Four Player Co Op 07.29.09: Halo, More Halo, The Rock, Bets And Serious Debate
Posted by John De Large on 07.29.2009
Could The Rock be Marcus Fenix in the Gears movie? Could betting on games be a good idea? Could Halo be done for? Could Sam Pow be a genius? Could I say the word "could," one more time?! No, I can't. Come on in for a brand new Co-Op, a special guest contributor and much more!
John De Large has joined the game
Sean Garmer has joined the game
Drew Robbins has joined the game
Sam Pow has joined the game
1. Halo: Reach will be Bungie's final Halo game. After Reach has been released, the Halo franchise will release its games via 343 Industries, which itself is being headed up by Frank O'Connor, a former Bungie employee. You think that without Bungie, Mr. O'Connor and 343 Industries cannot hope to maintain Halo's success.
Sean Garmer: I'm actually glad to see that Bungie is finally moving on from this series. Not because I don't like it, its probably the series that brought me back to playing FPS's. I don't know how many hours I spent in Junior High and some High School playing with my friends. Bungie is too good to not be able to venture out on their own and do something not named "Halo." As far as 343 Industries goes, I'm sure Frank O' Connor is not the only Bungie employee or former employee that is staying to work on the series. They have plenty to work from and I don't think it'd be too hard for them to make another stand out title. It just depends on if Microsoft will allow them to take the time with it that Bungie did. If Microsoft rushes the games out for competition and other purposes it may suffer. I think though that Microsoft knows that over saturation of a series will probably only lead to quick death.
Drew Robbins: As big of a franchise as Halo is, I can't help but feel that without Bungie it will just become a shell of its former self. Like the games or not, Bungie puts their heart and soul into each game. Even though they could easily coast on the popularity of the original game, they never put out a product that felt half-assed. Sure, Halo 2 had a horrible ending, but that is pretty common for games in the middle of a trilogy. Remember Prince of Persia: Warrior Within?
Like I said, the series probably won't thrive under new development, but only from a critical standpoint. To make the understatement of the century, Halo is huge. Heck, I'm led to believe that you could put the name "Halo" on anything and it would fly off of shelves. Toilet paper, tooth paste, laundry detergent, you name it! Halo can sell it. Screw that Sham-Wow guy, just put the Chief to work and your product will be an instant success.
Sam Pow: While it pains me to say it, it looks to be true. It seems like Reach will end up being the last true Halo game, and depending on how it goes over, might leave Halo 3 as the series stand out. I guess you never know though, because Halo Wars ended up being a fairly enjoyable game all together, and managed to retain the feel of a Halo game. Hopefully 343 Industries can keep the franchise going in the right direction.
John De Large: Halo's success is not dependent on its publisher, developer, downloadable content, "epic story-line," control system, voice acting or anything of the sort. It's my belief that Halo's success is dependent how many high school and college kids have an Xbox 360 console in their dorm rooms, because if they've got the console, chances are they're going to want to buy Halo, THE game marketed to angsty, drunk meatheads.
The majority of Halo players are "hooting dickholes," as someone once put it, which in reality translates to the typical 19/20-something year old college kid. From there, you get a trickle down effect as the teens will play what the college kids are playing (in a failed attempt to be "cool"), the tweens want to play what the teens are playing (in the same failed attempt) and so on. As long as the quest to be "cool," exists and the majority of "cool people," like Halo (like they do on Long Island), crappy games with the Halo name on them will sell lots and lots of copies, regardless of developer, publisher, whatever. Now that I think about it, this makes me very angry when I take into consideration the question at the end of this column.
As much as I want Master Chief gone, I get the feeling he'll be here no matter what.
The middle panel is an accurate caricature of the typical Halo player.
(SIDE NOTE: Why doesn't Penny Arcade look like this anymore?)
2. Speaking of Halo, Peter Jackson's "Halo Chronicles," which would have been an epic episodic take on the Halo franchise, has been canceled. Are you bummed? Or are you excited that you won't have to sit through 3 hour episodes of Master Chief alternating between soliloquizing and capping alien ass?
