Shadows of the Damned

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Review: Shadows of the Damned -Destructoid

A game from the minds of Shinji Mikami and Suda 5, developed by Grasshopper, with music from the Akira Yamaoka of the Silent Hill games. Third person shooting, light/dark mechanics and Zelda-esque bosses and a story that manages to be even more out-there than No More Heroes, Killer 7 and FS&R (Flower, Sun and Rain), if that's possible.

Oh, and EA didn't pull anything out of the game to sell it, in fact, I think it comes with a free CD soundtrack... that's unusually generous of EA.

EA gets a cookie for not being douchey and publishing what is likely going to be a niche title. I will be buying an EA game new for once... weird. This after they gave away American McGee's Alice if you registered the online pass with Alice: Madness Returns.

Did the execs at EA fall on their heads or something?

[Icemage]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

I don't know why you're on such a hate-train for EA. Sure, they dislike used game sales, but do you really blame them? They don't get any money from re-sold games.

At any rate, this game seems a bit too sophomoric to me (in a mildly Duke Nukem sort of way). Might change my mind at some point and get it, but nothing I've seen on it seems terribly compelling.


Icemage

[DakAttack]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

Maybe it's because they're trying to create a bunch of redundant services for their limited stock of franchises? For their console games, you're forced to register the game and all DLC on their site, instead of through the platforms provided by XBL and PSN. Their service often falters or crashes under the day-one load, meaning you can't register or don't get what you bought for a few days, or even weeks as was the case with BFBC2. Now they're trying to run their own Steam-like service for whatever games they're publishing. Based on their past performance, that'll go well.

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

I don't know why you're on such a hate-train for EA. Sure, they dislike used game sales, but do you really blame them? They don't get any money from re-sold games.

Nor should they. If they don't like how capitalism works, they need to grow the hell up. They're one of the top publishers in the world, they don't need to resort to such antics. People will buy their games. But if they keep doing what they're likely going to do with Battlefield 3 or Mass Effect 3, they can kiss my ass. I'll wait for the roll-up and buy it used if that's what they want to do.

I'm a grown adult paying hard-earned money for my games, I don't like essentially being told to "prove your loyalty or else." I like the option of buying used as a consumer and don't feel I should be shorted on content for buying used.

Then there's the account thing Dak mentioned. Very Big Brother kinda stuff if you ask me. Is it really necessary to have to check my content as authentic each and every time I boot up DA:O? Can't I just play my fucking game?

I'm not some hipster tool that says he's going to boycott something, but I will honestly pass on any game where content is blatantly withheld as a faux incentive to buy new. If anyone is going to do the "punishing" its me.

At any rate, this game seems a bit too sophomoric to me (in a mildly Duke Nukem sort of way). Might change my mind at some point and get it, but nothing I've seen on it seems terribly compelling.

People can be clever with sophomoric humor, but Duke games aren't among them.

Evil Dead by way of No More Heroes is a more appropriate comparison. In fact, that seems to be exactly what their intent was. And dick jokes, lots of them. You have a sidekick named Johnson, a former demon that turns into weapons with names like Boner. Well, he is a disembodied skull.

Also, I was wrong about the CD, but if you enter the redeem code on Gamestop's site you can download the MP3s from there. Eh, I'll do it later I guess.

The music is as good as you'd expect from Akira Yamaoka, so I suppose it is worth the extra hassle.

[Icemage]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

Nor should they. If they don't like how capitalism works, they need to grow the hell up. They're one of the top publishers in the world, they don't need to resort to such antics. People will buy their games. But if they keep doing what they're likely going to do with Battlefield 3 or Mass Effect 3, they can kiss my ass. I'll wait for the roll-up and buy it used if that's what they want to do.

See, here I thought I was being silly for wanting my purchase dollars to go to the people who actually make the games. In general (for me), anything that encourages other people to do the same is kosher, so long as it doesn't seriously impact the quality of the experience.

