My channel's been running straight for 2 whole years (3 if you count the sign-up date and the year the account spent lying dormant), but I think it's time I laid out some details regarding how my YouTube channel will work from here on out, and no, this will not be a re-cap of what I already planned for my channel. This will also be a rant of sorts to get the full point across. I'll try to get this seen by whoever I can knowing that not a lot of my "subs" pay attention to these, but, whatever. At least you (the person nice enough to actually read this) won't be surprised.
As the title above suggests, I'm going to be rebooting my channel's content...somewhat. Now, this doesn't mean that the old content (what's there now) will be removed. This simply means that there will be format changes in upcoming videos, and below, I will state why and how this will happen.
For those who actually look at my damn channel, you'll notice that I haven't done anything (at the time of this writing) in 3 months. There is actually a number of reasons for this. First of all, I'm more interested in my school crap, whereas YouTube is usually a second priority. Second, doing YouTube videos in general is becoming a pointless venture, as I don't think this has gotten me anywhere significant. And third....I'm beginning to think.....no, know....that my material is getting old.
Forget the YTP I just did. The only reason I did that was because I thought about it before retiring from those altogether. The video will be taken down soon, though, once I think people have seen it and complained about it enough.
My problem lies with what's there on the channel that should be left at this point...the game reviews, the Dual Paradoxes, the ASDF's, and the commentaries. I'll break each category down one-by-one in order to fully implant my reasoning for the state of it all.
First, the game reviews. These are what I started with, and as I'm aware, what helped boost my numbers a bit. But, honestly...the game reviewing scene is dead, and retro game reviewing has already assumed it's plot beneath general game reviewing's casket. There were other game reviews I wanted to do (such as reviews on the Twisted Metal and MegaMan Legends series), but I gave up on these plans because I lost interest in sitting down and talking about these games...and mostly to try and not get angry.
Now, back it up to the retro game reviews (rant time!). Honestly, I'm getting f*cking sick of hearing about these 20-year-old games. Do I play retro games? Yeah, of course. But do I want to keep hearing about these games on YouTube, especially NES games that I've never heard of and never plan to play no matter what anyone says? HELL no, not anymore. It's become saturated of its own matter. Also, retro game reviews in general are getting less and less attention from the community. Unless you've established a name for yourself like someone of AVGN's stature, your retro game reviews will go nowhere. I know one guy who keeps telling me that he believes he's underrated, but in the end, I tell him the same story. I can tell he doesn't want to believe that, but it's something everyone on YouTube still doing retro game reviews needs to understand. You think I'm joking? Take a look around. Does anyone give a flying cheesecake about these old-ass games anymore? (Rant over.)
Now, I come to the commentaries, which I have much less to talk about...as they're pretty straightforward. I personally enjoy doing commentaries because all you have to do is sit down and make fun of what you're seeing. It doesn't even really have to be informative (if that's your style). Eventually, I will expand commentaries from games to movies and TV shows (which I may link to from a different site to avoid the Hand of the DMCA), but as I've said, I enjoy doing these and will continue to do them. Plus, there's not much editing required, although I do plenty of retakes for lines in commentaries and clean up the sound to make each voice clip streamline seamlessly. Congratulations, you know the secret of my narrative style. And, no, I refuse to do commentaries on other people's uploads if you're wondering.
The next batch is the Dual Paradoxes. I'm going to be perfectly honest, here...I'm tired of doing those damn things. Each DP (a highly appropriate set of initials IMO) consists of me yelling at myself into a microphone for a half hour, which is then edited down to 9 or 10 minutes. Not only am I sick of the screaming and arriving near losing my voice at the end, the concept is also getting old. The whole Deus-X vs. Pyramid Head theme was fun and funny 2 years ago, but now, I think it's time for these two f*cks to do something else already. Not to mention, the angry game narration bit itself needs to die already. Seriously, this concept is VERY tried, and the outcome of each DP is predictable...Deus-X and Pyramid Head play a game. Deus-X provides the stupid passive observations and Pyramid Head scolds him for being a dumbass. This stopped being original when the Wheel of Fortune DP came out. So, right now, I'm thinking of phasing out the Dual Paradoxes in the near future. Like I said, the concept is getting old and needs to die already.
As a side note, however....I'm thinking of simply changing the format of the Dual Paradoxes rather than stop doing them altogether. As I'm going to mention a little later, it may simply be a practice of shifting focus over to Deus-X, but still keeping the tradition of two "people" talking about 1 game.
And, with that, I segue into the ASDF skits...which I also enjoy doing, as I like directing action and telling stories. However, this series will receive the largest reboot out of everything, because as you read just above, the Deus-X vs. Pyramid Head theme needs to go the hell away already. As you may know, the series so far consisted of DX and PH getting into random antics around their "base of operations," but there's always a conflict between these two whenever something is happening. However, in the coming videos, they will focus more on DX and the adventures that he goes on as opposed to always being around PH, who will now be mostly in the background providing the passive commentary. In some episodes, you may not even know he was ever there, and in others, he may be phased out completely. DX will still communicate with other characters that have been established (I've got a few friends on-tap for voice roles), but PH will most likely be in the background. Any episode with him in the foreground, however, will include him and DX working alongside each other to solve a problem, rather than butting heads over some stupid insignificant event.
