E3 2011

I've been following E3 coverage on G4 and Spike (TV Channels), and there are a few things I can't wait to see:

-Skyrim: looks beautiful, looks more action oriented, hopefully they've rectified some leveling/scaling issues that were in oblivion, as well as improved swinging your weapons.

-Mass Effect 3: Looks like they wen't more with an action approach. I'll be playing it on the PC for sure, so I won't be getting into the kinect controls.

-Assassin's Creed: Revelations: Looks great, wish these games come out on the PC faster (no saying PC gaming is dead please).

-Ghost Recon: Another kinect type of game with control, I probably wont be using it, I still prefer the PC mouse over waving hands to fire a gun. At least have a controller.

-Halo: Big news is Halo 4, looks cool, but after Halo 2 I stopped caring. I guess it'll be cool for Halo fans (arron). They're also doing a re-mastering of the original (Should I put a George Lucus/Star Wars joke here?).

Comments:
Kinect - The whole premis of Kinect is really cool, using motions for controlling actions in a game, very interactive and could be a good thing if its executed right like in fable's spells. But things like star wars its looks very wonky. Even the demo guy had trouble using the force powers to move an object, I can foresee much frustration if theres no fall back option to use a controller. Also what if your playing this game for 30 hours, could get tiring. I know when Zelda for the wii came out, by the game was over I was only flicking my wrist to swing the sword. Is it just me who's "meh" about motion games?

Online - seems like the industry is moving head strong towards social integration. As in you can tweet your score, or post something on facebook. I guess its cool, Im not part of FB, or Twitter, so I really don't care. But what has me concerned is that they keep saying "its free." Of course its free, it should be free, there shouldn't be any charge, people are being charged for xbox live and psonline. All games with online multiplayer should be free after you pay for the game.

Don't forget me, I am a Halo fan as well

Yeah, Mass Effect 3 will have even less rpg elements, or so I've heard. Many fans don't like this, as that was the good thing about Mass Effect 1, and Mass Effect 2 was already way more action and less rpg. But I haven't played it yet so I can't say anything yet.

It's funny how everyone said "Master Chief died at the end of Halo 3" etc, and that no one believed that a fourth game will be released. But it will after all, and my brother already said that since the beginning of Halo 2

---

Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/Nibgames

I didn't see the live coverage or any coverage for that matter, but heard it second-hand through friends. After hearing about the three new Halo games planned, I was one of those guys thinking they are just milking this now for what it's worth. My friend/big Halo fan thinks otherwise, and can't wait for the new games. I don't mind waiting to see the anniversary edition of the first one, just to check out all the graphic updates, but I never bought a 360, so I guess I'll be left out of that march too. Oh well, I'm kinda with Omega on this one, I kinda lost interest with the series single player after the second one and the multiplayer tends to hold my attention less and less, and now I only experience it on random occasions on friends' consoles.

Speaking about social integration, does anyone else think it will eventually die down to the point where we won't see every commercial trying to incorporate it anymore? I don't mind it, but it's everywhere I look! I've got my own qualms about it for which I could rant about in the rant thread.

At least it's still optional.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

I find it really unnecessary that they are remaking the first game, I mean the graphics are great and so is the game itself. I don't think a remake can give the same atmosphere, and even if they could it wouldn't be necessary since you could just play the first game.

Great Graphics: Awesome ending part of the game (spoilers for some)

---

Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/Nibgames

omegaslayer said:
-Halo: Big news is Halo 4, looks cool, but after Halo 2 I stopped caring. I guess it'll be cool for Halo fans (arron). They're also doing a re-mastering of the original (Should I put a George Lucus/Star Wars joke here?).

Actually I'm not exactly thrilled over the news of Halo 4. Halo 3 was supposed to be the last game in that story arc and it finished off in a great way and I fear this new game will ruin Halo's legacy. I saw the trailer and it doesn't feel like Halo and I wonder how the fact that Halo 4 isn't being developed by the same team as all the other Halo games will make Halo 4 different. I guess im just skeptical because I care about the series. If it turns out Microsoft is doing this to make money and it ruins the series in the eyes of the people who haven't really played the previous games I'll be sad.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Le Chief said:
If it turns out Microsoft is doing this to make money and it ruins the series in the eyes of the people who haven't really played the previous games I'll be sad.

Is there any doubt that's the reason why Microsoft is making this!?

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

I'm just glad it hasn't ended yet.

Also, some of the developers from bungie are still working on it if I'm not mistaken. Though just a few.

