Video games are more like movies than ever before. Studios are spending boatloads of cash to get epic games on store shelves, and along the way, they’re making stories more engaging and dramatic. A key component in a developer’s ability to create a more cinematic experience is the use of cutscenes. Just about every game nowadays starts out with a cutscene to break gamers into the title and ends with a cutscene to close out the story. Most titles also have scenes sprinkled throughout to add a bit more color.
I’ve always been fond of cutscenes. I enjoy the opportunity to learn more about characters than I otherwise would without cutscenes, and I typically find them useful for relaxing my hands or running to the kitchen to get a drink between the action.
But there is a limit to what I’m comfortable sitting through.
As anyone who has played Metal Gear Solid titles knows, cutscenes can be a nightmare. Games in that franchise make you sit for an inordinate chunk of time listening to characters interact on topics you just don’t care about in most cases.
I’m fine with the few seconds, and can even live with a cutscene that lasts a few minutes. But once a game hits the 10-minute threshold, I’ve checked out. And I’m left wondering why I didn’t just watch the shows I had DVR’d rather than sit through the typically boring cutscene.
Realizing that, I wasn’t too happy to hear that Dragon Age 2 might be overrun with cutscenes. In fact, the BBFC in the UK revealed this week that the title will have 103 minutes of cutscenes when it launches.
Maybe it’s just me, but having 103 minutes of cutscenes in a video game sounds excessive.
When I play a game, I’ve made the conscious decision to not watch a movie or television show. I’ve decided I want to do something active while I sit on the couch rather than shovel popcorn into my mouth. I don’t want to think that I’ll have the opportunity to actually play Dragon Age 2 and then get stuck sitting through several cutscenes as the finite amount of time I have each night to play a video game ticks and tocks away.
If Dragon Age 2 had about 30 to 40 minutes of scenes, I’d be happy. But once a title hits over an hour and goes to nearly two hours, I’m annoyed.
Believe it or not, I’m not impatient. I simply feel that nearly two hours of cinematic content over the course of the several hours the game lasts will take me out of the experience of playing the title. Worst of all, so much cutscene content could make the game feel choppy.
So, let’s hope Dragon Age 2 offers the ability to skip scenes. If not, I doubt I’ll complete it.
I’m a firm believer in Google TV. I think the platform has more promise than any other software running on set-top boxes today. With the right vision and some fulfilment on promises Google has made in the past, I think it’s quite possible for the company’s platform to entirely change the way we enjoy entertainment in the living room.
But in its current form, Google TV isn’t there. Content providers aren’t playing nice with Google and running the platform in tandem with your cable provider’s DVR won’t deliver the same appeal that DISH customers enjoy. I view the software more as a proof-of-concept than a nicely thought-out implementation.
Realizing that, I just can’t see why Logitech continues to sell its Revue set-top box for a whopping $300. Yes, I know that it’s running Google TV, and the platform can do more than, say, the software running on the $99 Apple TV, but it’s clear now that the excitement everyone had about Google TV has died down. And it’s being viewed as what it really is: an under-performing entertainment platform.
As far as I’m concerned, the Logitech Revue should be selling for $150 at most. At that price, the company will be able to drum up some demand for the device, hopefully get most of its investment back, and at least have an installed base in place for when Google gets serious about its platform.
But the need for a price cut goes beyond demand.
Earlier this month, Vizio, currently the second-largest TV maker in the U.S., announced that it will offer Google TV in some of its sets going forward. In addition, reports surfaced last week claiming ARM-based Google TV devices are scheduled to launch “soon.” With the help of ARM, vendors should be able to offer lower-cost technology, pushing down the average price of Google TV products.
Logitech continues to feel pressure outside of the Google TV market, as well.
Apple announced in December that it hit 1 million unit sales of its Apple TV. The figure isn’t staggering, but it effectively highlights that the platform is catching on. And let’s face it: Logitech doesn’t enjoy the same brand recognition that Apple does.
Moreover, Roku’s set-top boxes, which can be purchased for as little as $60, continue to sell well.
So, I’m a little confused by Logitech’s insistence on maintaining its $300 price tag on the Revue. I understand that it wants to get every last dime out of its investment and I think it believes that the device will offer more value when Google updates its platform, but by then will it be too late? At least right now, the Revue is somewhat new and relevant. In a few months, it could be just another forgotten toy that failed to catch on with the mainstream.
Say what you will about Logitech and the future of home entertainment, but unless the company starts realizing that it’s not as well-positioned as it could be, and it understands that the competition is offering cheaper and more compelling alternatives, it simply won’t see success in the set-top box space.
