Four Player Co-op 03.16.10: Portal II, The Old Republic, and Playstation Move

Posted by Stephen Randle on 03.16.2010

The fallout from the Activision-Infinity Ward mess, a potential front-runner for Game of 2010, Square-Enix developing for the next generation, and other top gaming issues are debated by the 411 Staff in the latest 4PC!




Joshua Richey has joined the game.
Todd Vote has joined the game.
Mathew Sforcina has joined the game.
Armando Rodriguez has joined the game.

Quizmaster

Greetings, and welcome to another play session of Four Player Co-op. I am the Quizmaster, I ask all the questions. We've finally coaxed our regulars back out of the trees after FF Theme Week. So, normal questions this week, and as always, the points are completely irrelevant and the winner receives nothing at all. The game starts now!

QUESTION ONE: A request was made for a Portal-related question, so I'll oblige. With the brains behind Half Life, Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress, and of course the original Portal claiming that Portal II is their best work yet, is it a no-brainer that it will at least be a top two or three contender for Game of the Year, and probably win it for at least one system?

Joshua Richey

Ordinarily I'd agree and say that it's a no-brainer, but we're on in March and 2010 has been stacked with GOTY contenders. We've got Darksiders, Mass Effect 2, Heavy Rain, Final Fantasy XIII, God of War 3, and, like I said, that's just March. We've still got Halo Reach, Crackdown 2, Arkham Asylum 2, and possibly Gears of War 3 ahead of us. So Portal 2 may very well be 2010's GOTY after all is said and done, but it's definitely not going to be a no-brainer

Todd Vote

Absolutely. Portal is awesome, even if the cake is a lie. There is so much room to expand the Portal universe. I have complete faith in Valve to deliver an awesome gaming experience. The first Portal is one of the most fun games on the 360, and I expect huge things from a full priced sequel. It will have some heavy competition for GotY though, so I can agree with the top 3 of the year statement.

Mathew Sforcina

Sadly not. Portal was the benefit of about a thousand things all coming together into one perfect little bundle. No-one was hyping it, it was just an add on that was more of a tech demo, it had barely anyone working on it, it was just an afterthought. But it had the comedy, the puzzles, the song, GLaDOS, the Cube... Everything except maybe the length clicked into place. The thing is, lightning in a bottle is hard to catch. And while this is Valve, when you add lots of new people onto a project, it can lose some of that specialness. I'm going to buy it, and I'm probably going to love it, but with gaming fans a notoriously fickle bunch, if the writing isn't top notch, if GLaDOS isn't perfect, if there isn't another brilliant ending... People might revolt that it's merely Extremely Good, and not Perfect.

Armando Rodriguez

I am sure it will win some awards and yes, maybe even Game of the Year in a console or two....perhaps on the PC? I loved Portal and I can't imagine how they can make that game better, but if they are saying it, I believe it. Valve is one of those companies that produce good games consistently, so who am I to doubt them?

---

Quizmaster

I find your lack of faith in Valve disturbing, Sforcina. You lose 300 points, which go directly to Rodriguez. Vote gets 100 for working in "cake is a lie".

---

QUESTION TWO: Square Enix is already working on designing a game engine for the next console generation. Isn't it still too early to be programming for the nebulous concept of the X-Box 720 and PS4?

Joshua Richey

It's never too early! Wouldn't it be nice to have a Square-Enix game ready for launch when the next consoles hit store shelves? Heck yes, it would. You've got to assume we're passed the midway point of this current generation, so I don't think there's anything wrong with getting a head start. Hell, Epic is already building an Unreal engine for the generation after next

Todd Vote

Not at all. Even if the current consoles stick around for the next 5 years or so, it's never to early to start thinking forward. I do wonder though… How can they develop an engine when the next generation of consoles aren't even in development supposedly… How do you design for something you have no tech specs for?