You cloak your hatred in talk of greed, but it seems to me what you're really trying to do is defend your desire to not buy games at full price, even in the face of not supporting the people that make the games you enjoy in the first place.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

See, here I thought I was being silly for wanting my purchase dollars to go to the people who actually make the games. In general (for me), anything that encourages other people to do the same is kosher, so long as it doesn't seriously impact the quality of the experience.[

You cloak your hatred in talk of greed, but it seems to me what you're really trying to do is defend your desire to not buy games at full price, even in the face of not supporting the people that make the games you enjoy in the first place.

Icemage

Music to EA's ears, I'm sure. You've certainly got the hymn memorized in both chorus and verse.

I will put it plainly.

Being hostile toward the used market is bad for publishers and worse for developers.

When you pre-order or buy a new game, do you always pay with cash? Last I checked, most people use old games as part of how they buy new ones. This lets retailers say they need X amount of games from the publishers because pre-orders will reflect demand.

If everyone removed content from games as a means of assuring consumers bought new games, the value of a game used with diminish and trade-ins become less practical. If the store credit I get on a used game isn't worth it, its going to affect how often I buy a game new.

Part of how I paid for Zelda and Shadows of the Damned this week was, in fact, from older games. I think the reason EA really put real incentives with Alice and SotD is that these were niche games they knew they couldn't get away with withholding content to. And EA is seldom a publisher of niche titles.

I'm all for supporting the developer, but when the publisher thinks they're hot shit and I need to prove my loyalty to them or can be told how I should spend my money - that's where I have issues.

EA did right by Alice and Shadows, so for that they get my support and a new purchase. I may find a way to squeeze in Alice later this week or next week. I just wish EA would do right by all games and subsequently, gamers as well.

And I'll just say it - if you're passing on Shadows because of the low-brow humor, you're missing out on a great game. The difference between this and Duke Nukem Forever is that while the humor is crude, its also clever. Duke isn't remotely clever about... anything, really.

----------------------------------------

EDIT: Great, I got to my GS to redeem, I get redirected to EA to do EA account stuff. I put in the account info I gave big brother two weeks ago to register my DA:O UE content. The very same info got got me an email confirmation shortly after.

Except it doesn't recognize my email address now, even though EA itself has already verified my email. I go to make another account with the same email and it says that account already exists. So it exists and it doesn't exist. How the fuck does that even work?

Fuck it, I'll just torrent it.

[Icemage]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

When you pre-order or buy a new game, do you always pay with cash? Last I checked, most people use old games as part of how they buy new ones. This lets retailers say they need X amount of games from the publishers because pre-orders will reflect demand.

I don't trade my games or hardware. I always buy my games in cash, never with trade credit (since I never have any).

This part of the discussion is neither here nor there, since it doesn't technically impact what the game retailers pay for the games; it only affects what you give the retailer in exchange for the copies they already paid for themselves.

Part of how I paid for Zelda and Shadows of the Damned this week was, in fact, from older games. I think the reason EA really put real incentives with Alice and SotD is that these were niche games they knew they couldn't get away with withholding content to.

Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't put it past them, but again - so what? It's all about value propositions and where your spending dollars are going. To EA, they don't care how you paid for your games - they got paid by the retailer already.

The only games I can seriously accuse of "withholding content" to the point where I cared was Beautiful Katamari on the Xbox 360, and maybe Tiger Woods 2010. Other than that, if a mission slips the release date, or even if a developer or publisher wants to withhold it for a new purchase bonus, that's perfectly fine in my book since I always buy new anyway. If you prefer buying used and not supporting developers, that's your own business, but don't present this practice as something that hurts everyone, because it doesn't hurt everyone, only the people that buy games used.

And EA is seldom a publisher of niche titles.

Eh? EA surely does have their share of major franchises (sports games galore, Battlefield, Crysis, The Sims, etc.), but they also publish some niche titles. Mirror's Edge? Rock Band? Spore?

They're not Atlus, but they've done their fair share of innovation the past few years.

I'm all for supporting the developer, but when the publisher thinks they're hot shit and I need to prove my loyalty to them or can be told how I should spend my money - that's where I have issues.

So a publisher like EA who wants people to buy games new and support developers in the process is evil, but a publisher like Activision who treats their developers like compost heaps is ok... why?

EA did right by Alice and Shadows, so for that they get my support and a new purchase. I may find a way to squeeze in Alice later this week or next week. I just wish EA would do right by all games and subsequently, gamers as well.

