I want one, but can't afford one. Can you?

You know that frustration factor when you’ve gone into your local coffee house to pick up your morning pick-me-up, you ask for your usual; you watch it get made and as the person behind the counter hands it over to you, you reach for your wallet and… it’s not there!? The buck stops right there with you clutching at your bum in a vain attempt to somehow will your wallet back into existence, but it just won’t happen. With no paper, no plastic and no charm you just have to watch that lovely coffee get poured down the sink in front of you. It’s a strange analogy, but – “welcome to my life as a poor gamer”!!!

Maybe I should explain further for you rich folks scratching your expensive-hair-product-lathered heads; I have been watching games like Test Drive Unlimited 2, LBP2, L.A Noire, The Last Guardian, and so on come into being from their conception. I have followed the developer’s videos, scoured the internet for new bites of info, trawled through reams of fanboy forum fights to root out those precious little truffles of information that give a better idea of what’s to come, and why? Because I love gaming, because I am a gamer through and through. I thrive on the new experiences created for us by the biggest media industry we have today. Also, because I have an oddly insatiable appetite for new, shiny things – hey, it’s part of my DNA okay! I can’t help it! The downside (and explanation part) to this, is my coffee house analogy.

I’ve been there watching these games being created, I’ve imagined the possibilities of the game in question – imagined playing it, I’ve anticipated the cost and put a little something to the side, I’m sure I can cover it and just as it’s announced for release I realise that I can’t afford it! An unexpected bill for council tax or the garage bill from ages ago, someone you owe money to or something unrelated but financial gets in the way. And just like that, the possibility of it all is gone. Don’t feel bad. You’ve only been following its creation in anticipation for what, two years? You can surely find the money in another six or so months once it drops in price, right? At least that’s what I keep telling myself, hell, I even manage to put a positive spin on it and make the whole situation sound intentional.

“Oh, sure! I always hang back to see how well a game does before I buy it”

Or there’s always the famous…

“By holding back for half a year, I can pick up fairly new games at almost half the price they were at launch – yay me!”

Rubbish! Twaddle! Codswallop!!! If I had the dosh, I’d fill my bath full with new releases and roll around in them naked, then grin as I sold them on to GAME later on. Seriously though for us “poor” gamers it can be a hard struggle at times, and especially when there are multiple AAA titles being released simultaneously. Thankfully the industry knows better than to tread on its own feet (most of the time) so they come out bit by bit. Yet it’s always the same; month after month I watch as title after title passes me by and I’m left reading about other people’s experiences with these games. Usually derogatory, usually whiny comments about how there’s not enough blood or how it fails completely because the draw distance is a little off. Spoiled brats.

The situation isn’t getting any better either, with pay-per-month plans becoming more popular for MMOs or online passes looking increasingly common for new games. Then there’s the obligatory DLC packs to flesh out the game you just dropped 40 smackers on; what, only £4.99 for a few new maps!? The essential £40 a year just to access the multiplayer aspect of Xbox games and the “take it or leave it” £40 for a year of PSN Plus. The 3DS is said to be placed into the £250 category on release; who knows what the NGP (PSP2) will cost. Add to all this the worrying trend of download only games that cost roughly the same as their physical counterparts (minus the cost of shipment, printing, packaging etc.) and you get a very stressed, very sad, “poor” gamer watching his entertainment get poured down the sink of finance in front of him.

There’s no doubt that the secondhand market makes an impact on a developer’s final financial result, but is it really so damaging that they are “pushed” into doing things like release-timed content? I understand that as an incentive, but that train of thought could lead to nasty consequences for late adopters. Take for example Dragon Age: Origins on PS3. There was extra content available but only for a certain length of time which meant you either bought the game at full price now, or wait for a price to suit your purse and miss out on the extra “free” stuff. Should this kind of baiting be allowed within this industry? Wouldn’t there be an outcry if the BBC were allowed to show the full version of a film, but every other TV company could only show a cut version after a set amount of time?

There’s no escaping that in this day and age, games can cost a lot of money to produce, the kind of money that your little bank account is unable to comprehend. It cost Naughty Dog around 20 million (apparently) to make Uncharted, and about the same was needed for Killzone 2; MGS4 was rumoured to be nearly twice that amount. We could break it all down and work out who gets what slice of the pie but then I’d just be procrastinating my point, which is; being poor and being a gamer sucks donkey balls… BIG TIME!