Sean Garmer: I love anime and series based on video games because it can be cool what they try to imagine what was important and make into an episodic series of some sort. The problem about 3/4's of these based on a video game end up bad. It would have been cool to at least see what the series would have been all about. Sometimes though, a series like that may actually end up hurting the game if its not received with open arms. Just knowing Peter Jackson was a part of the project makes me really curious though. Maybe some time in the future it will get green lit by someone else.
I'm a little bummed, but I don't love HALO enough to be depressed about it. At least they are still making some animated shorts about HALO.
Drew Robbins: I think it goes without saying that I love video games, but I'm not too fond of films. Every once in a while a good movie comes out that is actually worth seeing, but for the most part the medium is loaded to the brim with pointless action flicks that are aimed towards the easily pleased masses. Being a prick, elitist, and many other fierce adjectives, I can't bring myself to action movies, and one reason for that is that if I wanted to see a bunch of cool action, I'd play a video game. We've gotten to that stage in games, with products like God of War, where we can see such fast-paced action and control it at the same time. So why would I go to the theaters to see a movie about a pretty good FPS franchise? Its cancellation actually fills me with joy. The ratio of games I enjoy which get converted into films is getting pretty high, so I'll gladly take any chance I get to salvage one of those franchises. If only I could have saved Prince of Persia...
Sam Pow: I have to admit that I am a little disappointed that I won't get to see this movie, which would have undeniably turned into a geeky sci-fi version of Lord of the Rings sans elves. The Halo Series actually lends itself to a movie well. I personally thought Halo 3 was pretty cinematic, especially scenes such as the confrontation with Truth. Now every time I see Chancellor Valorum in Star Wars all I can think about is Halo. Also awesome would be the fact that it probably would have wound up on DVD in a box set with the Gears of War movie. Hell, they even could have thrown in The Super Mario Bros. movie for good measure.
John De Large: If you couldn't tell by the response to my last question, I don't like Halo when I'm playing it, why would I want to sit there and watch it when the one redeemable quality about the game (shooting and killing stuff) is taken away from me? I'm glad this project got canned and I can only hope that someone in charge had the same thoughts as I, before this project was ultimately banished to the 7th circle of hell and the nearest Halo wiki.
3. The director and writer of the Gears Of War movie have decided not to consider Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson for the lead role with Wiseman stating that "A Doom connection would not be smart for us." Frankly, you don't think The Rock would've made a good Marcus Fenix anyway.
Hah, yeah right!
Sean Garmer:I understand what the director is feeling here, because the Doom movie was pretty bad, and aside from the one part in the film that actually resembled the video game, the rest is garbage. The Rock was actually a saving grace in that film, I thought he played his role very well. These action type roles suit The Rock to the T, because when he is serious he makes people pay attention. He could also add some small doses of humor into the film and then suddenly go back to kicking ass. When I think of Marcus though, I imagine more of a Jason Statham type, especially his character in Crank, he doesn't give two craps about what's going on, he just wants to go in there and do his job, and kick ass. Not that The Rock is too far away from that, but because the Rock has gone into these kiddy roles, I think people may not take the Gears of War movie seriously if The Rock was attached and that is a major concern. Gears may have a lot of fans, but they need guys that will get people from outside the video game world to see the film and perhaps The Rock may not be able to do that.
Drew Robbins: Gears of War is a great game that features stunning visuals and it pioneered cover-based shooting. On the other hand, story is not one of its highlights. To put it lightly, Gears has a lousy story. To put it harshly, the story in Gears sucks. Luckily, its that funny kind of suckitude that flows throughout the story in Gears, which is why it would have been absolutely perfect if the Rock was starring the movie. Have you seen the Game Plan? What about Doom? Terrible movies, but I'll be darned if there was a second in any of those movies that I didn't have a stupid grin on my face. These movies were hilariously bad, the story in Gears is hilariously bad, so you put two and two together, and its seems obvious to put the Rock as everyone's favorite bandana-wearing space marine.
I'd like to make a suggestion to Mr. Wiseman. Please, I beg of you, cast Vin Diesel as Marcus Fenix. If you can't get The Rock, then you had darn well better be able to get Riddick for that role. This was the role he was born to play!
