The Price is Wrong
Did the revolution end with Halo?
So what, if anything, can be offered by way of plausible solution? Well, let's look at Xbox 360-exclusive Gears of War, Epic Games' $10 million sci-fi third-person extravaganza. First off, Gears of War is priced at a hefty $59.99 for the standard boxed version of the game-without the snazzy tin, extra disc, and developer bells and whistles. For that price, which is indicative of a next-gen $20 increase over Xbox, PS2, and GameCube titles, players get to partake of a visually stunning game world while engaging in tactical cover-to-cover action against a horde of marauding beasties intent on the demise of mankind-the usual videogame M.O. However, despite its stunning scenery, does Gears of War justify its pocket-destroying $59.99 by delivering a genuine next-gen experience-as defined by the platform impact of Halo? No, not convincingly so. What's more, Gears of War is woefully short, possibly to stave off the onset of rinse-and-repeat boredom, amounting to a mere 6-8 hours of full-trigger action throughout its single-player campaign.
Once again, anyone presently wobbling their jowls in disagreement while proclaiming the significant Xbox Live value of Gears of War should bear in mind the following information: Not everyone likes or uses Xbox Live. Furthermore, of the estimated 34 million combined Xbox and Xbox 360 unit sales only a mere 4 million consumers have taken their machines online through Xbox Live's silver or gold subscription accounts. For the number crunchers amongst you, that equates to roughly a 12% Xbox Live user rate. Granted, Microsoft claims the Xbox 360 user figure to be closer to 50% and that combined subscription numbers should hit 7 million by June of 2007, but the fact remains that Xbox Live-after four years in service-is still failing to attract the vast majority of Xbox owners. Therefore, a 6-8 hour single-player campaign (in any videogame) is simply not acceptable, especially considering the almost unavoidable gamer immaturity/sexism/and flaming that riddles Xbox Live's servers and renders the entire (unregulated) experience largely unappealing beyond scheduled gatherings with close friends.
Yet despite its single-player failings and its lack of sustained jaw-dropping impact, few could argue that Gears of War fails to merit its sizable $59.99 recommended price tag, because it IS a genuine next-gen title-and with a $10 million budget, you'd expect it to be. So how on Earth can the likes of Chrome Hounds, Enchanted Arms, Phantasy Star Universe, Over G Fighters, Ninety-Nine Nights, The Outfit, and Blazing Angels-to name but a few-lay claim to the same retail remuneration when they assuredly do not boast similar production budgets as Gears of War, and arrive as mediocre products at best, many distinctly failing to make the aesthetic or content-defined next-gen grade?
Would it be too far flung to suggest the implementation of an independent gamer-led quality assurance group to assess any and all gaming releases and offer up a box endorsement as to whether those games are fit to be called next-gen? A voluntary group of those 'in the know' made up of magazine editors, industry commentators, media pundits, and real videogame consumers, etc? Would it perhaps be considered beyond the realms of plausibility to have Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo run the rule of thumb over their third-party publishing partners to ensure that developers adhere to prescribed yardstick quality parameters before a game is green-flagged for retail release? Or, beyond that idea, would it simply be a case of pissing in the corporate wind to suggest that games found to be lacking in terms of that aforementioned quality blueprint are released to retail with a price that duly reflects the effort and achievement of the developer and publisher? In other words, Gears of War would exist as a clearly defined example of exemplary effort and applied developer affection, thoroughly deserving of its $59.99 pricing, and Chrome Hounds would be justly labelled as the absolute dog that it is and duly priced at no more than an existing PlayStation 2, GameCube, or Xbox title? Or are these merely the delusions of a jaded mind, clearly embittered with the gaming industry as hair begins to grey about the temples and a life-changing videogame is still yet to appear?
Gamers deserve better, and we shouldn't have to demand an increase in quality to justify the increases in price. The box prices on videogames invariably do not reflect the quality (or lack thereof) held within, and thus discerning a great game from a shoddy dud is all but impossible for the less 'committed' gamer. A killer app is a gem not often uncovered these days, and the fact that it took the Xbox 360 a full twelve months to find one is indicative of the lapsed developmental progress inherent throughout the videogame creation process. The power of current (and future) next-gen gaming hardware, for all its Emotion Chips and Cell processors and HD-DVD and Blu-ray shenanigans, means nothing unless those charged with creating the content it hosts are willing to invest the blood, sweat and tears necessary to push existing boundaries at every opportunity and produce gaming experiences that transcend a five-year-old launch game that sits proudly on a fading and vastly underpowered platform.
