http://www.411mania.com/games/columns/76706
Now before you sound off on me, please know that I own next-gen consoles and buy new games fairly regularly. This is not a list coming from a guy wrapped in nostalgia who refuses to purchase new things…quite the contrary! I am willing to embrace the future as long as the future is embraceable. With that said, there really hasn't been that much to embrace so far. Sure, there are some GREAT games for these current gen consoles, but…is it enough to spring money for one of these behemoths? I would argue not, but perhaps I am mistaken and am not looking at things clearly. So if you think these consoles are alright, make sure to tell me how you feel. I just know that right now I haven't touched my 360 after finishing GTA IV, the PS3 will be pretty useless until MGS 4, and I only play my Wii for Smash Brothers, while I still go back to play the SNES, N64, Genesis, PS2, etc from time to time.
Please also note that this list does NOT include portable games. I feel the DS is worth the price, and…well, I guess to be fair, I'm not going to mention the PSP either. Are there things wrong with these portables? Hell yeah, nothing is perfect, but I'm not going to hark on those consoles in this list.
There are no rules for this list.
10-) Problems with Ports - While ports have never been perfect when appearing on multiple consoles at the same time, at the very least we can admit that the games are in the same class. In the SNES/Genesis days, while some of the ports were in fact different...it was really hard to discern which one was indeed better (with a few exceptions). With this generation, sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. Especially early on when you'd get games on the 360 that ran at a pretty serviceable 60 FPS while the EXACT same game would appear on the PS3 and run at 30. Now this would normally be a point that would apply to early games…and I had actually thought the days of 360 versions of games being superior had been over, but no! No! GTA IV comes along and apparently the Playstation 3 version has all sorts of issues with freezing. Now sure, it's not like the 360 version was perfect – it had pop-in issues and some people claimed that it was causing their console to red-ring…but the freezing issue was a bigger deal and you had to go to some pretty extreme lengths to get it to work. That just doesn't seem fair to me! I figure that PS3 installations have really helped how games run on the console – such a DMC 4, which was superior on the PS3 – but…it seems like the majority of games that appear on both of those consoles play better on the 360 – either thanks to the graphics, the frame-rate, or bug issues. I just think that's a little un-fair to PS3 fans…I wish things were a little more equal on the port front, but at this precise moment in time, they really aren't. Things can always change in the future, but right now that's how I see things. I hope things will be more equal soon.
- Speaking of GTA IV, doesn't Oscar remind you of Niko a leetle bit?
9-) Nintendo refuses to embrace the internet - Microsoft's online system is rather good and has wonderful parental controls. Sony's online system is pretty good and in the future looks to get even better, mimicking what Microsoft does (but for free)…but what does Nintendo have? To be quite honest…not very much. They seem to feel that if you can actually sense that you're playing against another living, breathing person…then the system is too immersive. Let's take a look at one of my personal favorite games ever, Super Smash Brothers Brawl. Without a doubt, it's a fun multiplayer experience to have when you've got friends around. Shit gets crazy. Try hooking it up to the internet. If you play against random people in the "With Anyone" mode, odds are you may as well be playing bots. Sure, they may do things with a personality – such a spam the taunt "YOU'RE TOO SLOW" – but outside of that…they can't really show emotion. No voice chat, no text chat, no names, not even the ability to have words associated with your taunts. GOD FORBID! I figure Nintendo is worried some poor child will see a racial slur, repeat it in front of their mother, and then proceed to get Nintendo sued because their Smash game taught their poor child naughty language! So whatever, if you play with people you don't know, you're essentially playing with robots. Whatever. Well at least when you play with people on your friends list, you can communicate with them in some way…right? HAHAHA, nope! Believe it or not, Mario Kart is the most advanced it gets so far with text chat. YES! TEXT CHAT! It's like you're using a cell phone! Other than that, it's essentially the same thing as random play except now you can see their names (!!!!!!!)– though you can see their names in Mario Kart Wii already – and you can occasionally get other bits of basic conversation through! Awesome! Oh man, I can't wait to suggest to my friend that he's a homosexual through a pokemon battle where I have to preset my speech prior to the match just to make sure it's contextual. FUCK YEAH! So really, Nintendo seems to be implying that multiplayer is better if you feel alone…which is kinda sad, but whatever. It's sad that with the exception of a couple of games, the online experience Nintendo offers is relatively slow. Seriously, have you ever tried playing Dragonball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 3? It's so slow that it's almost ridiculous. Almost. I seriously felt that the hardon collider had been activated and my molecular structure was being ripped apart, that's how slow it was. I think this console generation would be more acceptable if Nintendo acknowledged there were people out there who were interested in taking their games online. That there are wii players who aren't 10 years old and can handle the occasional occurrence of someone saying the word: "penis". Oh well! Maybe next time.
: what Nintendo presumes the average person's face looks like when they stumble upon something "PG-13" on the internet.
