As I get ready for the delivery of this week's new games (Duke Nukem Forever and Alice: Madness Returns) I feel compelled to comment on a trend, no matter how minor, with last week's releases, inFamous 2 and Red Faction: Armageddon. What is in that trend? Well, both games have been fun and have a decent to great level of polish, but that's not it. No, what they share is a prologue built around the main character's failure. That's right, both these games start you off as essentially the one to blame for the predicament you will be tasked with solving. If you want to avoid all spoilers related to the plots of both these games please skip this post, though both opening scenes are fairly well documented in trailers and reviews at this point.

Not every modern console game has a full tutorial level, but many do. Some games just open with the story and prompt you through the basics, slowly weening you of the hand-holding as the level continues. Personally I find the full tutorial level a benefit just from an immersion standpoint, but it's a position difficult to defend. But let's put that aside and talk about game opening failure. Does is change our expectations of story or gameplay? Does it even matter whether it is a psychologically sound method of immersion?

In inFamous 2 you receive a quick montage of the ending of the first title and the setup for your new adventure. This is shortly interrupted by the actual appearance of The Beast, your endgame antagonist. Rather than escaping immediately to the new game's setting, you race to fight your foe and are guided through the basics of movement, ranged combat and special abilities. While there is a certain element to the setup that shows your power, you are wholly ineffectual and it doesn't help that many of the prompts are displayed at times where you can't actually pull them off (yes, I'm holding R1, fat lot of good it's doing while I'm being thrown through the air). At the end, which doesn't actually conclude the chapter as you segue immediately to the new environment sans cut-scene, you witness the locale of the first game utterly destroyed and are alerted that in some way the powers you expected to have given the opening as well as the conclusion of the first title have changed.

Things play out a bit differently in Red Faction: Armageddon as the prologue is self-contained. After the obligatory background about the history of the Red Faction universe and Mars you are thrown into the line of fire. As you are taught the basics of movement and combat as well as a number of abilities you traverse a few locales and fight real fights in what appears to be the beginning of the game. This is, however, just a setup as near the end the antagonist appears in an unrecognizable form and in a manner where you don't have the opportunity to stop them, all leading to the destruction of the colony that was the setting for the earlier entries to the series. While certainly not all your fault, a heavy emphasis on personal blame is placed on your character through narration, implying that your failure in this opening act has lead to all the bad things to come and undermined any success you may have achieved playing the earlier titles.

Both of these opening are immersive, and in Red Faction's case a lot of fun, but how do they set you up psychologically to play the rest of the game? In the case of inFamous 2 things are simpler, you just didn't have the power necessary to defeat the major villain, that'[s your quest in this sequel. Red Faction isn't so kind, making your actions in the prologue wholly worthless because of the outcome. Sure, now you have "something to prove", but reaching this setup required burdening you with the thought that future encounters might be as equally out of your control.

Two other games really came to mind when playing these last week: The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape From Butcher Bay and Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. In the former the prologue turns out to be a dream sequence which I found wholly satisfying both as part of the story and as an introduction to the gameplay, setting you up for a diverse set of tools to come even if many weren't at your disposal as the game proper begins. The latter features you in control of Darth Vader at the peak of his powers giving you a taste for what you will have after your protagonist completes his evolution. It was a very satisfying tutorial that didn't burden your own character as you began the game.

In the end the opening bits of last week's games in no way will dampen my desire to continue to play, but I find it interesting to think what the designers were thinking when deciding to start you off in a virtual hole as opposed to a sense of the power to come.

No, I don't mean I'll spend ten minutes writing the review or it'll take you that long to wade through one. Nope, my new 10-Minute Reviews are designed for other gamers like myself, who either don't have the time or the wont to play games that aren't going to be fun in the long-haul.

I've been a videogame collector since 1980. Yes, even as a penniless child I made sure to squeeze as many cartridges as my parents would bear out of my first system, the Intellivision. I must have had forty or so cartridges by the end. I had even delayed my entry into the home console market after playing a friends Atari VCS and reading the few gaming magazines of the day, know what Mattel had on the horizon. Once my habit was solely funded by myself I was a little pickier, and this was during my Amiga phase when I worked retail and had access to most games through the store or, ahem, other methods, particularly because of the amount of European-developed games for Commodore's brilliant but doomed box. I bought dozens of games for the SNES, Genesis, PS1 and N64 as the new generations rolled in, but as their libraries dwarfed the Intellivision's I wasn't in the same league of completeness.

I stepped things up a notch last generation with the Xbox. While I certainly bought and played my share of PS2 titles, and my favorites were all on that platform ( God of War, Ratchet & Clank series) except for Psychonauts (released later of course, but designed initially for release by Microsoft before they cut it loose), I loved the hard disk and crisp visuals Microsoft's first foray into console gaming provided, and the later released Xbox Live functionality sealed the deal. I went on to buy over 500 games, all of them new, and I played each one at least once to record details for a site I was developing as well as peace of mind (or delusion) I was getting my money's worth. Of course I wasn't, but such is the realm of the videogame hoarder. You can see most of my games in my Collection list, though with no way to sort and filter you'll have to take my word for it.

