I'm affiliated!

Hey guys and girls, I've been dancing like a kid who has to pee about this announcement all day. I just wanted to tweet it so bad, but I decided I should wait so I can go a little bit more in-depth about this. So, on with it then.

If there's one thing that makes me happy, it's video games. The most creative and endless form of entertainment today. If there's another thing that makes me happy, it's when video game players realize both their common interests, and realize their differences of opinion, and choose to embrace them in tolerance rather than embrace ignorance. And not to say I have major disagreements with the group of fellows I'm about to mention, in fact, I am not aware of any disagreements. But we all play in different ways, and play for different reasons, and get different things out of gaming. That is why it makes me ecstatic when gamers can join in community.

So, I am pleased to announce my new affiliation with a great group of three guys from across the pond in the UK, with a passion for social gaming and gaming in general, The Udder Punch. I've been watching their gameplay videos for the last little while, and they are truly entertaining commentators who don't care what you think about them. Another reason this association with each other works so well, because I am punk at the core and could care less what you think of me. I highly recommend you watch some videos of theirs, and better yet, please subscribe. They put a lot of work into what they do and deserve a little love. I have mad respect for these guys so Check them out at http://www.youtube.com/theudderpunch and follow them on twitter: @TheUdderPunch .

And, if you aren't already and you came to my humble blog by other means, follow me on twitter as well: @tommygamerblog . I will keep you up to date on blog updates, gaming news, my view points on games in shorter form that this here blog, and try really hard to be entertaining (which does require a huge amount of effort on my behalf).

Gamers, embrace our differences, community is an import part of what we do. Let's support each other because we all love the same thing: Video. Games. Tommy out.

I wish someone would make a decent multiplayer

Seriously! How hard is this? Say what you want about Nintendo, but they pretty much NAILED multiplayer with the New Super Mario Bros. on the Wii. Four people can play together on one screen. It's great for people with families or real life friends you can touch (don't touch your friends, that's weird). The only thing I think would have made the experience perfect would have been if players could drop in and drop out at any time.

Many game developers make decent multiplayer games. Call of Duty's multiplayer is decent, if you're looking at the ability to play with a group of friends. But I wish I could play online with more than one friend at my side (like, in my house). I can play split screen with four people,but not online, and only two online. I could play LAN parties, but I don't have enough friends with their own PS3's or copies of the same game to justify this excursion. The online multiplayer on Battlefield 3 is great, if you don't have friends that live in your vicinity who play it. I was so disappointed when I finally had a gaming friend over, popped in BF3 and found out there's no split screen. The best we could do is stay in our own houses and play online together. Brink is the same thing.

Hunted: The demon's forge had a great idea, in my opinion. The whole game is two player dependant, although you can play by yourself you still rely on the second character. But it's so gimmicky in it's reliance on using the second player. I found the game hard to perfect and repetitive. I could play the game with a friend, or online with a friend, which is a cool idea. Dungeon Siege III has a good handle on multiplayer, it allows me to play with up to three friends who can drop in and out at any time. Cool idea, but I find it harder to connect with the game from a top down view.

The entire time I played through Dragon Age and Mass Effect I wished my wife could pick up a controller and just casually take control of one of my companions. Kind of like Tail's (Sonic the hedgehog's fox friend) in Sonic 2. In one player mode, a second person could control tails, or he could stay computer controlled, but everything was still about Sonic. I don't want the game to rely heavily on having a second or third or fourth player, I just want the option. I don't want a gimmicky multiplayer, I just want something accessible. I have real friends over to my house, and we like to play video games together, but there is very little we can actually pick up and play for a long time that has any meaning or substance.

So, game developers, are you listening?!? I really doubt any are, but if you agree with me, let's start suggesting this to game developers. If enough of us say it, they might just listen. Even if they don't, we can have some fun making some noise and them complaining about said game developers afterwards. Tommy out.

Third Person Vs. First Person shooters

When it comes to video games, there are a few different POV's, or points of view, that are commonplace today. The First person view, where everything is from the perspective of the characters eyes. Third person view, where the view is yours, showing the character and allowing camera control around your character. Some games do not allow camera control, like The Legend of Zelda series which just requires you to focus the view straight when it goes off. There is also 2D sidescrolling view, most noticeably in retro games like Super Mario Bros. and such, and top down view, which explains itself. If I missed one, please forgive me, for my focus today is on first and third person views.