Emphasis on Graphics - Now don't get me wrong, I'm a man who enjoys his quality graphics. I realize Naruto is largely for children, but watch the Naruto PS3 trailer and try to tell me those graphics aren't fucking impressive. Or Dragonball Z: Burst Limit? It looks like you're actually playing an anime, and I really appreciate that. Now with that said, while this is easily the best looking generation graphically…have we really been rewarded with gameplay to equal those graphics? Now let's look at a game like Heavenly Sword. Graphically, it's stunning. Without a doubt it is one of the best looking games out there. When you play it though…what exactly does it do that's different? What makes it stand out as a game? What does it do that guarantees that we'll remember it from years down the road? Nothing! It's a God of War clone that is ridiculously short. That's it! There isn't anything wrong with being a God of War clone, since people apparently like that game…but if you ask me, this game really didn't do anything to make it stand out other than look ridiculously nice. Since I am all about being fair, let's look at a highly hyped 360 game now. Halo 3. While the game looked great graphically, what exactly did it do differently from Halo 2? If you had down-scaled the graphics, placed it on the original X-Box, and told me: "This is Halo 2 you are playing, we just changed the levels up a bit." I not only would have believed you, but would have wondered why you were telling me this because I'm not an idiot and can clearly see this is the same damn game. The multiplayer is fun, but it's nothing we haven't seen before. The campaign is nothing we haven't seen before. In the end, it's the exact same game we've played before and it winds up being just a prettier version of Halo 2. At least, that's how I feel. While graphics are somewhat important – I'd rather play a good-looking good game than a shitty-looking good game – you don't need good graphics to have a good game. Take a look at Katamari Damacy on the Playstation 2. That game is hardly a looker, but it PLAYS fun and different…and winds up being an easily memorable title. While there are some great looking high marquis titles out there – I'm looking at you, Bioshock – for the most part…game companies tend to compensate by painting their shitty games in a coat of pretty neat looking paint.
- Seriously, tell me this game doesn't look awesome in the graphics department.
7-) Next-Gen gets LESS features - This is mostly a concern with sports games, in particular the Madden franchise. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a man who loathes him some Madden football. I think it's a franchise that gets you to pay 60 dollars annually for what equates to a roster update, but I would be absolutely lying to you if I told you the prospect of a next-gen Madden title didn't have me interested. Not to mention the early trailer that was shown during the NFL draft looked really awesome. It was going to feel like I was actually playing football…right? HAHAHAHA, no. Not only was that trailer a down-right fucking lie, but that Madden title featured LESS than the same game did on the present X-Box. That's right! The ‘advanced' version gets less than the current version! This is downright insane, because when I get a current-gen system I expect a hell of a lot more than LESS of what was offered on the last gen. It seems sort of…lazy. Ah, but this is what EA is famous for! For goodness sakes, I rented Madden 2008 (I refuse to buy them!) and was stunned that stuff from 2005 on the regular X-Box was STILL missing. Isn't that just weird? Of course, this also might just be an EA thing…because I hear that this generation's version of Tiger Woods is missing a lot of things as well. Then again, I guess EA being cheap and money-grubbing is hardly a surprise. It'd be like me saying: "Oh hey guys, there's a new Capcom versus game coming out and I hear they're re-using Morrigans sprite again!" It's just common sense by now. I just think it's a shame that I can pop in a game with the year "2005" on it and get more features than a game with the year "2008" written on it. This is also further seen today, as the new game Dragonball Z: Burst Limit EXCLUDES the very final saga in the Dragonball Z universe while the PS2 games, with the exception of the very first one, include it. That seems ridiculous to me, because if I'm going to shell out 60 dollars for a new game it better have at least features on the same footing as a game that came out years before.
- No way in hell a game that features graphics this awesome should also feature less story content than previous iterations.
6-) Downloadable Content - First of all, let me tell you that I'm in support of DLC…as long as it's free. To be honest, if the content is on my disc and isn't readily accessible, I expect it to be free. I paid the sixty dollars and I feel like anything that is on THAT disc should belong to me. Now, if you charge me for something that isn't on the disc? Fine, whatever, I didn't technically pay for that so I'm okay with paying a small fee. After all, if it's additional to my playing experience and I really enjoy the game…why NOT pay for it? With that said, it seems a lot of games are charging you for content that you have on the disc already. Why is that? Why do I need to pay extra to play something that should already be there? That's pretty messed up. I don't know about you, but if I go into a store I expect to get everything that's on the disc, not just half of it. Imagine strolling into a game store, paying like eighty dollars for a SNES cart, and finding out that you only bought HALF of the game! That's right, you just defeated the dinosaurs in Chrono Trigger, but in order to finish the game you have to pay a little more! Just ten more bucks and Lavos is going down! Oh wait, you may need a little help with that. After all, Lavos is a TOUGH TYRANT and you'll need some ultimate weapons to take him down, so get this. Alright, alright, we're going to sell you a full set of rainbow-gear. Yeah, I know, sounds pretty generous right? Right. All of the ultimate gear can be YOURS for another ten dollars. Now you can be a lavos slaying badass. OH WAIT, is it too easy now? Do you find the legions of evil too easily felled by your blade? WE WILL REMOVE ALL THIS BADASS CONTENT TO MAKE THE GAME HARDER IF YOU PAY ANOTHER TEN DOLLARS. Argh, I know this is hyperbole, but sometimes it honestly feels like this. I pay my money, I want everything I pay for without any of that micro-payment junk. Developers, you are wrong, we do NOT like paying for DLC…we only pay for it because we have to. Please, please, please stop making us pay. I am begging you! My desire to kick ass online with new guns only expands so far!
