Matt Paprocki - The Morton Report

Blu-ray Fends Off Competition, Heads into Mega Holiday

2012-09-25T17:25:00Z

USA Today doesn't like Blu-ray, but they ignore logistics when arguing comparisons to DVD or streaming.

Blu-ray is six years old, and 42 million US households have Blu-ray players of some type. When DVD entered this juncture of its life, over half of US homes had adopted the disc-based format.

Finding that as a fault of Blu-ray is ludicrous, because it doesn't consider environment. Seeing Blu-ray in homes, certainly in that number being viewed by some as a negative, shows consumers of media are better equipped, smarter, and more open to new technologies than we give them credit for.

DVD sprang to life in the late '90s, wherein the only competitor was waning VHS: archaic, fragile technology on slim legs. DVD was fresh air that produced widescreen video, awesome resolution, and special features at a solid price. It was Laserdisc, but less bulky and consumer friendly.

Then comes Blu-ray, churning up the market in 2006 as an incomplete competitor against not only DVD, but red-laced HD DVD, a Microsoft joint. Studios warred and Blu-ray won despite instituting features that rendered early players obsolete.

Then came Netflix, which in its infancy was a boon to DVD. But, when Blu-ray rolled around, it began to compete against physical media with streaming options. Blu-ray has persevered, and as another red giant realizes the immense cost and business wars associated with accessing streaming content, they've quietly shifted attention back to the blue laser tech.

Now, Blu-ray is almost competing with itself. Players come equipped as value packed with a multitude of streaming options. UltraViolet has seen a rocky roll-out as a cross-studio attempt to snag the digital consumer. Cases are plastered with stickers for the service, and some studios (like Fox) are ignoring Blu-ray all together at first. They're launching Prometheus (and others) before Blu-ray on UV and other digital services.

Consumers still have a clear physical media attachment though. That's great. It's only going to take the downfall of one major service for people to learn what a fragile ecosystem digital actually is. Hopefully, it's not too late before that happens.

Until then, 42 million households are riding on Blu-ray for their entertainment. It's versatile, it's high quality, and it's not just for the audio/videophile in your home. Somewhere down the line, the marketing is working. With a loaded holiday season that crams Indiana Jones, E.T., Lawrence of Arabia, plus mega new releases (Avengers, Dark Knight Rises) into the Blu-ray catalog, this could be a banner year.

If that line-up doesn't convince people to take the plunge, then maybe USA Today is onto something.

Sony's E3 Keynote Debut of Wonderbook is Wasted Potential

2012-06-06T14:30:00Z

Ah, Wonderbook. The wonder of books. That's what Sony pitched hard at their E3 press event, taking a ten-minute slice of their stage presence to tout the technology and their deal with Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling. Never mind that Rowling didn't even record a video to showcase her excitement, and instead a text crawl popped up on screen that she probably didn't even write.

Well, here's what I “wonder,” Sony. You have this technology that brings books to life. Players grab a specially designed tome to interact with the Potter universe via PlayStation Move and Eye. Images on the page become 3D models on TV which can be interacted with and the kids can cast spells to expunge the Potter-esque foes. Great idea, in concept.

Unfortunately, Sony's idea failed one specific check: words. Their books, which need to be designed with the sub-platform Wonderbook in mind, don't have words, or at least nothing of educational significance. They don't require enriching levels of reading. Players follow the story of a third-rate Hogwarts reject on their quest to learn stuff about magic.

Now, imagine that idea, but placed within an actual Harry Potter book. Players take the role of a small, almost insignificant side character, but, here they play along the stories they know with new angles. You develop an arc that occurs around Harry Potter, but still close enough that you're within the world of Quidditch or Hogwarts. You interact with specific iconic locations.

More importantly, the book has words. Kids need to read to find the next game, encouraging them to reach those interactive plateaus as a reward. There's a new story for them to digest, and new sections of the world for them to explore, both with their own mind and with the games. You don't need much for the technology of Wonderbook to function, outside of game code. A small icon on the page is all it takes to spring something to life; Nintendo has been capable of doing such a thing on their handheld 3DS since launch, Sony longer so with things such as EyePet.

