanced. However, this game will only be truly fun if four (or three) friends play together and preferably in the same room. If anyone has friends they can play DungeonLand with and these friends are interested, then get it. Otherwise this is not a buy if someone is antisocial and hates people, or wants to get seriously into DungeonLand without those friends. Therefore the game gets a
4 out of 5.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
11:56 PM No comments
Wizardry Online is based on the previous Wizardry franchise that starts way back in 1981, to Wizardry 8 in 2001. These games have all been single player, and rely on a party system. This is, a party needs a rogue to open chests, priest to heal, wizard to do certain spells, and a fighter to not get slaughtered or waste spells (along with other various classes). Therefore the MMO version of Wizardry makes every player one particular class.
Well, the image of the game is there. The graphics are well... interesting? Not very up to par with today's graphics? This is a game franchise that has thousands and thousands of devoted fans, and the graphics are like this? Despite the graphics (which are never mentioned in reviews generally) think of the Wizardry franchise described in the concept. The games were meant for single players to control a party. Therefore, if a party doesn't have a thief, people can't get treasure from treasure chests without major complications. Along with other issues, playing by oneself is virtually impossible, and at level three people should have groups there on for the rest of the game. This is despite the fact the supposed fan base is all SINGLE PLAYER. Maybe making everyone have a group, or somehow be able to play individually would enhance the experience and speak to the audience, but sadly no this game does not do that.
Only in games that are 0 or .5 out of 5 can have nothing good, but even then if the player looks hard enough there is some good. The skill tree implementation causes the player with some classes to potentially be able to solo the game. Along with that potential, changing classes can also make the game interesting since the player retains some skills from the previous class. The game caters to the nostalgic feel by using a lot of ideas from Wizardry one. This leads for an easy way to make expansions for the game.
The game has some potential, but a lot of the spirit of Wizardry has been corrupted. Sony's creation has marred the great idea of Wizardry, a game never meant to become multiplayer. Honestly it would be a tough game to do. The only way this could have worked is with something completely new and innovation never done before. Sadly, this was not done and Wizardry online gets a
1.5 out of 5
Thursday, January 24, 2013
11:39 PM No comments
ConceptThe game Sanctum is meant to be tower defense. What makes this game different then the other ten thousand tower defenses out there? Simply, that the game is put into first person. This not only makes the view different, but allows to player to have a greater impact on how the game develops. How does this give a greater impact? Simple, the player can upgrade and use different guns on their person. This gives the choice of upgrading not only what towers, but if the player wants to upgrade towers in general. Besides that monsters spawn, try to reach a point that is made into a maze by the player, and send thousands of drones to die for glorious cause of dying in the core! Yes the core is the thing the player must protect, and if the player wins they get to see a little dance from their avatar and all the other NPCs controlling the towers (or so it seems).
The good!The ability to use different guns as mentioned above adds a unique element to the game. Instead of building a frost tower, the player can freeze monsters with their gun, and when monsters enter a slowing panel the player can upgrade the freeze gun enough to stop monsters in their tracks. This again allows for strategy, but what to build or upgrade can cause a dilemma, and make the player think on what really to do. When a gun is on cool down, the player can switch to a different gun making more choices to upgrade a secondary gun or not, as well with the different types of monsters and gun uses. Just like towers some guns are better for aoe (area of effect), while others are better for single target. Sanctum makes the player constantly involved giving a role that would otherwise be assumed as a spectator making the game far more engaging then most tower defenses.
The bad.....There is multiplayer, but it seems tacked on. The aspect of having the game put into first person makes certain controls (wasd) used constantly, making typing almost impossible. In fact how one person types is that the the player stops what they are doing, press enter, type, then continue on. Remember how earlier it was mentioned that things are always going on with the game being extremely engaging? This causes major issues, making multiplayer go against what the game at its core was meant to do. Other than that the levels can be difficult, so while more engaging than most tower defenses only someone interested in the previous tower defense game genre will get what they paid for.
While the game is drastically more engaging then most tower defenses, the game still is a tower defense. That said, the game doesn't have any leniency toward new players in the genre. If a new player wants to learn online, it makes the game difficult going against the core concept to make Sanctum unique from other tower defense games. For any veteran and die hard fan of tower defenses, this game would be an excellent buy. For anyone else, maybe try a free tower defense game, see if its enjoyable then and only then consider buying this game. Sanctum gets a
3 out of 5
Thursday, January 17, 2013
10:12 PM No comments
Faster Than Light!