Sam Pow: I just seem to be agreeing with all of JDL's points. I am glad that The Rock isn't going to be Fenix. I mean honestly, Walking Tall was the only good movie he ever starred in. And when I go to see that movie, I want Marcus, Dom, and the Locusts, to LOOK like Marcus, Dom, and the Locusts. Honestly, Dwayne Johnson bears no resemblance to Marcus Fenix.
John De Large: Not only does The Rock (and no matter what his name is, he will always be The Rock) not look like Marcus Fenix, his presence in the movie be all that welcome by the people who're going to pay to see it.
Marcus Fenix's only dialogue are gems like "Let's get 'em!" "Anya, release the Hammer of Dawn!" and "WHERE'S MY WIIIIFE?!" Spouting these lines while commanding the veins in your forehead to pulsate isn't The Rock's strong suit anymore. These days, The Rock is kind of watered down. He does kids stuff (his last acting work being Planet 51, Race to Witch Mountain and a guest spot on a kids show called Wizards of Waverly Place), tells lame jokes and engages in fight scenes that've been approved by Disney.
The majority of fans who would go see this movie aren't too far off from your average Halo fan (replace "hooting dickhole," with "gore-thirsty meathead"), they expect blood, guts and dismemberment. Now that the Rock is family friendly (his is the first name that comes up if you Google "family friendly actor,") you could insert Eddie Murphy or the kid from the Harry Potter movies as Marcus Fenix and it would have the same effect (fans recoiling in horror and asking each other "WTF?").
Leave The Rock where he belongs these days: Disney World.
4. WorldGaming.com is now allowing people to place bets on games of Fight Night Round 4 and NCAA Football Oh-10 in addition to Halo 3, Madden 09, FIFA 09 and NHL 09. Which game do you think you could make some money off of (that means ANY game, not just the ones listed above).
Sean Garmer: The only games I think I could make money off of are FIFA and NBA Live, unless they started letting people bet on Score Duels in Rock Band 2. Soccer and Basketball are my two favorite sports, so obviously I play FIFA and NBA Live more than Madden. I also write Soccer reports for other websites so I probably know more about Soccer than I should, and that knowledge helps me when playing online. I don't know if I could maybe win a whole tournament, but I could probably win some bets placed on a few games.
Drew Robbins: Truth be told, I'm abysmal at video games. But, as I feel obligated to give some sort of meaningful answer, I think I could make good money off of competitive Elite Beat Agents. Normally I'd tout my capable skills in Smash Bros, but I've actually become pretty bad at that game too. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that Elite Beat Agents is the only game I'm even remotely good at anymore. Just this year I conquered the final difficulty, making it the only game I've ever beaten on its highest difficulty. If only Nintendo would have made this game Wi-Fi compatible, I'd love to show the world who the best is at making three grown men in suits dance.
Sam Pow: This is a truly great idea. I have personally bet on a few system link Halo tournaments in person, and it turns into something really cool, as you watch your selected team battle it out like a real sport. I love watching the MLG circuits on TV, too, and sites like Gamebattles and now this make it possible for normal people to be a part of competitive gaming action.
There are some issues with that, too. In truth, you really never know when people are going to lag or drop out of a game, making things unfair. You'd have to stick with big games to avoid cheating or exploiting, or even issues like spawn camping (it's the top five things that should die in a fire all over again). Ultimately, though, I think this is a really cool idea that should be played out to its extent.
John De Large: If they had 8 vs. 8 Team Fortress 2 matches, I'd captain my team to victory and we'd split the earnings 93/1/1/1/1/1/1/1, 'cause I'd be earning all the points.
I'd probably also make a lot of money playing Smash. Imagine if each player put up $5 and the winner takes home $20 a round? Unfortunately, the only games available to play right now are the macho-ego sports and shooting games (God, Halo 3 again?!) that are so popular with people who are dumb enough to bet on video games (God, frat boys again?!), so I won't be getting paid to play video games anytime soon, unless someone hooks me up with a playtesting job (coughcoughramoncough).
5. Are gamers paying too much money for the wrong things? Do the wrong games get picked up for undeserved sequels? Is it really all that bad that we'll readily hand over money to play a game that may or may not be good, but if we play a good game that's free to play, we won't reward that game maker with $5 or $10? Anthony Burch is here to give his opinion.