I can see a place in the future where Wonderbook becomes a part of libraries and schools, a fun way for kids to learn not only about Potter, but other topics, authors, and subjects. There's too much meat on this idea's bones to merely cast it aside for a cheap one-off we will have forgotten about in a year or two post-release. The whole thing comes off as a desperation move in a so-so E3 presentation, a means of keeping their loosely popular Move controller alive.

They're throwing away an idea worth millions, if not billions at a conceptual level, for something that is only a fraction of its potential. I'm letting them have it with, you know, a small cut I guess, just to see kids reading a freakin' book, not playing idiotic mini-games barely worth the paper they're printed on.

Microsoft Keynote at E3 2012 Doesn't Need the Press

2012-06-04T23:45:00Z

Who is a press conference for? I ask that because I honestly don't know anymore.

Here's Microsoft at E3, the video game industry's brightest spotlight, hawking Usher on stage for a multi-song performance. He's promoting—loosely, mind you—Dance Central 3 from Harmonix, but doesn't do anything directly associated with the game itself on stage. I'm sitting here wondering, as Usher begs the journalistic crowd to stand up and join in while they're working, who this is directed toward.

It's not journalists. That's no slap against those working the event, or the ones who had to sit through the show. It's not shareholders. They have a vested interest, sure, but it's not a make-it-or-break-it on Wall Street.

It's the general public, which has game trailers effectively IV'd into their veins on Spike TV while these topics fill the top eight or so spots on Twitter. I don't know why we call these pressers or keynotes anymore, because that meaning has been lost.

They don't need to be suit and tie affairs with stuffy execs spouting off numbers. It's a fun, casual industry, and that should be embraced. But, it should still be about business, and that's not what the event has become. For an industry that shills hype every day of the year, there's no containment anymore. Microsoft shuffled in games that were already announced, either days before the show or even last year. It became less about the games and more about reaching out via social media.

The whole thing feels like a shielded ploy to market products in an indirect way, or via means that people won't even grasp they're being marketed to. The show shoveled in a clip from the upcoming film Prometheus, billed as an excuse to show off new search technology. No, it wasn't, because Microsoft could have searched for a Wikipedia page on Ben Franklin, but the money trading hands behind the scenes dictated otherwise.

That type of material not only adds a sense of artificiality to the program, but a dishonesty. Don't claim you're directing comments at the press in attendance. They're the least of your worries. Don't claim Usher is on stage—this after promoting a Grammy Award-winning artist before the show aired—to highlight his involvement with Dance Central. He's in it for a paycheck too. I'm imagining a future where these events are hyped like the Grammys with months of build-up.

The “press conference” had a single moment of honesty, that coming from Matt Parker and Trey Stone, creators of South Park. They riffed on Microsoft's push for cross-platform technology, discussed what they added to the video game, and wandered off-stage not with a smile, but to get back to work.

Usher was heading to the bank to cash a check, and Microsoft's social media team smiled. They won, the press lost.

EA Wins "Worst Company" Award, Consumers In the Right

2012-04-05T11:50:00Z

EA is anti-consumer. They started the online pass. They monetize cheats. They sell in-game equipment. They keep items exclusive to pre-orders. They release downloadable content on day one. They sell leveling to imbalance online play. One generation ago, we had none of it.

Oh, and they won Consumerist's “Worst Company in America” poll. Rather, they lost in the scheme of things, but let's avoid the technical.

They beat Bank of America, who in previous years took home the awesome “Golden Poo,” a wonderful bit of shaming. Now one belongs to EA, and people don't get it.

To be clear, this is an award for 2011, not the year of the housing collapse, not the year BP ruined the ocean, and not the year AT&T did, well, whatever it is AT&T does. That's an important distinction most seem to be missing as they rally and yet again call the gaming community “entitled” with their own skewered perspective as to how they're being milked by game publishers.