So two niche games (which you just claimed EA doesn't publish, remember) got treated right (by your own admission), and EA is still evil. I don't follow your logic at all.

And I'll just say it - if you're passing on Shadows because of the low-brow humor, you're missing out on a great game. The difference between this and Duke Nukem Forever is that while the humor is crude, its also clever. Duke isn't remotely clever about... anything, really.

I never said DNF was a good game, or a clever game, or anything. My avoidance of Shadows of the Damned has everything to do with my distaste for that style of humor in general. I stayed away from Duke Nukem Forever for the self-same reason; it was funny in for shock value back in the 1990s. It's not funny or entertaining to me now.

EDIT: Great, I got to my GS to redeem, I get redirected to EA to do EA account stuff. I put in the account info I gave big brother two weeks ago to register my DA:O UE content. The very same info got got me an email confirmation shortly after.

Except it doesn't recognize my email address now, even though EA itself has already verified my email. I go to make another account with the same email and it says that account already exists. So it exists and it doesn't exist. How the fuck does that even work?

Fuck it, I'll just torrent it.

So piracy is your answer to not getting a pre-order bonus right away? Okie dokie.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

This part of the discussion is neither here nor there, since it doesn't technically impact what the game retailers pay for the games; it only affects what you give the retailer in exchange for the copies they already paid for themselves.

It may not affect Best Buy or Wal-Mart, but those are mega retailers. They buy in bulk. Publishers treat them like kings for that.

Gamestop, GAME, Fry's and others are on a different tier. They'll buy the big, proven names in bulk, but don't think for a second they stock something like Shadows of the Damned in mass quantities. We got like Six copies for PS3 and six for the 360. 80% of that was based on pre-order. There are games I've been interested in we've only stocked one copy of at all - sometimes not even my copy.

Such retailers aren't going to take a loss on Zelda or Call of Duty and what doesn't sell will be offset by used revenue anyway.

For smaller retailers, its a crapshoot if they're even made a priority.

To EA, they don't care how you paid for your games - they got paid by the retailer already.

Wow, then. Way to destroy your own argument.

If EA's already getting paid, then there's no reason to worry about how I buy my game. What are they afraid of here? T A car manufacturer doesn't get a cut on the second sale of a car. I don't see JC Penny hassling Goodwill for a second run on revenue for clothes. Gibson doesn't rail on pawn shops for selling their guitars at 100% profit.

If you prefer buying used and not supporting developers, that's your own business, but don't present this practice as something that hurts everyone, because it doesn't hurt everyone, only the people that buy games used.

The only thing I'm preferring here is to have both options open to me and not to be punished for choosing "wrong" in the eyes of a publisher. That is not for the publisher to decide. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

My avoidance of Shadows of the Damned has everything to do with my distaste for that style of humor in general.

Are you saying this because you mean it or is a significant other watching you at all times? This is the same level as No More Heroes from what I've played and it doesn't get much more low-brow than that.

Its actually more like Resident Evil 4 and NMH had a baby.

So piracy is your answer to not getting a pre-order bonus right away? Okie dokie.

I'm just venting, but you have to admit that sort of thing is flabbergasting and shouldn't really happen. At any rate, you have to admit it would make much more sense to just let people access any content from PSN, XBL or Steam than the way EA has it set up - its only what everyone else does.

I need to have this sorted for when I buy Mass Effect 2 used anyway

[Icemage]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

Wow, then. Way to destroy your own argument.

If EA's already getting paid, then there's no reason to worry about how I buy my game. What are they afraid of here? T A car manufacturer doesn't get a cut on the second sale of a car. I don't see JC Penny hassling Goodwill for a second run on revenue for clothes. Gibson doesn't rail on pawn shops for selling their guitars at 100% profit.

Cars and clothing are staple-type commodities that can be produced without significant redesigns for many years that many people require, not luxury items. As for Gibson guitars, they're a high priced luxury item; they are sold well above the manufacturing price. Their market behavior is closer to that of diamonds than video games.