So, there you go. The PyramidHead87 channel will, in time, be going for a reboot, and maybe this time, my sub count will actually mean something (honestly, I can't get over how wrong that 3,000+ is. It sounds like it's more than it should be), and I'll do something right with the two video types I'll have left to work on. Like I said, the old videos will remain, but the newer stuff will definitely undergo a long-overdue format transplant.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
An Age of Negativity (Venting)
Before I begin, I just have one thing to ask, first...what the hell is wrong with people nowadays? This has been a topic squirming around in my mind for the past week, now.
Why? For about the last year or so (typically on YouTube where most stuff happens, but that's only part of what I'm gonna say), I've noticed an uprise in overall negativity completely across the board. No, I'm not talking about hate. I mean, you see that every single day regardless of what happens and where you go. No, I'm talking about negativity from within these communities on places like YouTube, and pretty much any place you can find user-generated content.
When I first found out about YouTube, it was nice and quiet. All that you could really find there were some anime shows, retarded Internet videos of untalented dumbasses singing in front of a $4 webcam, and videos of stupid 12-year-old kids doing wrestling moves off rooftops. Yep, that's what it was. However, once everyone began to realize the full potential of the site and what could be accomplished with it (even though it's buggy as hell and errors are never consistent), people began to take advantage of this, thus fully unleashing the element of "having an opinion." Everyone's got one, but at this point, it's like everyone's just trying to find excuses to bitch and moan about everything.
Stop.
I did NOT say "everyone has become a negative twat." No, I said that people who are initially negative towards something will try to pull whatever complaints they can find out of a hat and exploit them. Only two places have bothered me with this: the user reviews of, say, GameFAQs...and the YouTube "movement," as most of the people there call it. For the rest of this, I'll just make an example from GameFAQs since you can glance around YouTube and pick up on these negative attitudes.
I used to write game reviews on GameFAQs, but I eventually grew a distaste for it after some time. I also used to go there to read up on second-opinion game reviews. But, once most of the user reviewers there got too used to talking out of their asses in a lot of their reviews, I stopped taking those reviews for face value. I've seen so many B.S. reviews there that I just stopped taking their reviews seriously.
I've seen countless reviews where people let trivial things ruin an entire game for them. Some complaints are just so absurd and invalid that it makes me wonder what the person was expecting when he/she first bought/rented the damned game in the first place. I've seen reviews where people complained about Metal Gear Solid 4 playing/controlling like a METAL GEAR SOLID game, and some people complained about how Resident Evil 4 plays like a RESIDENT EVIL game (yes, despite popular belief, some people did not like how Resident Evil 4 played "too similarly" to the ones before it. This is a good example of how people don't know what the hell they're talking about in these reviews, sometimes).
First of all, what is the point of complaining about a f*cking sequel playing like the previous game(s)? IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE 100% DIFFERENT, NUMBNUTS. If the developers wanted to make a game that was 100% different from the previous Metal Gear Solid games, then they'd have f*cking DONE a game 100% different from the previous games. I mean, seriously, in this one guy's review of MGS4, he basically complained how each of the MGS games are all completely similar, except for about one or two new features. Dude even said that all MGS3 did was add a new camera function. Oh, the camo index system? Yeah, that was a pretty small feature. Having to capture food to keep your stamina bar stable? Repairing wounds to keep your life bar stable? Finding a bunch of weapons and using different combinations based on your combat preference? Yeah, those sound like some pretty small features. My favorite part of his review was where he was comparing the game to Splinter Cell, talking about how that game is "better" because the controls were more streamlined and the game let you get away with making a few mistakes. However, MGS3 and 4's core gameplay ARE, in fact, based on the original MGS's core gameplay. You know why? Because it's Metal Gear Solid. Not Splinter Cell. Not Super Mario Bros. Not Hello Kitty's Dildo Scavenger Hunt. Metal Gear Solid. Usually, when I play a game with a certain name on it, I expect it to at least be 40% similar to what I've seen in the game(s) right before it. Y'know, I didn't hear anyone complaining about how MegaMan 2 was similar to MegaMan 1, except for the new weapons, locations, and the 8 new bosses as opposed to the previous 6. Why is that?
Another favorite complaint is how he thought having to hold down any more than 2 buttons at once to do maneuvers is "outdated and clunky". I'll give you a cookie if you can, a. tell me one person who gives a damn about "outdated" control schemes, and b. tell me one person who sucks at video games so much that having to hold 2 buttons is beyond their level of comprehension. Yeah, you hold multiple buttons to do things in MGS4, with the most I've ever had to press being no more than 2 or 3 (without the analog stick). When did this become so tricky, especially for new gen gamers (you know who you are)?