Faster Than Light makes use of an old idea; what happens inside a space ship when combat happens? There are old decrepit games that players used to use in order to emulate this scenario in Star Trek, or Star Wars on paper. The days have come when these players can now play a digital game where there isn't a huge fuss over which genre is better! But for those that have not played these games, FTL (Faster Than Light) deals with assembling crew to repair a ship, repel invaders, and utilize where energy goes to. (shields to live, weapons to destroy, or even in worse cases taking away oxygen for shields.)
This game has a ton of replay ability, unlocking new ships, new strategies and completely random encounters or zones make each experience playing through unique. There are not very many games like this, but FTL pulls off the make and usage of ship and crew very well. The weapons are divers and charge randomly making micromanaging essential for not only those weapons, but for the crew while weapons are being shot. While playing the time is shot, meaning that time goes by quickly so that eight hours can pass without batting an eye. The extension of this, is if a person does play that long, then a certain addictive quality may ensue onto the player making him/her come back for more even if the frustration of a ship being destroyed happens again and again.
People who don't get addicted to Faster Than Light will get bored of the game after at max eight hours. A major factor to this is the difficulty. Easy is as expected, but normal takes a jump to what most games would call 'hard' due to decreased resources, and increased enemy strength with more unfriendly encounters. This may not sound like a lot, but the difference in challenge is drastic. The repetitiveness of the game will bore people to tears, and can be played for a while but the fact that the game is an hour long then repeats causes submission to lose what edge the game had. The game is also single player only, and facing AI can only be entertaining for so long when it is the same thing over and over.
Anyone who has played this type of game on paper by themselves should get Faster Than Light. The issue however is the low amount of time a person can stand playing the game. For people who want to spend hours and hours on one single game, this probably isn't the best buy but for those wanting a game that is only an hour long, can come back to and won't kill the desire to play FTL, then FTL is probably for them. Do not infer from this review that the game is bad, but rather specified towards an audience. Also burning people alive in a space ship with no shields is always fun. Faster Than Light gets a
3.5 out of 5
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
11:56 AM No comments
Hotel Rwanda is the gripping, true-life story of Paul , an unassuming hotel manager whose actions help saved over a thousand Tutsi’s from the murderous Hutu militia during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
At the movie’s onset we’re introduced to Paul (Don Cheadle), the hard working manager of the Swiss-Belgian owned Les Milles hotel located in Rwanda’s capital city of Kigali. Immediately it becomes obvious that is a man who has earned the respect of his workers and those in authority over him. He is smooth, agreeable, and able to talk his way in and out of situations other men wouldn’t be able to handle. He’s been able to do this because he doesn’t abuse the privilege he’s been offered.
The genocide was a result of the Hutu people deciding to overthrow the Belgian backed Tutsi ruling class, and as a result Paul finds himself between a rock and a hard place. He’s a Hutu and his wife Tatiana (Sophie ) is a Tutsi. The movie progresses as the Hutu militia begins to harass and beat Tutsi’s in Kigali.
Tatiana asks Paul to use his influence and authority as manager of the Les Milles to protect local Tutsi’s, but Paul, who faces an inner struggle throughout the first half of the movie, refuses and doesn’t want to step up to the plate quite yet. He’s convinced that it won’t get out of hand, but even if it does he’s only willing to use his stored up political and social capitol to save or protect his own family.
The movie takes the time to develop multiple characters simultaneously. Joaquin Phoenix is introduced as a well-intentioned journalist who wants to use his pictures and words to influence the world to step in and stop the genocide, while actor Nick Nolte (a colonel with UN peacekeeping forces) is forced to stand by and watch in horror as a massacre begins.
As events unfold an interesting dynamic develops between Paul and his wife. On one hand he’s in denial of what’s happening and doesn’t want to get involved for fear he’ll burn his stored goodwill before he can use it to save his family, but on the other he realizes he is able, and ultimately, has to help those around him or they’ll die.
Paul finally caves and realizes it’s up to him to save his wife’s people from his own. He uses everything at his disposal, and bribes local officials with pleasantries like beer. Once the supplies run out, he turns to other means and manipulates those in control. At one point he even tells a Hutu commander he needs to save him as a witness for his war crimes trial.