- I say...NEIGH...to horse armor. Bad duh pssssh.
5-) Length - No, I do not demand that every game expand hundreds of hours. However, when I purchase a game, is it bad of me to expect that ten hours of my life is going to be absorbed at the very least? This isn't even counting the multiplayer, which should sap even more out of my being. Sadly, it seems that the better the graphics are or the more highly hyped a game is, the less lengthy they make it. Now before you tell me: "BUT DEREK, IN THE SNES, NES, ATARI, ET AL DAYS ALL GAMES WERE SHORT." Listen, I know. I'm comparing this gen with the last one, and if you compare playtime I think it's not even close to be quite honest. So far, there have been two games released on next-gen consoles that I would define as time-sinks. Oblivion, which is essentially an off-line MMO and GTA IV, which is…well, it's Grand Theft Auto, so there's always a ton to do. Now don't get me wrong, there are some cool multiplayer experiences out there that'll eat up your time – COD 4 for example – but if you're into single player gaming at all, it's about time you abandon consoles. Seriously, let's look at Heavenly Sword and Halo 3 again. These games will take you about six hours, if you're…slow. That's right, six hours if you're not going at full speed. Isn't that crazy? Of course, bumping the difficulty will make the game take longer – Halo 3 on legendary took me a whole eight hours. OH MAN – but a game shouldn't have to rely on difficulty for length. If it's long, it's long. Now you may thing I left out the wii, but I really didn't. Look at three of Nintendo's main franchises: Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. All three of these games can take you over ten hours to complete and are pretty satisfactory purchases. While they don't have the same online experience as something like Halo 3 – and I know you all love to get killed by 12 year olds in Hayabusa armor – they at least feel like solid single player purchases. So I guess what I'm saying is that if you like playing solo, the wii may be the best way to go…but if you're a fan of online multiplayer titles, one of the other two systems may be for you. Of course, this is all pre-MGS 4 which will punch us in the face with its length (well, I mean, cinematics count as length right?), so who knows really.
- Short but Beautiful.
4-) Better off to stick with the PS2 - Looking at the Gamerankings top-10, you have three non-multiplatform games listed (and I know you aren't buying a PS3 for multiplatform titles). They are: Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, and Resistance: Fall of Man. Ratchet is pretty much a rehash of the PS2 games, and to be honest…while it is a great game, it's not quite as good as the third installment which featured some pretty great writing for a video game. Uncharted is a pretty good original title that I really have no complaints about, in all honesty…and Resistance is a very heavily over-rated shooting title. If you've played *insert shooter here* you've played Resistance, simple as that. Now listen, I'm not saying the PS3 won't be getting good games in the future – MGS 4 is looming, FF XIII will be good, Little Big Planet should appeal to the myspace crowd, Team Ico is making something allegedly – but RIGHT NOW, there isn't all that much there save for multiplatform stuff. What can be seen as sort of a punch in the face to the PS3 audience is the fact that while the PS3 hasn't really gotten any great exclusives, during its lifespan, the PS2 *HAS*. Persona 3 and God of War 2, even though I don't like the latter, are both high quality titles. Hell, Persona 4 is in development for the PS2. At this point, if you don't have the money for a PS3, I don't see why anyone would be in a hurry to buy one seeing as the PS2 has a great library and is STILL expanding. Before one of you commenters come in with a laundry list of PS3 titles that will be great (and believe you me, I've seen plenty), please remember that I'm talking about the present, and not the future. If you want to buy a PS3 when FF XIII comes out and MGS 4 is also available, I can't really blame ya'. Plus, those "lists"…they always seem to be full of failure. Haze and Lair were both on said list, and both turned out horrid. Well, if you believe reviewers at least. So in short, while the PS3 may be a pretty good investment for the future, right now it isn't worth the price of admission. Unless you really, really need a Blu-Ray player that is. If that's the case then…yeah…I guess the PS3 is worth the money. My advice: Just wait and see.
- Hey, any excuse to post another P3 picture.
