PS3 Game Review - Genji: Days of the Blade

[Kamalot]

IGN has up their first PS3 game review for Genji: Days of the Blade (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/744/744611p1.html). They cover the game mechanics in detail including the infamous, 'real-time weapon switching'. In the end, IGN claims that the game mechanics and clunky play prevent the game from being much fun.

While Genji: Days of the Blade quickly became something of a joke after Sony's E3 2006 press conference, what with realtime weapon switching and giant crabs that "accurately" portray historical events, the game has its merits. It looks fantastic, with ultra-sharp textures to be seen on every surface and character. The art design is great and its animations are fluid and smooth. However, much of the gameplay feels drab and clunky. The ability to switch between characters on the fly to utilize their unique abilities is cool in idea, but as simplistically as it's implemented, it can't hold up the game. Movement can be frustrating, especially when trying to scale or run along walls, giving the game a somewhat unpolished feeling. Sure, it looks great, but it doesn't play as such.

After spending $500 or $600 for the most powerful gaming system on the planet, you'd hope that the "gaming" part of the equation would at least come close to matching its pixel output, and that's simply not the case
Overall Score - 6/10

Thanks to HardScores for a similar submission

[Dirty Harry]

Not shocked at all, infact i expect most ps3 launch games to suck.

[CaptStu]

That's gotta suck for those anticipating the game ... and the console.

[Gorvi]

Was anyone actually anticipating Genji?

[51|RandoM]

Sony is really shooting themselves in the foot. I mean, come on, every other console released in history had excellent launch titles showing the fullest extent of the power of the console. Umm, right? :p

PDZ is obviously the pinnacle of what can be achieved on the 360, right?

Lol. Even IGN is on the bandwagon now.

[Manzy]

<insert obligatory "massive damage" joke>

[HardScores]

I was particularly disappointed because the game is produced by Sony. You figure they would be veterans in making games for their own system by now and passed the experience on to their developer. If you look at Microsoft's in-house launch titles, you see Kameo, PGR 3 and Perfect Dark. This is not to say that all of Sony's launch titles will be fantastic, as SCEA hasn't exactly proven themselves to have good judgment when it comes to developing (989, anyone?), but Genji should have been a system seller.

[Nighthold]

<insert obligatory "massive damage" joke>

My first thought was "Wow, that review hit Sony's weak point for massive damage"

but I see you have already taken care of the (non) humor side of things here.

Moving along...

[JazGalaxy]

I predict this to be the case for most PS3 games. Great graphics... not much fun.

The question is: How much of those 6 points it earned are for graphics alone? Would a pixar movie score a 6 as well?

[Gorvi]

I was particularly disappointed because the game is produced by Sony. You figure they would be veterans in making games for their own system by now and passed the experience on to their developer. If you look at Microsoft's in-house launch titles, you see Kameo, PGR 3 and Perfect Dark. This is not to say that all of Sony's launch titles will be fantastic, as SCEA hasn't exactly proven themselves to have good judgment when it comes to developing (989, anyone?), but Genji should have been a system seller.

It was actually developed by Game Republic, who don't have a hell of a lot of experience from what I can find. Sony is only publishing it. Still, it's no excuse for the game being so poor, I don't see the importance of pushing out Generic Samurai Action Game #342 for launch.

[Kamalot]

On a related joke, I was at the game store the other day, listening to the clerk talk to a customer about Gears of war. One of his selling points was, "You can carry two guns and you can actually see your character switch between them in real-time!"

I just about fell over in a fit of laughter. :D

[eth3rton]

6/10 will be the Average for the PS3s launch titles...... with Resistance a little higher. I'd say 8.5/10

[Gorvi]

I predict this to be the case for most PS3 games. Great graphics... not much fun.

The question is: How much of those 6 points it earned are for graphics alone? Would a pixar movie score a 6 as well?

Is that prediction actually based on anything? Or did you say the same thing about the 360 last year?

[needoptic]

Not shocked at all, infact i expect most ps3 launch games to suck.

Werd, just like the xbox 360 launch. Hopefully there will be exciting titles a year from now, I would hate for microsoft to lose its competitor.

[Virtual Machine]

It's freaking GENJI! Is anyone surpised?

I enjoyed the PS2 version for what it was, but i expected no more. Anyone who thinks this is indicative of things to come is deluded.

[HardScores]

Yeah. Published=produced. Whatever. That's why I mentioned "You figure they would be veterans in making games for their own system by now and passed the experience on to their developer."

[needoptic]

Is that prediction actually based on anything? Or did you say the same thing about the 360 last year?

If not him, then another retard. How a console can be predisposed to suck the fun out of a game is beyond me. :rolleyes:

Then again, the ps3 does tend to suck out the cash out the wallet. :eek:

[51|RandoM]

If not him, then another retard. How a console can be predisposed to suck the fun out of a game is beyond me. :rolleyes:



You ever play on an Intellivsion or Intellivision II?

The controllers on those two systems could've been used by the Inquisition to elicit confessions from people who resisted lesser tortures like the rack.

I still loved my intellivision II, but it was an uphill fight.

[Deadend]

So, pretty graphics do not make up for a mediocre game.

Big surprise there.

News at 11: Being shot hurts, and other no-shit statements.

I don't even think Genji rises to the level of Perfect Dark Zero at this point.

[The Letter 3]

I predict this to be the case for most PS3 games. Great graphics... not much fun.
Really? So you can look down the line at the ten year life span this console will likely have and predict that most games will not be much fun? Why is that?

[KNOTE]

I don't think it's fair at all to factor in the price of the system when judging a game. No matter what the quality of Genji is, IGN certainly had an agenda to push with their score.

[bean19]

Was anyone actually anticipating Genji?

Sure. It's flashy and a lot of people want something besides Resistance or an EA sports title at launch. Smart people will wait for Lair. . . or just wait until 2007 when MGS comes out and avoid the whole launch craze.

[Spigot]

I enjoyed the PS2 version of Genji, but it didn't really stick out in my mind as anything more than another Onimusha-style hack & slash. Fun, but nothing memorable.

Of course, I'm not going to buy a PS3 until they release Fantavision 2 on it. Oh lordy, pretty fireworks!

[TheEpicOfTyler]

Genji is not the game that PS3 fans have showcased. It's been a joke from day one.