EA effectively took a market that was considered recession proof and ran it into the ground. No, the video game industry is not dead, nor is it close. However, its policies have taken a leisure activity, one people continued to support even amidst the worst financial crisis this country has seen, and sold it piecemeal.

Gaming remains an escape for millions, but one that is being eroded by financial schemes that put it out of reach. It is a luxury, but as people rally to the side of their favorite developers (and thus, by default, the publishers) stating the DLC is fairly priced, they ignore the $60 upfront cost. That's the most expensive of all the entertainment industries, and EA wants more.

Don't take this the wrong way. Capcom, Activision, UbiSoft, and others do the same, but do so at the leading hand of EA. They're industry leaders, setting an example. They've become a metaphorical sponge for these rightful complaints. Gamers then also deserve an award for “Worst Consumers Anywhere” for continuing to show support, but that's another piece altogether.

Then again, maybe this is taking an Internet poll all too seriously. Anyone with half a brain will catch on that a group of dedicated gamers, tired of seeing their $60 purchases being broken down into chunks, got together to click on a poll. A lot more people have undoubtedly been burned recently by EA than they have by Bank of America too.

What will come of it? Well, a snarky remark from EA for one, wherein they claim they're not as bad as big tobacco because they don't give people cancer, which isn't saying much. Then, a sign that the gaming community is truly getting sick of everything being asked of them at a consumer level. Slowly, as a group, we're waking up to EA and crew screwing over the customer, certainly one of the most blindly loyal subsets of consumers anywhere.

When they become fully awake, maybe EA will see more than golden poo statues, but dwindling financial reports as people fight back with their highest power — their wallets.

Mass Effect 3 Concludes, Fans Request Do Over

2012-03-13T12:15:00Z

Imagine you have poured $180 (if not more), 100+ hours into a game franchise surrounded by choice, and within the final five minutes, those choices are stripped away. That's what Mass Effect fans are feeling right now.

When the series launched, BioWare created a linked universe, a trilogy of titles that carried over decisions—good or bad—into the next game. That affected everything from character development to whether the game's protagonist, Commander Shepard, chose a side. Now that the end has come, players are irritated.

It's understandable. With that much invested, who wouldn't feel attached? Who wouldn't believe they have a part in the ending? After all, that was Mass Effect's entire hook. Fans are so angry, they want it changed, beginning a petition and rallying on BioWare's website.

Much of the gaming press is standing by BioWare, much as they did during a recent shake-up over the games downloadable content that was issued on day one. Some of the opinions even lean toward the condescending.

That's not surprising, but let's be fair. Changing a piece of commercial art based on community/viewer/player feedback is hardly unprecedented; it's common. Film studios do it all the time, bending to the will of the movie-going public allowed into a free screening. Afterward, viewers let their opinion be known. If said movie-goers are riled about something, it's changed to suit the mass audience.

The recent Fallout game did something similar, expanding the experience so that players could continue to play with their characters after the official ending via DLC. That's what, in the case of Mass Effect, players seem to be yearning for. It doesn't make Mass Effect any less a rich example of artistic expression.

I'm not personally a Mass Effect devotee. I'm aware of the universe basics, the set-up, and so on. Knowing the ending is not what people are riled about. Most can accept a bleak outlook. If fits the somber tone of the third game, which begins with a small child being blasted out of orbit by an alien mech that would make the Independence Day mother ships appear quaint.

The issue here is more or less a feeling of betrayal, as if a promise was broken that was made back when the first Mass Effect title was issued. Change, personality, and customization have been ripped from the adoring fans for the sake of control. I support the decision of BioWare on many levels. It is their creative work. However, as years have pressed on, a little humility may be in order too.

After all, without the fans salivating over each plot detail, buying chunks of DLC, splurging on paperback side stories, and upgrading to collector's editions, Mass Effect never would have reached a vaunted trilogy status. In this case, there doesn't seem to be much harm in releasing a tweaked variation of the finale, even if it's only to quell the uprising, and treat it as an alternate, non-canon piece of closure.