I'm doing the same thing with this generation, once again with Microsoft's Xbox 360, and I'm well over 800 games. I told myself this time I owed each game at least ten minutes, or until the first save point, whichever was longer. That way my wretched gaming skills might stumble into an Achievement and I could more successfully tell myself I got my money's worth (except for that horrendous Final Fantasy XI, forgot to cancel the subscription for a year). I haven't always been successful, many XBLA games are just too excruciating to hit ten minutes, but I've tried. And now I'm going to use this place as an outlet for my experiences.

It's not just time that leads me to this series, as with most things in life I'm quick to form opinions, and ten minutes in a game is quite generous as opposed to a TV show or movie. Often with a game it only takes a minute or two (my love for Heavy Weapon was cemented in seconds). Sometimes it's less as I loathe sports, strategy, racing and quiz genres but must feed my collecting habit with them for psychotic completeness. I will avoid reviewing games where the genre alone would grant no stars from me and focus on games that I thought, or hoped, would make me want to play them more. So given ten minutes I'll let you know whether I hoped to play some more, and run down major points that lead me to that decision. Hopefully this will be of some use to the game-buying public if not just my sanity.

I have posted the first review in this series, The First Templar, and will get a few more up before posting one for the game I planned to do first, Heavy Rain, as that game's fanbase will not be appreciative and I'm not ready for the "you just don't get it" vitriol today.

Originally published 5/30/2007

Originally published April 25, 2007

1. Server-Based Online Multiplayer
   
   There are good arguments as to why this should be added, but only as an option. Why? The cost of maintaining hosting servers means someday whoever is paying will no longer want to pay. And this can happen fast when a game isn’t particularly popular. Online PS2 servers have been dropping like flies despite a 100+ million installed-base. P2P gaming means even those of us who own the first-generation of Xbox Live games can go online with our friends and continue to enjoy multiplayer until the end of days (or Live, whichever comes first).
   
   I went out of my way to purchase a decent upload speed (768K up) to ensure I could host lag-free games. It’s not perfect, much of the world is still linked through all kinds of horrible carriers meaning ping times can be atrocious regardless of your connection speed, but it works. While I personally find the 360 a bit more sluggish than the original Xbox (where I could host 16 I’m better off with 12 on the 360), overall the issues of host-advantage and lag are tied to cable-modem users hosting with 256K/384K speeds and everyone trying to host above their capacity. It’s a user issue when it comes to P2P and I don’t know how to educate the masses.
   
   Back to Server-Based: it should be an option. Microsoft should test a few new titles that include alternate multiplayer interfaces. When choosing to join or host on a few titles a “Company Server” location should be offered so they can test the effect on their bottom-line and how users respond to the option. I don’t want only company-based (or Microsoft-based) servers for both the potential of them going away but also for the pain that the Battlefield 2: Modern Combat model offers: the chance you can’t play because you’re not of the right rank or there are no remaining server slots.
   
   There were far more online games for the Xbox than the PS2 and part of that is surely the fact that once the code is done it’s up to the users to handle the servers, managing irritating players and ensuring everyone has fun. If Server-Based multiplayer was the norm I think overall the number of online games would shrink, and while that might not affect you guys who only own a handful of titles, people like me who love to bounce between dozens would be affected in a very negative way.
   
   
2. Clan and Party System
   
   First let’s deal with the “party system”. Only a few bonehead early titles didn’t have a traditional lobby on the 360. That seems to have gone away. A party system is not a generic plug-in because games can be very different. How would Dead or Alive’s lobby work in a Party System? In fact, most of the party systems on the 360 are horrible, Saints Row being the worst. I want to set up a room, send invites, let anyone join, be able to change options between rounds and so forth. Halo 2 didn’t do that, no open parties like nearly every other Xbox Live title. TXB can shove their Party System theory where the sun don’t shine.
   
   As for Clans, this is tricky. I can see the advantage of an overarching Clan that would allow messaging and such between what amounts to a secondary Friends list. Past that, however, things get tricky. Loads of Clan features are game specific. What if your “Global” clan didn’t have anyone who really wanted to play some Clan-enabled game you loved? You’d have to abandon your Clanmates just because one particular game didn’t fit in with your leader’s desires? And what of odd-Clan games like Tournament Paintball MAX’D that was set up to support simultaneous Clan (or League) membership.
   