Comments
I'm finding it hard to aggree with a single part of this article, from the idea that Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo should have such quality control powers, through the idea that a self selecting body of journalists should get to choose what I play to the idea that, beacuse Halo was so well executed, the next four years of Xbox releases were a disapointment.
The fact that many games don't match up to the very best on offer is irrelevant as no one is forced to buy them and most people are capable of making their own value judgements independantly.
Forcing all games to pass through not only stringant compatability and stability tests (which they should do) but also "fun" or "value for money" tests is an unworkable idea that is open to abuse and is in any case based on the reviews opinion and not any quantifiable tests.
Finally, dismissing any Xbox live functionality of a 360 game when you yourself point out that roughly half the 360 owners have some type of live account is likewise nonsensical as, as long as the customer is aware how much Xbox live functionality makes up the product, there should be no problem factoring this into a quality decision.
In conclusion, I think you hit the proverbial nail on the head when you refered to yourself as embittered and jaded and would truley worry about the games industry if you were to be in any position of control.
haha - excellent read. Only question is when did Dennis Miller get into console gaming?
Chromehounds is a pretty good mech game - why the slam?
Pretty sucky article. Too many generalizations and too condescending. All in all, it was way the hell off the mark.
"But take a moment to absorb the idea that across hundreds and hundreds of other titles, nothing ever bettered Halo, and often wilted pathetically beside it. It's the sad truth, deal with it."
No, that's your opinion, and a opinion that many millions would disagree with. Ninja Gaiden for me, was a superior experience.
"A voluntary group of those 'in the know' made up of magazine editors, industry commentators, media pundits, and real videogame consumers, etc?"
Lol most of the 'in the know' gaming people are total jerks, much like the author of this article seems to be. So the author likes offline shooters and fails to see the merits of anything else...having someone like that dictate what next-gen quality is would be a total nightmare...I mean he obviously understands technology and game development much more than people who actually build the games. A great tell of this stupid elitism is the author's view of Chromehounds...Chromehounds is easily the most underrated game of the year (next to Superman) and a huge number of people still play it online. What about Halo 2? Seems better than Halo in every way possible. Critics are just critics (i.e. mostly self loathing worthless individuals who think their opinion is somehow more valid than others) and game critics are some of the worst of the bunch...nothing like someone who hates football games telling me how terrible Madden is before saying how innovative and great shooter X is, even if it is the same basic game we've been playing for the last 12 years.
Some of the article can be argued... but the MAIN point is correct...
Why cant the quality/polish/fun dictate the price of a game??
I dont mind spending money for GoW, i do have a problem spending the same money for a crappy game
Xbox Live - Although not the most used (as per your article) is 'next-gen' -> Any game that comes out without online is seriously flawed
Halo is not that great. No argument. If you want to play an FPS, Duke Nukem 3D and Quake came out before Halo and did what Halo did better. The only reason Halo was on xBox was because Microsoft bought Bungie to have a good title on a crippled PC.
It's the law of diminishing returns. What did we have before Halo? PSOne games, Quake2, and not much else. The last generation really cemented the transition from iconic to real, and I think any generation beyond this one won't be able to recapture that same feeling of improvement.
To put it in black and white, I think it's fair to say that pre-PS2/Xbox generation, gamers had to "fill in the blanks" regarding game characters: from 8-bit Mario to Cloud Strife, we were still presented with an ugly iconic representation that we had to mentally convert into a high-res image. But with PS2/Xbox and beyond, we were presented with images that looked like what they represented, no mental upscaling was necessary. That transition, the pre-PS2 to post-PS2, will always stand out as a transition that will never be improved on.
Alhough noble in purpose, the end result of a review system would only be to stifle creativity, scare franchise owners away from change, and reassure Microsoft, Sony, UbiSoft, etc. that their bottom dollar is best spent on another generic playthrough FPS, poorly-written RPG, etc.
I have to agree a) With the thrust of the main article; and b) with the comment above. I am a casual gamer (the job means I don't have 10-15 hours free to play regularly). I got into 'proper' gaming due to Halo and therefore got an X-box. Since then other games haven't really grabbed me (not saying there arn't some good one's around) and so I haven't bought many more and I HAVEN'T BOUGHT AN X-BOX 360. That's the economic damage of crappy games development - you push away your market. I have just bought a WII because for the first time in ages the gameplay experience being offered is different!!
Imagine: Halo 3 with real guns/weapons play per WII - now that is something I would buy...Good provoking article - Ta.
che storia
WHOS BRICE
I WILL HACK UR SYSTEM/WEBSITE SO WATCH IT MR. OR MRS. WHATEVER
halo is the greatest game in the world deal with it. And Playstation sucks and will forever suck no matter how many they make!!!
where can I play Halo 2 online??