Hotel Rwanda is a movie you need to prepare yourself for mentally and emotionally. While it begins at a slow pace, it ends up moving at the speed of a freight-train. It’s a story of humanity at its worst, and finest. It’s a story about a man who has to face himself, and realize his time to be true to himself is now or never. In my opinion this is one of Don Cheadle’s best roles and if you see it for no other reason than his acting, he makes the movie completely worthwhile.
Zack is a movie enthusiast, writer of movie reviews, and owner of Movie Room Reviews which has great information on movies and actors. He writes extensively about the movie industry for sites such as Gossip Center, Yahoo, , and Helium.
Thursday, January 10, 2013
10:00 PM No comments
Past vs. PresentPeople are still wondering if they should buy this game or not, even after XCOM has been released for quite a while now. One reason may be that everyone who talks about this games says Enemy Unknown is just like the original game back in the 80s. Of course when people looked back at the game in the 80s they saw this.
Game ComponentsThis game is a strategy game where the player is in charge of an organization to defend the world from hostile aliens. One would think the story is summed up there, but the story continues eventually describing each alien race and what brought them to how they are in present game time. The ending however makes the story seem just tacked on, lacking, and not given a whole lot of thought. Besides the story, the game play is extraordinary. The application of cover (with or without) and the ability to destroy cover with explosives adds a new spark to the tactics implemented by the player. Mobbing everyone to one spot doesn't work well, in fact that is a great way to get everyone killed. The game has different difficulties but on normal the game is not hard, and neither is the difficulty of the alien threat unchallenging. In other words, the game system wise is well done, and psychologically the worry of "should that soldier move there or there?" can tear at the player, becoming paranoid of the unknown which is what the game strives for.
The VerdictAll these other reviewers are not wrong in saying that XCOM is a good game, but again there is something that they miss and just tack on a great score without thinking. The story that was put onto XCOM was definitely tacked on, the ending proved it making the climax seem immense, but at the same time cliche and disappointing. Honestly, if the story didn't expand to include the origins of the species raising the expectation and didn't at the end show a story was just slapped onto XCOM, then this game would be perfect. The game is still worth playing or purchasing if anyone likes strategy games. But as it stands, XCOM due to trying to add elements and doing it wrong or just lazily gets a
4 out of 5
Thursday, January 3, 2013
7:01 PM No comments
This game is on Steam, and has been looked at by many people who are interested in the concept of the game partly because, well, its Steam sale time.The game is the sweet love child of Majesty and Minecraft, or Dungeon keeper and Minecraft, well many games that use RTS (real time strategy) with Minecraft. The goal of the game is to make a town, and keep the villagers alive. The player starts with nothing, and harvests materials, then makes workbenches and other places to convert raw materials into a better form. Think of the Minecraft crafting table. Eventually the player can delve into dungeons, recruit heroes, and mine various materials to enhance the village.
The game has randomly generated worlds so that re playability is very possible, and a huge part of the game. the game provides challenges, such as not letting 5 of the 11 civilians die in the first minute. The ability to construct an entire town from nothing and somewhat help the civilians is a great past time and very rewarding. civilians can be somewhat self sustaining, maintaining a quota of food and keeping the quota going if the surplus runs out making less hassle for the player. The player can spend hours on this game, and after those hours pass only will someone realize how long anyone has played the game. The game is in alpha/beta, so there is potential for this to become a dream fulfilling game and the dungeons add a whole new level and world to explore enhancing the game play further.
Did I mention that the game is in alpha/beta? There will always be issues when a game is in this stage. The main issue is acquiring new civilians. The way to gain new people is by making personal rooms and keeping civilians happy. This doesn't seem to be an issue, except what keeps people happy? Decorations make sense and do, but being idle and doing nothing is the best way to make civilians happy. This discourages the player to do things, and is a serious detriment to game play. Civilians want to die. Civilians go fight anything in the beginning in order to die, and that is why to have the 11 starting civilians for three days is almost impossible. The Game gets boring. After a town is established, and people explore there is nothing to do if the player wants to keep civilians happy. after two or three hours of rigorous building and playing, the game becomes dull, and this needs to be fixed.
Contrary to the happy picture, the game is in beta/alpha. If you are a person that loves building games with little control over villagers, and loves the ideas or aspects of minecraft buy this game, maybe. The maybe is because while the game has many issues making Towns seem like a waste after quite a few hours are put into it, again the game is in beta/alpha.The game has the potential to be a 4, or even a 5, but at the moment
Towns gets a 2 out of 5
Friday, December 28, 2012
Hello I am the movie encyclopedia and if no one else will see it, I will.