[JazGalaxy]

Is that prediction actually based on anything? Or did you say the same thing about the 360 last year?


It's based on lots of things. For just one, It's based on the fact that the games industry is following the movie industry in terms of production. How many billion dollar summer blockbuster movies are really that good? If you're of discriminating taste, probably not that many.

As the the industry has been chasing the graphical curve, more and more resources are dumped into graphics. More than that, as the industry has been chasing the "cinematic gaming" angle, which is Sony's linchpin, the more development has been spreading itself thinner and thinner. I don't blame games for being poor these days, it's almost inevitable. They attempt to put forth an experience that has a good dramatic story, a gripping and dramatic musical score, cutting edge graphics, a voice cast, direction for cinematic cut scenes, and somewhere in there still manage to implement fun gameplay. Modern games succeed at maybe half that list, usually less. And the bizzarre thing is that almost every single one is a deal breaker. Bad voice acting can ruin a game. Bad music.. or NO music... can ruin a game. Bad camera can ruin a game.

It seems silly to make every attempt at creating a game be the gaming equivalent of the mona lisa. Especially when it rarely ever happens.

It's a matter of too many cooks spoiling the cake, I believe. It's simply never been a good idea to get 500 people together and try to get them to create art together, and honestly, between voice talent, motion capture talent, programmers, artist, and publishing, that's the size of staff we're talking about on these big budget titles.

I think there's a defiante reason that I look back at my old PC Gamer magazines and see an average score of 80 and then look at modern editions of the same magazine and see an average score of 60-70.

As for why I'd say this about the PS3 specifically, it's because Sony has always been, as I understand it, the ones who are pushing the industry in this direction. It's sony who banned 2d titles on it's system, for instance. Also, it's sony who scoffs at ingenuity and reinvention and instead pushes for more power. Always more power. You like those Snes shoulder buttons? We'll multiply it! You like the N64's analog stick? We'll give you two! Cell processor is so powerful it's dangerous to the environment!

Always more power.

I simply don't see it being beneficial to gaming. Like an actor who has so much costuming that he can't act from underneath it all.

I simply don't forsee, as sony pushes blue ray, and pushes developers to be High Def and fill those blue ray discs, for games to really benefit from a gameplay standpoint because of it. I forsee lots of PS3 6's and 7's.

[silv]

I don't think it's fair at all to factor in the price of the system when judging a game. No matter what the quality of Genji is, IGN certainly had an agenda to push with their score.

Sure it is. If the NEO-GEO had some alright games, but cost $800.. compared to another system with equally/better games for cheaper..

Why would it NOT count?

[Gorvi]

It's based on lots of things. For just one, It's based on the fact that the games industry is following the movie industry in terms of production. How many billion dollar summer blockbuster movies are really that good? If you're of discriminating taste, probably not that many.

As the the industry has been chasing the graphical curve, more and more resources are dumped into graphics. More than that, as the industry has been chasing the "cinematic gaming" angle, which is Sony's linchpin, the more development has been spreading itself thinner and thinner. I don't blame games for being poor these days, it's almost inevitable. They attempt to put forth an experience that has a good dramatic story, a gripping and dramatic musical score, cutting edge graphics, a voice cast, direction for cinematic cut scenes, and somewhere in there still manage to implement fun gameplay. Modern games succeed at maybe half that list, usually less. And the bizzarre thing is that almost every single one is a deal breaker. Bad voice acting can ruin a game. Bad music.. or NO music... can ruin a game. Bad camera can ruin a game.

It seems silly to make every attempt at creating a game be the gaming equivalent of the mona lisa. Especially when it rarely ever happens.

It's a matter of too many cooks spoiling the cake, I believe. It's simply never been a good idea to get 500 people together and try to get them to create art together, and honestly, between voice talent, motion capture talent, programmers, artist, and publishing, that's the size of staff we're talking about on these big budget titles.

I think there's a defiante reason that I look back at my old PC Gamer magazines and see an average score of 80 and then look at modern editions of the same magazine and see an average score of 60-70.

As for why I'd say this about the PS3 specifically, it's because Sony has always been, as I understand it, the ones who are pushing the industry in this direction. It's sony who banned 2d titles on it's system, for instance. Also, it's sony who scoffs at ingenuity and reinvention and instead pushes for more power. Always more power. You like those Snes shoulder buttons? We'll multiply it! You like the N64's analog stick? We'll give you two! Cell processor is so powerful it's dangerous to the environment!

Always more power.

I simply don't see it being beneficial to gaming. Like an actor who has so much costuming that he can't act from underneath it all.

I simply don't forsee, as sony pushes blue ray, and pushes developers to be High Def and fill those blue ray discs, for games to really benefit from a gameplay standpoint because of it. I forsee lots of PS3 6's and 7's.

I understand the point your trying to make, but MS is just as guilty as Sony for this kind of thing. It's MS that pushed the 'next gen' before the market was clamoring for a new system, not Sony. The same parallels can be made for both in the majority of your points.

[bapenguin]

This review was for massive damage. Sorry had to do it.

[KNOTE]

Sure it is. If the NEO-GEO had some alright games, but cost $800.. compared to another system with equally/better games for cheaper..

Why would it NOT count?

Because the Neo Geo was $800 does that mean Samurai Showdown II was not a good game?

It's a game review, not a system review is my point.

[Serapth]

You ever play on an Intellivsion or Intellivision II?

The controllers on those two systems could've been used by the Inquisition to elicit confessions from people who resisted lesser tortures like the rack.

I still loved my intellivision II, but it was an uphill fight.


HEATHEN! The controller kicked ass, espeically compared to the ATARI 2600. The telephone style buttons made gameplay kickass. I still remember hours wasted on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and SubHunt.

Now... the quality was horrid. The buttons would wear out quickly and some dipshit though the idea of having them hardwired was a good thing.

Man, I miss games shipping with controller inserts.

[torrefaction]

It's based on lots of things. For just one, It's based on the fact that the games industry is following the movie industry in terms of production. How many billion dollar summer blockbuster movies are really that good? If you're of discriminating taste, probably not that many.