The PSN Network, free functional and with lots of unfulfilled potential

The PSN network is great because it’s free. It doesn’t matter how much you criticise it compared to Xbox Live, because at the end of the day it’s given away free and no charge is made to the end user. However that’s like saying that going to work on a donkey can’t be bad, when compared to a train or car, because a Donkey is possibly free too, except for food needed to feed the donkey, and the inevitable poo bags that you would have to carry to clean up after yourself (or after your donkey’s self) when in public. The point is, many of us commute by train or car and are happy to pay. It’s a given.

Hence it’s with that in mind that we find people are constantly criticising the PSN network for what it fails to deliver, often comparing it to Xbox Live. In all honesty PSN does now do most of what Xbox Live does (with some major omissions such as cross game chat, playing your own music, and some other features). It more than makes up for these though in terms of offering HOME which is possibly the ultimate social experience on a console, albeit one which needs to be tied into the overall PSN experience in a much more coordinated way. It also has an integrated Web Browser (which allows video on demand services access to the platform) and pretty good media server functionality. You can even edit videos on it now, with the latest firmware update.

However, for me, paying for Xbox Live delivers two major services. Firstly, it allows me to play games online. This, of course, is not a good thing, as I can do that for free on the PSN network. Secondly, though, Xbox Live seems more robust. Game updates are pushed to my console much faster and downloading any content seems quicker. Additionally online servers for games are more responsive and matchmaking quicker. I would suggest that some of my £40 a year to Microsoft helps to maintain that infrastructure.

Playstation Plus, it has stars, fireworks and everything! Just not things many people want. Yet.

Consequently I was excited when I heard about PlayStation Plus. Indeed I had already written about how I felt PSN needed a subscription tier offering a range of services from the cloud storage of saved games, to media services like Sky being included in the price. When Sony announced PlayStation Plus they even teased us by saying that following the initial feature set, more services would be launched.

Well Gamescom is coming up and I’m really hoping they use this to launch these new services for PlayStation Plus users, as right now I’m not exactly excited by the current offering. Has buying a Plus membership (for the year) solved the issues I raised above? Nope. Game updates are not quicker but they are overnight, sometimes, in some cases, possibly. I’m not too sure how the system works but I have still had some games which, once loaded, require an update that took close to an hour before the game would start. Perhaps this will decrease with time and Ill notice a difference over a longer period of being a member but at present this benefit is not apparent.

So what has Plus offered? Or to put it another, cringeworthy way, what ‘Pluses’ are to be gained by joining?!

We get demos for games 24 hours earlier, except that I’m at work, so I don’t know about it till at least 24 hours after the 24 hour exclusivity started. I get emails from Sony all the time about the PSN store, so how about notifying me of these demos? Even better, if you want to make me feel good, give them to me me a month before everyone else, not a pesky 24 hours. I also get time-limited trials of games, which I can then purchase online at a special price. Except that, we have had hardly any of these and in the case of Infamous, the ‘special price’ isn’t special when compared to the price of the ‘not so new’ Infamous I can get at Game or Amazon.

We get some games free though. That’s good! For signing up I got LittleBigPlanet free. Ok, I already had it, but now it’s on the hard drive, which for my liking is a better place for a game, which is as much a utility and alternative HOME as it is a platformer. I also got WipEout HD and have downloaded a couple of free PS1 games and some Minis. We also get wallpapers and themes for free if you are into that kind of stuff. The idea of ‘free’ stuff’ is not bad, it’s good and I’m fan of anything free, or which appears to be free. However what is bad is that I already owned a lot of the Minis and now just feel annoyed that I didn’t get a full or part rebate on them having signed up to Playstation Plus. I’m not saying I should have got one, I appreciate that wouldn’t work from a business perspective, but I’m still a bit annoyed. The end result is I have stopped buying Minis in case it is included in my Plus account in the future. That can’t be what Sony wanted, surely?

Value for money or an overheating box which eats up your money? Wait, wasn't that the first and second generation Xbox consoles?

It would make far more sense to give Plus users a discount on content all the time. It could vary from download to download, with every game, theme or film listing two prices; the Plus user price and the non Plus user price. This would make much more sense to me. Additionally, you’ll notice that I threw in the word film (movie for our US readers) there too. Why not give us a discount on the films or at least one rental free a month or similar?