Video games cost a LOT to produce these days. Sure, Call of Duty rakes in way more money than it costs to produce, but a lot of other games don't. Hollywood is a closer analogy to what the video game industry has become. In practice, what happens is that the major franchises that sell well pay for the gambles on more niche titles that may or may not break even.

As for retailers paying for the copies first, I should also note that I pre-order almost every game I buy (aside from the rare impulse buy), and that too is a conscious decision on my part to ensure that my funds go where I intend them to, aside from availability concerns. I don't pre-order games like Mass Effect because I think there won't be any copies available for sale by the time I get around to buying it. I do it because I want Bioware to get paid.

This goes double for more niche titles that I buy; I had to twist some arms to pre-order Majin: The Forsaken Kingdom earlier this year because the SKU didn't even show up in some systems.

The only thing I'm preferring here is to have both options open to me and not to be punished for choosing "wrong" in the eyes of a publisher. That is not for the publisher to decide. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

The publisher isn't "deciding" anything. They offer a product, and they offer extras if you buy it new (sometimes). If you decide the value proposition is better buying new, then buy it new (like you did for Shadows of the Damned). If you don't care about them and don't care that the people who were responsible for it being made will never see any of the money you spend for it, buy it used. Those are your choices.

Are you saying this because you mean it or is a significant other watching you at all times? This is the same level as No More Heroes from what I've played and it doesn't get much more low-brow than that.

Its actually more like Resident Evil 4 and NMH had a baby.

I didn't much care for the "ego-testicle" humor in NMH, either. It was a good - not great - game despite that, because the gameplay was somewhat flawed, but interesting. Shadows of the Damned doesn't appear (at first glance) to have the same level of innovation to distance itself from other shooters. (And no, I don't have to worry about an SO complaining... heh).

At any rate, you have to admit it would make much more sense to just let people access any content from PSN, XBL or Steam than the way EA has it set up - its only what everyone else does.

Oh, I think the whole "EA Pass" system is annoying and probably doomed to failure at some point (how much would you like to bet that EA tries shutting down some of these game servers in a few years, like they do for the online servers for sports games?). But for now, it's not a gamebreaker for me.

I much prefer EA's experimentation to try and keep their business model functional and while publishing the occasional unusual fringe game over Activision's "perpetual hit machine" type of scorched earth policy which has completely removed any semblance of innovation from their production team (with the exception of Blizzard, who are immune to Activision's policies and release whatever they want because it's in their contract).


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

Video games cost a LOT to produce these days. Sure, Call of Duty rakes in way more money than it costs to produce, but a lot of other games don't. Hollywood is a closer analogy to what the video game industry has become. In practice, what happens is that the major franchises that sell well pay for the gambles on more niche titles that may or may not break even.

And by adopting early, you directly endorsed that you were OK with the expense of games. You bought the line that a $59.99 price point was a temporary measure to alleviate the costs of developing in HD and patted yourself on the back for doing your part to "support the developers."

Then that price point came back to bite them in the ass. Most people realized they couldn't drop $60 on a new game each time and started buying used more often. They chose to be more financially responsible with their hobby

And so the likes of EA started baiting with pre-order bonus or withheld content as "incentives." Let's not kid ourselves, if they can talk about the DLC months before release - and publishers very openly do now - its an admission they're withholding content that could have been in the game. There are a few ways to spin it as a positive, but its spin all the same.

As for retailers paying for the copies first, I should also note that I pre-order almost every game I buy (aside from the rare impulse buy), and that too is a conscious decision on my part to ensure that my funds go where I intend them to, aside from availability concerns. I don't pre-order games like Mass Effect because I think there won't be any copies available for sale by the time I get around to buying it. I do it because I want Bioware to get paid.

This goes double for more niche titles that I buy; I had to twist some arms to pre-order Majin: The Forsaken Kingdom earlier this year because the SKU didn't even show up in some systems.

The publisher isn't "deciding" anything. They offer a product, and they offer extras if you buy it new (sometimes). If you decide the value proposition is better buying new, then buy it new (like you did for Shadows of the Damned). If you don't care about them and don't care that the people who were responsible for it being made will never see any of the money you spend for it, buy it used. Those are your choices.