As the the industry has been chasing the graphical curve, more and more resources are dumped into graphics. More than that, as the industry has been chasing the "cinematic gaming" angle, which is Sony's linchpin, the more development has been spreading itself thinner and thinner. I don't blame games for being poor these days, it's almost inevitable. They attempt to put forth an experience that has a good dramatic story, a gripping and dramatic musical score, cutting edge graphics, a voice cast, direction for cinematic cut scenes, and somewhere in there still manage to implement fun gameplay. Modern games succeed at maybe half that list, usually less. And the bizzarre thing is that almost every single one is a deal breaker. Bad voice acting can ruin a game. Bad music.. or NO music... can ruin a game. Bad camera can ruin a game.

It seems silly to make every attempt at creating a game be the gaming equivalent of the mona lisa. Especially when it rarely ever happens.

It's a matter of too many cooks spoiling the cake, I believe. It's simply never been a good idea to get 500 people together and try to get them to create art together, and honestly, between voice talent, motion capture talent, programmers, artist, and publishing, that's the size of staff we're talking about on these big budget titles.

I think there's a defiante reason that I look back at my old PC Gamer magazines and see an average score of 80 and then look at modern editions of the same magazine and see an average score of 60-70.

As for why I'd say this about the PS3 specifically, it's because Sony has always been, as I understand it, the ones who are pushing the industry in this direction. It's sony who banned 2d titles on it's system, for instance. Also, it's sony who scoffs at ingenuity and reinvention and instead pushes for more power. Always more power. You like those Snes shoulder buttons? We'll multiply it! You like the N64's analog stick? We'll give you two! Cell processor is so powerful it's dangerous to the environment!

Always more power.

I simply don't see it being beneficial to gaming. Like an actor who has so much costuming that he can't act from underneath it all.

I simply don't forsee, as sony pushes blue ray, and pushes developers to be High Def and fill those blue ray discs, for games to really benefit from a gameplay standpoint because of it. I forsee lots of PS3 6's and 7's.

I really disagree with you, on well...the majority of your points. Immersion has long been where I've seen games going, and why I've been so excited about them. Games have recently been evoking huge emotional reactions from me (CoD2, GRAW, Dead Rising, Oblivion to some extent.) More so than I can ever recall.

Facial expressions, physics...it's all part of an emotional experience. I want to feel and live these games. It's not just about graphics...the writing and direction of the game needs to be superb, as well as fun to play. Yes, it makes it harder. But from all accounts Gears of War has met those standards. And without a doubt, there'll be PS3 games that hit this same peak. We just won't see them until Christmas next year...just like the 360. It's no surprise, these are first gen launch titles.

As far as your scores, I really think your failing to take into account the fact that people capitalize on burgeoning markets. As markets expand, people less concerned with art and quality and more concerned with low costs and high profits make games. These people are just trying to take advantage of the uneducated consumer in the rapidly expanding gaming market.

Yes, you'll see an effect on the average scores as an impact of this. Yes, better looking and deeper games cost more to make. Black Isles Studios is a prime example of this. I'm currently in the process of replaying all of these games, but you know what? They where expensive to make, and attracted a fairly niche market.

More power and ability for the developer's is nothing but a good thing. With the increase of popularity of XBLA, the introduction of XNA, and Sony pursuing the same route, indie developer's are going to have a chance again to. I mean, Roboblitz is only 50 MB, and uses the Unreal 3 engine.

In other words, I feel like this is one of those "When I was your age" arguments, that really holds no validity. Original titles are pushing companies profits back into the black...and we're seeing a rush of some very good titles these days. THQ's increase of profits due to Saints Row and Company of Heroes is going to be a signal to other publishers to wake the fuck up.

This is the best time period for gaming, ever.

[safa1]

Where the fuck is Fantavision 2? Fucking Sony.

[51|RandoM]

HEATHEN! The controller kicked ass, espeically compared to the ATARI 2600. The telephone style buttons made gameplay kickass. I still remember hours wasted on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and SubHunt.

Now... the quality was horrid. The buttons would wear out quickly and some dipshit though the idea of having them hardwired was a good thing.

Man, I miss games shipping with controller inserts.

The button pad was ok. The control disc was ok. Those stupid chiclet-sized side buttons, though, I think I still bear scars from using those.

...and yeah, AD&D was a lot of fun. My cousin and I spent hours playing Utopia too. We used to fill every tile up with a ship, just to stop the pirates.

[Eran Hawke]

The poeple at IGN are dumb and must be paid for microsoft cause this game is going to rock a lot. you will see whan other reveiws come out and everyone but the dumb people at IGN end up looking dum.

[Gorvi]

The poeple at IGN are dumb and must be paid for microsoft cause this game is going to rock a lot. you will see whan other reveiws come out and everyone but the dumb people at IGN end up looking dum.

Man, I know I've said it before, but please, stop posting. There are people on this site that will generally say good things about Sony products because they actually enjoy the games, and then there's blind fanboyism (word creation ftw!). Seriously, if you can read what you've written and not see it, I feel bad for you.

[torrefaction]

These dumb people are dumber than the dumbest dummies ever to be dumb! :rolleyes:

*Edit*

Also...Ethan can't spell.

[KNOTE]

The poeple at IGN are dumb and must be paid for microsoft cause this game is going to rock a lot. you will see whan other reveiws come out and everyone but the dumb people at IGN end up looking dum.

This guy is joking right? Sarcasm meter is all going haywire on me.

[Royal Fool]

It's okay to factor the cost of a system/game into the review itself, but I think it shouldn't impact the score.

Then again, scores are pretty much pointless anyway, as I'm sure some people here realize.

Because the Neo Geo was $800 does that mean Samurai Showdown II was not a good game?

It's a game review, not a system review is my point.
Reviewers should take into account if the game is worth the entry fee, i.e. a full retail game, a budget title, smaller game bought through the PS3/X360/Wii. And if they do that, I think it's also logical to make a note of the price of the system it'll play on.

I'm saying it should be factored into the review, not the score. See above for my stance regarding giving games numerical scores in general.

Psst... also, Eran Hawke is a professional troll.

[Gorvi]

These dumb people are dumber than the dumbest dummies ever to be dumb! :rolleyes:

*Edit*

Also...Ethan can't spell.

I don't know about Ethan, but I know Eran can't spell. :p

/em runs away.

[torrefaction]

Ah...crap.

[rjcombo]

Sony is really shooting themselves in the foot. I mean, come on, every other console released in history had excellent launch titles showing the fullest extent of the power of the console. Umm, right? :p

PDZ is obviously the pinnacle of what can be achieved on the 360, right?