There is far more that Plus could and should be offering. It should be the gateway to a better performing, cloud computing supporting infrastructure, which makes the PS3 experience more reliable and charming. Additionally if Sony want to use Plus as a way of encouraging us to download and use content, then they need to do it in a way which is cleverer than their current strategy which is far to ‘bitty’.

Do I feel stupid for having purchased PlayStation Plus as an early adopter? Not really, as it didn’t cost the world and I have got some great, free games. I have already come near to mading my money back in terms of what it would have cost me to buy all of them. Of course, I accept that in reality I might never have bought all of them, and it certainly hasn’t cost Sony as much as their retail value to give them to me for free.

America has offered its Plus user access to Hulu Plus! What can SCEE bring to the UK or Europe as a whole?

Deep down though, I feel I’m being used by Sony to test whether there is a demand for an extra ‘paid’ service on the PSN. Even though Sony has carried out many questionnaires on what users want or would be prepared to pay for, it seems they were worried that not enough users would actually cough up the dough and spend the money. After all, they have had a pretty competent online service, which was free, for all this time. So, it seems that I’m being given a few handouts until there are enough subscribers to justify adding the other services Sony have hinted at, whether they be free or heavily discounted films and TV shows or extra online services which add to the PS3’s capabilities.

Of course, the problem Sony have built for themselves is that to convince enough users to join they need those of us who are early adopters to sing from the rooftops about how good PlayStation Plus is. I’ve yet to see an article or listen to a podcast where anyone is doing that. Everyone is playing the ‘lets wait and see game’ and based on my friends list on my PS3 I’m yet to see another Playstation Plus user on my rosta. Come on Sony, if treated correctly, PSN has the ability to become the future of the PlayStation and even of Sony. The PS4 might be more about the cloud than the hardware and now is the time to leapfrog Xbox Live and take the overall experience and value proposition to a new level. This is no time to be taking ‘baby steps’.

Limit the PLUS screen to items only for Plus users. All other items should just have two prices, come on Sony, it's obvious!

Are videogames still “games,” or is this word and many like it outdated terminology passed down from our hobby’s earliest of days?

Certainly, videogames have progressed since their earliest, primordial hours. Gone are the days when one large, rectangular “ball” bounced off of two other larger, rectangular blocks. The medium has advanced to the brink of realism. Where titles such as Heavy Rain show us examples of living life as a modern family, even if for just a brief moment. Graphics, coupled with sounds and storytelling is rife with potential for in-depth exposition, and inarguably the biggest threat to traditional cinema, even without explosions.

Well, not many explosions, at least.

Other mediums haven’t suffered from this genre-breaking revelation the same way videogames have. Television has always been television, radio has always been radio, and books and theatre plays have always grown, or been forced to grow and expand; but there has never been any reason to discuss if they should have affixed to their art a different title.

It took games 30 or more years to get where they are today, but it feels like it’s only been a decade. Perhaps it is the relative freshness of the industry which garners it the prestige of being “expensive kid toys” by the countless millions who have never allowed themselves to explore rich, digital worlds.

This isn't a game anymore. It is a detailed experience rife with creativity and maturity.

Technology is always evolving, and every medium takes advantage of it. However, let us assume that television and film are gaming’s nearest competitor. While television eventually adopted high definition quality (or more recently, a fascination with the third dimension), what television is able to do to connect with its audience has always remained the same. You sit on your couch, and a glowing box forces a story down your face hole.

And until recently, games have been the same way. Just look at all the countless mindless shooters available, and remember all the devastatingly bland corridors we’ve been forced to stomp through in the past 15 years. Until one developer decides to stand up and make a drastic alteration to the status quo, most creators are willing to milk older ideas.

But the basic principal was always there. Choose your own adventure games have existed in even the barest text adventures for decades, but only now has technology finally advanced to the point where we can actually immerse us as that character. No longer do you have to pretend to be your created avatar, because for as long as you can stomach per day, you can actually live as your digital self.

While still limited to budget, production times and willpower, games continue to bridge this barrier and break previous boundaries. Open sandbox games such as Grand Theft Auto 4 and third person shooters like Mass Effect 2 have come remarkably close to letting you actually be either Niko Belic or John Shepard, and because of your interactivity and the way developers have written dialogue trees, you begin to care about your character and live their lives as if they were your own – with care, dignity, awareness and justification.

There is hardly any doubt that games are “art.” Though debatable, they do have art assets, such as music and graphics, and tons of them, at that. Though to be fair, the definition of art, as according to dictionary.com is: “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.”