The first 3D game I ever played was The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of time, as may be the case for many gamers. It was a game in third person, and a game I played through many, many times. Maybe it's just because I've been using it so long, but third person view is my desired POV when it comes to gaming. Other hardcore RPG's I've been utterly addicted to include bioware's Dragon Age and Mass Effect series, both in third person view, and both highly regarded games. A more recent RPG I've been playing is Skyrim, a game that gives you the choice between third and first person view. I have literally played the entire game in third person view. I find  the first person POV in all games restrictive. I know some gamers have told me that first person view is more immersive because it represents the characters POV from his or hers eyes, putting you in their place. I understand this, sure, but I see a few issues with the FP view that I think is restrictive to real immersion.

The first thing I will mention is that in real life I have a neck. There are muscles in my neck that allow me to turn to see something without turning my whole body. This movement is also generally quicker than turning my entire body. So it seems to me that all game characters in first person mode must not have a neck. Why else would you have to turn your entire body to look beside you or around a corner? That seems restrictive to me. I know that the third person view isn't very realistic either, unless we were all sitting on a couch watching a camera follow ourselves around our day to day tasks. But, I can see a much broader horizon, and I can turn the view quickly to the right or left to look there without having to turn my entire self around to see what's coming up those stairs while I keep walking this way and not putting myself in danger. (Run on sentence, if you're reading aloud, please take a break to breath.) Maybe I'm just not hardcore enough. Maybe I'm not a true competitive gamer because I can't seem to master the art of the First Person Shooter. But I have nothing to prove to you. I play games for my own enjoyment, and if I prefer the third person view, I'm going to prefer games in third person view. Not saying I don't want to get better at FPS's, I do, but it's not at the core of my gaming life.

I know there are plenty of competitive and professional gamers who dominate shooter games that exist in the first person view world of games. I also know there are a few in the third person shooter genre, but saying the numbers are the same would be a joke. Maybe I'm wrong, but seeing as Mass Effect 3 was declared the most anticipated game of 2012, and is a Third Person Shooter game, I beg to differ. So maybe you think I'm wrong, but I feel entitled to make my own opinion here.  That's all, Tommy out.

Whiny gamers

Yes, whiny gamers! You are all whiners.  If it's not one thing, it's another. No game developer can ever get everything exactly to your liking. So the natural response is to use social media, or the old fashioned word of mouth, to say things like "that game sucks". Did you think of that yourself? GOOD JOB! "This game is shittly made". Really? (Yes I have read in an online game chat window someone saying these exact words.) "It wasn't as good as the first". In other words, its different than the first one, and you're a baby. If this is the best you can do, save your energy. There are those of us out there who have legitimate concerns with video games that we love, hate, or are otherwise indifferent. There are also those of us out there among this group who have the willpower to phrase it in a decent, respectful, and constructive way. Why? Because we have actually given real, concerned thought into our actions.

But as I got to thinking, well...more thinking on top of thinking, on this subject I realised who the target market for these games probably is. Yeah, 13 to 21 year old kids. Probably the most petty, self entitled, hormone driven group of people on the planet. Something doesn't fit their fancy to a "T" and it means the game developer sucks. It means the game is shit. I know this isn't for everyone, I am 24, and I know many other people in their 20's to 50's who are avid gamers, but I don't hear them bitching. My most personal example I can give of this is Dragon Age 2. Now, a bit of back story, Dragon Age: Origins is my favorite game of all time (thus far), and I was literally shaking for the week leading up to the release of Dragon Age 2. I loved it. But as I got reading reviews and what people were saying about it I was appalled. It was very different from the first, and did have a few problems I didn't like, but I put all of that aside and said "I love this series and I am going to get the most out of this game." And I did! But people were sooooo nitpicky about it. It got bad reviews. I LOVED this game, not as much as the first, but I will speak no evil of it. Now I'm a pretty easy to please gamer, I genuinely like most of the games I play, and don't have much of a quarrel with them. Sometimes I really do though.