In the video game industry, debate rages over what kind of content is appropriate for children and what is not. Some say that the interactivity of a violent game make it a potentially more dangerous activity for the average child than watching a violent film. Those on the other side of the debate say that with the vast majority of players, violent games have little impact, and the industry should not be treated differently than Hollywood.
As readers of my columns here on SlashGear know, I’m very much a supporter of the gaming industry. And I fully believe that games should be held to the same standard as films. I personally know that violent games did not make me violent when I was a child. But as for other kids, well, I’m not a psychologist, so I can’t really say for sure.
But all this talk of what’s good for kids and what’s not often leaves out a key component in that entire debate: the ESRB’s Mature rating. The Mature rating is designed to keep kids away from potentially objectionable content. Games with a Mature rating are considered suitable only for people aged 17 years or older. It’s the gaming industry’s answer to Hollywood’s R rating.
Over the weekend, I was discussing ESRB ratings with some friends who have children. I outlined for them the major differences between the ratings and talked about some games that fit into each category. After I mentioned the Mature rating and included titles like Call of Duty: Black Ops and the Grand Theft Auto series, a friend stopped me and asked me a rather interesting question: “Why 17?”
Of course, the simple answer is that the ESRB likely followed the film industry’s lead with the R rating. But the question also made me think. Is 17 really the right age for a mature-rated title? And if not, should it be higher, lower, or eliminated altogether?
It’s a question that cannot be answered so easily. Some titles, including Medal of Honor, Call of Duty: Black Ops, and several others, certainly feature content that might be objectionable to kids. But as anyone who has spent time playing mature-rated games on Xbox Live knows, the mature rating is largely ignored by younger teenagers that want to frag you as soon as you turn around. And when they do so, they usually throw off a few obscenities to make you know who did it.
However, just because younger kids are playing these games doesn’t mean that the Mature rating’s age requirement is too strict. Quite the contrary, it might just mean that few people care.
At the same time, how would upping the age requirement affect the industry? It’s likely not something that teenagers would like to see happen, and considering 18 years old is the age at which people can go off to war, having the Mature rating’s age requirement any higher than that wouldn’t make much sense.
And then there is the question of whether or not we need age requirements at all. Should a parent be able to decide what’s right for their kids and what’s not, regardless of age? Should kids themselves have the ability to make their own decisions about a particular game, even if the title they want to play is Call of Duty: Black Ops and they’re 12 years old?
It’s hard to say. And in the end, it likely depends on the individual. But like the movie industry, the video game business likely has a responsibility to impose some kind of limitation on kids when objectionable material is readily available. It’s just debatable if age, and especially 17 years of age, should be used to judge whether or not a child can handle a respective video game’s content.
So, let’s hear from you. Is 17 the right cut-off for mature-rated games?
I’ll be the first to admit that when Blu-ray first launched, I was skeptical. I wasn’t sure if the new technology was a worthwhile investment for someone like me. Sure, it delivered more storage and higher-quality video and audio, but I simply saw it as another way to take my hard-earned cash for little benefit over DVD.
Over time, I realized that my perception was off. Blu-ray has not only become my go-to platform when I want to buy movies or television shows, but it has also helped me replace the need for DVD in my home. Practically my entire DVD collection has been wiped out in favor of Blu-ray. And as time has gone on, I haven’t missed my once-beloved DVD one bit.
But now my time is being split between watching Blu-ray content and streaming video via services like Netflix and Amazon Video On Demand. I’ve found that not having to get off the couch to watch something I’m interested in is far more preferable than finding the DVD copy and popping that into a player. Call me lazy, but that convenience is something that makes streaming a staple in my home.
However, when I pit streaming against Blu-ray, I can’t help but choose the latter option when I want to sit back, relax, and enjoy a movie. The streaming option is certainly much easier to get up and running, and if I went all-streaming, I could reduce all the clutter in my entertainment center, but then I would lose the higher-quality video and audio that comes with Blu-ray.
Streaming is great, but do me a favor and pop Avatar into your Blu-ray player, running on your 1080p set, and tell me that isn’t the best way to enjoy that film. Yes, most streaming services, like Apple’s iTunes content on the Apple TV, are available in 720p, rather than 1080p, which makes the comparison a bit unfair, but isn’t that central to this entire argument? Until streaming can match Blu-ray in terms of overall quality and sound, it’s simply not the best way to enjoy content.