---

Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/Nibgames

Skyrim looks superb. From little "intelligence" i've gathered from Bethesda is that there is no level/attributes (str, int, speed, etc) anymore, just skills that can be leveled. Sounds awesome TBH. And that they've re-worked the animation system, so hopefully those 1st person fighting scenes will be better. Also this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSRtYpNRoN0

omegaslayer said:
Skyrim looks superb. From little "intelligence" i've gathered from Bethesda is that there is no level/attributes (str, int, speed, etc) anymore, just skills that can be leveled. Sounds awesome TBH. And that they've re-worked the animation system, so hopefully those 1st person fighting scenes will be better. Also this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSRtYpNRoN0

Yeah, that trailer was already released some time ago, it's awesome though.

If what you say is true, and they aren't going to make those attributes any more but only skills, well I wonder if it will make the game better or worse. I found it original and it worked well, but perhaps they are making a right decision, I'll just have to see for myself

---

Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/Nibgames

There's a pretty long playthrough of Skyrim going around. They use skilltrees, but they're pretty large.

The reason WHY there's no stat sheets is that it automatically levels things you do. It eliminates the need to have you manually add a point to various areas.

And, apparently you can switch skill constellations (that's what they are) whenever you find these ruin sites in the game.

Here's a 13 minute playthrough, sadly it's off a 360, so there's a noticeable drop from the trailers.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

One of the problems I had with Oblivion (and Morrowind) is when you leveled you could were able to increase 3 attributes you chose by 1. But if you leveled a skill that is governed by that attribute, you could increase it an extra amount (by +2 +3 +4 +5). So I would find myself trying to fit in as many skill-ups in a level I could so I could maximize my "level." Thus is spawned a concept called under-leveling (not getting 3 +5's), and over-leveling (getting more than 3 +5s). This seems to be more of a refined system so I won't need to worry about under/over leveling.

I am not really looking forward to any games this year. The developers seem to be concentrating more and more on the console crowd and the level of quality in the games is going down by degrees. Civ 5 and Fallout LV are good examples. They dummied down the game so much that its really not that enjoyable to play. I was very disappointed in them both. I don't think its fair that we have to buy a dumb version of a game just because it was made with stupid people in mind.

I know its prolly never gonna happen, but I would be sooooo glad if this console craze would end sometime soon. If it goes on much longer, there won't be any reason to buy a computer game because you know it will be the dumb version before you bought it.

I don't blame them for going where the money is, but dammit, I want my games too.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

(Civ 5 was computer only)

This year's had a much larger focus on PC first titles, actually.

Duke Nukem Forever, Battlefield 3, Elder Scrolls V Skyrim, The Witcher 2 are all PC first or only titles for this year. Even Capcom is developing their games as PC first.

Just because something offers the choice to use a controller or isn't best suited for a keyboard and mouse, doesn't mean it's not PC driven. Some stuff just doesn't work well without a controller.

Also, Rockstar said they're releasing L.A. Noire for PC this fall, so yay. (Where's Red Dead Redemption )

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Crono said:
(Civ 5 was computer only)

Truth, but don't you think that maybe they dumbed it down to entice the console crowd away, or more accurately, towards them?

Don't get me wrong, I don't for a moment think that everyone who plays consoles is stupid but, the majority who do so hasn't the patience/mindset to play a computer game.

I dunno the answers, but Civ 5, as good as it was, was a disappointment. You could literally set it on full auto and other than clicking the end turn button, you didn't have to make a single decision to finish the game.

It used to be annoying to have your citizens grousing, but I'd rather have that than the way it was now. My people were happy little larks the whole game.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

No, I don't.

Honestly, I don't think any publisher has the mindset of trying to get console gamers to move to PC at all. Most publishers have the mindset that PC is a platform they lose money on, they make MUCH more on consoles.

Civ. 5 was definitely made for PC players ... they just finessed it. To be perfectly honest, you're the only person I've heard who doesn't think the entire thing is a big improvement.

Just because something gets more elegant or gains a different focus, doesn't necessarily mean it's for dumb-dumb. It's just different ... and chances are Sid Meir's studio doesn't want to churn the same identical game out every single time, nor do they just want to do an iteration re-hash.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Perhaps but I'm telling you that the only work you'd have to do in the new version would be to fail. Not that that's a goal, but if you play the game, you will win. Period.

That to me takes ALL the fun out of it. I am a Civ fan. Much more even than HL, but Civ V was not very well thought out if you cannot help but win.

If you think about it, you are a game designer basing your game on building a world, the general guidelines are going to stay exactly the same in each version of the game. You should never discontinue what was popular, or worked in a previous version. Civ peaked IMO with Civ II. From that point on the down graded in favor of graphics. Each version got more simplistic till in V all you really had to do was pic your world and name and click next turn.

Was it a bad game? Nah. I paid my 50 bucks and don't regret it. Was it really better than any previous version? Nope.