Rhythm games have enjoyed their limelight, but their popularity might set back the industry in the eyes of the extremely critical.

Humorously, it is a totally subjective definition, much like anything of meaning; but the keyword to notice is “expression.” Quite simply, gaming allows one to express him or herself like no other medium possibly ever could. Even if we are not quite at the point where we can interact with hundreds of non-playable characters in a holodeck-like environment, a la Star Trek, there is absolutely no reason to expect we will not experience that undertaking in our lifetimes.

The idea of calling games something different has been passed around for the better part of the last decade, and thus far, the most accepted alternate title is “interactive digital experience.” Agree or disagree, it is unimportant. To be frank, the title is too long, doesn’t roll off the tongue, and might have been suggested far too late. Thank you, pop culture.

The question is this: if games are no longer simple ball-hits-paddle affairs, have they indeed grown beyond their current pop culture slang? Or for that matter, is it even too late to argue the point, given that the word “game” has been deeply ingrained in our minds since many of us were born?

And no, it isn’t important, but did anyone one else notice (weeks ago now) that when Roger Ebert was busy trolling the internet claiming that “games will never be art,” that he never once used the word “expression” in any of his pieces? I’m just sayin’, is all…

LINKS

What is art?

Video games can never be art ~ Roger Ebert

Attempting to explore the literary potential of "interactive entertainment" versus cinema.

I have grown bored with conventional cinema. It isn’t because it’s the same story again and again. It isn’t because I think the actors’ personal lives seem to be bigger than their line of work. It isn’t anything like that. It’s because after a century of work, the industry seems to have done all it can do.

Movies are unarguably one of the biggest influences on our culture ever. We spew out catchphrases and emulate the big screen heroes whether we know it or not.

Film grew from other mediums, such as theatre. It brought plays to the masses at a relatively cheap price, and held our attention for what feels like forever. Excluding purists (of which there are millions), cinema rendered a more traditional medium all but obsolete. The question is, when might video games extend beyond what they are today, and make film all but obscure and cult?

Video games have fought for the past 30 years to be considered more than just a simple “child’s play-thing.” To many, they are still all bleeps and bloops, but the industry is trying valiantly to maintain a balance of both classic arcade and independent titles designed to relive nostalgia, and fully-produced ‘AAA’ releases by developers who can afford to sling money around as if it were as plentiful as trans-fats and corn syrup.

This current run of consoles is almost like a renaissance of sorts. The industry has been able to build on the footprints from previous generations’ “mature” titles which seemed to have an identity crisis. Realizing that kids who grew up in the 1980s were now in their 20s, developers attempted to attract the market with games that were brutal, violent, and all in all, unrefined. The idea was that you could differentiate gaming from being a toy by marketing themes of excursiveness.

It can be argued; but speaking frankly, it didn’t work. The media convinced the mainstream that games were now ultra-violent kids toys. Despite this, the industry began to thrive to the point where it was now generating more profit than its nearest competitor, the film industry. Give credit to shock and awe tactics.

The game industry began to attract the eyes of many respected members of other mediums in a positive light. Suddenly, it seemed that everyone and their mother was somehow involved with every second game. Mark Ecko, Steven Spielberg, and John Woo were some of the early adopters, and that isn’t even taking into account the countless actors clambering to add voices and motion capturing to notable releases.

Overnight, the games industry decided it wanted a more cinematic approach to both gameplay and storytelling. Film has moved people for decades, and the proof is in the pudding: it works.

With these newest additions, games began to follow the same formula they have been using for 20 plus years. Namely, handing the player a mostly linear narrative where the user played the action sequences, but watched the story.

Baulder's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, and finally, Dragon Age:Origins

Games had tried to change this, and they will be revered as classics collected in museums. In particular, the Baulder’s Gate franchise attempted to capitalize on the Dungeons And Dragons formula- a game often considered to be role playing in its purest form limited only by your imagination and schedule. The results were this: foundations for extreme story alteration by the user became available.

More recently, Baulder’s Gate developer BioWare (owned by Electronic Arts), was able to craft what Critical Gamer has called the “Next generation of choose your own adventure.” Formulae that were developed 15 years ago had been nearly perfected in 2010. What were once limited to minor character interactions and ethical choices were expanded to a degree that made you feel as if you actually were the character you had crafted.