You really don't seem to be getting it at all. You think the latter choice is equal somehow. Its not. I buy used and if its not a roll-up, i don't get everything. I still have to pay EA for the extra content if I want it and that negates the value of buying used. EA uses this to inflate the cost of the used game.

But there's another problem. Let's say I do buy new, there are companies out there that don't include the content of roll-ups on-disc. Resident Evil 5 Gold Edition for 360 and Boarderlands GotY edition contain vouchers that expire in a set amount of time. I don't need to rush out and get every game new on day one, but apparently if I wait too long I might not get the content I paid for with the new product, either.

I believe there were also such vouchers in the original releases of the Dragon Age and Mass Effect games.

So we have EA and others trying to push you to not only buy new, but buy new as soon as possible. You can't say that isn't the intent of such moves.

I didn't much care for the "ego-testicle" humor in NMH, either. It was a good - not great - game despite that, because the gameplay was somewhat flawed, but interesting. Shadows of the Damned doesn't appear (at first glance) to have the same level of innovation to distance itself from other shooters. (And no, I don't have to worry about an SO complaining... heh).

Like I said, its Resident Evil 4 meets NMH meets Evil Dead. Shinji Mikami directed the gameplay, Suda did the presentation and story and Akira did the music. I'd say the difference from other shooters is it opted to have Zelda-style boss encounters, which is always nice because the challenge is just figuring out what makes the boss tick instead of trying to do some epic combo attack fueled by QTE bullshit. There's some QTE in standard combat, but its nothing RE4 or NMH would have done.

Ultimately, I'm in favor of it because its an interesting collaboration and we just don't see enough collaborations going around. Being conventional in terms of gameplay - for Suda51 - is actually somewhat refreshing. I never could get my head around Killer 7 or Flower, Sun and Rain. Those two are way out there.

Now if only Kojima, Miyamoto and Uematsu would make a game together.

I much prefer EA's experimentation to try and keep their business model functional and while publishing the occasional unusual fringe game over Activision's "perpetual hit machine" type of scorched earth policy which has completely removed any semblance of innovation from their production team (with the exception of Blizzard, who are immune to Activision's policies and release whatever they want because it's in their contract).

Be that as it may, EA's experimentation really does nothing but shard away from the five central networks that really should be the only ones we have:

Steam (there are others with their strengths, too, like GOG)
PSN
XBL
Nintendo
iOS

If EA wants to be its own island, they can make their own console. I don't want other third parties doing what they're doing as it just leaves gamers with too many accounts to manage. I'm pretty good with remembering my passwords but I do have a limit.

We have content providers that in the future should prove to be competitive enough to drive the market. The iOS needs an approval process and some tighter regulation. PSN and Nintendo could stand to learn some things from iOS. Everyone could stand to learn something from Steam with their sales, Nintendo especially.

Origin trying to be Steam for EA games... I just don't see the point, really.

[Icemage]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

I think where we disagree is that you are complaining that EA is treating used game buyers as second class citizens. What you haven't provided is a financial reason that they should treat used game owners equally.

The fact of the matter is that there's change coming to the games industry as a whole; Gamestop (and the used game market itself) itself has numbered days. Digital distribution takes a bite out of used game sales, but even beyond that, rental-on-demand services like Gamefly, Netflix and Redbox will probably wreck GameStop the same way they destroyed Blockbuster Video. EA's just kicking GameStop down the into the abyss that much faster. There will still be a market for such things - i.e. Glyde, but I harbor serious doubts that GameStop will survive the coming storm; if it does, GameStop in 10 years will not resemble the franchise operation we know today.

As for me being OK with a $60 price point, I'm indifferent to it, but to me it's a better value proposition than in times past. I can remember paying $50+ for games ten years ago for games that didn't require anywhere near the same amount of development resources, so if you ask me if I'm getting my money's worth for $60, I'd probably say "Yes".


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

I think where we disagree is that you are complaining that EA is treating used game buyers as second class citizens. What you haven't provided is a financial reason that they should treat used game owners equally.

Withholdng content puts your game in the "wait to get it from the used bin" right away in my mind. DA:O UE was an admission that EA could have waited a year and released a complete game devoid of issues. Instead, they rushed it out the door and boy, it shows. It looks and plays like something from last-gen.