Lol. Even IGN is on the bandwagon now.
Except the main complaint in the review has nothing to do with system performance, but rather tha actual fun involved with Genji's gameplay. This is one of the few launch exclusives for the platform, and it's not making the $499/$599 price tag look any more attractive.

[IRONGUSTAV]

Was anyone actually anticipating Genji?

sure kamalot was anticipating it.. ( the bad score )

[H.Bogard]

Because the Neo Geo was $800 does that mean Samurai Showdown II was not a good game?

It's a game review, not a system review is my point.

Tell that to GamefuckingSpot when they review a PC game to a low score just because it has high system requirements. What the fuck? You expect PC gaming to be done on a god damned Celeron 1.8ghz you bitch??!
*explodes

Sorry... had to let that out. :D

[Evil Avnovice]

Genji: Dawn of the Samurai felt like a first-generation PS2 title, and it sounds like this PS3 entry is following in its footsteps: A PS3 title that feels like a first-generation PS2 title.

[JazGalaxy]

I really disagree with you, on well...the majority of your points. Immersion has long been where I've seen games going, and why I've been so excited about them. Games have recently been evoking huge emotional reactions from me (CoD2, GRAW, Dead Rising, Oblivion to some extent.) More so than I can ever recall.

Facial expressions, physics...it's all part of an emotional experience. I want to feel and live these games. It's not just about graphics...the writing and direction of the game needs to be superb, as well as fun to play. Yes, it makes it harder. But from all accounts Gears of War has met those standards. And without a doubt, there'll be PS3 games that hit this same peak. We just won't see them until Christmas next year...just like the 360. It's no surprise, these are first gen launch titles.

As far as your scores, I really think your failing to take into account the fact that people capitalize on burgeoning markets. As markets expand, people less concerned with art and quality and more concerned with low costs and high profits make games. These people are just trying to take advantage of the uneducated consumer in the rapidly expanding gaming market.

Yes, you'll see an effect on the average scores as an impact of this. Yes, better looking and deeper games cost more to make. Black Isles Studios is a prime example of this. I'm currently in the process of replaying all of these games, but you know what? They where expensive to make, and attracted a fairly niche market.

More power and ability for the developer's is nothing but a good thing. With the increase of popularity of XBLA, the introduction of XNA, and Sony pursuing the same route, indie developer's are going to have a chance again to. I mean, Roboblitz is only 50 MB, and uses the Unreal 3 engine.

In other words, I feel like this is one of those "When I was your age" arguments, that really holds no validity. Original titles are pushing companies profits back into the black...and we're seeing a rush of some very good titles these days. THQ's increase of profits due to Saints Row and Company of Heroes is going to be a signal to other publishers to wake the fuck up.

This is the best time period for gaming, ever.

Well, this is a fundamental theory that I've been developing, but I think that there are different kinds of gamers who have nothing to do with one another, and I think we are representive of two of those camps.

I like games for the sake of playing games. I'm most involved in a game when I'm trying to figure out a strategy on how to beat a boss who's destroyed me ten times, or when I'm down to 10% health with low ammo and have a whole level to go before it will refill. I watch television, read comic books, read prose books, and go to movies when I want to be told a story. Why? Because they generally do it better. Videogame talent is, at this point, usually made up of hacks. There's nothing worse than sitting through an element of gameply like Tidus and his lady friend talking about laughing in FFX and knowing what the writers were getting at, but almost wanting to shoot yourself because the voice acting and cinema direction is so attrociously bad. Not only am I not having fun in instances like that, I'm actively being the opposite of entertained. It's the kind of thing I would walk out on if it was live.

As for how I feel about Microsoft, I feel they are just as guilty of this as Sony. Peter Jacksons announcement of a new X360 "Interactive entertainment experience" that was "not really a game" made me utterly cringe. THIS is where I see gaming going, and that's not gaming to me.

Personally, I think the two camps, those who support interactive entertainment and those who support pure video games, need to divide. One of us goes an starts Shelbyville, the other goes and starts Springfield. I see no real reason to hang around one another.

I see that kind of happening with the Wii and the 360/PS3. I'm psyched about the wii because I am really into nintendo's strategy of focusing on gameplay and not worrying about this cinematic HD stuff. But, I understand that there are those who are. My only concern is that I wish developers would see the difference between the communities and develop games for them as opposed to treating all gamers like they are the same.

To me the only thing that matters is gameplay. A game that looks like Loco Roco looks just as interesting to me as a game like Gears of War if it looks like it will play well. Similarly a game like Fable looked poor to me even from the start because it simply did not look like it would play in a fun manner. And no surprise to me, it didn't. Other people have an inverse appareciation for games, and I suppose I respect that, but I dislike the idea of developers trying to develop for both.

[Evil Avnovice]

Was anyone actually anticipating Genji?

Other than those who for some strange reason have an obsession with it, probably not too many people.

But I could be wrong. ;)

[disc]

Gotta suck to be a reviewer for ign, living for hype and hype alone.

[Balthasar]

As for why I'd say this about the PS3 specifically, it's because Sony has always been, as I understand it, the ones who are pushing the industry in this direction. It's sony who banned 2d titles on it's system, for instance.
You mean, like the Guilty Gear series and the Tales RPGs from Namco? This is also the same company that internally produced Ico and Shadow of the Colossus. Perhaps you want to go back and research your reasons for hating the PS3.

[Gorvi]

Well, this is a fundamental theory that I've been developing, but I think that there are different kinds of gamers who have nothing to do with one another, and I think we are representive of two of those camps.

I like games for the sake of playing games. I'm most involved in a game when I'm trying to figure out a strategy on how to beat a boss who's destroyed me ten times, or when I'm down to 10% health with low ammo and have a whole level to go before it will refill. I watch television, read comic books, read prose books, and go to movies when I want to be told a story. Why? Because they generally do it better. Videogame talent is, at this point, usually made up of hacks. There's nothing worse than sitting through an element of gameply like Tidus and his lady friend talking about laughing in FFX and knowing what the writers were getting at, but almost wanting to shoot yourself because the voice acting and cinema direction is so attrociously bad. Not only am I not having fun in instances like that, I'm actively being the opposite of entertained. It's the kind of thing I would walk out on if it was live.