Sandbox games have been actualized for a full decade or more now. You’ve had the ability to travel anywhere in the game world you’ve wanted before. But now you have the chance to manipulate not just key story moments, but minor ones as well. For example, Mass Effect 2 gave users the chance to carry over saved data from the game’s predecessor and have it affect your newest playthrough in ME2. One specific point was dealing with an all-too-nosey journalist in the original, who you could interact with in the sequel. Personally, I punched her in the face. It felt good (though it is impossible to condone violence to, erhm, chicks. Or reporters, for that matter).

By the time Mass Effect 2 was released, you were no longer just playing the action sequences, you were deeply affecting its narrative aspects as well.

There are always limitations, however. Stories are not only hard to write, but they take time. Lots of it. Mass Effect 2 was penned by 2 writers, Drew Karpyshyn and Mac Walters, and it is said that they worked on it, well, longer than any one mortal can imagine. Take into account storytelling, and then multiply it by programming and technical development processes. Suddenly, something that took 2 years to write took another 2 years to digitize.

There we have it. I simply prefer games to cinema for the interactivity. For ages I was able to hold both on the same plateau and divide my time evenly between the two, championing them both. Times have changed, and it is hard to see movies as something that can compete with the recent releases of today, or the titles of tomorrow. Cinema seems to exhaust every idea available to them. They have milked celebrities to the brink, and have to rely on gimmicks entirely to bring back audiences once lost who might not know any better. Sure, movies are using 3D technologies right now, but honestly, it feels more like an last ditch effort, rather than something evolutionary.

Games will utilize this gadgetry because it feels like a natural progression, not because they need it to survive. 3D does not immerse you in film, it merely makes you revel in it. In games, however, it allows one more depth of field. Games will be able to move in any potential angle, and not just in a narrative sense.

The same idea goes to many celebrity voiceovers, wherein if you know it’s Will Smith voicing a small fish, you’re going to focus on the voice of Mr. Smith, not the voice of the character he is playing.

To clarify, it would be hard to see cinema falling to the wayside. After all, print media took a steep nose dive in the last decade as well, but it eventually fought back and took back a share of what it had lost years prior. The comics industry is doing the best it has since the early 90′s, and remarkably, much of their current success is because of another medium this particular article is trying to market as obsolete.

The current generation of console hardware brought us adult-themed game releases and has advanced itself enough with titles like Heavy Rain from developer Quantic Dream, and the previously referenced BioWare releases, to establish itself as a completely engrossing medium-so much so, in fact, that critics debate whether or not “game” is really an appropriate genre term any more. Many journalists have taken to calling the art “interactive media,” though the reasons for doing this seems slightly suspect. Arguably, the idea sounds like an immature attempt to distinguish your passion to the “big kids.”

Cinema has pushed itself to the brink, all mediums eventually do. There comes a point where there might not be much left to do, though successful films such as Duncan Jones’ Moon makes a run for the money.

Is the Eastern influenced narrative all but extinct in the wild, wild west?

In 20-odd years, when publishers can give developers $600,000,000 to make a piece of interactive media, then maybe- just maybe- we can revel in an ever expanding world where your warrior elf gets sidetracked by what her pants want her to do and she manages to get impregnated by a lowly male servant. You then bypass saving the world and start a life as a shoe cobbler in an outer rim planet. Keep in mind, you were supposed to save the day by killing a giant space hooker.

Until then, there are placed limitations from technology, money, man power or whatever else. Though the fact that we live in a world where we can destroy almost anything in any sense of the word and have that choice cause dramatic effects in that universe is a good, comfortable starting point.

What causes violence? If you are a fan of George Lucas then you know that ignorance leads to fear, fear leads to anger, and anger to violence. I ask this as currently we are going through the yearly attack on gaming, largely caused by Modern Warfare 2; but most probably an attack which would have attached itself to another game had MW2 not been released. It’s the time of year when everyone wants a game and hence gaming is big. It used to be films which were attacked at this time of year, but hey, compared to games they are so small fry.

It's the fault of these guys. If only they had gone by Easyjet and left the guns at home. Stag parties are getting too complicated these days.

Now whenever I see a news report discussing evidence of how games might make a player violent, I see quotes relating to how those who play games demonstrate increased adrenalin and hence are ‘pumped up’. I can accept that. I can also accept that the same symptom might be displayed by those watching or taking part in football, rugby, boxing, X-Factor, Crufts, ballroom dancing, viewing the news, horse racing, motor sports and, for those who get a kick out of it, fishing.