To think people got conned out of $150+ for the full experience blows my mind. That's not "supporting the developer" that's getting screwed over a barrel.

Bethesda seems to have a similar issue and their initial "expansions" are little more than content they could have included. Hell, Starcraft 2 is the epitome of this level of bullshit - they decided to chop up the game to get it out sooner - which doesn't really sound like the Blizzard way, but the Activision way.

We now have the illusion of DLC, the illusion of expansions rather than proper DLC and proper expansions. The promise DLC has held has quickly been corrupted into nickel-and-dime operations, many games not even matching the level of content of we could expect from a game on PS2.

The fact of the matter is that there's change coming to the games industry as a whole; Gamestop (and the used game market itself) itself has numbered days. Digital distribution takes a bite out of used game sales, but even beyond that, rental-on-demand services like Gamefly, Netflix and Redbox will probably wreck GameStop the same way they destroyed Blockbuster Video. EA's just kicking GameStop down the into the abyss that much faster. There will still be a market for such things - i.e. Glyde, but I harbor serious doubts that GameStop will survive the coming storm; if it does, GameStop in 10 years will not resemble the franchise operation we know today.

I think you're strongly underestimating the ability and power to monetize used games not o mention the vast majority of gamers are totally unwilling to give up physical media. There are other things that have to catch up, such as broadband penetration and download speeds before digital distribution becomes more practical.

Not to mention we have ISPs that want to regulate network traffic and how much you download. This is going to be an ongoing issue for years until the FCC and FTC decide to be a voice of reason, which they're not doing well right now. Most people aren't going to allow ISPs to pull bandwidth capping on them, but some people still subscribe to the likes of Comcast all the same and they've grown more powerful for it. Some people can be bullied. In my region, we bully Time-Warner, not the other way around.

Then we have the matter of storage. Nintendo might be the only ones not behind the times on the matter. Wii U supports HDDs, but they're letting the consumer go out and pick one rather than charge a premium for including one like Sony, MS and Apple do.

And Apple gets away with murder on that score. Sorry, I just don't see how lol3G support and 64GB pushes a iPad hundreds of more dollars than the standard model. Maybe $50 more, but that's it.

I'm gonna go out and it an HDD in the TB range before I get a Wii U because I've quickly seen that that 160 GB HDD in PS3 doesn't really mean shit. I'm personally fine with digital distribution, but if I can see a game is going to be upwards of 7GB, I might as well just get the physical copy and save myself the space.

I did that a lot with PSP games, even, which is why I'm still a bit upset that Vita doesn't have proper backward compatibility. Saying I should keep a PSP around to play PSP games is the antithesis of portability when Vita could play them, too.

But seeing as Sony found no UMD solution for PSPGo, I have no faith in their ability to so for Vita. I just took my PSP games and put them toward a 3DS and ended up buying future games digitally.

Sony growing a brain and moving to flash media for new games is indeed a plus, but for downloadable games we're still looking at putting up with their janky, overpriced inferior proprietary Pro Duo Mini media.

So pardon me if I don't find the future of digital distribution as rosy as you paint it.

I wouldn't underestimate what Cloud or streaming could do, but there are too many other factors at play and I didn't even mention how awkward PSN, XBL and Nintnedo are as digital storefronts. Well, I did in a previous post, I guess.

[Icemage]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

We now have the illusion of DLC, the illusion of expansions rather than proper DLC and proper expansions. The promise DLC has held has quickly been corrupted into nickel-and-dime operations, many games not even matching the level of content of we could expect from a game on PS2.

That begs the question of "at what point does DLC become something that should have been in the main game and not an add-on"? As long as the original game is a playable and enjoyable complete experience, I don't personally mind if developers and/or publishers tack on more content later (see: Costume Quest).

Even your criticism of Dragon Age: Origins feels a little hollow. It's perfectly playable without any of the DLC.

I don't see how end users should necessarily feel entitled to every single side-mission ever to be added to every game, in perpetuity for free. If that's your position, why not rail against Square-Enix's position with their FFXI expansions? If anything, that's even worse because you're paying for the base gameplay every single month (which is more than the cost of two console games per year) and you still have to pay more for the expansions.