It probably sounds like I'm just defending the MGS games, but what I'm really doing is using them as an example of how near-sighted people are when judging some of these games. If you think I'm lying, go over to GameFAQs right now and read some of the negative reviews against some of these games and you'll see what I mean.
The games I've negatively reviewed...I have my own reasons for disliking them. I mean, really, even though MGS4 is good, it does have its share of problems. Yes, the second half of the game DOES slow down significantly in the uniqueness department, but if I play a game that's good, I just STFU and roll with the punches. One thing you'll never hear me say when reviewing is a game is "I hate it because of what it did," and then run through an absurd list of useless/unecessary gameplay features (you honestly have anything better to do with a game once you beat it?). I'm not going to hate on Resident Evil 5 because it's turned into an action game. I only play the Resident Evil games to f*ck some sh*t up, and on that note, RE5 did what I wanted it to do. I will, however, hate on a game for NOT doing what it's generally supposed to...and that's "to entertain". If I play a game the bores me into a headache, the game immediately gets negative points without a second thought. It's at that point where I will go back and nitpick about smaller details, such as graphics, technical issues, etc. Pretty much every game I negatively reviewed was boring, dull, and lifeless, which would encourage me to go back and dig up material to rag on to make up for the lack of entertainment value that the game itself delivered.
Well, that one's done. My venting is over for now. Like I said, you can go around and see some of this stuff for yourself to spot it, just as long as you keep what I've mentioned in mind.
Why? For about the last year or so (typically on YouTube where most stuff happens, but that's only part of what I'm gonna say), I've noticed an uprise in overall negativity completely across the board. No, I'm not talking about hate. I mean, you see that every single day regardless of what happens and where you go. No, I'm talking about negativity from within these communities on places like YouTube, and pretty much any place you can find user-generated content.
When I first found out about YouTube, it was nice and quiet. All that you could really find there were some anime shows, retarded Internet videos of untalented dumbasses singing in front of a $4 webcam, and videos of stupid 12-year-old kids doing wrestling moves off rooftops. Yep, that's what it was. However, once everyone began to realize the full potential of the site and what could be accomplished with it (even though it's buggy as hell and errors are never consistent), people began to take advantage of this, thus fully unleashing the element of "having an opinion." Everyone's got one, but at this point, it's like everyone's just trying to find excuses to bitch and moan about everything.
Stop.
I did NOT say "everyone has become a negative twat." No, I said that people who are initially negative towards something will try to pull whatever complaints they can find out of a hat and exploit them. Only two places have bothered me with this: the user reviews of, say, GameFAQs...and the YouTube "movement," as most of the people there call it. For the rest of this, I'll just make an example from GameFAQs since you can glance around YouTube and pick up on these negative attitudes.
I used to write game reviews on GameFAQs, but I eventually grew a distaste for it after some time. I also used to go there to read up on second-opinion game reviews. But, once most of the user reviewers there got too used to talking out of their asses in a lot of their reviews, I stopped taking those reviews for face value. I've seen so many B.S. reviews there that I just stopped taking their reviews seriously.
I've seen countless reviews where people let trivial things ruin an entire game for them. Some complaints are just so absurd and invalid that it makes me wonder what the person was expecting when he/she first bought/rented the damned game in the first place. I've seen reviews where people complained about Metal Gear Solid 4 playing/controlling like a METAL GEAR SOLID game, and some people complained about how Resident Evil 4 plays like a RESIDENT EVIL game (yes, despite popular belief, some people did not like how Resident Evil 4 played "too similarly" to the ones before it. This is a good example of how people don't know what the hell they're talking about in these reviews, sometimes).
First of all, what is the point of complaining about a f*cking sequel playing like the previous game(s)? IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE 100% DIFFERENT, NUMBNUTS. If the developers wanted to make a game that was 100% different from the previous Metal Gear Solid games, then they'd have f*cking DONE a game 100% different from the previous games. I mean, seriously, in this one guy's review of MGS4, he basically complained how each of the MGS games are all completely similar, except for about one or two new features. Dude even said that all MGS3 did was add a new camera function. Oh, the camo index system? Yeah, that was a pretty small feature. Having to capture food to keep your stamina bar stable? Repairing wounds to keep your life bar stable? Finding a bunch of weapons and using different combinations based on your combat preference? Yeah, those sound like some pretty small features. My favorite part of his review was where he was comparing the game to Splinter Cell, talking about how that game is "better" because the controls were more streamlined and the game let you get away with making a few mistakes. However, MGS3 and 4's core gameplay ARE, in fact, based on the original MGS's core gameplay. You know why? Because it's Metal Gear Solid. Not Splinter Cell. Not Super Mario Bros. Not Hello Kitty's Dildo Scavenger Hunt. Metal Gear Solid. Usually, when I play a game with a certain name on it, I expect it to at least be 40% similar to what I've seen in the game(s) right before it. Y'know, I didn't hear anyone complaining about how MegaMan 2 was similar to MegaMan 1, except for the new weapons, locations, and the 8 new bosses as opposed to the previous 6. Why is that?