Are we suggesting we ban those? Of course those commentators who are either stupid or just set out to be, might argue that their point is that only games have you committing acts of violence. I would point out that the violence though has to be triggered through some kind of condition or state of mind. Adrenalin is an indicator normally associated with such a situation. There is little evidence out there of players actually going to commit violence having just played a game. The research instead relies on indicators which might lead to violence, such as adrenaline. Well doesn’t that mean many activities have the potential to turn quiet, peace loving individuals into maniacs?!

In a month where six pupils at a school almost poisoned themselves for copying a plot line from the the pre-watershed BBC drama Waterloo Road, it’s amazing that the industry that got attacked was gaming! Now Waterloo Road is popular, but in the big scheme of things many more millions of young and old people are gaming than watching Waterloo Road. I would suggest that perhaps gaming is less dangerous compared to other activities such as watching EastEnders, Coronation Street, or possibly Countdown. It’s certainly worth examining on that level – i.e. looking at its effect on behaviour proportionally to the amount of gaming content consumed.

What is even more amazing is that the media have no problem with allowing lies about games being circulated. They seem to feel that it is fair game to drop all journalistic training and principles when it comes to attacking gaming. Hence, we see repeated quotes about how MW2 allows you to play as a terrorist – most shockingly played out on Fox TV. For those that have not played the game I have something to say. No you cannot!! You play a CIA operative embedded into a terrorist cell. You witness an attack and, if you feel it’s part of the character, can take part in a massacre; but ultimately you are a bystander to such an attack with limited control over the game at that point. It is crucial to the plot and at the end (spoiler alert) you yourself are then shot dead. It’s dramatic and has been seen in countless movies before. So why the problem now? You even get the choice to skip the scene – ever been offered that by a TV show or movie?

Now this isn't potentially violent at all? He is actually a member of the National Association of Local Butchers

Perhaps it’s because we call them games? Games are meant to be fun, and for children – right? That’s another lie the media propagate of course. They continually allow commentators to remind us that most people buying or playing the games are children. For sure, some are – but most people playing these games are 18 or above, and many are 25 years plus.

In the USA we hear people say that even if a game is bought by and for an adult, if there is a child in the house then they are sure to gain access and play it. Perhaps they are right. However, if they are, perhaps they should start by not keeping handguns in their house! I’m thinking (and correct me if you feel I’m missing something here) that this may be a more immediate and dangerous problem. And you know, you can even lock out your kids from your console very, very easily if you choose to.

I’m not saying there are not games out there with bad taste, nor am I suggesting there should not be age limits or even some games banned. If you can ban a film, then you should be able to ban a game. However, there should be parity between the art forms. In the UK the BBFC initially banned Manhunt 2 and fought to try to stop it being released. Why?

Now, apart from the pictures of men in masks holding guns AND this picture of a fist, what actually IS there on the packaging to alert parents to the fact that some games might contain shooting and violence?

Their own research concluded that players do not think that events in a game are real. We no more think we are really scoring the winning goal in the FA Cup than we think that we too have three heads and live on the planet Zog whilst playing a fantasy game. Indeed, they found that the fact they are interactive and we have to push buttons often brings us out of the drama and narrative, reminding us they are only games. This is something movies cannot do, and we can get lost in them and become ‘pumped up’ in a sustained way without having a release until the end of the film. So, why oh why, when it comes to violent games, suddenly all that research goes out of the window? What is the logic and reasoning for this? When films like SAW and Hostel are released, why then fight to ban Manhunt? Are the individuals in charge of these organisations stupid?

"I see stupid people, they're everywhere. They walk around like everyone else. They don't even know they're dumb!"

I don’t think they are. Well, I hope they aren’t anyway. I think it’s far more likely they are running scared. Those that are in the industry and those that are associated with it, such as the BBFC, still lack the self confidence to describe and communicate what gaming is to those that do not yet play them, as we do. This is a huge problem as it allows the issue to be hijacked by the Keith Vazs of this world. There are people, often important and influential people, who latch onto these issues without first thinking them through. People who, fuelled by their own ignorance, let their own emotions get carried away, eating away at their fear until they explode violently against an industry, artform and past-time which contributes greatly, in a positive way, to millions of people’s lives.

Maybe George Lucas had it right all along.

