Gaming Podcast 118: Jump The Shark

The gaming podcast of the week, the best gaming podcast on the planet! No, just kidding. This week we’re taking a look back at Starfox, we’re reading off some great community questions, covering history on Dave Arneson and hitting up some news:

  • podcast-200x200Will Wright Leaves Electronic Arts
  • Nintendo Wii Bringing Video Download
  • Nintendo Wii Manufacturing Costs down 45% since launch
  • RockStar connecting Flash games and the Nintendo DS
  • Dave Arneson Dies at Age 61
  • Electronic Arts Want Their Brass Knuckles Back

Thanks for the great responses this week, as always, we’re also asking a question of the week: Is anyone else angry that Wizards of the Coast came out of nowhere to buy TSR, Inc back in the day?

0 thoughts on “Gaming Podcast 118: Jump The Shark”

  1. I wasn’t pissed off when the sale was made. I was mildly disturbed when Wizards of the Coast said they’d be revamping and fixing the game – by allowing things like level 20 halfling mage-slash-thief-slash-paladin-slash-monk-slash-fighters.

    I became angry when 4.0 game out and they succeeded in turning it into a computer game version of D&D, and sucking the life out of the actual roleplaying. Computer RPGs are the way they are because they LACK the ability to have an intelligent GM. It’s the tail wagging the dog now.

    At least GURPS is still out there.

  2. 3.0 was my first experience, so I had no ill will toward WotC. It wasn’t until Hasbro took over that I got ticked. And yeah, 4.0 is utterly pointless for pen-and-paper purposes, in my opinion.

    Also, not to get needlessly nitpicky or anything, but I don’t think you could actually be a thief/paladin/monk, could you? Unless that was a 3.5 change. ‘:)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Users Pwn MetaCritic Review SubmissionsUsers Pwn MetaCritic Review Submissions

Although we’ve found Metacritic a userful resource for game reviews, many folks have gone on a user submission rampage to discredit games that haven’t even launched yet. Their first attack was on LittleBigPlanet followed by Resistance 2, now their hitting Gears of War 2.

While Gears of War 2 has a Metacritic score of 94/100 the user’s have reviewed it to be a 3.5 out of 10, with a bright red box around the user review due to its low nature we’re sure. Although users are free to give their own honest representation of the game from their perspective, Gears of War 2, as of the review dates, hasn’t been released yet – these reviews are bogus.

This style of attack was popularized in Spore, when Amazon got nailed with poor reviews of the game because Spore’s “Draconic” DRM made people angry. However, it’s more reasonable for people to voice their opinion on a known issue with a game; Gears of War 2 review spamming is just mean.

We use Metacritic as guidance when we do our gaming podcast to understand what games are rated in the industry, but we don’t use user reviews as our main guide. There are plenty of folks out there that may utilize these reviews in more seriousness because they may feel journalists reviews are tainted by advertisers or “the man” and want the common gamers opinion.

The common gamer cannot possibility be reviewing Gears of War 2 before the title has arrived. This is bogus. Metacritic has this to say:

“My advice for our faithful users is to focus your attention on the Metascore for this game and not the thousands of user votes, most of which have been submitted before said users have played the game. This is a gaming community, and if people want to stuff the ballot box, there’s not much I can do at this point. When we upgrade the registration requirements for participation on the site in the near future, this type of thing won’t happen. We’ll post the full legitimate user reviews upon the game’s release. As always, thanks for using the site.” (1up)

So, to those looking for holiday gaming gifts, keep this in mind while you start hunting down games you’ll want to buy.

Seven Games That Need to Be RemadeSeven Games That Need to Be Remade

With the strong rumor that Halo: Combat Evolved is going to be remade graphically from the ground up, it brings us to the question of why aren’t more games being remade? We’re not talking about reboots like the new emo Devil May Cry, or re-imaginings like the first person shooter XCOM. We’re talking about a true remake like you see endlessly from Square-Enix with its Final Fantasy games on the handhelds – they’re completely faithful to the original, save a new engine, graphics and occasionally an additional mission or two; the upcoming localization of Dragon Quest VI is a great example.

So, we’ve picked out seven games that desperately need a modern remake, sometimes due to their primitive graphics, sometimes due to their incompatibility with the current OS, or the fact you need to do some major tweaking to get them to run (unless GOG.com does it for you, bless their souls.)

These games aren’t old or have already been remade, so you won’t see M.U.L.E., Sid Meier’s Pirates or Seven Cities of Gold – in fact, the oldest of the games is from 1994. You also won’t see games that require little work to be remade, which is why you won’t see Grim Fandango here, either. These games would require serious undertaking. The games also have to remain the same genre and style, so no Elder Scrolls version of Ultima IV, either.

Without further ado, here are five older games that desperately need a remake – in alphabetical order.

(more…)

Imagine a Free World of WarcraftImagine a Free World of Warcraft

Once upon a time the folks at Blizzard Entertainment thought they could support the entire world of World of Wacraft by ad revenue. This would have created an MMO experience which would cost you nothing but a bit of annoyance by ad providers; what would the total audience be if the game was free?

Had WoW launched free of charge they would probably have significantly more users playing the game, but the ad revenue from the sheer amount of people would be nothing compared to a monthly charge for eight million subscribers.

Although only a small number of those subscribers are US based, they’re still raking in the cash compared to an ad-based model, even if they were to have triple the subscribers.

However, the Blizzard exec noted: “We didn’t want to charge a subscription, but as we researched market conditions, we realized that wouldn’t support us.”

It’s possible, perhaps, that Blizzard would have fallen under its own weight had they created a world where anyone could play for no charge. Imagine the server utilization, the volume of traffic and the support calls they would get for triple or quadrupal the player base with only ads paying the checks.

Granted, a free system would be excellent in theory, but in practice, making us pay is the only way to throttle our addictions. Sad, but true.

(Thanks, gamasutra)