Mathew Sforcina

Yes and no. If they had annouced that FFXIII was the final FF on consoles, and that the next one wouldn't come out until the next gen, THAT would be silly. But hiring a couple of people to begin to fiddle around with new tech, give people ideas, lay out some groundwork, and generally seeing what they can and can't do in new tech, so that when XBox 720 and PS4 are made, they might be able to launch with a game that looks and plays great? That's not a bad thing, that's a good thing. (Hey, a wrestling reference won this for me last time...)

Armando Rodriguez

I don't think they are too early, just a bit. Apparently the current crop of consoles (at least from Sony and Microsoft, I have a gut feeling Nintendo will move on first) will last until 2014-2016. That is their lifespan, but that does not mean that a newer console won't be up and running before then. Technically we can say that we are still on the Playstation 2's lifespan (it is still being sold) but the PS3, Wii and 360 have already been running for 3 years or so. I expect a new console to be out by 2014, which gives Square four years to finish whatever engine they are working on. Also I have a feeling Nintendo will have a new console out by 2012 or 2013 at the latest. Bank on it!

---

Quizmaster

Sforcina, how dare you equate the value of evil Trish Stratus with a DDP quote? Are you aiming for lowest score ever or something? No points for anyone, I just wanted to trick Vote into answering a question related to Square-Enix.

---

QUESTION THREE: Sony trademarked technology to create demos with "diminishing returns", where available content will decrease the more a user plays the game. What do you think about the concept?

Joshua Richey

I'm conflicted here. Personally I don't like it, but that's because I'm one of those guys that is known to have kept demos on his hard-drive and played them rather than buying or renting the game (COUGHredfactionguerillaCOUGH) . The recently released Just Cause 2 demo is a good example. The whole selling point of that game is that you can run around a huge world and destroy things. That sounds like fun, but you can do that in the demo that's currently available, too. I could seriously find myself playing that demo for months and months, even after the game is released. Sony wants to stop me from doing that. Honestly, I can't really fault them for it either.

Todd Vote

You know, I'm just not sure what to think of this… If the idea of a demo is to show off the awesome of your game, why would you want to make it less appealing over time? I mean if I play a demo I don't want to be a badass when I play through it the first time, then not on the second time. If I play through a demo, and I want to show it to a friend who doesn't have access to said demo, it's going to suck when they come to see it. Then that person is not going to buy the game… right? Maybe I just don't quite get the concept. It's a neat idea, but what is the point?

Mathew Sforcina

Speaking as a video game broadcast journalist, this is a good idea. You give the consumer more of the game, give them more of the good stuff to whet their appetite and/or decide if they really want the game, then reduce it over time to stop them just playing the demo all the time. Of course, if they do end up going the Full Game Demo thing, whereby you download the full game and it just cuts off most of the game, more and more of it as it goes, then that's just begging for a Yaris Swap PS3, and then they are in trouble. But yes, overall, it's a good idea. It'll be hated of course (BOO! I DEMAND GOOD STUFF FOR FREE ALWAYS!~!), but it's a good idea.

Armando Rodriguez

It has a ton of positives and negatives. The positives is that developers can now give us access to a lot more content in demos, since they know that content will be taken away slowly. By giving us a bigger sample, our buying decisions are going to be more accurate. The biggest negative I find in this is that demos are going to be considerably larger and people like me, with pretty slow connections, won't be able to download 10-15GB worth of data for a demo. Hell, I don't have that kind of space on my PS3!

---

Quizmaster

Frankly, if you're worried that people are just going to play the demo forever, maybe you should take a closer look at your finished product. And would somebody spring to get Armando a bigger hard drive? Sforcina earns back some points for daring to call himself a video game broadcast journalist. That's going right on my business cards.

---

QUESTION FOUR: EA has put more money behind the upcoming Star Wars: The Old Republic MMO than any game ever, even more than Blizzard put out to develop World of Warcraft six years ago. So, with the power of EA and a somehow still massively beloved franchise behind it, is it the long-theorised WoW Killer?