3-) Want a 360? Hope you like shooters! Looking at the GameRankings top-10 again, there are four exclusive 360 titles on the list. (Please note, considering most 360 games are available on PC, I am not counting that.) Halo 3, Gears of War, Mass Effect, and Bioshock. Three of the four are shooting titles and Mass Effect is a WRPG with SHOOTING elements! Before you point out to me that Bioshock is about to be available on the PS3, at this moment in time…it's not! So hah! I can use it in my argument. It seems like most every title that is exclusive to the 360 has shooting elements. Sure, there are exceptions like DOA 4, Dead Rising, Ninja Gaiden 2 and Blue Dragon…but can you name all that many where you don't aim at a guy and pull the trigger? No, I didn't think so. Now don't get me wrong, shooting titles can be fun. I for one like shooting guys as much as the next red-blooded American. With that said, I don't want every one of my big titles to involve shooting someone in the face. You can only do it so many times before it gets old. Hell, even the new Banjo Kazooie has gun-and-vehicle elements in it. Isn't that weird? Hopping and bopping Banjo-Kazooie blowing shit up. Can you see Banjo whippin' out a rocket launcher on Grunty? I can't. Feels weird. The system really needs a high-profile title to come out where you don't blow shit up, but looking ahead at the rest of this year, I honestly can't think of one. Oh sure, you have a Halo RTS, but I bet that's just going to sell because of the Halo name. And Fable 2, but with the way Fable 1 lied to us…you could forgive me for not anticipating that title. Isn't that sad when I can only think of one genre on a specific system? Look at the PS3 for example. As much shit as I gave it earlier, look at some of its upcoming titles. FF XIII (RPG), MGS 4 (Stealth), Resistance 2/Killzone 2 (Shooting), Little Big Planet (Err…myspace?), Team Ico Theoretical game that may or may not exist (If it exists, theoretically, a puzzling platformer. In theory). That's variety! That's something different! Enough so that I would argue if you want INSTANT results, the 360 is the system for you because it has a decent library of games already, but if you want a better future, the PS3 is the way to go. At least the future isn't blood-stained from the Nazis you no doubt shot a million times by now. Sadly, I don't even PLAY any of the big exclusives any more. Dead Rising had its share of problems, Bio Shock is a game you beat only once. Seriously, my 360 is for VF 5 online, and that's about it. I used to play the Orange Box on it, but now that I have TF 2 on PC…there really isn't a point. (nod to chitown) I hope something big and interesting comes out for the 360. Something where I won't be shooting shit up.
- Hrm, this looks oddly familiar.
2-) Wii like gimmicks and rehashes - I like the wii, I think it has a decent library of games and is probably the best deal at the moment, if only because it costs a paltry 250 dollars. That said, this is a list about why this generation is AVOIDABLE, and…well…the wii has plenty of things that I would deem as avoidable. Pulling up that familiar GameRankings top 10, you'll see that of the ten highest rated Wii games you'll find an astonishing EIGHT sequels or ports. They are Super Mario Galaxy (Mario 64 IN SPACE WITH WAGGLE), Zelda: Twilight Princess (OoT 2.0), Smash Brothers Brawl (Plays like a slower Melee, but does feature a lot of neat bonus content), RE: 4 Wii edition (Same game as on the cube, just with wii controls and some neat content you find on the PS2 version), Okami (PS2 port), Metroid Prime 3 (A better controlling version of Metroid Prime!), Guitar Hero III – no comment needed - , and Super Paper Mario which sort of plays uniquely. That's seven games that are pretty much rehashes, one unique title, and two others. The other two are Boom Blox which is a fairly fun time wasting game and Zack and Wiki which makes use of the wii's waggle pretty well. Now you may be asking, why am I making a point out of this? All of these games are fun! Indeed they ARE fun, but you've played them all before! You could excuse buying a wii because of those eight high profile titles being playable on cheaper, last gen consoles. For goodness sakes, Twilight Princess and RE: 4 are even available on the Gamecube. Sure, they have a fresh coat of paint and are technically new games…but they don't really play like them. With the wii, it seems like you either get a game you've played a million times before or you're getting a gimmick. Nintendo seems to love these gimmicks even though they don't always translate well to gameplay. Let's take a look at Red Steel. A genuinely terrible game that tries to make the most out of the wii's motion controls but fails miserably. Look at Soul Calibur Legends! This game could have been something truly interesting, but once again…it relies on really gimmicky controls and just falls flat on its face. I feel that the wii's controls are better suited for short, simple, quirky games such as Wii Sports and Rayman: Raving Rabids. When you apply those controls to more complicated titles they just get more tedious. Well, that's how I feel at least. While the wii is the cheapest option and offers arguably the greatest quality games, you've probably played them all before. Simple as that.
- According to this graph, the more you see something the more you like it!
1-) Quality, or lack thereof. - The one thing that should keep you from buying a current-gen console if you haven't already would be the quality of the titles. Look, there are some really great games out there like Bioshock, Brawl, Galaxy, GTA IV, and (allegedly) COD4...but in my eyes the number of great, quality playing experiences are down. My 360 goes for, literally, months at a time without being touched. When mine got done red-ringing I bought DMC 4 and didn't touch it again until GTA IV came out. I ended up selling DMC 4 because I didn't figure I would play it again. The PS3 has been pretty barren since Uncharted with the exception of GTA IV, though – as is the case with the 360 – you can probably spend the time playing multiplayer games like Warhawk and COD4. The only game I play on my wii these days are Brawl. Sometimes Mario Kart, though those lucky finishes piss me off from time to time. It's just a barren landscape right now, it seems. With the PS2 and the last generation, it seems like every time I finished a good game up there was another one waiting for me. On top of that, they had a lasting impact of me. With the exception of a couple – Brawl, Bioshock and GTA IV (Technically Portal and TF 2 as well, but…I consider those more PC titles than console) – I don't see me going: "Wow, this is a great game" ten years down the line. I'll probably say: "Oh, yeah, that was a neat game I guess"…but nothing spectacular. And that's really sad. It's not too late, though! MGS 4 is coming out and I am a biiiiig MGS fanboy. Not to mention, there are probably some obscure titles I've yet to play that could change my mind…but as of this moment in time, if you don't have the money there really isn't a reason to go out and buy a next gen console. The marquis, killer app titles just aren't around for this generation, and I think that's pretty sad. You may disagree with me and that's fine. I just think that years down the road, this will be looked at as the worst console generation yet as far as quality titles are concerned.