Discuss.
Sean Garmer: The man brings up some good points, but before I get to those, maybe I should explain a bit about American pop culture. People buy things they are used to seeing and hype, brand power and familiarity are big selling points (this is in general, not just gaming).
I agree that sometimes people don't give credit to these smaller developers, but let's face facts, if the game is free most people will just play it and then be done with it after they beat it in five minutes. I may have enjoyed it and maybe wondered if they were going to make another one that was a bit a longer, but because I didn't pay for it, I didn't have to think about the time and enjoyment invested. Most people don't care, and will continue to not care about donating money to that.
I can see maybe if people are allowed to invest in the company itself and then get a return on the investment, but to simply donate money, I think its going to be a while before that happens. I personally don't play computer games at all, so I don't even bother with going to any of those games. I love a lot of those XBLA games I've played, Castle Crashers, Ikaruga, Braid, Trine, they are all cool concepts that were made and if people buy those they could get a budget to make an original game to be sold at retail. How about telling people to purchase a game like Scribblenauts, Ecto-Plankton, Elite Beat Agents and Trace Memory? They cost less than the big games, but are also creative in their own aspect. People get a game like Assassin's Creed because it looks "awesome," its made by a company that has a big reputation, and its similar to Prince of Persia and other games of that type people liked. The gamers feel like they will automatically get a return for the investment when they put the game inside their system. Also, if bigger HDD's weren't so expensive maybe I could get my hands on some of those downloadable games that are out there. We have to remember this doesn't just happen in the gaming world, and though you are asking people to give money to free time. Maybe people don't have time to sit there and look for those things because they have to be working.
Most people still go out and buy every hit song that gets played on the radio because its what is "cool" and its right there for them. There are zillions of film critics that want you to go check out this artsy film or Sundance film, but people still go see the big budget ones more often because its "cool", and they are more familiar with the actors or the base of the film, or simply because they just wanna find something to do for two hours. It's the same with TV, and its the same with games. There is going to have to be a mass movement of people that say, "I don't want what's just mainstream, I want to make the mainstream. I want games to be appreciated as an art form, and these games can help do that."
Don't blame gamers, when there are points that are not brought up. Also, just because a free game someone liked gets made into a big budget title, doesn't automatically mean the big budget game is gonna be good. Maybe they are meant to be these small titles. People do need to venture out of all the big FPS's, RPG's, and Action titles, but its not all doom and gloom. There is innovation out there and people are taking notice, but maybe it's just not enough.
Drew Robbins: In regards to the first question, whether or not we are paying too much for the wrong games, this is really too subjective of a matter for anyone to truly answer. Much like cinema or literature, people play games for a variety of different reasons. For every guy who enjoys the artistic stimulation of Shadow of the Colossus, there are three other guys who really just want to unwind and partake in some mindlessly fun in Left 4 Dead or Halo. Personally, I like a little mixture of both.
Variety is, as many people deem it, the spice of life. Anthony mentions a game like "Passage" and how its a shame that nobody would shell out money for this game, and its because of this that gaming is damned to repeat the same concepts for eternity. I'll give him the fact that its pretty sad to see something with admirable quality such as "Passage" run completely on donations and fail because of it. To see something which clearly took plenty of time and care to produce fail so miserably while the general public buys copies of Carnival Games and Wii Play, games which took minimal amounts of effort to produce, is a crying shame. But throughout the entirety of the video he targets mass market games as unoriginal and key factors in the decline of gaming quality. As great as it is when something like "Braid" emerges and garners great amounts of success, can you imagine if every game was like that?
It seems like Anthony Burch wants to completely cast-off the simple, mindless fun games that populate gaming. That would be horrible. Imagine movies without the Summer blockbusters. I hated Transformers as much as the next guy, but these mindless summer movies are necessary. If everything was like Slumdog Millionaire, it would get old pretty quickly.
Now, to the meat of the video and Anthony's concept of a market in which you donated to a developer after you were assured that the game was certainly of high quality. Its pretty hard to argue that getting a game for free and being able to choose whether or not it is worth money is a pretty good concept. Unfortunately it encounters the problem that most people like money.