PS Vita Launches, Reinvents the Dedicated Handheld Experience

2012-02-26T17:55:00Z

Sony's latest handheld launched this week, a classy, powerful unit dubbed the Vita. At $250 for a base model, Sony seems to have spared little expense, providing a breezy user experience, hefty selection of launch titles, and likely soon-to-be app-loaded device.

And yet, it's easy to feel torn about the whole thing. The Vita can power through a AAA console game-like experience as if it's nothing, yet tradition holds that portables are more of the dessert, not the main course.

Take for instance last year's Thor. On the Xbox 360, this was a burly 3D brawler that emphasized scale and size. Over on the DS, treasured developer WayForward delivered a pixelated 2D edition that resurrected the play style of 16-bit platformers. With the Vita, there's no need for a second tier of development; the hardware can hold its own.

In a way, it's not unlike the arcade shakedown. As the PlayStation began to grab hold and usher in an era of mass appeal, there was little need to rush to the arcades anymore. Not only was the home experience identical, in most cases, it was better, deeper, and fuller.

Now, we've arrived at a similar impasse, although one that (potentially) could save the dedicated handheld in a world obsessed with iOS devices, not kill it. You can take your save of MLB: The Show from your PS3 and continue it on your Vita, the transition seamless given the visual and aural prowess capable on that drool-inducing screen.

Still, I think something will be missing as this hardware ages. Time will move on and lines will blur while those used to a slightly degraded experience will miss the charm. Restrictions are a breeding ground of creativity, hence the creation of a Thor. I can't say if the appeal will remain the same if the experience comes through the handheld unscathed.

The Real Cost of Selling In-Game Accomplishments

2012-02-14T13:35:00Z

Over the weekend, I spent some time with Tiger Woods PGA Tour 12 on the iPad. It's a fun, $1 throwback to the simpler Tiger experience that existed on the Xbox and PS2. It even looks like one of those franchise editions.

What's changed is the ability to purchase statistics, leveling up your golfer not merely a game of skill. Each stat costs a few (real world) dollars to max out, while in-game cash is readily available to purchase via a glowing star icon in the upper right corner while on the fairways.

You can't blame the developers for this decision, but you you also can't help but wonder how it comes across to a more casual player, i.e., the friend of the family who owned the device. While showing him the ropes and explaining how to gain experience and money (and how to avoid the real money portion) he asked, "What, is the game not good enough to earn this legitimately?" It created an instant, unbreakable wall, almost a minor paranoia about what future downloads may require without his knowledge, or what he may spend by accident.

It's a thought process I've never considered before. EA has been charging for a quick putting skill boost (and others) within the console Tiger for years, effectively cutting out the entire industry side that used to be dedicated to cheats. If this concept has existed earlier, and under the EA banner, the Konami code never would have existed.

Clearly, it could be having an alienating effect as well. Those users jonesing for a $1 app are suddenly inundated with glowing icons and dollar signs, the parallel to the cheaper, more accessible iPad experience. And yes, it begins to question whether or not EA, as a publisher, has enough faith in the product as it stands. Is the gameplay experience so dry that no one wants to take the time to earn things through legitimate means? Or, is it more representative of the iPad user, a more on-the-go type of gamer who doesn't want to spend hours just to reach a perfect swing impact level?

Both sides are relevant, and an applicable example of the divergence between a widely growing gap between luxury entertainment experiences. But, if you're losing people to something that is seen as detriment to your product, is the financial gain actually worth it?

In Defense of GameStop

2012-01-29T15:10:00Z

Fun fact: GameStop isn't some evil entity out to squash the entirety of the video game industry.

Reading some of the vitriol being spewed across video game forums and comment sections, you'd think GameStop was owned by the Death Eaters from Harry Potter or some sparkly vampire from Twilight. I honestly can't say which would be worse.

Regardless, they're neither of those things, just a company that has spread across the country selling video games... used video games. The latter has apparently become a source of true demonic possession, or at least since a few PR talking heads stated the used industry is killing their profit margin. Never mind that some of those PR types worked for EA, a company who managed to double their quarterly profits last year.