Joshua Richey

I don't think that it's a WoW killer. I believe that both games will be able to co-exist for the most part. EA has put a lot of eggs into this basket, but, at least for now, it looks like a wise investment. Bioware couldn't be hotter right now. So the fact that they're making a Star Wars MMO – especially given the love for KOTOR – this thing will be huge. When it launches there will be talk about it being the new MMO that gamers prefer, they may even put a dent in Warcraft's popularity, but, in the long-run, WoW owns that space.

Todd Vote

No. I think WoW was a once in a lifetime phenomenon. I don't see any MMO ever reaching the same level of success. I'm not saying Star Wars won't be successful, because let's be honest… you could shit in a box, mark it Star Wars and it would sell like a Katy Perry sex tape. But I don't see it pulling to much away from WoW. Wow is familiar and people are comfortable with it. I don't see the people who have been playing the game for the last 300 years suddenly giving it up.

Mathew Sforcina

No, on the basis that NO game will kill WOW. Every MMO, no matter what it is, no matter who puts it out, or even on what platform, wants to me the WOW Killer. But it's not going to happen. It's like claiming that any search engine is a Google Killer. Google is just far too well established both online and, more importantly, in public perception (It's a verb after all) to ever be killed by another. WOW is the same. For most people, WOW is MMO. Full stop. That said, if the game gets a console port it might just be a major competitor, but it's not going to kill WOW. WOW cannot be killed, merely contained.

Armando Rodriguez

I don't believe we will see a WoW killer anytime soon. I loved the two KOTOR games and I have a feeling that this new MMO will be great, but in order to kill WoW every single Star Wars nerd would need to play this game. The fact that it is based on a movie IP will likely turn off non-Star Wars fans from the game and that could be a significant portion. It will be a great game, it will have a significant player base and it will compete with WoW, but it won't kill WoW and it won't surpass WoW's insane number of subscriptions.

---

Quizmaster

It took 3 years and required every single one of my online friends quitting, but I did kick the WoW monkey. Hopefully they all get into Old Republic. Everyone gets 1000 points for being right, nothing will ever kill WoW unless it's WoW II. Or better yet, World of Diablo.

---

QUESTION FIVE: With new information about the entire Activistion-Infinity Ward situation continuing to pour forth, what's your reaction to the mess and the possible effect it will have on the future of the Modern Warfare franchise?

Joshua Richey

From what we're hearing now, it sounds like Activision and Infinity Ward were just too egotistical to co-exist. Infinity Ward didn't want to make another Modern Warfare game, they wanted to branch out and try something else, but Activision has gotten to the point where they're too dependent on those Call of Duty games. The heads of IW *allegedly* started talking to other publishers, and Activision used it to try to bully them. I will say this though: Activision needs Infinity Ward more than Infinity Ward needs Activision. Activision has destroyed their Guitar Hero franchise, the Tony Hawk Ride experiment was an epic fail, and they've got to make a lot of cuts across the board. If not for Modern Warfare, these guys would be in serious trouble.

I'm still not sure how it'll impact the future Call of Duty games. Treyarch is making the 2010 version of the game, but now Sledgehammer is making Modern Warfare 3; not Infinity Ward. So you'd like to think that alone would impact sales, but I doubt Joe Gamer knows the difference. However, there is a hot rumor that Sledgehammer's Modern Warfare 3 will be an Action/Adventure game and be in 3rd person.

Todd Vote

I never thought I would hate Activision, and be cheering for EA. Activision has essentially just killed off their biggest franchise. I'm not going to pretend to know all the details of this, because honestly none of us ever will, but from what we know Activision is in the wrong. Why exactly do they want to take one of the top selling franchises of all time and change the formula that made it so successful? Why the action adventure route? Why the possible pay to play format? Way to kill your franchise and fuck your fan base all at the same time.