Luckily, companies like Vudu realize that. The company offers a 1080p option to customers that actually looks quite nice. But even in those cases where folks get 1080p content from Vudu, it can’t quite live up to the audio-visual quality we enjoy on Blu-ray.
And as convenient as Netflix is, the company’s streaming option in no way comes close to matching the experience of watching the same film on Blu-ray.
As much as I enjoy the many streaming services I use, they have a long way to go to match Blu-ray. Yes, streaming is convenient, and yes, it’s getting better by the day. But to say that it can be a replacement for Blu-ray, at least right now, is simply outrageous.
Not too long ago, I wrote on these pages that the Nintendo Wii in my house was collecting dust. I explained that Wii games aren’t as appealing to me as they might be to other gamers. I also told you that I wasn’t all that impressed by the Wii Remote itself. Suffice it to say that I’m perfectly content with a traditional controller.
So, when I purchased Microsoft’s Kinect after a few weeks of deciding whether or not it would be a sound purchase, I was a little concerned that the unique motion option would fall flat in the same way.
And then I played Kinect Adventures. The experience was unique, to say the least. And I was generally quite pleased with the gameplay. More importantly, I found that the Kinect followed my actions quite well.
I had a similarly impressive experience with Dance Central. I’m not much for dancing, but in trying the game with friends and family, I started believing that the Kinect would do what the Wii couldn’t in my life: make motion gaming a staple in my daily game sessions.
But after a while, just as it did with the Wii, my interest in the Kinect waned. Most of the games available for the device are more casual in nature, and they require multiple players to make them fun. The technology still impressed me, but the games themselves couldn’t quite stand up to the more traditional, “core” titles I typically enjoy.
More than a month since I came to that realization, my Kinect has done little but collect dust. I haven’t played a Kinect game in that span, and I haven’t missed it one bit.
Now, I’m sure some Microsoft fans would say that I’m premature in my judgement of the Kinect. After all, the platform has been out for only a couple months and some core titles should be supporting the device later this year.
That might be true. And I am hopeful that more serious titles can change my stance on the Kinect. But I’m not confident that will happen. Jumping around in my living room isn’t all that appealing to me. And once the novelty wears off on any casual Kinect game, I quickly realize that I’d rather sit on the couch and play a better title.
I can say the same for Sony’s PlayStation Move. Like the Wii, it falls short for me. And I can’t help but wonder why I’m flailing my arms around, rather than enjoying a game with a traditional controller.
So, unless the Kinect can deliver on my hopes of a viable hardcore experience, I’m not quite sure if it will do much in my house besides collect dust. It’s certainly a neat technology, and I think it offers more fun than the Wii, but when it’s all said and done, it still can’t match traditional gaming for me.
What about you? Is your Kinect collecting dust or are you playing with it each night?
I’m always quick to come to the defense of the video game industry when I feel it’s being unfairly criticized. Too often, critics say that the industry is overrun with characters and storylines that are targeted at kids. They believe that the industry hasn’t matured over the past twenty years, and is still caught in a time when plumbers and hedgehogs were all the rage.
The critics simply fail to see that today’s gaming industry is a much different place than it once was.
That’s precisely why I found myself in a somewhat frustrating conversation recently with a friend that told me the film industry deserves far more respect than video games could ever earn. He told me that classics like “Citizen Kane,” “The Godfather,” and countless others have done more for arts and entertainment around the world than any video game ever released.
As expected, his argument then turned to games themselves. He said that even so-called “mature” games, like Call of Duty: Black Ops or Mass Effect fail to offer the quality of entertainment and artistic expression movies can muster.
For sure, it’s an old argument. And it’s one that those on either side of the debate feel strongly about. But it doesn’t make it any less relevant. And as a video game fanatic, I feel it’s my duty to support the industry that has given me so much entertainment over the years.
See, I believe that some video games deserve just as much respect nowadays as movies. I would agree that sports games, children’s titles, or most of Nintendo’s first-party titles can’t be held in the same light as film classics, but I do believe that several games, including one of my favorite titles of 2010 — Mass Effect 2 — deserve the same respect as films.
Video games today are made with multi-million dollar budgets, have teams of writers developing compelling storylines, boast outstanding musical scores, and deliver a level of entertainment that was thought impossible even a decade ago. They are so compelling, in fact, that they keep us intrigued for dozens of hours. Try to find me a single movie that can do the same.
So, perhaps I’m not so sold on the value of film over games. Do I think games deserve more respect than movies? Of course not. But I don’t believe movies deserve more respect than video games either.