- Without a doubt, Bioshock is one of the best games of this console generation.
Well, that's it for the 10th hour this week, before you leave 411mania though, you should check out these other quality columns from our gaming section.
Now before you sound off on me, please know that I own next-gen consoles and buy new games fairly regularly. This is not a list coming from a guy wrapped in nostalgia who refuses to purchase new things…quite the contrary! I am willing to embrace the future as long as the future is embraceable. With that said, there really hasn't been that much to embrace so far. Sure, there are some GREAT games for these current gen consoles, but…is it enough to spring money for one of these behemoths? I would argue not, but perhaps I am mistaken and am not looking at things clearly. So if you think these consoles are alright, make sure to tell me how you feel. I just know that right now I haven't touched my 360 after finishing GTA IV, the PS3 will be pretty useless until MGS 4, and I only play my Wii for Smash Brothers, while I still go back to play the SNES, N64, Genesis, PS2, etc from time to time.
Please also note that this list does NOT include portable games. I feel the DS is worth the price, and…well, I guess to be fair, I'm not going to mention the PSP either. Are there things wrong with these portables? Hell yeah, nothing is perfect, but I'm not going to hark on those consoles in this list.
There are no rules for this list.
10-) Problems with Ports - While ports have never been perfect when appearing on multiple consoles at the same time, at the very least we can admit that the games are in the same class. In the SNES/Genesis days, while some of the ports were in fact different...it was really hard to discern which one was indeed better (with a few exceptions). With this generation, sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case. Especially early on when you'd get games on the 360 that ran at a pretty serviceable 60 FPS while the EXACT same game would appear on the PS3 and run at 30. Now this would normally be a point that would apply to early games…and I had actually thought the days of 360 versions of games being superior had been over, but no! No! GTA IV comes along and apparently the Playstation 3 version has all sorts of issues with freezing. Now sure, it's not like the 360 version was perfect – it had pop-in issues and some people claimed that it was causing their console to red-ring…but the freezing issue was a bigger deal and you had to go to some pretty extreme lengths to get it to work. That just doesn't seem fair to me! I figure that PS3 installations have really helped how games run on the console – such a DMC 4, which was superior on the PS3 – but…it seems like the majority of games that appear on both of those consoles play better on the 360 – either thanks to the graphics, the frame-rate, or bug issues. I just think that's a little un-fair to PS3 fans…I wish things were a little more equal on the port front, but at this precise moment in time, they really aren't. Things can always change in the future, but right now that's how I see things. I hope things will be more equal soon.
9-) Nintendo refuses to embrace the internet - Microsoft's online system is rather good and has wonderful parental controls. Sony's online system is pretty good and in the future looks to get even better, mimicking what Microsoft does (but for free)…but what does Nintendo have? To be quite honest…not very much. They seem to feel that if you can actually sense that you're playing against another living, breathing person…then the system is too immersive. Let's take a look at one of my personal favorite games ever, Super Smash Brothers Brawl. Without a doubt, it's a fun multiplayer experience to have when you've got friends around. Shit gets crazy. Try hooking it up to the internet. If you play against random people in the "With Anyone" mode, odds are you may as well be playing bots. Sure, they may do things with a personality – such a spam the taunt "YOU'RE TOO SLOW" – but outside of that…they can't really show emotion. No voice chat, no text chat, no names, not even the ability to have words associated with your taunts. GOD FORBID! I figure Nintendo is worried some poor child will see a racial slur, repeat it in front of their mother, and then proceed to get Nintendo sued because their Smash game taught their poor child naughty language! So whatever, if you play with people you don't know, you're essentially playing with robots. Whatever. Well at least when you play with people on your friends list, you can communicate with them in some way…right? HAHAHA, nope! Believe it or not, Mario Kart is the most advanced it gets so far with text chat. YES! TEXT CHAT! It's like you're using a cell phone! Other than that, it's essentially the same thing as random play except now you can see their names (!!!!!!!)– though you can see their names in Mario Kart Wii already – and you can occasionally get other bits of basic conversation through! Awesome! Oh man, I can't wait to suggest to my friend that he's a homosexual through a pokemon battle where I have to preset my speech prior to the match just to make sure it's contextual. FUCK YEAH! So really, Nintendo seems to be implying that multiplayer is better if you feel alone…which is kinda sad, but whatever. It's sad that with the exception of a couple of games, the online experience Nintendo offers is relatively slow. Seriously, have you ever tried playing Dragonball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 3? It's so slow that it's almost ridiculous. Almost. I seriously felt that the hardon collider had been activated and my molecular structure was being ripped apart, that's how slow it was. I think this console generation would be more acceptable if Nintendo acknowledged there were people out there who were interested in taking their games online. That there are wii players who aren't 10 years old and can handle the occasional occurrence of someone saying the word: "penis". Oh well! Maybe next time.