Another favorite complaint is how he thought having to hold down any more than 2 buttons at once to do maneuvers is "outdated and clunky". I'll give you a cookie if you can, a. tell me one person who gives a damn about "outdated" control schemes, and b. tell me one person who sucks at video games so much that having to hold 2 buttons is beyond their level of comprehension. Yeah, you hold multiple buttons to do things in MGS4, with the most I've ever had to press being no more than 2 or 3 (without the analog stick). When did this become so tricky, especially for new gen gamers (you know who you are)?
It probably sounds like I'm just defending the MGS games, but what I'm really doing is using them as an example of how near-sighted people are when judging some of these games. If you think I'm lying, go over to GameFAQs right now and read some of the negative reviews against some of these games and you'll see what I mean.
The games I've negatively reviewed...I have my own reasons for disliking them. I mean, really, even though MGS4 is good, it does have its share of problems. Yes, the second half of the game DOES slow down significantly in the uniqueness department, but if I play a game that's good, I just STFU and roll with the punches. One thing you'll never hear me say when reviewing is a game is "I hate it because of what it did," and then run through an absurd list of useless/unecessary gameplay features (you honestly have anything better to do with a game once you beat it?). I'm not going to hate on Resident Evil 5 because it's turned into an action game. I only play the Resident Evil games to f*ck some sh*t up, and on that note, RE5 did what I wanted it to do. I will, however, hate on a game for NOT doing what it's generally supposed to...and that's "to entertain". If I play a game the bores me into a headache, the game immediately gets negative points without a second thought. It's at that point where I will go back and nitpick about smaller details, such as graphics, technical issues, etc. Pretty much every game I negatively reviewed was boring, dull, and lifeless, which would encourage me to go back and dig up material to rag on to make up for the lack of entertainment value that the game itself delivered.
Well, that one's done. My venting is over for now. Like I said, you can go around and see some of this stuff for yourself to spot it, just as long as you keep what I've mentioned in mind.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The "PS3 doesn't have games" myth, and an overview of the whole new-gen situation
The PS3 is out. The PS3 is moving units. Sony is managing to make money off the PS3. And yet, there's still this notion that "uuuuurrrrr, the PS3 teh suxxor, it don't have no GAEMZ!!!"
The people who still say this fall into 1 of 2 crowds:
1. They're either Xbox 360/Nintendo Wii fanboys.
2. They know much less about the industry than they claim they do, and therefore will not perform the appropriate research before running their mouths.
If you fall under Category 1, you at least have an excuse. Fanboys, for many a time, have been known to get pissy about these subjects. If you fall under Category 2...then, I guess you've got some problems you need to work out.
Here's the dilemma...both the PS3 and 360 have started off the exact same way, if anyone can remember. The 360 may have more games, but does that necessarily mean it has better games? Not exactly. Going back to the 360 launch line-up...I don't even think I need to explain how much of a disaster it was. Much like the PS3, I thought the 360 had a sh*t-tastic start, ranging from multi-platform games that were also on the PS2 and Xbox, to less-than-stellar launch exclusives (Kameo...Perfect Dark Zero....). Only 2 games came out that actually left an impression on people: Gears of War, and Call of Duty 2. So, that's 2 games...on the 360...that anyone in their right mind would have been bothered to actually play.
One of my biggest concerns with the 360 is the dreaded "RROD." I don't care how powerful these systems are, you should NOT be worrying more about your 360 crapping out at any random time more than the actual game you are playing. It's this that made me dodge the 360 and go for a PS3 instead. I was even offered a choice between a brand new 360 or keeping my slimline PS2 when I first bought it. Guess which one I chose?
Cut to 1 whole year later. The PS3 and the Wii finally come out, and everyone's turning their houses upside-down to get one of the two. Now, let's not forget that THESE consoles had their share of problems with titles, too. The PS3, like the 360, only had about 2 games that anyone remotely cared about. However, these games weren't as appealing as what the 360 was dishing out the year before (even though there wasn't much to see, anyway). Even then, I fell in with the crowd, saying that the PS3 was an overpriced piece of chrome-finished dogsh*t. Why'd I change my opinion on it and got one anyway? You'll find out a little later.
Oh, and we can't forget the PS3's disatrous launch day...and I mean it was LITERALLY disastrous. People shooting each other, people trampling each other just to get one of the 30 units Best Buy had in stock...it was absurd. And the worst part about it is that some people only wanted one just to resell it on eBay for twice the retail value. Go figure.