Format: Xbox 360 (version reviewed), PC
Unleashed: Out Now
Publisher: Deep Silver
Developer: Piranha Bytes
Players: 1
Site: www.risen.deepsilver.com

Risen is a real time action RPG. We thought it would be similar in style to Fable 2 but perhaps much darker in content. The trailers for the game suggested a lush exciting world, similar to the Fable universe in parts, but less cartoony. They promised battles with bizarre lifeforms and a range of characters in a deep and involved world.

Risen centres around your main character who ends up shipwrecked on an island. The island seems to be being terrorised by a group of people with magical powers called the inquisitors, who are fighting for control with a local gang. You arrive with a female companion who seems to like telling you what to do and taking a seat when work is to be done!

Gameplay is largely made up of carrying out a range of tasks for the non player characters dotted around the landscape. These range from simple fetch tasks to entering dungeons and caves with the intention of slaughtering various animals and monsters.

However, when the gameplay moves out of the countryside to the towns and villages, the tasks start to vary. The menu of tasks increases to include stealing for example, or revenge attacks. Which tasks you choose will have an effect on how the different ‘gangs’ in the game react to you. However, it seemed that whatever we did in the game there was no impact in the medium or long term.

Fighting is clumsy. Do not expect a Fable 2 (or even Fable 1) experience. Your character seems to only have one attack animation and blocking is crude and largely ineffective. The animation of your character is also very poor, as if he has had various knee operations which he is yet to recover from. We know this isn’t meant to be a fighting game in the same way as the recent Batman game, but Fable and other games have shown that it is possible to bring a simple but dynamic fighting system to a game with a third person perspective. Fighting in Risen is ugly and repetitive, so you can expect to die a lot and not enjoy looking at the game whilst it happens either!

You can develop your character with various skills as you would expect in a typical RPG. Risen’s skill system is quite in depth, but we hated the menus, which seem straight out of a PC where the player is expected to be nose to nose with their PC monitor. We experienced the game on a 40 Inch TV, which is still larger than what the average 360 owner has, and clearly no thought has been given to those players. Gamers with a small SDTV shouldn’t even try playing this unless they have a magnifying glass close to hand.

Presentation is inconsistent. The suggested design of the landscape is lovely, but very quickly you will notice poor textures. At times the textures just break down to reveal a gradient type ‘fill’ you would expect in Powerpoint! Many games suffer from ‘pop up’, and Risen should be included in that club – however, Risen seems to have more than just that one symptom. It suffers from scenery being coloured in as you walk along, especially landscapes which are above head height.

The worst aspect of the graphics is only seen during the daylight hours (indeed many of the faults are seen during the daylight hours – this game looks much better in the pitch black of night). We noticed some kind of strange filter or mesh across the graphics when it was bright and sunny. It was very off-putting and helped to ‘break’ the gaming experience as it felt that we were looking into the game through a window.

The music is pleasant enough and certainly added atmosphere, and the other sounds certainly work within the environment, helping to bring the game to life. However the voice acting is very disappointing. The actors do seem to be putting a lot of effort into their lines. Perhaps too much so! You see, the animated scenes are so clumsy that along with the overacting it just results in a type of Monty Python comedy routine.

All in all, this is a meaty game. The game world is large and there are lots of tasks to complete. There are many skills to learn, and you can really develop your character. Hardcore RPG players might find some pleasure in this. However, more discriminating gamers would do well to steer clear. This is not user friendly; but it is (though we can only speak for the Xbox 360 version) clumsy, with laughable dramatic scenes and pythonesque combat. We have decided that we’ll wait for Fable 3.

5/10

Yesterday Nintendo announced their up and coming WiiWare and Dsiware content due for release over the autumn and xmas period.

The WiiWare service has had a number of notable titles, which have really been picking up in quality and gameplay experience in recent weeks. Games to be released for the system include the sequel to the critically acclaimed LostWinds, a new version of Worms, and new chapters in the Monkey Island franchise.

The Dsi download service is still pretty young with a low volume of content, not all of it great in terms of gameplay experience. However, as with WiiWare, there has recently been a range of improved titles and useful utilities which move Nintendo beyond the ‘Mario Clock’ and ‘Mario Calculator’ offerings (something which should have been included in the unit, or which could still be given away free at some point in the future). Titles to look out for include a port of the Iphone’s very popular Flight Control and Bomberman Blitz!

The full list is available here…….