I think you're strongly underestimating the ability and power to monetize used games

I think this is a battle that GameStop is already losing, and will continue to lose ground very quickly. If it really worked as well and has such a rosy outlook, the startup efforts from retailers like Best Buy wouldn't have fizzled horribly.

Then we have the matter of storage. Nintendo might be the only ones not behind the times on the matter. Wii U supports HDDs, but they're letting the consumer go out and pick one rather than charge a premium for including one like Sony, MS and Apple do.

Hold on, Sony lets you use any compatible 2.5" SATA HDD you want in the PS3, and also has support of external HDDs. Otherwise you're correct.

As for the Wii U, I happen to think Nintendo's making a huge mistake unless they put a significant (4GB+) amount of base storage of some kind. Without some sort of dedicated and significant storage, games can't get patched (see: Wii games that aren't Call of Duty), and with the way things are going lately, that becomes a serious liability.

And Apple gets away with murder on that score. Sorry, I just don't see how lol3G support and 64GB pushes a iPad hundreds of more dollars than the standard model. Maybe $50 more, but that's it.

I hate Apple too, so I agree with you here. But there's a legion of appletards out there who will buy it just because they've been brainwashed by marketing. Go figure.

I'm gonna go out and it an HDD in the TB range before I get a Wii U because I've quickly seen that that 160 GB HDD in PS3 doesn't really mean shit. I'm personally fine with digital distribution, but if I can see a game is going to be upwards of 7GB, I might as well just get the physical copy and save myself the space.

Considering we have no idea what the Wii U will do with a USB hard drive, I wouldn't jump the gun on buying one until we have some more details.

So pardon me if I don't find the future of digital distribution as rosy as you paint it.

Digital distribution (i.e. Steam and similar) + piracy + new things like OnLive have all but forced GameStop completely out of the PC game market aside from really major releases like World of Warcraft expansions or The Sims. I don't quite see the same thing happening to consoles (yet), but the potential is there.


Icemage

[Omgwtfbbqkitten]

Re: Shadows of the Damned

OK, I've heard enough.

I'm going to talk about the actual game now.

It feels like there's a bit more of a Zelda undercurrent to combat than had really been stated. Just about every time you get a new upgrade, there's instantly an opportunity to put it to use, which is often what Zelda or Metroid would do. I guess its just interesting they'd house that philosophy in what's essentially a linear shooter. There's little exploration to be had in this game.

The puzzles you'd faced with are solved, obviously, by shooting things and using the right weapon and shot for the right situation. Our hero, Garcia Hotspur says he "fucking hates puzzles" but lucky for him that they don't come up often.

Yes, the protagonist's name is Garcia Hotspur, its clear Suda named him as a name like Travis Touchdown doesn't make much sense, either. Garcia is a hunter of demons (and pendejos, apparently). He's a likeable guy, with some interesting quirks. He's a pretty flashy, prideful speaker when facing his enemies, but get him to read out loud and he tends to struggle on the bigger words he likes to steer clear of.

Most of the story is delivered as Garcia and Johnson explore the depths of Hell itself to save Garcia's love, Paula from her endless torment. Apparently she's in hell wearing things straight out of the a Victoria's Secret catalog. But yeah, its the usual "bad guys took my girl" story except we see Paula a lot and the various grotesque ways she'll be suffering.

Its not quite the "psychological thriller" EA paints it to be on the box. In the right context, many of the enemies you face could be genuinely terrifying, but the overall tone of the game keeps them from being such. The fact that you get some humorous backstory in each boss lends to this. It was never meant to be scary, just foul in general and to spoof where appropriate.

In true Mikami fashion, there's a weapon upgrade system, though I feel its kind of stingy in this game. There are also some Suda moments where the gameplay will shift to a retro style and do some nods to side scrolling shooters and Ghosts and Goblins. Its not as prevalent as it was in No More Heroes, but its nice that its there all the same.

Its something I can see myself coming back to a lot after finishing, as RE4 has had that effect years after it was released. Though in this case I would be playing it again because the story was actually. All the puns in RE4 were kinda lame, but that's just RE for you.