I am a whiner, too. I will come right out and say it. Sometimes (or a lot of times, feel free to judge that for yourself) I come across as whiny. One thing I do know about myself is I am a man of principle. Do right by everyone to the best of your abilities. Treat everyone fairly. Respect everyone first until given reason to withdraw that basic level of respect everyone deserves. That is why I take it so seriously when anyone, game developer or not, does someone or a group of people an injustice. ie. When Bethesda released The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim (as if you need me to tell you what that is), I bought it that very day. I played it. A lot. I racked up hours on Skyrim faster than I have on any other game I have played. That is what quickly lead me to discover all of the flaws with codes in the game. Glitches galore, and worse yet, a problem seemingly exclusive to Playstation 3 users, framerate lag on larger save files. Yes I was mad. There should have been no way a game in development for so long, 5 years since The Elder Scrolls IV was released, should have been released with problems that should have been blatantly obvious to those testing the game. As of three minutes ago, my wife has successfully patched the game with the 1.04 update and it seems to be working. But did my gryping on twitter have anything to do with this? As a matter of fact, I think that everyone's gyping had everything to do with it. Apparently they have been listening to fans. The list of fixes that supposedly came with this patch is extensive. All things that I have read other gamers complaining about. That makes me happy.

I guess my point is, that if you're going to bitch and moan about a game it better have a point, and it better be a real reason. I do not want to hear "It sucks" as an argument ever again. I know every gamer is different. Different tastes, play styles, and levels of attention in some cases. Opinions do matter, but before you go spouting off nonsense, have you really put a lot of thought into your argument? Or made your OWN opinion about it, not being influenced by others and REALLY giving every game a chance? I'd tell you to grow up, but that wouldn't make any difference. Tommy out.

 

The importance of used games AND digital content

Hey there, you are among the few to be reading my very first blog post. You probably made it over here by following me on twitter.com as @tommygamerblog. Hopefully this is making it out to SOMEONE real. Even if it doesn't, I am glad to have my own space to rant and rave about the video game industry and nerd culture in general. I have been considering this possible waste of time (to be added to my pile of wastes of time) for a while now. I like to talk about video games, and sometimes, no one I know is willing to listen. So here it goes.

The subject of my first post is, in a way, in response to a post on Kotaku.com that I read earlier. The post had to do with the recent complaints made by gamers everywhere in regards to game developers shipping online passes with new games. This is fine if you buy a game new. If you are "cheap" you probably buy games used from various stores that offer used game trade-ins for in store credit. That's where the frustration is arising. Companies are now charging you to buy an online pass if the redemption code from the used game you bought was used before you bought it.

Moving on from the history (as you may already know), this post on Kotaku's website was ATTACKING, outright, gamers who are complaining about this. I could see some of this posters points. But, it seemed so heavy handed and unreasonable. Like it was written by a 12 year old, spontaneously spouting off nonsense. If it wasn't a 12 year old, I guess it was an angry game developer. If neither of the former, I guess it was some game reviewer who never pays for video games, anyways. I suggest you go and read the post at http://kotaku.com/5881619/

I would like to rebut with an emphasis on why used games are important, alongside digital content. As a game lover and family man, I love my family more than my games. This, along with being sole income earner, has lead me to try to save money on my hobby where I can. Buying games I am unsure if I will like used is an obvious choice. A choice that game companies are trying to take away. I think this could be detrimental in many ways. I have bought games new that I wish I hadn't, and games I bought used that I am glad I didn't pay full price for. That being said, I have bought games used that have lead me to buy games NEW later on in  that particular series. A few examples:
Call of Duty: Black ops. I sucked at FPS games, and I'm still not great, but I bought this game used for $45 to try it out. Turns out I loved it. I bought 4 out of 5 map packs, coming to a total of $60 in themselves. This also lead me to go and buy Modern Warfare 3 right when it released. I would not have done either of these things if I couldn't have tried black ops at a discounted price.
I bought Fallout 3 used, and I will buy the next fallout new, probably on release day.
I bought Mass Effect 2 used (because I loved the Dragon Age series) and ended up buying EVERY DLC. Then 3 months later, went to EB games and pre-ordered Mass Effect 3 collectors edition.
I bought Hunted: the demons forge used, and I am glad I did not pay full price for it.
I was able to make future decision on games, studios, and game series based on my ability to save a few bucks on a game. Call me cheap, but every dollar matters. It doesn't matter who you are, your hard earned money matters!