Aaaaaand the Wii....I'm going to say right now, that at the beginning of this generation, I was backing Nintendo completely. I thought Nintendo had all the aces in their hand, ready to roll. But, alas, they saddened me in just 2 years flat. I had actually wanted a Wii in the beginning, mainly to play games like Metroid Prime 3 and Brawl (a game which I despise now because the Nintendo fanboys ruined it for me). I also wanted a Wii because it was cheap, yet fun to play. Yeah, I liked games like Wii Sports and ExciteTruck, but I liked them only as appetizers. Now, Nintendo (and quite of few of the Wii's third-party developers) is using the Wii Sports-like minigame collection template for a lot of these games. I mean, what the hell happened? After Brawl came out, the Wii's horizon sharply fell from the distance. No new big Mario game. No new big Metroid game. No big anything from Nintendo, much like E3 2008 showed us. Hell, I would have taken a next-gen Ice Climbers more seriously than Wii Sports Resort. And what's even more sad is that a friend of mine, who *used* to be a die-hard Nintendo had, actually sold his Wii and is trying to decide between a 360 and a PS3. Even he caught on to Nintendo's game and got disgusted. Hopefully, at the next E3 (which is already only several months away), Nintendo will give us something other than more minigame crap, and put some of their focus on the middle people (the people who have been buying their stuff for the last 25 years), instead of putting all of it towards 6-year-olds and 60-year-olds.
And as a side note...am I the only one sick and damned tired of YouTube videos of 13-year-olds prominently displaying their Wii somewhere near their T.V. while they play it? Sh*t's getting out-of-hand, dude.
(Wow...I had MORE to say about that than I thought.)
So, now we cut back to the PS3. First off, I used to despise this console because of Sony's devious plans they had for it. Yeah, that's right. Anyone who knows any lick about me would already know that I hated the PS3 and whatever came with it. It wouldn't have been so bad, however, if it wasn't $600 for the "good" console when it first came around (or 599 US dollars if you want to cheese about it), and a mere $500 for the more cheaply made, less enthusiastic version (complete with the 2 missing USB slots...which is funny, since it was supposed to have 7...and the missing gadgets and gizmos, such as the SD card reader and the PS2 backwards compatiblity). When I first heard about the PS3 before E3 2006, I said "wow, Sony's definitely not going to make the mistake the 360 did, especially with all that 'core' and 'premium' crap." Of course...I was wrong. Sony did just that, except they were at least wise enough to include the hard drive either way it went. Problem is, if you have, say, a 20GB hard drive at this point...you'll have no other choice but to either get a whole new PS3 with a bigger hard drive, or buy a new hard drive itself. Because believe me, that hard drive space gets used up very easily. And while you're at buying new hard drives, I'd go for one of those uber-expensive terrabyte-sized hard drives...which is a waste of money anyway, since you're guaranteed to never need any more than 10% of it. But if you want to be the cool nerd on the block who likes to waste money on sh*t you don't need, be my guest.
Another advantage the PS3 has is its multimedia capabilities. What's surprising the most is how often I use it, despite how much I wasn't even planning on caring about it. Though I could care less about the photo viewer (I can look at that on my PC), it's nice to be able to watch .WMV's on my TV set, and use custom soundtracks in some of the games I'm playing.
PSN and Xbox Live...choices, choices. The PSN is free, but I assume it's not as robust as Xbox Live. Unfortunately, since I don't have Live, never had Live, and don't ever plan on getting a 360 to get Live, I can't say much about it other than what people have told me. However, the complaints against PSN are rather absurd, since the service does exactly what it was designed to do. If I can still play online with friends and have an alright time, what's there to complain about? So, whether or not it's as "good" as Live is irrelevant to me.
2006 up through 2007 was pretty much a bust for the PS3. All the exclusives anyone was looking forward to weren't showing up until after 2007 had settled, and all 3 consoles have finally been situated. But, it wasn't until early 2008 where things started turning around in my eyes. It took a year (November 2006 to January 2008, to be exact) for the PS3 to finally start catching my interest, starting with the game I was looking forward to the most...Burnout Paradise. Being a fan of the franchise since Burnout 3, I was definitely looking out for this one. It was by summer of last year that I cracked and decided to get one, thanks to a friend of mine (whose name is undisclosed because I don't want people bothering him about it).
Around this time, I noticed a lot of stuff coming out for the PS3 that I became interested in.
By the time of this writing, the PS3 and the 360 are neck and neck...they both have their exclusives, and all of the other good games are on both consoles regardless of what anyone complains about. This is what people are failing to understand at this point, and all this talk about the PS3 "not having games" is now a myth...a pile of dirt in a dustpan needing to be tossed out for God's sake. But in all fairness, all these consoles have their pros and cons that appeal to different people. There is no such thing as the "best" console. You can argue about which console has what, and sales figures all you want. As long as there are people out there who are divided on this generation, there is no one answer. All I have to say is, quit being a fanboy or purist, and open your mind. You might be surprised by what you'll see.
