Life Sized Gears of War Lancer, Oh Gosh

Imagine that, the USD $139 Gears of War 2 bundle includes a life-sized plastic gun that goes “zoom zoom bang.” It comes with a removable handle clip and an adjustable side-handle but… in the end… it’s a plastic toy gun manufactured for adults.

Gears of War 2 is “Mature Audiences” only but apparently that doesn’t mean these adults aren’t ready and willing to go out and buy a bundle that comes with a collectible plastic weapon. It’s listed as an Amazon top-seller and plenty of mature audiences are going to be chasing each other around the house going “boom boom, I got you” this November.

Seriously, isn’t this just going over the top in terms of stupid toys? Somehow people seem to think this is “cool,” but how many would be straight-faced walking into a Starbucks and seeing a 40 year-old man sitting at the table sipping apple juice while playing with his GI Joe’s and He-Man action figures?

In my mind, this is a piece of junk that’s going to end up in a box under your staircase or packed in the attic within a month or collecting dust hiding from your grown up friends. But who am I to judge, Amazon #1 top-seller says it all.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Related Post

Episode 447: More Nintendo Switch NewsEpisode 447: More Nintendo Switch News

The Nintendo Switch is looming on us all, and more rumors from trusted sources are popping up. We also reminisce about music from the Jet Grind Radio games and talk about the timing of Titanfall 2 sucked.

This week’s news includes:

  • 6 of the biggest rumors Nintendo Switch rumors
  • EA pursuing development of an open-world game
  • Dead Rising 4 removes campaign co-op

Let us know if you’re going to buy a Nintendo Switch.

Diablo 3 Doesn’t Look Right, Dev Says Yes Sir!Diablo 3 Doesn’t Look Right, Dev Says Yes Sir!

There has been many debates on the graphic level of Diablo 3 and how it should be different. Finally a developer comes out and says “um, no.” Their reasoning is fairly simple, it’s one thing to photoshop up a screenshot with some filters but it’s another to get the texture and lighting to run at that detail on a standard computer.

How do you argue with that? Personally, I think the graphics look wonderful, brilliant, vibrant and professional. Diablo 3 game designer Jay Willson said:

“The key thing to remember here is that this has been Photoshopped. This isn’t created by the engine. Though it looks really cool, it’s almost impossible to do in a 3D engine because you can’t have lighting that smart and run on systems that are reasonable. If we could do that, we probably would in a few of the dungeons.” (slashdot)

Non-developers seem to forget that the colors, cameras and lighting don’t come free on a video game. Everything has limitations and, although the limitations change over time, today’s graphics for a standard machine are capable of running Diablo 3. Blizzard isn’t making a game that only hardcore PC gamers can play, this game is for everyone.

Building a video game is a lot of smoke and mirrors to make a virtual object look “real” to normal gamers. Immersion and definition is important, grainy dark graphics do set a mood, but they also frustrate many players. Remember DOOM 3? Some people could barely see the “epic graphics” of the last DOOM sequel, it’s time to mature and show off true colors.

Darkness usually is used to hide imperfections, Diablo 3 has nothing to hide.

(For a high resolution photo, checkout MTV Multiplayer Blog)

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)