In closing, I will comment on this "war on used games" (not sure who coined this phrase, but its about as ridiculous as the war on drugs or terrorism). I will compare taking away our right to buy and sell used games and still be able to use it to its full potential to furniture. Yes, furniture.
Say someone buys a new recliner from a store for $1000. A year later, this person takes this chair to a used furniture store, who gives him $300 for the recliner. Then you go and buy this recliner for $600, and take it home. You get it settled in, sit down in front of your TV, reach to pull the recliner lever, and its stuck. You open up the chair to see a lock on the mechanism, and a note that reads "To access all of the features of this recliner you must pay a $10 activation fee." You're outraged. This is the big furniture stores attempt to wage war on used furniture sales. You can still sit in the chair. But you can't use it to its full potential. What a load of crap. Tommy OUT!

Fairness in game inter-platform releases and how petty I may myself be.

Fairness in game inter-platform releases and how petty I may myself be.
This is a subject that has bothered me since Black Ops. I was so mad when I opened up the playsation store on the set release date for the first map pack and it was nowhere to be found. I know it happens a lot, much more than I am aware of. But why do game developers take money from console manufacturers to give them digital content sooner than the next? What can this accomplish, other than making money. I do understand that money makes the world go 'round, but WE are the ones forking over the cash. Our hard earned money makes the world go 'round for game developers. I get concerned when this is forgotten.

Back to the point! Digital content downloads for Call of Duty. More specifically, the recent map packs released for Modern Warfare 3. And even more upsetting, the relation of this to Call of Duty Elite Premium members (a program for connecting outside of the game, users can pay a subscription and receive added benefits *Duh*). Why this is so upsetting for me, and MANY others is this: Microsoft has a contract with Activision to let Xbox Live users receive Downloadable Content one month sooner than Playstation 3 users. That in itself is frustrating. Gaming news sources and youtube commentators talking about and showing of these new maps, an now, not just one month, but five weeks before the average joe PS3 user. Yes, one of the perks of subscribing to Call of Duty Elite Premium is that you receive these DLC's one week before the other XBL users. The problem is not just this feeling of rejection, but that many PS3 users are premium subscribers as well. This whole perk, getting to play new maps a week early by paying $50 OUT THE WINDOW. Yeah, Xboxers got to use them four weeks before you. And for the rest of us who didn't subscribe, we get it five weeks after the XBL premium members did. We paid $60 for the game, on November 8th, and we are paying the same price for the DLC's. But we aren't treated the same.

I also know that there are games on Playstation 3 that recieve DLC's a month early. Most noticeably Battlefield 3. As much as I prosper from this deal, I don't like it any better. I don't own an Xbox 360, nor do I want to. But I wish ALL of my fellow gamers fairness in game releases. I want all of us to be able to recieve the same entertainment at the same time. No one should have to wait longer than others because of a contract between two behemoth companies.

As far as I have read on the Twitter, many, if not all PS3 users are outraged. Especially the COD Elite Premium members. What a waste of money to receive map packs earlier than everyone else, but still four weeks later than a privileged group. Does Activision or Call of Duty care? Probably not. We are still going to download all the maps. And they still suckered us into paying for premium. And many of us will still buy the next COD game, and download all of those overpriced map packs. But what if we didn't? If my own curiosity and need for a new experience in gaming every month wasn't so high, my bull headed self would not allow me to support such blatantly greedy gaming empire bull crap. But I am going to try really hard to keep THIS vow. If Activision announces that the next game in the franchise will support this same contract with Microsoft, I WILL NOT BE BUYING IT! Better yet, I will go to an independent used game store and pay $20 less than the suggested new retail price and they won't get a red cent! That'll really piss them off. (If you want to know my views on this "war on used games" please read my last blog post.) Tommy OUT