Sam Pow: Anthony has some valid points, and some not so valid ones. He raised the suggestion that games would be free and that the maker would be rewarded based on the quality of the game, through donation. That is an excellent idea, and makes perfect logical sense -- but, like communism, it looks good on paper and then it fails miserably in real life. There is a reason why, and it's actually quite simple: people are, by nature, greedy. For a communist government or donation based games to succeed, you would have to assume that people are generally good-hearted, and would be willing to share with others or donate to a game after playing it, but that is not the case. If a person could get their hands on a game for free, then why pay for it? While there are some out there who would generously give their money for all the developer's hard work, most would rather take the free game and run with it.
That is why I have always campaigned for a system like this: the game industry would all get together and form a panel of reviewers that take into account multiple opinions from valid sources and make one definitive score for each game. (Think Metacritic or Gamerankings.) Each game would be reviewed about a month before it came out, and its price would depend on its score. The better the game is, the more its price would be. Triple-A titles (90-100%) would fall into what games are now (about sixty dollars). Every ten percent down from there would drop about ten dollars. That way games are developed based on quality, not quantity. Developers might stop releasing games they know are bad and put in the extra effort to make them good.
John De Large: First off, I want to thank Anthony for personally giving me permission to use this video (JDL: Can I use your video? Anthony: Sure.) and if you couldn't tell by the mountain of text above me, this Rev Rant provoked a lot of feelings, inspired a lot of debate here and Sam has shared with us his unbelievably GENIUS idea.
Despite being the host of this column, I'm never really that verbose (maybe because I'm lazy and maybe because I don't want to tire out the reader), but here's what I have to say:
-In regards to investing in a game and then getting a return and free copy of the game? That's a pretty awesome albeit complicated idea and it provokes a lot of questions.
Would it require a slip of paper? Could it be done electronically? How would gamers under 18 or 21 invest in games? Would they need a parent or older sibling? Could you invest at a store, like Wal-Mart or ould you have to go to a specialty shop? How would you get multiple copies of a game? There's lots of little details to work out, but for the older gamer, this system just might work.
-Another system of payment that Anthony mentions involves paying for the game upon completion or once a solid opinion on the game has been formed. This ensures that the developer will be properly reinforced/reimbursed for making a good game or be punished for making a bad game, but how would you decide WHEN payment is due?
Do you pay a little upfront and then a little later? Do you pay in a weeks time like a rental? Do you pay at the end of the month like a bill? Do you pay at the end of the game? What if the game takes months or a year to beat? This is a good system too, but it would need a lot of kinks worked out.
-The best alternate system I've heard all year is Sam's (see above). My God, what a fabulous idea! I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to be that kind of critic!
-Another of Anthony's questions (this one requiring a multi-part answer) is why we're willing to buy "a shitty parkour (par core?) game," (Mirror's Edge, thank God someone else hated that game too) at the full asking price of $60 and then not send someone $5 via Paypal, so that people like Jason Rohrer, the creator of an awesome game like Passage, won't be forced into a job they hate and risk being labeled a sell-out or worse.
-If having a day job is "selling out," then there's nothing wrong with "selling out," a day job is always a good thing to have, since money is a good thing to have, especially when you have a family to take care of. I wish I had a job outside of the school year.
Going back on your values and morals makes you an unlikeable jerk as well as a sell out, but putting food on the table is another story. Good for Rohrer, I hope he gets promoted ASAP so he can keep providing for his family.
(Side note: Anyone ever notice that no one over 20 really uses the phrase "sell out?")
-Why do people buy Mirror's Edge? I bought Mirror's Edge, mostly because I was asked, but also because the game's demo rocked and it masked the fact that the whole game would just be a 5 hour long version of the demo. You're right Anthony, demos and trailers can be misleading.
-Why we won't spare a few bucks to a fledgling developer (not that he and the readers don't know the answer to this)? It's for the same reason we won't give change to charity, people are greedy. While these used to be huge character flaws, it's sort of expected and even encouraged to take without giving back and cling to anything that is deemed "MINE." There's nothing wrong with getting something for free and there's nothing wrong with being frugal, but to take something that someone puts all their effort into and not even giving THEM reinforcement is just a dick thing to do.