Emphasis on Graphics - Now don't get me wrong, I'm a man who enjoys his quality graphics. I realize Naruto is largely for children, but watch the Naruto PS3 trailer and try to tell me those graphics aren't fucking impressive. Or Dragonball Z: Burst Limit? It looks like you're actually playing an anime, and I really appreciate that. Now with that said, while this is easily the best looking generation graphically…have we really been rewarded with gameplay to equal those graphics? Now let's look at a game like Heavenly Sword. Graphically, it's stunning. Without a doubt it is one of the best looking games out there. When you play it though…what exactly does it do that's different? What makes it stand out as a game? What does it do that guarantees that we'll remember it from years down the road? Nothing! It's a God of War clone that is ridiculously short. That's it! There isn't anything wrong with being a God of War clone, since people apparently like that game…but if you ask me, this game really didn't do anything to make it stand out other than look ridiculously nice. Since I am all about being fair, let's look at a highly hyped 360 game now. Halo 3. While the game looked great graphically, what exactly did it do differently from Halo 2? If you had down-scaled the graphics, placed it on the original X-Box, and told me: "This is Halo 2 you are playing, we just changed the levels up a bit." I not only would have believed you, but would have wondered why you were telling me this because I'm not an idiot and can clearly see this is the same damn game. The multiplayer is fun, but it's nothing we haven't seen before. The campaign is nothing we haven't seen before. In the end, it's the exact same game we've played before and it winds up being just a prettier version of Halo 2. At least, that's how I feel. While graphics are somewhat important – I'd rather play a good-looking good game than a shitty-looking good game – you don't need good graphics to have a good game. Take a look at Katamari Damacy on the Playstation 2. That game is hardly a looker, but it PLAYS fun and different…and winds up being an easily memorable title. While there are some great looking high marquis titles out there – I'm looking at you, Bioshock – for the most part…game companies tend to compensate by painting their shitty games in a coat of pretty neat looking paint.
7-) Next-Gen gets LESS features - This is mostly a concern with sports games, in particular the Madden franchise. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a man who loathes him some Madden football. I think it's a franchise that gets you to pay 60 dollars annually for what equates to a roster update, but I would be absolutely lying to you if I told you the prospect of a next-gen Madden title didn't have me interested. Not to mention the early trailer that was shown during the NFL draft looked really awesome. It was going to feel like I was actually playing football…right? HAHAHAHA, no. Not only was that trailer a down-right fucking lie, but that Madden title featured LESS than the same game did on the present X-Box. That's right! The ‘advanced' version gets less than the current version! This is downright insane, because when I get a current-gen system I expect a hell of a lot more than LESS of what was offered on the last gen. It seems sort of…lazy. Ah, but this is what EA is famous for! For goodness sakes, I rented Madden 2008 (I refuse to buy them!) and was stunned that stuff from 2005 on the regular X-Box was STILL missing. Isn't that just weird? Of course, this also might just be an EA thing…because I hear that this generation's version of Tiger Woods is missing a lot of things as well. Then again, I guess EA being cheap and money-grubbing is hardly a surprise. It'd be like me saying: "Oh hey guys, there's a new Capcom versus game coming out and I hear they're re-using Morrigans sprite again!" It's just common sense by now. I just think it's a shame that I can pop in a game with the year "2005" on it and get more features than a game with the year "2008" written on it. This is also further seen today, as the new game Dragonball Z: Burst Limit EXCLUDES the very final saga in the Dragonball Z universe while the PS2 games, with the exception of the very first one, include it. That seems ridiculous to me, because if I'm going to shell out 60 dollars for a new game it better have at least features on the same footing as a game that came out years before.
6-) Downloadable Content - First of all, let me tell you that I'm in support of DLC…as long as it's free. To be honest, if the content is on my disc and isn't readily accessible, I expect it to be free. I paid the sixty dollars and I feel like anything that is on THAT disc should belong to me. Now, if you charge me for something that isn't on the disc? Fine, whatever, I didn't technically pay for that so I'm okay with paying a small fee. After all, if it's additional to my playing experience and I really enjoy the game…why NOT pay for it? With that said, it seems a lot of games are charging you for content that you have on the disc already. Why is that? Why do I need to pay extra to play something that should already be there? That's pretty messed up. I don't know about you, but if I go into a store I expect to get everything that's on the disc, not just half of it. Imagine strolling into a game store, paying like eighty dollars for a SNES cart, and finding out that you only bought HALF of the game! That's right, you just defeated the dinosaurs in Chrono Trigger, but in order to finish the game you have to pay a little more! Just ten more bucks and Lavos is going down! Oh wait, you may need a little help with that. After all, Lavos is a TOUGH TYRANT and you'll need some ultimate weapons to take him down, so get this. Alright, alright, we're going to sell you a full set of rainbow-gear. Yeah, I know, sounds pretty generous right? Right. All of the ultimate gear can be YOURS for another ten dollars. Now you can be a lavos slaying badass. OH WAIT, is it too easy now? Do you find the legions of evil too easily felled by your blade? WE WILL REMOVE ALL THIS BADASS CONTENT TO MAKE THE GAME HARDER IF YOU PAY ANOTHER TEN DOLLARS. Argh, I know this is hyperbole, but sometimes it honestly feels like this. I pay my money, I want everything I pay for without any of that micro-payment junk. Developers, you are wrong, we do NOT like paying for DLC…we only pay for it because we have to. Please, please, please stop making us pay. I am begging you! My desire to kick ass online with new guns only expands so far!