Mathew Sforcina

I look forward to the HBO movie in a year based on this thing. Suffice to say, this all boils done to one thing: the Call Of Duty Brand makes lots of cash. I mean, HUGE sums of cash. You release a COD game, you can deepen Scrooge McDuck's money vault a few extra fathoms. Thusly, Activision, being a company that wants to, you know, make more money than God, wants to turn the COD production lever from "Consistent" to "Super-Mega-Ultra-Fast-HyperDrive Plus". They want COD third person shooters (in the pipeline), COD MMOs (in the pipeline), COD Underwear (Probably. "Go Commando In COD Boxers!"), COD themed real life army units (... Wouldn't surprise me), so on and so forth. Infinity Ward, on the other hand, being the guys who created the game, maybe having that little voice in their heads that say "Don't over-saturate the market". Most executives in big brands have that voice surgically removed, you see. So, what's gonna happen now? Activision will pay out, eventually, and then in 2011, COD goes into SMUFHDP mode, and then... Well that depends on the gamers really...

Armando Rodriguez

Honestly, I don't care. For what I understand, the people that were fired had been negotiating with some other publishers behind Activision's back and that is a big no-no. But we can also agree that Activision had been bullying Infinity Ward and to a certain degree, they had been hurting their creative output. Remember, Activision did not want Modern Warfare and Activision has pretty much "trapped" Infinity Ward with the Call of Duty franchise. By "trapped" I mean that Infinity Ward is now seen as COD's developer and nothing else and if they stay with Activision it is highly unlikely that they will be allowed to work on something else, be it a new IP or another property. Sometimes you just get tired of working on the same thing and you need to do something new. Whatever the reasons are, I don't think this affect us in anyway. There is enough of the Infinity Ward team left to guarantee some solid Modern Warfare sequels (although I am tired of them already!) and the people that were fired will end up with another big publisher working on something new and hopefully, something good

---

Quizmaster

Ah, the eternal battle between creativity and finance. I bet we know who wins that battle. Cynical? Moi?

---

BONUS QUESTION: So, who has the worst name now: The PlayStation Move, or our returning champion, the Wii?

Joshua Richey

Well, it's been years since the Nintendo Wii was announced and I'm still making innuendos with its name. However, I feel dumber and dumber every time that I say Playstation Move. In theory it's a better name in the sense that it actually describes what you're doing…you're moving…but it still feels weird to say. I will say that it's a better name than the previous Playstation Arc project title that it had. Can we just all agree that Project Natal is worse?

Todd Vote

I think the Move is a horrible name. That is all.

Mathew Sforcina

Well, I still think Game.com is the reigning champion, but out of those two, Move. At least the Wii had some obvious jokes you could make before you saw the point that it's a short, memorable phrase that can be said by anyone anywhere. As opposed to the Move, which is a little less universal (will it be known as the Movimento in Italy? Or the Mouvement in France?), and there are less jokes. So it's a worse name. But that's ok, it's clearly a rip off gimmick, so who cares what the name is?

Armando Rodriguez

Honestly, Wii. It sounds silly, it is spelled wrong and I really don't think anything will ever top that until someone names a console the "Nintendo/Sony/Microsoft/Sega/Panasonic Piece of Shit" or "Giant Turd". Playstation Move sounds stupid, they should have used some sort of "uber" codename like Natal (what the hell is a Natal anyway? Still, it sounds cool!) but they could have done far worse. I mean, Playstation Gem? Playstation Arc? Those were far worse.

---

Please wait…Host is calculating scores…

HIGH SCORE



PLAYER FOUR WINS
SNES = BEST CONSOLE EVER
COME BACK NEXT WEEK TO TRY AGAIN

411 on Twitter!

http://www.twitter.com/411mania
http://www.twitter.com/411games
http://www.twitter.com/411wrestling
http://www.twitter.com/411moviestv
http://www.twitter.com/411music
http://www.twitter.com/411mma