GameStop has become this weird, illogical target. Any time someone takes a stand against the likes of overpriced downloadable content, online passes, or other anti-consumer practice, it's GameStop's fault.

Sure, that doesn't say much for GameStop's place within gaming culture, but they keep a stable, video game-related cash flow going. Trade-ins, used sales, and, yes, new game sales are all part of this at a time when the middle class is being crunched and game prices continue to rise thanks to the likes of DLC and subscriptions. Hell, controllers cost $50 now. The savings have to come from somewhere, because clearly the game makers themselves have no interest in leaving some slack on the rope.

There are other reasons for the bile spewed forth over gaming's main retail establishment, like low trade-in values. If a gamer takes in a new release game, they might see a whopping return of $20 on their $60 investment. Never mind that same gamer could put the game on eBay or Craigslist to get most of it back (or make better purchasing decisions in general); many people clearly don't want to put in the work, so they take what they can get.

Gamestop isn't giving $20 just so they can sail towards pure profit. It's anticipatory, planning ahead for when the fickle pricing structure of said new release game takes a dive. If GameStop gave $40 for a new release trade, suddenly they end up in the hole on the trade-in when the new price drops to $40 two weeks later. GameStop is taking the chance; the customer is taking the lazy way out.

Is GameStop too big? Possibly. But, ask yourself where the industry would be right now without a mainstream outlet, some place for the more casual among us to browse a wide selection of Wii games. GameStop has their own internal gaming economy that funnels not only money into their own bloated pockets, but those of publishers too as they stand as the top destination for new game sales. EA may claim to hate them, but they sure don't have any problem funneling their product through GameStop's doors.

As popular as Amazon or a Best Buy may be, GameStop represents a singular industry. They put a face, good or bad, on gaming. To despise them, (or heaven forbid) blame them as some sort of anarchistic self-destruct button is to declare your ignorance for the industry you supposedly stand up for.

Hate GameStop all you want, but they're not the source of gaming's sickness.

NFL Ruins EA Sport's NFL Blitz Reboot by Playing It Safe

2012-01-05T23:35:00Z

They call it the “No Fun League,” and that sarcastic transition may be official. EA Sports released their remake of the arcade classic NFL Blitz this week to Xbox Live and PSN, solidifying the NFL as an overprotective parent.

NFL Blitz, in its original incarnation during the late '90s, was 7-on-7 brutality. Hits crushed skulls, knocked off helmets, and post-play became an elbow-dropping free-for-all. It's staggering what a decade can do.

Let's face it — the NFL isn't worried about the safety of its players so much as the financial risks taken when a Tim Tebow gets smacked across his face by a lineman. That's not to say players don't deserve a little protection; of course they do. It's a violent game, but when it's being taken to such unbelievable extremes as to ruin NFL Blitz, it's the owners who needs smacked.

Now, NFL Blitz has become football as if the league were officially sponsored by Purell — sanitized to the point where there's no life left. Late hits are nullified, virtual players (who, mind you, appear to be on super 'roids) stand around after the play as if they're confused as to what to do next. The speed is crimped, running about 10% or slower than it did before. Helmets no longer skate across the turf after a brutal hit because, well, there are no brutal hits.

Theoretically, NFL Blitz doesn't need excessive violence to work. It's a zippy, carefree style of gameplay that makes it enjoyable. It doesn't need a Hulk Hogan impersonator taking over motion capture to portray a leg-dropping Brian Urlacher. But, without all of those elements, the soul of this series has been removed, sent to a great idea farm in the sky until the NFL realizes a virtual Michael Vick being injured doesn't mean the same as a real one.

Hell, for years they've let EA slap some poor sap on the cover of Madden only to infamously cause the worst year of his career or injuries. Which is worse, allowing late hits in Blitz or condemning a superstar to a year of woe thanks to Madden?