Video games are bridging the gap between fun and artistic expression. And I think it’s time we all appreciate that much more than we already do.
The set-top box market picked up in the past year. A slew of companies joined the fray, like Boxee, while others, including Roku, Apple, and Western Digital, improved their line of products to better appeal to consumers.
Aside from the Apple TV, perhaps the most notable addition to the set-top box market last year was Google TV. The platform was made available on the Logitech Revue and some Sony HDTVs, and was expected to captivate audiences.
But it didn’t. And all the while, the Apple TV performed quite well.
Apple’s set-top box features a small footprint and allows consumers to stream movies and television shows from iTunes. It also includes Netflix streaming, among other features. Unlike its predecessor, Apple isn’t treating its latest set-top box like a “hobby.” That renewed focus helped Apple sell over 1 million Apple TV units since the device’s launch, making it one of the more popular set-top boxes on store shelves.
As an Apple TV owner, I have no issue seeing the device perform well at retail (it is a useful product, after all), but I am concerned that the market will focus more on delivering an experience similar to that set-top box’s, rather than what Google TV offers, given recent sales.
See, the Apple TV is too simple. It doesn’t interface with my DVR, it doesn’t have an App Store-like marketplace, and it delivers a movie-viewing experience that’s far too similar to the sub-par offering on my DVR.
But Google TV is different. Even with its faults, Google TV has more promise than any other service on the market. It will soon allow users to access apps; it has a full-fledged Web browser; and with some help from content providers, it should soon deliver far more content than any other platform in the space.
As far as I’m concerned, Google TV is the only service available now that makes sense in such a forward-thinking marketplace.
The Apple TV is a fine product, but it’s too, well, today. And I’m not looking for a product that’s suitable for today. I want a product that can look ahead and bring the future to me sooner rather than later. And at least right now, that’s Google TV.
So, going forward I don’t want to see vendors get wrapped up in the Apple TV’s success and follow its lead. Not only would it hold the streaming space back, but it would also annoy a lot of consumers who are looking for far more functionality.
Allow me to just state the obvious right now: Nintendo fans are going to read this headline and the following column and immediately take me to task for supposedly inciting some kind of war between them and those who can’t stand their favorite game company.
I can assure you that such a result isn’t my intention. As I’ve expressed on these pages before, I’m a huge Nintendo fan. I was someone who defended Nintendo back when the company was waging war against Sega. And every single first-party title that I could get my hands on, I played with absolute enjoyment.
But something is changing.
Over the past year, I’ve played several Nintendo first-party titles, ranging from Super Mario Galaxy 2 to Donkey Kong Country Returns. And although I found the experience entertaining at times, and I worked my way through all the first-party titles I’ve played, I left nearly every one of them with a sense of disappointment.
But before we get into that, let me take you back in time for a minute.
When Super Mario 64 launched, I was suspicious of the new experience the game company would be offering. I was in a comfort zone with my Mario titles and I wasn’t sure if this new experience would be right for me.
And then I played Super Mario 64. By the end, I was obsessed with the game, its new ideas, and everything else that made it one of the top titles in history. It welcomed me to a new world of opportunity both in gaming and in Nintendo development. And along the way, it became one of my favorite games of all-time.
Fast forward to 2010 when I got my hands on Super Mario Galaxy 2, and that excitement was officially gone. Was it fun? At times. Was it on-par with so many Mario titles that came before it? That’s up for debate.
I found that Super Mario Galaxy 2 was an incremental update over its predecessor. And the tired use of the Wii Remote made me think twice about where Nintendo was going in the motion-gaming space.
I had similar feelings towards Donkey Kong Country Returns. The game is undoubtedly fun at times, and it ups the level of difficulty that made Donkey Kong so important in the gaming space. But once again, I wasn’t thrilled with the Wii Remote functionality. As difficult as the game got at the end, I found it a tad bit boring when it was all said and done. Needless to say, it’s unlikely to be a game that I revisit.
Granted, those are just two examples of several Nintendo titles that came out this year. But I think they illustrate my feelings towards the majority of first-party titles from the game company: the titles are fun, they can be entertaining when friends are over, but their use of the Wii Remote leaves much to be desired. And in general, I just think Nintendo is sticking with its own comfort zone and not allowing its franchises to grow as much as they should.
Now, does all this mean that I won’t be playing Nintendo video games anymore? Of course not. I’m a fan of those franchises for life. And I can say with absolute certainty that any future Mario, Metroid, or Legend of Zelda games the company throws at me, I will play.