The people who still say this fall into 1 of 2 crowds:
1. They're either Xbox 360/Nintendo Wii fanboys.
2. They know much less about the industry than they claim they do, and therefore will not perform the appropriate research before running their mouths.
If you fall under Category 1, you at least have an excuse. Fanboys, for many a time, have been known to get pissy about these subjects. If you fall under Category 2...then, I guess you've got some problems you need to work out.
Here's the dilemma...both the PS3 and 360 have started off the exact same way, if anyone can remember. The 360 may have more games, but does that necessarily mean it has better games? Not exactly. Going back to the 360 launch line-up...I don't even think I need to explain how much of a disaster it was. Much like the PS3, I thought the 360 had a sh*t-tastic start, ranging from multi-platform games that were also on the PS2 and Xbox, to less-than-stellar launch exclusives (Kameo...Perfect Dark Zero....). Only 2 games came out that actually left an impression on people: Gears of War, and Call of Duty 2. So, that's 2 games...on the 360...that anyone in their right mind would have been bothered to actually play.
One of my biggest concerns with the 360 is the dreaded "RROD." I don't care how powerful these systems are, you should NOT be worrying more about your 360 crapping out at any random time more than the actual game you are playing. It's this that made me dodge the 360 and go for a PS3 instead. I was even offered a choice between a brand new 360 or keeping my slimline PS2 when I first bought it. Guess which one I chose?
Cut to 1 whole year later. The PS3 and the Wii finally come out, and everyone's turning their houses upside-down to get one of the two. Now, let's not forget that THESE consoles had their share of problems with titles, too. The PS3, like the 360, only had about 2 games that anyone remotely cared about. However, these games weren't as appealing as what the 360 was dishing out the year before (even though there wasn't much to see, anyway). Even then, I fell in with the crowd, saying that the PS3 was an overpriced piece of chrome-finished dogsh*t. Why'd I change my opinion on it and got one anyway? You'll find out a little later.
Oh, and we can't forget the PS3's disatrous launch day...and I mean it was LITERALLY disastrous. People shooting each other, people trampling each other just to get one of the 30 units Best Buy had in stock...it was absurd. And the worst part about it is that some people only wanted one just to resell it on eBay for twice the retail value. Go figure.
Aaaaaand the Wii....I'm going to say right now, that at the beginning of this generation, I was backing Nintendo completely. I thought Nintendo had all the aces in their hand, ready to roll. But, alas, they saddened me in just 2 years flat. I had actually wanted a Wii in the beginning, mainly to play games like Metroid Prime 3 and Brawl (a game which I despise now because the Nintendo fanboys ruined it for me). I also wanted a Wii because it was cheap, yet fun to play. Yeah, I liked games like Wii Sports and ExciteTruck, but I liked them only as appetizers. Now, Nintendo (and quite of few of the Wii's third-party developers) is using the Wii Sports-like minigame collection template for a lot of these games. I mean, what the hell happened? After Brawl came out, the Wii's horizon sharply fell from the distance. No new big Mario game. No new big Metroid game. No big anything from Nintendo, much like E3 2008 showed us. Hell, I would have taken a next-gen Ice Climbers more seriously than Wii Sports Resort. And what's even more sad is that a friend of mine, who *used* to be a die-hard Nintendo had, actually sold his Wii and is trying to decide between a 360 and a PS3. Even he caught on to Nintendo's game and got disgusted. Hopefully, at the next E3 (which is already only several months away), Nintendo will give us something other than more minigame crap, and put some of their focus on the middle people (the people who have been buying their stuff for the last 25 years), instead of putting all of it towards 6-year-olds and 60-year-olds.
And as a side note...am I the only one sick and damned tired of YouTube videos of 13-year-olds prominently displaying their Wii somewhere near their T.V. while they play it? Sh*t's getting out-of-hand, dude.
(Wow...I had MORE to say about that than I thought.)
So, now we cut back to the PS3. First off, I used to despise this console because of Sony's devious plans they had for it. Yeah, that's right. Anyone who knows any lick about me would already know that I hated the PS3 and whatever came with it. It wouldn't have been so bad, however, if it wasn't $600 for the "good" console when it first came around (or 599 US dollars if you want to cheese about it), and a mere $500 for the more cheaply made, less enthusiastic version (complete with the 2 missing USB slots...which is funny, since it was supposed to have 7...and the missing gadgets and gizmos, such as the SD card reader and the PS2 backwards compatiblity). When I first heard about the PS3 before E3 2006, I said "wow, Sony's definitely not going to make the mistake the 360 did, especially with all that 'core' and 'premium' crap." Of course...I was wrong. Sony did just that, except they were at least wise enough to include the hard drive either way it went. Problem is, if you have, say, a 20GB hard drive at this point...you'll have no other choice but to either get a whole new PS3 with a bigger hard drive, or buy a new hard drive itself. Because believe me, that hard drive space gets used up very easily. And while you're at buying new hard drives, I'd go for one of those uber-expensive terrabyte-sized hard drives...which is a waste of money anyway, since you're guaranteed to never need any more than 10% of it. But if you want to be the cool nerd on the block who likes to waste money on sh*t you don't need, be my guest.