If I was the only person you heard gripe, you didn't check very far. I was one of the quiet ones. Till this posting/thread, I didn't really care enough to say. Just thought it pertinent to this thread. PC games are on a downhill slide. Pretty soon if the PC builders don't start enticing gaming builders MORE, no one is going to buy a PC except business machines. Why would anyone invest 100's into a gaming PC when a 300 dollar console is going to get 99% of the game releases?

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

We've already hit that ground, (the 99% of releases thing) however, what has also happened, is more games get released on PC, in general, now, than before. They're just not exclusive.

The issue that's going on, though, is developers don't work with a common codebase all at once to get all versions going. They build a primary platform (and sadly that's usually one of the consoles, which actually makes no sense if you plan on porting it) and then port it once the game has reached a certain percentage complete. Chances are the PC version isn't even done by the same team or studio.

It's sort of an effect of the increased popularity of gaming in recent years, that this sort of it has to sell a million copies day 1 or else it's a failure attitude has taken root and it's hurting everything overall. Keep in mind a large chunk of people who play games now ... didn't play anything before an Xbox 360. Dev. cycles are being cut down, while difficulty and man power has goes up. And their production cycles are just, all around, inefficient. In part to cater to this new financially supporting gamer. I'd say, overall, to be honest, Microsoft's presence in the gaming world has not been healthy for the industry in a long-stretch sense.

So, as far as I can tell, gaming, in general, is actually in trouble. Let alone PC gaming.

To be honest, the only platforms really in jeopardy are consoles, they're closed platforms supported by licensing. PC is open. Anyone can develop or distribute for it, so I wouldn't worry too much about games being made for it in general (and if you bother to look in the open source world, there's actually games there worth checking out) It's just you have to realize that trends change over time, so games aren't going to always be like they were in the late 90s.

Interesting note: due to cost of ownership, the costs for gaming looks something like this:

Mac X86, Xbox 360, PC, Wii, PS3

Macs are just thousands of dollars (I think this is part of the reason why people think any gaming PC costs like $2K), an Xbox's cost of ownership is higher than a PC ... even though the initial price is not, a Wii, with all the peripherals actually gets up there in cost, and oddly enough it turns out that PS3 is the cheapest to own for home gaming.

That initial cost is deceptive. In the case of Xbox they take advantage of it, by making everything an extra charge or peripheral.

Of course, it's largely depending on the amount of games you buy, but if you buy a large number of games (or would) like most gamers, then it actually turns out to be cheaper just to get that $700-$800 PC.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

If more PC games are being released, then where are they going too? Not on my store shelves. I haven't been to every single store in town, but by and large the ones I have been to have on average maybe 10 PC games that are relatively new, and about 20 old ones. However, the console seem to have 100's. It might be just that there is a version of each game per console and that makes it seem like more I dunno. I get so disgusted at the ratio imbalance that I rarely go down the isle with games on it anymore.

Like I said, I didn't even pick the Duke box up. Gaming has totally lost my interest. Of course this is because I am so tired now that that is prolly more a contributor than anything else at present.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Orpheus said:
If more PC games are being released, then where are they going too? Not on my store shelves. I haven't been to every single store in town, but by and large the ones I have been to have on average maybe 10 PC games that are relatively new, and about 20 old ones.

If you've been going to gamestop then your going to be disappointed, gamestop has become console whores. I get my hard-copy games from Best-Buy. But mostly I get games from Steam via online purchase. I know the later is difficult for you orph, with a 3GB DL limit, when most games are over 4GB.

If you want physical copies of PC games, you're going to have to buy online. Amazon, NewEgg, GoGamer, even Best Buy, all have pretty good PC deals (hell you can even find a pretty decent PC department at Walmart) Also, physical Target and Fred Meyer (Krogers) locations regularly clearance PC titles.

Where you will not find them is GameStop or most other game-centric stores. Pretty much since Xbox 360 came out, people have (unjustly) considered PC gaming to be antique and not popular. (Even though it's physical retails sales amount to about the same per year as any give console)

GameStop, specifically, doesn't carry a lot of PC titles because they can't sell them used anymore. Unlike console games with online passes, PC is getting shafted with DRM bullshit.

I will never understand why publishers won't also allow distribution of their game through torrents then take a Sims 3 approach which asks the user to purchase a license to continue playing after x-hours.

Anyway, Amazon and NewEgg generally have amazing prices for PC games. You gotta check the seller on Amazon though, if it's not being sold by Amazon, to make sure it's the version you want (a lot of times sellers will list UK copies, which still work fine, of course)

With that being said, I did happen to snag a returned (but not used) copy of Fallout New Vegas Collector's Edition from GameStop for $30. It's an utter rarity, though.

---

Blame it on Microsoft, God does.

Don't even get me started on steam right now. It seems to have borked out on my main PC at home.

Anyway, thanx guys.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.