As for how I feel about Microsoft, I feel they are just as guilty of this as Sony. Peter Jacksons announcement of a new X360 "Interactive entertainment experience" that was "not really a game" made me utterly cringe. THIS is where I see gaming going, and that's not gaming to me.

Personally, I think the two camps, those who support interactive entertainment and those who support pure video games, need to divide. One of us goes an starts Shelbyville, the other goes and starts Springfield. I see no real reason to hang around one another.

I see that kind of happening with the Wii and the 360/PS3. I'm psyched about the wii because I am really into nintendo's strategy of focusing on gameplay and not worrying about this cinematic HD stuff. But, I understand that there are those who are. My only concern is that I wish developers would see the difference between the communities and develop games for them as opposed to treating all gamers like they are the same.

To me the only thing that matters is gameplay. A game that looks like Loco Roco looks just as interesting to me as a game like Gears of War if it looks like it will play well. Similarly a game like Fable looked poor to me even from the start because it simply did not look like it would play in a fun manner. And no surprise to me, it didn't. Other people have an inverse appareciation for games, and I suppose I respect that, but I dislike the idea of developers trying to develop for both.

Once again, you make very valid points, and I agree with most of them. But honestly, I fall into both categories. I love those pure gameplay games, but sometimes I enjoy those games that try to be more cinematic. There can be a balance between the two and those are the games that really shine.

Games that go to far to either side tend to have very limited appeal. Make an only gameplay game and unless that gameplay is perfect, it'll lose it's appeal after a few hours. By the same token, make a purely cinematic game, and it'll be interesting the first time, but you'll never go back to it.

Unfortunately, with gaming becomeing more mainstream, the ever popular style over substance cliche is going to rear it's ugly head more and more. We'll still see those fun games that are actually fun to play, you just have to wade through the crap more to find them.

[OrangePulp]

It's a matter of too many cooks spoiling the cake, I believe. It's simply never been a good idea to get 500 people together and try to get them to create art together, and honestly, between voice talent, motion capture talent, programmers, artist, and publishing, that's the size of staff we're talking about on these big budget titles.

And I suppose that you draw this conclusion based on your extensive experience in the games development area? Stop talking out of your ass. There are just as many crappy games made by small teams as there are made by large teams (probably more, since it's easier to get together a smaller team of people to make a game).

As far as Genji being mediocre... If anyone is surprised by this, then they probably haven't seen a system launch before.

[torrefaction]

Well, this is a fundamental theory that I've been developing, but I think that there are different kinds of gamers who have nothing to do with one another, and I think we are representive of two of those camps.

I like games for the sake of playing games. I'm most involved in a game when I'm trying to figure out a strategy on how to beat a boss who's destroyed me ten times, or when I'm down to 10% health with low ammo and have a whole level to go before it will refill. I watch television, read comic books, read prose books, and go to movies when I want to be told a story. Why? Because they generally do it better. Videogame talent is, at this point, usually made up of hacks. There's nothing worse than sitting through an element of gameply like Tidus and his lady friend talking about laughing in FFX and knowing what the writers were getting at, but almost wanting to shoot yourself because the voice acting and cinema direction is so attrociously bad. Not only am I not having fun in instances like that, I'm actively being the opposite of entertained. It's the kind of thing I would walk out on if it was live.

As for how I feel about Microsoft, I feel they are just as guilty of this as Sony. Peter Jacksons announcement of a new X360 "Interactive entertainment experience" that was "not really a game" made me utterly cringe. THIS is where I see gaming going, and that's not gaming to me.

Personally, I think the two camps, those who support interactive entertainment and those who support pure video games, need to divide. One of us goes an starts Shelbyville, the other goes and starts Springfield. I see no real reason to hang around one another.

I see that kind of happening with the Wii and the 360/PS3. I'm psyched about the wii because I am really into nintendo's strategy of focusing on gameplay and not worrying about this cinematic HD stuff. But, I understand that there are those who are. My only concern is that I wish developers would see the difference between the communities and develop games for them as opposed to treating all gamers like they are the same.

To me the only thing that matters is gameplay. A game that looks like Loco Roco looks just as interesting to me as a game like Gears of War if it looks like it will play well. Similarly a game like Fable looked poor to me even from the start because it simply did not look like it would play in a fun manner. And no surprise to me, it didn't. Other people have an inverse appareciation for games, and I suppose I respect that, but I dislike the idea of developers trying to develop for both.

Overall, I think you missed the part where I said it meant nothing unless it was fun to play and had a great direction. That being said, I've played the hell out of old games, and they're being pushed just about as far as they can go. The number of onscreen objects, faked physics, lack of power...all of those sort of things limit actual gameplay. Controls limit this too. I think the Wii is a great innovation, but it's up to developers to make this anything more than gimmicky.

I've been playing games a long time, and I'm all about strategies and figuring out how to overcome challenges. But that can be done in ways that incite emotion. If I wanted just that level of challenge, I wouldn't play any new games. Innovation is important, and even more important than that is allowing developers to work without restriction of the hardware.

Sure, right now it's hard for all the pieces to fit together, and some things lack in areas. But what's important is direction, and both of these machines are steps in the right direction. I'd say the Xbox 360 moreso, only because the toolset itself is designed to be easier to develop, even if the PS3 does have more horsepower.

Don't worry, when virtual reality hits, you'll thank me for seeing where games could go ;)

[JazGalaxy]

You mean, like the Guilty Gear series and the Tales RPGs from Namco? This is also the same company that internally produced Ico and Shadow of the Colossus. Perhaps you want to go back and research your reasons for hating the PS3.

If I'm not mistaken, I read that Guilty Gear had 3d rendered backgrounds specifically to skate by Sony's moritorium on 2d games.

[JazGalaxy]

And I suppose that you draw this conclusion based on your extensive experience in the games development area? Stop talking out of your ass. There are just as many crappy games made by small teams as there are made by large teams (probably more, since it's easier to get together a smaller team of people to make a game).

As far as Genji being mediocre... If anyone is surprised by this, then they probably haven't seen a system launch before.

What? My extensive background in games development? I don't HAVE to have an extensive background in games development. I read. I read like 5 videogame sites a day and several magazines. I read interviews with developers and books like The History of Video Games. One doens't have to have made a game to know how many people are assembled on a modern development team.