   I’m not writing off the benefits of a Clan blade, but it is superfluous in regard to our Live membership. The bigger issue is developers wimping out on Clan support. Toward the end of the original Xbox’s days you found Clan support in all sorts of titles. You even could get full leanue-play in a game like Iron Phoenix, yet Microsoft left Perfect Dark Zero out the door without Clan support, and Ubisoft, the first Xbox publisher with Clan-enabled games, took over a year to deliver what they had been doing for years already.
   
   No, lack of Clan Support and Party Support do not make the Xbox Live cost a scam.
   
   
3. Dedicated Download Servers
   
   Who knows whether these don’t already exist? I guess this is a fine feature, and I agree at times downloads can be slow, but at other times they are just as fast as downloads on my PC. Does this make Xbox Live overpriced? In terms of comparison to the original Xbox, certainly not. As a value-add, it’s be nice, but it doesn’t affect my gameplay, and that’s what I pay for with Xbox Live, multiplayer gaming.
   
   
4. Microsoft Points Program
   
   Sounds like a good idea, but the lack of free rewards doesn’t make Xbox Live overpriced. Silver was a gimme, you are still paying for the features from the original Xbox with Gold plus some more, like actual follow-through with additional content, something that on a whole went nowhere in the past. Again, this adds nothing to the multiplayer gaming experience you are paying for with Gold. A nice idea, on Microsoft should consider, but not a deal-breaker for me.
   
   
5. No Ads
   
   I wholly support this, but it brings up the problem I have with our membership fee: no new multiplayer features. You can read one of my journal entries for some examples of online multiplayer features we could use. I have a lot more. If such features were implemented they’d have something to stick into those empty spaces the ads currently occupy.
   
   I understand the ads in one sense: not everyone stays on the boards to know about new releases and maybe they don’t want to have to drill-down on the Marketplace to find the newest XBLA game or Map Pack. With the Marketplace gaining its own blade they could move all the ads there for all I care.
   
   What I care about are new multiplayer features like game requests and server counters which could fill in the generic ad spaces. Until then, what goes in those spots? The blade background? Gimme a break. Once again this does not impact multiplayer gaming.

Originally published  4/22/2007

Since Microsoft’s recent updates to Live have not really featured any additions for gamers, maybe they’ve run out of ideas.
 
The Friends List is great, but with the advent of so many XBLA games and the proliferation of online support in a lot of games, there’s an Xbox Live feature I think could benefit a lot of people: online availability.
 
How would it work? Using the “Games” interface where all of your owned/played games are shown, if you press “A” to get to the normal Achievements list, a bar would appear at the top (and be locked when scrolling through the Achievements) showing the number of available hosts for each game mode. The refresh rate would be maybe less than 30 seconds, but even 30 seconds would be useful if there are server scanning issues. This would be very helpful for people looking for open co-op games, one-on-one fighters (I’ve often seen people complain they never can find someone for Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat) and especially less-played/more obscure games.
 
I’m sure most people would prefer a summary and the game level if this type of feature existed, but by putting it at the “one game at a time” level I don’t think this would tax the XBL servers as much.
 
Two complementary features would be nice but are more difficult so while I will describe them I’d be happy with just the above to start.
 
Game Requests: Choose a game you would like to play and other players, while scanning their game list, would see the ones with requests. If you felt like playing you would accept the request which would then notify the original user. An example: you felt like playing a co-op match of Assault Heroes, and after sitting around waiting for a while you decided you’d rather be playing, you pull up the Dashboard, go to your Games list, select Assault Heroes and choose “Post Game Request”. After that maybe you pop in GRAW 2 and continue working on the single-player. Another user, not necessarily knowing what they feel like plying, pulls up their game list and sees an icon next to Assault Heroes and clicks it. From here they click “Show Available Requests” and get a list of GamerTags. The first user’s GamerTag is shown and can be clicked on for the normal messaging (such as to ask what game mode the other user wants and whether they plan on being host) or they can click “Accept Request” which then pops up a notification/auto-message on the first player’s screen and the two can then meet.
 
Dashboard Game-Themed Lobbies: The original Xbox had a chat feature at the Dashboard which allowed for more than one-on-one chat. It was still Friends-based so the change here would be to auto-create rooms themed to specific games. For example: you’re looking to chat about Earth Defense Force, a game with no online component, but you’d like to get opinions about it. Or maybe you’re a fan of the game and think other people with similar interests would be fun to hang out with while taking a break. You’d go to your “Games” list and choose Earth Defense Force and select “Join Chat” or “Open Chat” or “View Available Rooms”. Each chat room would support a maximum of 16 players. If no room existed yet, a new one would be created automatically. Otherwise you could browse rooms (with the host and number of players listed). From here you’d get a normal lobby, maybe a themed background, and it would be open chat similar to the Halo 2 lobby system. This would be great for getting people together, deciding on what you want to do next and even killing a little time.
 
Anyway, I’m always looking for new ways to take advantage of the Xbox Live network which I’ve been using for years, so any feedback or other ideas are always welcome.