5-) Length - No, I do not demand that every game expand hundreds of hours. However, when I purchase a game, is it bad of me to expect that ten hours of my life is going to be absorbed at the very least? This isn't even counting the multiplayer, which should sap even more out of my being. Sadly, it seems that the better the graphics are or the more highly hyped a game is, the less lengthy they make it. Now before you tell me: "BUT DEREK, IN THE SNES, NES, ATARI, ET AL DAYS ALL GAMES WERE SHORT." Listen, I know. I'm comparing this gen with the last one, and if you compare playtime I think it's not even close to be quite honest. So far, there have been two games released on next-gen consoles that I would define as time-sinks. Oblivion, which is essentially an off-line MMO and GTA IV, which is…well, it's Grand Theft Auto, so there's always a ton to do. Now don't get me wrong, there are some cool multiplayer experiences out there that'll eat up your time – COD 4 for example – but if you're into single player gaming at all, it's about time you abandon consoles. Seriously, let's look at Heavenly Sword and Halo 3 again. These games will take you about six hours, if you're…slow. That's right, six hours if you're not going at full speed. Isn't that crazy? Of course, bumping the difficulty will make the game take longer – Halo 3 on legendary took me a whole eight hours. OH MAN – but a game shouldn't have to rely on difficulty for length. If it's long, it's long. Now you may thing I left out the wii, but I really didn't. Look at three of Nintendo's main franchises: Mario Galaxy, Metroid Prime 3, and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. All three of these games can take you over ten hours to complete and are pretty satisfactory purchases. While they don't have the same online experience as something like Halo 3 – and I know you all love to get killed by 12 year olds in Hayabusa armor – they at least feel like solid single player purchases. So I guess what I'm saying is that if you like playing solo, the wii may be the best way to go…but if you're a fan of online multiplayer titles, one of the other two systems may be for you. Of course, this is all pre-MGS 4 which will punch us in the face with its length (well, I mean, cinematics count as length right?), so who knows really.
4-) Better off to stick with the PS2 - Looking at the Gamerankings top-10, you have three non-multiplatform games listed (and I know you aren't buying a PS3 for multiplatform titles). They are: Ratchet and Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, and Resistance: Fall of Man. Ratchet is pretty much a rehash of the PS2 games, and to be honest…while it is a great game, it's not quite as good as the third installment which featured some pretty great writing for a video game. Uncharted is a pretty good original title that I really have no complaints about, in all honesty…and Resistance is a very heavily over-rated shooting title. If you've played *insert shooter here* you've played Resistance, simple as that. Now listen, I'm not saying the PS3 won't be getting good games in the future – MGS 4 is looming, FF XIII will be good, Little Big Planet should appeal to the myspace crowd, Team Ico is making something allegedly – but RIGHT NOW, there isn't all that much there save for multiplatform stuff. What can be seen as sort of a punch in the face to the PS3 audience is the fact that while the PS3 hasn't really gotten any great exclusives, during its lifespan, the PS2 *HAS*. Persona 3 and God of War 2, even though I don't like the latter, are both high quality titles. Hell, Persona 4 is in development for the PS2. At this point, if you don't have the money for a PS3, I don't see why anyone would be in a hurry to buy one seeing as the PS2 has a great library and is STILL expanding. Before one of you commenters come in with a laundry list of PS3 titles that will be great (and believe you me, I've seen plenty), please remember that I'm talking about the present, and not the future. If you want to buy a PS3 when FF XIII comes out and MGS 4 is also available, I can't really blame ya'. Plus, those "lists"…they always seem to be full of failure. Haze and Lair were both on said list, and both turned out horrid. Well, if you believe reviewers at least. So in short, while the PS3 may be a pretty good investment for the future, right now it isn't worth the price of admission. Unless you really, really need a Blu-Ray player that is. If that's the case then…yeah…I guess the PS3 is worth the money. My advice: Just wait and see.
3-) Want a 360? Hope you like shooters! Looking at the GameRankings top-10 again, there are four exclusive 360 titles on the list. (Please note, considering most 360 games are available on PC, I am not counting that.) Halo 3, Gears of War, Mass Effect, and Bioshock. Three of the four are shooting titles and Mass Effect is a WRPG with SHOOTING elements! Before you point out to me that Bioshock is about to be available on the PS3, at this moment in time…it's not! So hah! I can use it in my argument. It seems like most every title that is exclusive to the 360 has shooting elements. Sure, there are exceptions like DOA 4, Dead Rising, Ninja Gaiden 2 and Blue Dragon…but can you name all that many where you don't aim at a guy and pull the trigger? No, I didn't think so. Now don't get me wrong, shooting titles can be fun. I for one like shooting guys as much as the next red-blooded American. With that said, I don't want every one of my big titles to involve shooting someone in the face. You can only do it so many times before it gets old. Hell, even the new Banjo Kazooie has gun-and-vehicle elements in it. Isn't that weird? Hopping and bopping Banjo-Kazooie blowing shit up. Can you see Banjo whippin' out a rocket launcher on Grunty? I can't. Feels weird. The system really needs a high-profile title to come out where you don't blow shit up, but looking ahead at the rest of this year, I honestly can't think of one. Oh sure, you have a Halo RTS, but I bet that's just going to sell because of the Halo name. And Fable 2, but with the way Fable 1 lied to us…you could forgive me for not anticipating that title. Isn't that sad when I can only think of one genre on a specific system? Look at the PS3 for example. As much shit as I gave it earlier, look at some of its upcoming titles. FF XIII (RPG), MGS 4 (Stealth), Resistance 2/Killzone 2 (Shooting), Little Big Planet (Err…myspace?), Team Ico Theoretical game that may or may not exist (If it exists, theoretically, a puzzling platformer. In theory). That's variety! That's something different! Enough so that I would argue if you want INSTANT results, the 360 is the system for you because it has a decent library of games already, but if you want a better future, the PS3 is the way to go. At least the future isn't blood-stained from the Nazis you no doubt shot a million times by now. Sadly, I don't even PLAY any of the big exclusives any more. Dead Rising had its share of problems, Bio Shock is a game you beat only once. Seriously, my 360 is for VF 5 online, and that's about it. I used to play the Orange Box on it, but now that I have TF 2 on PC…there really isn't a point. (nod to chitown) I hope something big and interesting comes out for the 360. Something where I won't be shooting shit up.