[OrangePulp]

What? My extensive background in games development? I don't HAVE to have an extensive background in games development. I read. I read like 5 videogame sites a day and several magazines. I read interviews with developers and books like The History of Video Games. One doens't have to have made a game to know how many people are assembled on a modern development team.

I wasn't referring to how many people are on a team. I was referring to your statement that you can't have that many people and still create art.

[Spigot]

Where the fuck is Fantavision 2? Fucking Sony.
Hey! I already did that joke 5-10 posts earlier!

[JazGalaxy]

I wasn't referring to how many people are on a team. I was referring to your statement that you can't have that many people and still create art.

Well, if that was your comment, then no I cannot make that comment as a professional games developer, but I CAN make that statement as a trained, eductated, professional artist.

[OrangePulp]

Does anyone know the average size of the entire production team for some of the bigger movies? I'm sure it couldn'tve been small for something like LotR, and those were excellent movies.

[torrefaction]

Well, if that was your comment, then no I cannot make that comment as a professional games developer, but I CAN make that statement as a trained, eductated, professional artist.

eductated? ;)

Nitpicking aside, once again I fundamentally disagree. You may as well be saying you can't create art in movies, since it takes so much money and so many people.

Oh wait...Don't I recall that people did used to say that? Way back when, in the early days of cinema. It's the same thing man. Technology just needs to be able to progress to make it easier for the game designers and creative directors to have their vision realized.

I bet the designer of Okami would be pissed if he heard you say that.

[JazGalaxy]

I thought it was common knowledge that movies with smaller production teams were usually superior films. That's why festivals like Sundance gaining so much popularity, and why the box office returns for movies like Superman are getting to be so small.

I'm not saying it's impossible for large groups of people to come together and create art... most of the wonders of the world were created by GENERATIONS of workers. I'm simply saying it's far more difficult and usually not worth the effort.

I simply thinks that it stands out that Kaz Hirai in his sony keynote speech was talking about how the power of the PS3 was going to make games better and more fun than they have ever been, and yet the first PS3 review we're looking at is a 6. If the idea that power makes games better held water, I would think that the first score we would be looking at would be an 11 at minimum. The fact that it's not, I think, has some significance.

[Spigot]

Just to interject in your little debate here, I think that we're coming to the time where the technologies behind the graphics and physics, etc. are going to cap out. We're getting pretty close to photorealistic graphics with the next-gen systems and high-end PC games as it is.

Once the graphics and engine libraries are established, we'll probably see a move towards both ends of the spectrum. Those who want to develop the cinematic games can put their efforts into building as immersive an experience as they can without having to try to build a graphics engine that beats the competition in the process. Conversely, those who want to go for something like a Katamari or even Tetris kind of pure gameplay game can do so, again, without having to expend a lot of time and effort on establishing a kick-ass graphical engine.

There are still all sorts of things they can do with regards to the art design, underlying engine tricks, etc. What they won't have to do is try to wow the eye-candy crowd with those extra 399 polygons per second.

At least, that's what I hope will happen. I'm all for pretty graphics but the constant emphasis of pretty over fun drives me nuts sometimes.

[Balthasar]

If I'm not mistaken, I read that Guilty Gear had 3d rendered backgrounds specifically to skate by Sony's moritorium on 2d games.
You actually believed that? You don't think that the design had anything to do with the Street Fighter Alpha series, which also used 3d objects in the background?

[torrefaction]

I thought it was common knowledge that movies with smaller production teams were usually superior films. That's why festivals like Sundance gaining so much popularity, and why the box office returns for movies like Superman are getting to be so small.

I'm not saying it's impossible for large groups of people to come together and create art... most of the wonders of the world were created by GENERATIONS of workers. I'm simply saying it's far more difficult and usually not worth the effort.

I simply thinks that it stands out that Kaz Hirai in his sony keynote speech was talking about how the power of the PS3 was going to make games better and more fun than they have ever been, and yet the first PS3 review we're looking at is a 6. If the idea that power makes games better held water, I would think that the first score we would be looking at would be an 11 at minimum. The fact that it's not, I think, has some significance.

Notice a lot of my discussion revolved around technology and older movies, not necessarily the size of the team. I'm just saying it is possible, and there have been fairly big budget movies that where fantastic (V for Vendetta, Fight Club, The Matrix (Only the first one), and Spiderman pop into mind..but there's certainly more. The original Star Wars trilogy, I guess.)

Technology enables people to do more with less resources. It also allows people with more resources to do more as well.

As far as the first review, I don't believe it holds any significance at all. I've been around the block, and seen every console launch shoot out crappy games to begin with. Usually with only one or two that truly shines. Add to this the fact that Sony doesn't have a good multi-threaded compiler yet, and the fact that they didn't focus on ease of development, and you can easily see why things ended up the way they did.

1 review of a game that wasn't good on the PS2 either is NOT really a good indication of anything.

[JazGalaxy]

Just to interject in your little debate here, I think that we're coming to the time where the technologies behind the graphics and physics, etc. are going to cap out. We're getting pretty close to photorealistic graphics with the next-gen systems and high-end PC games as it is.

Once the graphics and engine libraries are established, we'll probably see a move towards both ends of the spectrum. Those who want to develop the cinematic games can put their efforts into building as immersive an experience as they can without having to try to build a graphics engine that beats the competition in the process. Conversely, those who want to go for something like a Katamari or even Tetris kind of pure gameplay game can do so, again, without having to expend a lot of time and effort on establishing a kick-ass graphical engine.

There are still all sorts of things they can do with regards to the art design, underlying engine tricks, etc. What they won't have to do is try to wow the eye-candy crowd with those extra 399 polygons per second.

At least, that's what I hope will happen. I'm all for pretty graphics but the constant emphasis of pretty over fun drives me nuts sometimes.

I think graphics have already capped out in terms of how they relate to gameplay. It hink we're, honestly, on sliding backwards on the hill.

There is a slight mention of it in Gamespots FF XII review, but I'll use Vampire : Bloodlines to explain it as that's the first time I've experienced it.