To be fair, EA didn't seem to care all that much either about this refurbished Blitz, slumming it with regard to the rosters, sacking a number of basic gameplay modes, and trying to open up the gamelpay with a little too much complexity. As fun as it may be to bash EA, maybe they saw the writing on the wall when the NFL handed out their “No!” list. God forbid someone has a negative perception of these multi-million dollar superstars. It's not like they're under federal investigation for drug charges, right?

Oh. Ouch.

Microsoft Launches "Metro" Dashboard for Xbox 360, Gives Up on Games

2011-12-09T00:50:00Z

Mid-week, Microsoft launched the “Metro” dashboard for the Xbox 360, a redesigned look to bring the console into sync with its mobile and PC partners. There's more than just a look though, as this business-oriented shift has shown where the company's allegiances lie.

The Xbox 360 is becoming that “all in one” box Microsoft has always sought to create, a device that every living room in the country needs to have for entertainment purposes. It started with Kinect, a dual-lensed motion camera that allows for voice recognition, and the beginning of TV sponsorships.

What's being left behind are the games. While it's doubtful Micosoft ever saw themselves this entrenched in the mainstream entertainment realm this soon, one wonders if the ubiquitous name “Xbox” was entirely for this purpose. The “X” could mean anything, and now, it's definitely not a “game box.”

Given where the console's digital offerings are buried, shoved behind movies and social apps on the Metro layout, it must be considered that after all the work done to bring people in with games if they're pulling a bait-and-switch. Marketing muscle has been flaunted, the casual dream Just Dance 3 ending up a bonanza of marketing on the Ellen show, something that ten years ago would have been fantasy for gaming.

When that Ellen audience takes home that little black box, they're not handing it off to their kids anymore; they're keeping them in droves. They're watching Netflix with it, putting in a DVD, playing with voice controls, or other functions. They're surely not playing games anymore, at least not some of the best to come out of this industry this generation. Xbox Live Arcade titles might as well be signified by a gravestone as new releases are crunched under the weight of six or seven menu options.

Woe be the indie developer too, those efforts smashed just as heartily as the arcade games. World of Warcraft advertisements plaster the dashboard, and that can't even be played by the Xbox 360. How does it make any logical sense to banish actual software to some nether realm and promote an unplayable (on 360) massively multiplayer online title? Microsoft is taking money for something totally irrelevant, and shunning those who put hours of labor into something specifically for the Xbox 360.

Part of it is this transformation of an industry, slowly unfolding as years pass and the soccer mom moves in. But what message is this offering? Is it any wonder why an older generation is still befuddled by the sight of a video game that doesn't use some wonky, fad-oriented camera? The industry has convinced them they need hardware, but not for its original purpose. Microsoft seems embarrassed by the term “video game,” so much so that they've metaphorically already dug its mainstream grave , and they made the hardware.

How far we've come and how low we've sunk.

Saints Row 3 Isn't All Fun, Games, and Satire

2011-11-21T13:45:00Z

It probably needs to be said that Saint's Row 3 doesn't have limits. As a kooky satire of gang culture and idolization of the lifestyle, a boundary is the last thing it needs. Players rescue scantily clad sex slaves from shipping containers only to hand them over to the gang's pimp for a profit. There's a raid on a BDSM parlor that ends on a street chase in horse carriages “driven” by men in leather straps.

And those are in the first two acts. There's still another to go.

It's odd that a line feels crossed, though. Like its more serious ilk, Grand Theft Auto, much of Saint's Row 3 is spent driving to a location to initiate the next story-driven mission or side game. Despite the Third Street Saints gang being an international icon with helicopters and fighter jets at their disposal, cars remain primary.

That's where Saint's Row 3 lost me. Sure, its cartoony facade doesn't insinuate realism, but carjackings have a strict sense of violence about them. As I approached a vehicle, simply needed to get from point A to point B, my created character (replete with designated “porn 'stache”) reached in to punch an elderly woman in the face, called her a bitch, and threw her to the ground.

The combination of the jerky camera, visceral nature of the punch, and screams from the senior were just jarring. It's not necessarily the violence itself. Saint's Row uses goofy physics to send bodies scattering across the skyline when they're hit by cars or blown up by rocket launchers. It's the darkest of dark comedy; even Grand Theft Auto III — and the sequels — had memorable members of the elder generation.