Another advantage the PS3 has is its multimedia capabilities. What's surprising the most is how often I use it, despite how much I wasn't even planning on caring about it. Though I could care less about the photo viewer (I can look at that on my PC), it's nice to be able to watch .WMV's on my TV set, and use custom soundtracks in some of the games I'm playing.
PSN and Xbox Live...choices, choices. The PSN is free, but I assume it's not as robust as Xbox Live. Unfortunately, since I don't have Live, never had Live, and don't ever plan on getting a 360 to get Live, I can't say much about it other than what people have told me. However, the complaints against PSN are rather absurd, since the service does exactly what it was designed to do. If I can still play online with friends and have an alright time, what's there to complain about? So, whether or not it's as "good" as Live is irrelevant to me.
2006 up through 2007 was pretty much a bust for the PS3. All the exclusives anyone was looking forward to weren't showing up until after 2007 had settled, and all 3 consoles have finally been situated. But, it wasn't until early 2008 where things started turning around in my eyes. It took a year (November 2006 to January 2008, to be exact) for the PS3 to finally start catching my interest, starting with the game I was looking forward to the most...Burnout Paradise. Being a fan of the franchise since Burnout 3, I was definitely looking out for this one. It was by summer of last year that I cracked and decided to get one, thanks to a friend of mine (whose name is undisclosed because I don't want people bothering him about it).
Around this time, I noticed a lot of stuff coming out for the PS3 that I became interested in.
By the time of this writing, the PS3 and the 360 are neck and neck...they both have their exclusives, and all of the other good games are on both consoles regardless of what anyone complains about. This is what people are failing to understand at this point, and all this talk about the PS3 "not having games" is now a myth...a pile of dirt in a dustpan needing to be tossed out for God's sake. But in all fairness, all these consoles have their pros and cons that appeal to different people. There is no such thing as the "best" console. You can argue about which console has what, and sales figures all you want. As long as there are people out there who are divided on this generation, there is no one answer. All I have to say is, quit being a fanboy or purist, and open your mind. You might be surprised by what you'll see.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Consoles vs. Emulators
For my first entry, I want to get a bit cynical here, because this is something that's been rattling my nerves for a while.
Since I could remember during my time on the Internet, there's always been this debate as to which one of these is most preferred: consoles or emulators. I will say right now...I use both consoles AND emulators. However, when it comes to which console I want to play at any given time, it depends on what's closest to me.
What annoys me the most about this is that people seem to look at emulators like they're this "forbidden evil" where usage of emulators automatically means you're either not a "real" gamer, or you're just pathetic at life. I've seen/heard many people bitch and moan about reviewers using emulators for their reviews instead of the actual consoles, when in reality, it shouldn't even f*cking matter.
First of all, when playing a ROM of a game instead of the actual game itself, stop complaining about how different the actual copy is. Just because a graphic is two pixels off compared to how you remember it, or the pallet has a darker shade of green, doesn't mean the ROM is any different from the actual copy of the game itself. And besides, if the game is a piece of garbage in ROM form, there's a 99.9% chance that the actual game itself is absolute garbage.
Second of all, if you need to use an emulator for a game, just freaking use it. Just because people use consoles over emulators does not mean they are any better than anyone else. I'll tell you right now, I have a slimline PS2 and a PS3, all with a PS1 emulator on my laptop. If I feel like playing some PS1 games at a given time, I'll use the PS3. Sometimes, I'll just feel like using the emulator instead. Why? I just do. It may come down to a matter of preference.
What I like most about emulators is the amounts of customization you can do. You can do anything from customizing controls for any number of PC controllers, you can use save states (one of the main features that people complain about when others use save states, but I'll get to more of that in a moment), you can control sound settings, you can use cheat device codes, and in some emulators, you can trip around with the game itself (for instance, there are GameBoy emulators that let you change the monochrome color pallets).
And now, save states...I find this one rather amusing, because it depends on how they are used. Now, if you're getting your ass reamed in a game and you just have to use a save state, then by all means, I can certainly understand that. But, if you're dropping save states EVERY FIVE SECONDS...and maybe in an RPG...you probably should rethink your priorities on what games you play. Have you seen the Let's Plays where people use save states at least once every 10 seconds? These types of people are usually the ones who make it easy to look at emulators like they're a misdemeanor rather than something you just like to use.