I go to the theater on average about twice a week. Because of that, I tend to see a lot of movies. Now while I do enjoy writing my long and detailed reviews, sometimes you really don't have a lot to say about a movie. Sure you could pad your review out with multiple paragraphs dedicated to the plot of the movie, but if you can sum up your thoughts of a film in less than a paragraph, it doesn't really seem worth writing out the entire review. If I can help it, I'll write a full review with pictures, details and thoughts, but I think it would be nice from time to time to share my quick thoughts on a movie in lieu of a full review. If nothing else it will empty out my drafts section and help me move on to newer releases.
First up...That's My Boy:
That's My Boy is a joyless, mean spirited film devoid of any laughs or heart. A useless bum of a father who had sex with his teacher when he was thirteen finds himself mooching off of his socially awkward but successful son when he's facing potential jail time. Sandler turns up the annoying to 11, playing a cross between The Waterboy and Billy Madison...without the charm. Andy Samberg mostly stands around looking awkward and uses his only skill, whiny yelling, anytime a scene "feels" like it's falling flat. Jokes about pedophilia, statutory rape, incest and child neglect only add fuel to this burning tire fire of a disaster. Please avoid this film like the plague.
MY VERDICT: ABOMINATION TO CINEMA
Next up...Men in Black 3:
Men in Black 3 is a return to form, both for Will Smith and the series as a whole. After the more kid-oriented Men in Black 2 failed to impress, I was worried about the future of the series. Luckily Men in Black 3 is darker, funnier and more intelligent than the previous film, though still not as good as the original. Will Smith is charming, Tommy Lee Jones is grizzled and grumpy and Josh Brolin steals the show playing a young Agent K. Flight of the Concord's Jemaine Clement is both daunting and hilarious as the villain, though sometimes his antics drag a few scenes down. Overall it's an enjoyable, fun, sci-fi film that fans of the original will no doubt enjoy.
MY VERDICT: SEE IT
And finally...Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter:
Based on the bestselling book of the same name, I had high hopes going into this film. While it probably wouldn't be as good as the Daniel Day-Lewis Lincoln quality-wise, I was hoping for an exciting, supernatural romp that showed the more badass side of the 16th President of the United States. While there IS some fun to be had with intense action sequences (most notably on a train), most of the film feels bogged down with unnecessary exposition or scenes that drag out longer than they have any right to. Acting is solid enough across the board and the 3D is certainly well done, but nothing to really write home about. Forgettable but enjoyable fare.
MY VERDICT: RENT IT
So that's about it for my first installment of quick thoughts. Let me know if you enjoyed them or want me to do them again in the comments below and I will see you next time.
4:51 PM No comments
I often wonder how some movies get green-lit in Hollywood nowadays. I can understand wanting to adapt a novel, a video game or a comic into a film because it comes with an inherent fan base that will want to see their favorite characters put onto the screen. Sometimes it works (The Dark Knight) and sometimes it doesn't (The Spirit), but it will make money no matter what. Then there's Battleship, based on the best-selling board game that has graced our kitchen tables for over 40 years. Who thought this would be a good idea? Board games don't really come jam-packed with stories or characters and have rarely ever seemed like a good idea for films. The 1980s classic Clue worked because it had something to go on, but Battleship is just two people trying to guess where the other person's boats are. But Hasbro, Universal and Peter Berg obviously saw something since here we are with a Battleship movie.
Battleship is a film that, once you get past the stupidity of the concept, could theoretically work on paper but fails completely in the execution. Countless plot holes, cheesy dialogue delivered without a hint of wit or humor and jokes that, when they are made, fall flat on their face. Jon and Erich Hoeber are competent writers who have done a good job with films like Whiteout or Red, but it seems like they really phoned it in with this film. Maybe it's the source material and Hasbro giving them nothing to work with. Maybe it was Peter Berg insisting that bigger is better. Who knows really? At the end of the day, the screenplay is laughable, bloated and lazy. By the end I found myself laughing at the fact that I paid to sit through it.
Overall Battleship is a bloated, badly written, poorly directed joke of a film that people should stay far, far, away from. Even as a "so bad it's good" it barely works, as there is little joy to be had from this film.
MY VERDICT: ABOMINATION TO CINEMA
The Movie Encyclopedia by The Movie Encyclopedia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.