That game is so realistic that it begins to hurt the gameplay. You move in a realistic part of town at a realistic speed and as a result, you accomplish your tasks at a realistic pace. That is to say, when I was playing the game I found myself scheduling an afternoons events like I would in real life. Drop by my appartment and check my email... go visit Jeanette and see if she has anything new to say... etc. A whole afternoon could be taken up just doing errands. This is in stark contrast to older games like Final Fantasy 1 where, within the first hour of gameplay, I had already covered a distance equal to the size of my home state.

As the graphics in games get better and people demand more and more realism, we're going to see a great deal more minutia pop up in games just to stay within the game world.

It's no longer enough to simply say "take this sword, it's dangerous to go alone!", now the beginnings of games have to take several hours of your life before you can actually even start PLAYING the game.

I don't blame good graphics for poor games, but I do think the pursuit of good graphics is making for poor games.

Another point worth mentioning, and this is somewhat unrelated, is the concept of pacing and storytelling. One of the major pitfalls that I find in modern games is when developers are busy trying to tell you a story, they have to sacrifice gameplay to aid their narrative. That is to say, when you've just saved Meryl from the badguys and are escaping on the back of a jeep and manning a turret, it's thrilling. You don't want to see gameover and have to start the scene over again... you want to keep the pace going. As a result, there's absolutely no gameplay to scenes like this. You're simply in control of an interactive scene. Oftentimes in these scenes, like in Haven Call of The King, it's actually IMPOSSIBLE to lose. As someone who plays games for challenge and really only finds them fun when he's being challenged, I find that scenes like these ruin games. I only see more of them happening.

[GunnyMo]

Sony is really shooting themselves in the foot. I mean, come on, every other console released in history had excellent launch titles showing the fullest extent of the power of the console. Umm, right? :p

PDZ is obviously the pinnacle of what can be achieved on the 360, right?

Lol. Even IGN is on the bandwagon now.

So what is your point? That any negative review of any PS3 launch title is being "on the bandwagon"? Sony titles are beyond reproach? :rolleyes:

[JazGalaxy]

You actually believed that? You don't think that the design had anything to do with the Street Fighter Alpha series, which also used 3d objects in the background?

O_o umm... the street fighter alpha series DOESN'T use 3d backgrounds in the arcade. Only on console, which seems like it would further my argument more than yours...

[51|RandoM]

So what is your point? That any negative review of any PS3 launch title is being "on the bandwagon"? Sony titles are beyond reproach? :rolleyes:

My point is that every console releases with questionable content.

You don't then turn around and chant gloom and doom for the console itself, based upon your first review of a release title.

Seems pretty easy to understand.

[Balthasar]

O_o umm... the street fighter alpha series DOESN'T use 3d backgrounds in the arcade. Only on console, which seems like it would further my argument more than yours...
I don't see how that could when those games were multi-platform releases. Personally, I don't recall there being a difference between the backgrounds in the arcade and console versions, though I am trying to look it up now. That's still quite a bit besides the point anyway, don't you think?

[Serapth]

Ah...crap.
First rule of being a smartass. Don't make grammatic mistakes in your post!

The second rule is something about not telling people about being a smartass, but most people disregard that rule.

[Stryfe01]

Was anyone actually anticipating Genji?


really...Was anyone ? I played the first and it was meh...didn't expect the second to be anything better...aside from prettier graphics.

[Sandman]

It's freakin Genji. I bought the original Genji for $2 new about a month ago. I've got the two highest scoring PS3 games reserved right now. I might add Untold Legends later on but Ridge and Resistance are the best games.

[Greymane]

The only game I can really point to that did a good job of balancing the 'gameplay' and 'cinematic' aspects is RE4. The way they implemented the 'cutscenes' to actually involve gameplay (wherein you CAN die, and it's not always the exact some button combo so you actually have to pay attention and not just memorize the pattern) worked pretty well for my tastes.
Definitely related (http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=3b8G8delDlk&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static6.sjl.youtube.com/vi/3b8G8delDlk/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJb_vSLjqJCjnrU8ixY5qTe) .

[torrefaction]

The only game I can really point to that did a good job of balancing the 'gameplay' and 'cinematic' aspects is RE4. The way they implemented the 'cutscenes' to actually involve gameplay (wherein you CAN die, and it's not always the exact some button combo so you actually have to pay attention and not just memorize the pattern) worked pretty well for my tastes.
Definitely related (http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=3b8G8delDlk&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static6.sjl.youtube.com/vi/3b8G8delDlk/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJb_vSLjqJCjnrU8ixY5qTe) .

I'm getting it tonight, but I'm hearing great things about both the cinematic quality and the gameplay of Gears, so... I think it's just to early in this generation to make blanket judgements like Jaz is making.

I've seen Dead Rising, GRAW, and apparently Gears get it right. I thought Oblivion was awesome, and Alan Wake should be here soon.

I just hate the blame it on the graphics thing. The fact is, a lot of current gameplay mechanisms have become tired, and people want to live in the past. I tend to look towards the future.

*Edit*

Part of my point here is that I can pick up any game, and basically intuitively kick the crap out of it...barring gameplay built around trial and error (Splinter Cell's). I have a good head for dismantling gameplay concepts and the like. I enjoy it. But I want something more out of my experience these days, or gaming is going to grow old for me. There's very few people who are bigger gaming advocates than me to, so you can take my word when I say this is the last thing in the world I want to happen.

[Manzy]

The only game I can really point to that did a good job of balancing the 'gameplay' and 'cinematic' aspects is RE4. The way they implemented the 'cutscenes' to actually involve gameplay (wherein you CAN die, and it's not always the exact some button combo so you actually have to pay attention and not just memorize the pattern) worked pretty well for my tastes.
Definitely related (http://www.youtube.com/p.swf?video_id=3b8G8delDlk&eurl=&iurl=http%3A//sjl-static6.sjl.youtube.com/vi/3b8G8delDlk/2.jpg&t=OEgsToPDskJb_vSLjqJCjnrU8ixY5qTe) .

I liked Half-Life's style better, because it gave you the choice to not even pay attention to a 'cutscene' if you so desired (minus those "stuck on a moving train" parts).

[torrefaction]

I liked Half-Life's style better, because it gave you the choice to not even pay attention to a 'cutscene' if you so desired (minus those "stuck on a moving train" parts).

And here is a game that almost defines exactly what I'm talking about. Facial expressions, porting movie techniques to their engine, great story, and emotion. Jaz, if you don't like Half Life 2, I don't really think we can talk anymore.