There is, however, one example of a negative aspect of emulators used with game reviews. Take the AVGN's Superman 64 review. No doubt, he uses actual consoles instead of emulators, and as such, I actually commend him for showing you that the sky in the game was SKY BLUE, not hot pink, like everyone and their mother who reviewed the game complained of. Goldeneye 007...another game with sky color issues. On the console, the sky is blue with clouds (at the dam level, anyways). On the Project64 emulator, depending on your graphics card and which video plugin you're using, the sky on the dam level will be black. Other plugins may render the sky as blue without clouds. Like I said, it depends. But that's another thing with emulators...management. N64 emulators require extra resources and a hella-fast PC in order to play any of those games properly. It is in those cases where I would prefer to play Goldeneye on my actual physical N64 rather than on an emulator.
There are also different forms of "emulators" that don't necessarily register as emulators, but if you think about it, they technically are. For instance, take the Wii Virtual Console, the Xbox Live Arcade, and games you download off the PSN Store. You can even look at GameTap if you want. ALL these units are technically "emulators." Know why? Because you're not playing the games you download from them off the actual hardware they were originally designed to be played on. You're primarily playing ROMs. Only difference is that you're paying for the games. However, that is not much of an excuse since you're still playing the games EMULATED. You're not playing the actual retail copies.
So, that's all I pretty much have to say about that mess in my first text rant. I'll soon put other things here that I want to speak about that I don't want to waste a video on.
Since I could remember during my time on the Internet, there's always been this debate as to which one of these is most preferred: consoles or emulators. I will say right now...I use both consoles AND emulators. However, when it comes to which console I want to play at any given time, it depends on what's closest to me.
What annoys me the most about this is that people seem to look at emulators like they're this "forbidden evil" where usage of emulators automatically means you're either not a "real" gamer, or you're just pathetic at life. I've seen/heard many people bitch and moan about reviewers using emulators for their reviews instead of the actual consoles, when in reality, it shouldn't even f*cking matter.
First of all, when playing a ROM of a game instead of the actual game itself, stop complaining about how different the actual copy is. Just because a graphic is two pixels off compared to how you remember it, or the pallet has a darker shade of green, doesn't mean the ROM is any different from the actual copy of the game itself. And besides, if the game is a piece of garbage in ROM form, there's a 99.9% chance that the actual game itself is absolute garbage.
Second of all, if you need to use an emulator for a game, just freaking use it. Just because people use consoles over emulators does not mean they are any better than anyone else. I'll tell you right now, I have a slimline PS2 and a PS3, all with a PS1 emulator on my laptop. If I feel like playing some PS1 games at a given time, I'll use the PS3. Sometimes, I'll just feel like using the emulator instead. Why? I just do. It may come down to a matter of preference.
What I like most about emulators is the amounts of customization you can do. You can do anything from customizing controls for any number of PC controllers, you can use save states (one of the main features that people complain about when others use save states, but I'll get to more of that in a moment), you can control sound settings, you can use cheat device codes, and in some emulators, you can trip around with the game itself (for instance, there are GameBoy emulators that let you change the monochrome color pallets).
And now, save states...I find this one rather amusing, because it depends on how they are used. Now, if you're getting your ass reamed in a game and you just have to use a save state, then by all means, I can certainly understand that. But, if you're dropping save states EVERY FIVE SECONDS...and maybe in an RPG...you probably should rethink your priorities on what games you play. Have you seen the Let's Plays where people use save states at least once every 10 seconds? These types of people are usually the ones who make it easy to look at emulators like they're a misdemeanor rather than something you just like to use.
There is, however, one example of a negative aspect of emulators used with game reviews. Take the AVGN's Superman 64 review. No doubt, he uses actual consoles instead of emulators, and as such, I actually commend him for showing you that the sky in the game was SKY BLUE, not hot pink, like everyone and their mother who reviewed the game complained of. Goldeneye 007...another game with sky color issues. On the console, the sky is blue with clouds (at the dam level, anyways). On the Project64 emulator, depending on your graphics card and which video plugin you're using, the sky on the dam level will be black. Other plugins may render the sky as blue without clouds. Like I said, it depends. But that's another thing with emulators...management. N64 emulators require extra resources and a hella-fast PC in order to play any of those games properly. It is in those cases where I would prefer to play Goldeneye on my actual physical N64 rather than on an emulator.
There are also different forms of "emulators" that don't necessarily register as emulators, but if you think about it, they technically are. For instance, take the Wii Virtual Console, the Xbox Live Arcade, and games you download off the PSN Store. You can even look at GameTap if you want. ALL these units are technically "emulators." Know why? Because you're not playing the games you download from them off the actual hardware they were originally designed to be played on. You're primarily playing ROMs. Only difference is that you're paying for the games. However, that is not much of an excuse since you're still playing the games EMULATED. You're not playing the actual retail copies.
So, that's all I pretty much have to say about that mess in my first text rant. I'll soon put other things here that I want to speak about that I don't want to waste a video on.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Order 1
I are make blog? I are type things here for no real rhyme or reason?
I have some crap to talk about, and I don't want to make 300 YouTube videos stating. AMUSING.
I have some crap to talk about, and I don't want to make 300 YouTube videos stating. AMUSING.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