This whole question makes me wish generosity and gratitude were practiced more.
-So, I kind of went off on a moral tangent, but I agree with Anthony, he's got the right idea and I hope the right person/people will hear him and fix our broken system. Who knows, maybe someone out there will really like Sam's idea!
Tune in next week when I won't be here and there'll be a mystery host to take over the Co-Op. Who could it be? Have I stolen Shaq from Mark Salmela? Did I manage to get Reginald Vel Johnson? Maybe I asked Bryan Danielson do a guest spot? You might even get Eliza Dushku for a guest host!
Well, whoever it is, you can find out next week. Peace!
i don't want to be an ass and say you have no taste robbins, but i will say that my taste differs greatly. i loved the gears of war story, well gears of war 2 anyway (so if your comment about the GoW storyline sucking was purely aimed towards the first game then ignore my comment completely).
I don't remember ever caring more about killing the bad guys in a shooter than when i played GoW2. Maybe it was because i had just blazed but when Dom's wife died in his arms (i was playing as Dom) I fucking freaked and literally went sprinting into the next wave of enemies guns blazing cover be damned (damn near died too).
My buddy was laughing at me because i was legitly pissed off and was putting myself in great danger to curb stomp the fuckers despite being in a hail of enemy fire (I usually play GoW2 very cautiously). I have never felt such a real reaction to something in a game and am psyched to see a GoW movie to see how they cover the scene.
Of course as i said this is all in regards to GoW2 so if the movie and/or ur comments were meant soley for GoW1 then ignore my post.
Posted By: stronelis (Guest) on July 29, 2009 at 10:10 AM
I don't get why the Rock would be considered for Marcus anyways. He'd be better suited to play Dom.
Posted By: Todd Vote (Registered) on July 29, 2009 at 10:26 AM
And of course everyone forgets the best Gears of War quote. (In the factory, after the team were split in two, about when you do the mine cart ride)
Baird: Where have you been? We've been sitting around for ten minutes.
Marcus: Well good for you, dumbass
---------------
That scene better be in the movie. And the part where Cole hops in the mine cart. (Dont worry baby! The cole train is at home on the tracks! Woooo Wooooo!)
Posted By: Sam Pow (Registered) on July 29, 2009 at 12:02 PM
Ok, alot to talk about, I'll try to keep it short. Firt of all, like the new format. Moving on, I din't know that there were actual people big enough to play the Gears characters, except mayby the Carmines, who would be short lived anyway. As for movies, I don't think either Gears or Halo had good enough stories to warrent a full movie. Yeah they both make great shooter GAMES, but movies, meh. I wasn't sure Master Chief wasn't a mute until Halo 2 and as for Gears, it was always strange to me that they alwayed managed to heroicly fuck everything up. "Woo, we killed some of the locusts with the lightmas but now everyones lungs are melting from emmulsion." Jacinto is the last bastion of humanity, "Woo we sank Jicinto and killed some more of the locuts." The locusts still arn't dead and there isn't much left to destroy as far as I can tell. It interests me to see what they do next. I'm sure there are games that deserve movies, but if I were to pick it would be a game like Okami. Speaking of Okami and sequals, those are the kinds of games that deserve a sequal. I am for the most part against sequals but some games genuinely deserve them. It's games like Okami, Valkyria Chronicles,and Psychonauts that deserve to be purchased and have sequals. Sports games get picked up over titles like this for full price despite generally only add updated rosters and it's criminal.
Posted By: Ben Jamin' (Guest) on July 29, 2009 at 02:09 PM
I've never actually played the second Gears game Stronellis, just the first one. So it was based solely on that.
Posted By: Drew Robbins (Registered) on July 30, 2009 at 05:08 PM
Screw the Rock, Marcus Fenix looks exactly like Batista. May as well cast Batista, just to keep him away from a wrestling ring (only being healthy three months a year is still three months more than I want to see Batista wrestle).
Posted By: RavenTazECW (Registered) on August 03, 2009 at 05:43 AM
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