But that doesn’t mean I don’t have some complaints. And I would like to see Nintendo grow up a bit. The gaming market is changing, but Nintendo seems to have been most resistant to that change.
Whenever gaming comes into a discussion on health, it gets attacked. A large group of critics from all over the globe say that playing video games causes children to be violent, older players to withdraw from the world, and can cause physical health issues from the supposed sedentary lifestyle.
Whether or not gaming really does cause children to become violent, adults to withdraw from society, and gamers in general to lose sight of their physical needs is decidedly up for debate, and there are compelling arguments made on either side. The fight between the two parties has been going on for years, and I don’t plan to rehash them here.
But I do want to get into what gaming does for me.
In my daily life, I’ve found that finding time to play a video game for at least a half hour each night helps me keep some balance between work and life. It gives me some time to decompress after a long day. And it provides me with a level of entertainment that I don’t necessarily enjoy during other parts of the day.
And I suppose I should say, for the record, that gaming didn’t make me violent as a child, I haven’t withdrawn from society, and I think I’m in relatively good physical condition.
Gaming makes me feel like a more balanced person. It provides me with that time each day to just, well, relax. And as many of us know all too well, we need more of that in our lives.
Now, I realize that people find relaxation in other entertaining exploits, like reading a book, exercising, watching a movie, or having a hobby. And among gaming critics, those actions are considered more valuable.
But as much as those critics might disagree, I’m a firm believer that gaming really does provide some value in peoples’ lives. And to say that it doesn’t, or to denigrate the impact it can have on helping to build a more well-rounded life for people is, at least in my opinion, a great disservice.
As far as I’m concerned, there is simply no reason to believe that gaming isn’t as valid as other tools used to help keep people happy.
So, although everyone has their own way of achieving a comfortable level of work-life balance, I think I’ve found mine through video games. Say what you will about the industry, the stories, or the way in which people play video games, but when it’s all said and done, gaming serves an important purpose in my life. And like many others, I’m happy about that.
But that’s just me. Do you find time for gaming in your life? Let me know in the comments below.
As someone that loves watching television shows and movies, I’ve been a subscriber to Netflix’s streaming service since the beginning. At that point, it wasn’t the most robust service, but I didn’t really care — it delivered enough entertainment value to make me happy.
But 2010 has been a great year for Netflix’s streaming service. Aside from adding every season of major hits, like Family Guy and The Office, the company’s offering has also added a slew of movies that make it one of the most compelling services in the space.
It also helps that the service is available on a variety of devices, ranging from the Apple TV to the Logitech Revue, and several HDTVs. Those products also include content from other streaming providers.
Simply put, streaming is huge nowadays. But as the space continues to grow, one thing is becoming abundantly clear: studios are unwilling to play nice.
The Apple TV’s content offering is a prime example of that. If you want to get content from NBC, for example, you’re out of luck. In fact, the device most notably features shows from ABC and Disney.
Google TV-based devices also suffer from studio negativity towards streaming content. Although they have the ability to connect to the Web from their device, Google TV users aren’t allowed to access television network content for free from the Web. That means Hulu is out, along with content on many individual network Web sites.
Similar limitations are placed on several other devices. No matter what product a consumer is using, they can’t access all the content they really want unless they hook a computer up to their television. And in many cases, that simply isn’t convenient.
To some, the studios’ reaction to the growth of streaming might be understandable. After all, they pay a lot to get their shows on the air, and they should be fairly compensated. But studios are taking it a bit too far. And they’re looking worse with every 28-day-delay deal they ink with providers.
However, that doesn’t mean that I’ve lost all hope. Quite the contrary, I think there is a way around this problem. And I think it will be due to Netflix’s own efforts.
Nowadays, as the company’s CEO Reed Hastings has pointed out, Netflix is a streaming company first, and a by-mail rental company second. Because of that, Netflix will be investing heavily in the streaming space going forward.
Over time, I think it will be that investment, along with Netflix’s ability to attract so many customers, that will bring the movie studios and television networks around. They might not like the idea of it, but Netflix is quickly showing studios that the market is changing. And they can either join in or look like a bully, which will only continue to hurt their revenue.
I should note that Vudu, Amazon, and other streaming providers are helping to improve streaming for all of us, but when it’s all said and done, it will be Netflix that will either make or break our living room entertainment experience.
Netflix has the user base, cash, and vision that’s required to save living room entertainment for those of us who don’t want to toe the studio line. And although we’ll all be forced to continue to pay for the right to do what we want, it’s a fee worth paying.