[Manzy]

In retrospect I must say that Resident Evil 4 gave me alot more joy then Half Life 2. They both are two very good games though.

[torrefaction]

In retrospect I must say that Resident Evil 4 gave me alot more joy then Half Life 2. They both are two very good games though.

You're a fount of wisdom tonight :D

[Greymane]

I liked what the 'cutscenes' of Half Life 2 were going for, though I generally found the writing quality in it to be poor. I like the notion of being a part of the story start to finish, as HL2 (and HL before it) was trying for, though I didn't feel very much a part of the process ever. Gordon not speaking - nor ever really doing anything - in cutscenes did little to advance my appreciation.

I think figuring out a way to blend gameplay and the 'cinematic' is the real goal here. I disagree with Jaz's notion that there can be no reconciliation between the camps of gameplay and storytelling. I have no credentials or credits to my name to really back up my contention, mind, so I may not be the best judge of this, but as most games are fundamentally simulations within the constraints of a structure, and storytelling is the act of constraining a tale to a structure during the telling, it seems to me that there should be a way to bridge the two equitably. I do think that we're still in the phase of fumbling about with half-solutions that go too much in one direction or the other.

I'd also bring up Vampire: Bloodlines as an example of a pretty GOOD game in terms of bridging the camps, actually. I didn't really get the whole 'realism' aspect you were talking about, in my memories of playing through it - not just because I was playing as a vampire what was drinking blood. Ignoring that aspect, I found much of the gameplay to be fairly streamlined to getting things done. Go to place A, get object 1, kill entity Z - I rather enjoyed how the system, storyline, and gameplay all supported one another rather than distracted from one another. Well, at least until the last 25% of the game - gods I wish that dev team hadn't been pushed to ship the game early... and then promptly fired. Ah well.

[oldjadedgamer]

My point is that every console releases with questionable content.

You don't then turn around and chant gloom and doom for the console itself, based upon your first review of a release title.

Seems pretty easy to understand.

If only the SDF were saying this on 11/22/05 it would hold more water. I remember tons of doom and gloom for the 360 last year from the SDF in regards to review scores for launch games.

[51|RandoM]

If only the SDF were saying this on 11/22/05 it would hold more water. I remember tons of doom and gloom for the 360 last year from the SDF in regards to review scores for launch games.


oldjadedgamer, my original complaint in this thread was that IGN was on the bandwagon, not that the typical MS fanboys were on the bandwagon.

So yes, I'm sure there were sony fanboys chanting gloom and doom about the 360 back then. I don't think they were writing articles for IGN wherein the presented those opinions, though.

[Serapth]

If only the SDF were saying this on 11/22/05 it would hold more water. I remember tons of doom and gloom for the 360 last year from the SDF in regards to review scores for launch games.


Didnt the Xbox 360 launch lineup average review scores right around 80%? This was with a few stinkers like the half ass Tony Hawk port included. A number of games ( from memory ), scored well over 80% on average. If someone wants to dispute this, feel free, but I think you are wrong. The PS3 launch lineup has a benchmark to meet, one thats actually pretty damned high, and so far, it is falling far short of it.

[JazGalaxy]

And here is a game that almost defines exactly what I'm talking about. Facial expressions, porting movie techniques to their engine, great story, and emotion. Jaz, if you don't like Half Life 2, I don't really think we can talk anymore.

I think Half Life 2 is one of the greatest games ever made. Like I was saying, I don't DISLIKE story, or narrative inside a game, I just dislike it when it's a) overshadowing gameplay and b) done by hacks.

I mean... here's a pet peeve of mine:

You're playing a FPS game and you get the secret rocket launcher from the secret room. You backtrack and max out your health and armor before going into the boss badguys room. You know he's in there, and you know you want to take him out. You open the door and.... a cutscene fires up. You're ambling into his office and he spins around in his desk chair catching your character by suprise. (You already knew he was there). Then your charachter pulls out their pisol (What happened to the rocket launcher?) And the boss shoots it out of your hand before you can fire. Then the fight starts and suddenly you've got your rocket luancher again. You sink ten rockets into his face and he lights on fire and runs around the room as he screams to his death. Then the cutscene fires back up again and he evades three or four pistol shots that you shoot at him then jumps out the window laughing and mocking your abillities.

This kind of crap happens all the time and I very much wish it woudl end. It's gamplay serving story as opposed to the other way around, and it's mostly done by hacks. Oftentimes the teams don't even seem to be communicating with one another as I've killed way to many bosses and watched them die in real time only to see them back alive again in the following cut scene.

[Greymane]

A classic case of violent agreement, Jaz! See, I think we really want the same things - all three of us - it's just that we're all speaking it different vocabularies about it.

[torrefaction]

A classic case of violent agreement, Jaz! See, I think we really want the same things - all three of us - it's just that we're all speaking it different vocabularies about it.

Exactly! The difference seems to be that Jaz has difficulty believing it can be done. Meanwhile, I know how much better games are since Zelda (Even if it's a great game.)

That'll only continue.

Also, as far as my comments about Gears earlier. It entirely justifies everything I've said about cinematic gaming. It's incredible.

[soco]

gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/adventure/genji/review.html?sid=6161332&tag=topslot;action;1&om_act=convert&click=topslot) has their review up.

6.4

[Å®ÇTÌ¢ VåmÞ‡®Ë]

HEATHEN! The controller kicked ass, espeically compared to the ATARI 2600. The telephone style buttons made gameplay kickass. I still remember hours wasted on Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and SubHunt.

Now... the quality was horrid. The buttons would wear out quickly and some dipshit though the idea of having them hardwired was a good thing.

Man, I miss games shipping with controller inserts.

See I feel the same way & my "friends" think I'm just an oldie :mad:
The Advanced Dungeons and Dragons and they had a Vampire game( I cannot remember the name) changed me from liking games to being my full time hobby.
I never owned one but I was @ my friends house all the time playing with him.
I think we "wore out" about 12 controllers :D

/ontopic:
I'm shocked and surprised that a launch title isn't awesome :D

[Watership]

gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/ps3/adventure/genji/review.html?sid=6161332&tag=topslot;action;1&om_act=convert&click=topslot) has their review up.

6.4

Gamespot's review has an interesting note, the graphics stand out, significantly. That's good for any systems launch game.