It came down to not only how out of place it feels in something this ludicrous, but how focused the design is in that moment to ensure it's as vividly real as possible. Why take the time to to ensure something like that is so visibly true to life? I'm envisioning a developer in the midst of crunch time trying to figure out how to render a carjacking, and thinking it would be funny if there was a loud, terrified senior behind the wheel. There's something off about that.

No, it shouldn't be any different if it were a middle-aged man driving the car, but it is. Typically, there's a funny one-liner destined to poke fun at the stupidity of Saint's Row in general, and some of the screams from victims are clearly meant to be amusing. The nature of those events just sort of aligned to create something unnerving, and after playing games for 25 years, something like that should have been passe.

Maybe it's a good thing that it's not. A psychologist will have a field day analyzing a game about a guy who enjoys sitting around bombing the public in a futuristic jet and the game community will rabidly defend the industry as if it could never do anything wrong.

But, consider this: Most games understand their context, and for everything THQ's otherwise enjoyable farce does right to set a satire in place, it blows it all on one two-second, minor event. Go figure.

Review: Eufloria (PlayStation Network)

2011-10-30T14:05:00Z

What Eufloria is missing is a deep, enriching subtext, the indie-credible, minimalist approach opening itself up for something with a little bit of heft in its closing seconds. Delving into a mindset of war, Eufloria banding together newborn seedlings defending barely defined asteroids from an infected invasion, it all feels abstract with a clearly defined reason that never comes to fruition.

It's frustrating to see genre benders mince together familiar mechanics with the potential of creating something special yet miss its calling, more so when it's something as impassioned as Eufloria. The easier difficulty setting refers to the experience as sedate, wisely categorized as a calming mission into interstellar war with a visage of mere dots flinging themselves towards the opposing side. Kamikazes stood a better chance.

There's a wealth of strategy here, at times dimmed by a determination to remain random. Later asteroid belts are masses of defense as slick, keen AI takes clear advantage of a slip-up. Sucked into a gravitational pull, newly spawned seedlings make their sometimes one-way trip to take over in earnest, only leaving their home base exposed. Eufloria clearly knows when light defenses should be in effect, and luck becomes an all too precise quality in a title begging for something more free-form.

Fitted for consoles with a slick, demanding interface, the game loses none of its zest in the translation from PC to consoles, always a point of contention in titles without direct control. There's something about watching war-born abstracts descend onto another heavenly body, marching under firm orders, almost as if small dots are truly prepared for the conflict ahead. Speeding up this almost melodic rhythm feels like cheating, not in the literal sense, but in the frame of the action. It adds an intensity Eufloria clearly doesn't need.

Based on mostly pasty, bright primaries, opposing strongholds seem solemn until under duress, reaching deeper into a wide array of nature-crafted defenses. Plant life sprouts from the interior, feeding off the energy within, determining the value of said base. Asteroids imbued with a healthier zest for life require precision assaults, either speed to zip by or all in with sheer brute force. It's like a universe where M. Night Shyamalan's The Happening never ended, plants destroying humans, only to go into galaxy scaled conflicts with each other.

At least, that's the subtext that seems to make the most sense.

Is Blu-ray Rushing Itself Into a Catalog Drought?

2011-10-22T01:36:29Z

Next week, Jurassic Park comes to Blu-ray, one of those “it's about time” releases for its beefy home theater power. It's coming not long after Star Wars, a bit later than the extended Lord of the Rings, and prior to that, Back to the Future.

What does that mean for Blu-ray as a catalog format? A lot, because it feels quite exhausted. For those mainstream, instantly recognized pieces of Hollywood entertainment, two names remain: Indiana Jones and Jaws. Those are still waiting for Blu-ray editions, although Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is out there, not that anyone cares.

Sure, there might be a handful of others, maybe an E.T. or Finding Nemo could spice things up, but it seems as if there's a rush to get this format into the homes. It's been five years since the formats inception, and it looks like the honeymoon with the catalog is over.