2-) Wii like gimmicks and rehashes - I like the wii, I think it has a decent library of games and is probably the best deal at the moment, if only because it costs a paltry 250 dollars. That said, this is a list about why this generation is AVOIDABLE, and…well…the wii has plenty of things that I would deem as avoidable. Pulling up that familiar GameRankings top 10, you'll see that of the ten highest rated Wii games you'll find an astonishing EIGHT sequels or ports. They are Super Mario Galaxy (Mario 64 IN SPACE WITH WAGGLE), Zelda: Twilight Princess (OoT 2.0), Smash Brothers Brawl (Plays like a slower Melee, but does feature a lot of neat bonus content), RE: 4 Wii edition (Same game as on the cube, just with wii controls and some neat content you find on the PS2 version), Okami (PS2 port), Metroid Prime 3 (A better controlling version of Metroid Prime!), Guitar Hero III – no comment needed - , and Super Paper Mario which sort of plays uniquely. That's seven games that are pretty much rehashes, one unique title, and two others. The other two are Boom Blox which is a fairly fun time wasting game and Zack and Wiki which makes use of the wii's waggle pretty well. Now you may be asking, why am I making a point out of this? All of these games are fun! Indeed they ARE fun, but you've played them all before! You could excuse buying a wii because of those eight high profile titles being playable on cheaper, last gen consoles. For goodness sakes, Twilight Princess and RE: 4 are even available on the Gamecube. Sure, they have a fresh coat of paint and are technically new games…but they don't really play like them. With the wii, it seems like you either get a game you've played a million times before or you're getting a gimmick. Nintendo seems to love these gimmicks even though they don't always translate well to gameplay. Let's take a look at Red Steel. A genuinely terrible game that tries to make the most out of the wii's motion controls but fails miserably. Look at Soul Calibur Legends! This game could have been something truly interesting, but once again…it relies on really gimmicky controls and just falls flat on its face. I feel that the wii's controls are better suited for short, simple, quirky games such as Wii Sports and Rayman: Raving Rabids. When you apply those controls to more complicated titles they just get more tedious. Well, that's how I feel at least. While the wii is the cheapest option and offers arguably the greatest quality games, you've probably played them all before. Simple as that.
1-) Quality, or lack thereof. - The one thing that should keep you from buying a current-gen console if you haven't already would be the quality of the titles. Look, there are some really great games out there like Bioshock, Brawl, Galaxy, GTA IV, and (allegedly) COD4...but in my eyes the number of great, quality playing experiences are down. My 360 goes for, literally, months at a time without being touched. When mine got done red-ringing I bought DMC 4 and didn't touch it again until GTA IV came out. I ended up selling DMC 4 because I didn't figure I would play it again. The PS3 has been pretty barren since Uncharted with the exception of GTA IV, though – as is the case with the 360 – you can probably spend the time playing multiplayer games like Warhawk and COD4. The only game I play on my wii these days are Brawl. Sometimes Mario Kart, though those lucky finishes piss me off from time to time. It's just a barren landscape right now, it seems. With the PS2 and the last generation, it seems like every time I finished a good game up there was another one waiting for me. On top of that, they had a lasting impact of me. With the exception of a couple – Brawl, Bioshock and GTA IV (Technically Portal and TF 2 as well, but…I consider those more PC titles than console) – I don't see me going: "Wow, this is a great game" ten years down the line. I'll probably say: "Oh, yeah, that was a neat game I guess"…but nothing spectacular. And that's really sad. It's not too late, though! MGS 4 is coming out and I am a biiiiig MGS fanboy. Not to mention, there are probably some obscure titles I've yet to play that could change my mind…but as of this moment in time, if you don't have the money there really isn't a reason to go out and buy a next gen console. The marquis, killer app titles just aren't around for this generation, and I think that's pretty sad. You may disagree with me and that's fine. I just think that years down the road, this will be looked at as the worst console generation yet as far as quality titles are concerned.
Well, that's it for the 10th hour this week, before you leave 411mania though, you should check out these other quality columns from our gaming section.