It's easy to face facts: Blu-ray isn't what DVD was, and it likely never will be. For the video/audiophile inside, that hurts, but it's reality. Jurassic Park is that catalog punch that may move some units, and Star Wars certainly did. Is there anticipation left though once that player hits home in a post JP world of hi-def goodness?

There will always be a stream of new releases of course, the latest superhero jaunt certainly important to the format for their showy visual effects and one-two audio punch. There's a lot to be said for the mountain of older titles too though, Blu-ray a format that can capture a piece of their spectacle and keep it alive for a while before the advent of digital downloads and convenience mask quality.

As it stands, this all feels rushed, studios clamoring for a sizeable market (Blu-ray found itself in a record setting week with Lion King and Fast Five) with a little too much force, drowning out the excitement in the process and spilling out their classics.

It's weird to think or even write that the Indiana Jones trilogy doesn't feel wanted right now. I'm sure it would sell, the hype train would roll, and then... well, there's no “then” really. After that, it's all Transformer sequels, and who wants that?

Batman: Arkham City Turns Into PR Disaster, Sours Launch

2011-10-20T16:20:00Z

Warner's plans for some Arkham City Catwomen goodness for new game buyers has flatlined the anticipated launch. For some, the code to unlock the Catwoman storyline simply isn't there or invalid, preventing those who spent $60 on the game from accessing what they paid for. Others? Well, they can't play the game at all, a technical fault causing the game to crash when seeking the needed information from that specific content.

Warner has a "simple" solution if your code isn't working though, so no worries (those with game crashes are still left with no fix). All they need is a receipt showing a purchase of a new copy, your Gamertag or PSN ID, an e-mail address, a scan/picture of the game box & disc, plus a scan of the code sheet itself. That's all fair, right?

Well, let's look at this deeper, beyond the fact that this supposed bonus has surely soured many on Batman's highly touted latest adventure. Many are eager to dig into developer Rocksteady's offerings, and likely have, code or no code.

In that case, they've already missed the content they paid for; Catwoman opens this Arkham adventure. The pacing of the game has been tossed to the side, a nice cliffhanger during a stand-off between the Joker and Batman cut-off for a Catwoman mission.

In other words, players who are left hanging already missed what they paid full price for, terribly inconvenienced for no discernible reason other than Warner's own growing greed, regardless of what it does for their customers. It's the stuff that keeps PR people up at night, and gamers from purchasing a $60 product.

Thanks Warner. Maybe next time a DNA sample can be requested for this $10 content. It's apparently that important to you.

Catwoman Locked w/o Purchase in Batmam: Arkham City

2011-10-15T12:50:00Z

With the embargo lifted, glowing reviews have begun to pile in for developer Rocksteady's Batman: Arkham City. A follow-up to the widely praised Arkham Asylum, the latest in a holiday boutique of named titles comes with a rather dubious business decision behind it, courtesy of Warner Bros. Interactive.

Inserted into this sequel is Catwoman, not simply as an ancillary character, but an important piece of the single player narrative if reviews are to be believed. If the game isn't purchased new, out goes Catwoman. She's being caged behind what Warner has dubbed the "VIP Pass," interesting then that Warner doesn't consider a customer without an Internet connection a VIP. How can that customer without broadband access who plunked down their $60 access that single player content? They can't.

Gamestop traditionally spits out a code at the register for used game buyers, so those who try to be a little smarter with their money can still make good on the Catwoman fiasco without paying an additional $10 (the cost for those without a code, or for multi-gamer households). However, as usual, smaller independent shops without that much clout are unable to compete.

Interestingly enough, there are multiple "perfect" reviews out there for Arkham City, and neither of those 10/10 write-ups consider the VIP Pass. Lower scoring ones do. Is it necessary to mention crummy business practices in the critique of a product? Is there any reason not to? Can a game be perfect if part of it is forever locked for a section of the game playing populace?

Journalistic integrity be damned apparently.