Xbox Living

A little while ago, I mentioned that the Xbox 360 would be getting a motion-sensing Wii-style controller.

But even before word of Microsoft’s remote surfaced, another device was being introduced.  Motus Games has been working on their new controller: Darwin.  The device is described by Motus as the natural evolution of controllers, following what Nintendo started with the Wii.

Darwin will offer superior motion-sensing to the Wii, giving greater freedom with more range of movement and no reliance on an infared sensor.  The device segments into two components for different gameplay styles.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is supposedly still working on its device, which is code-named “Newton”.  A rumour has popped up today that Darwin is the new Xbox 360 remote (although it’s also due to be released for the PC and PS3), but that’s probably speculation.

Check out these videos, in which the Darwin remote is used to play Lego Star Wars and Tiger Woods PGA Tour.  Lightsaber action and real golf swings?  Sign me up.

If you’re a regular reader of this blog, you’ll know I’m a huge fan of the Battlefield games.  Battlefield 2: Modern Combat was one of the first games I got for my Xbox 360, and I’ve spent countless hours on it.

So when Battlefield: Bad Company came around, I was very interested.  My first look at the game had me concerned, though — more focus on single player and more close-combat situations made me fear that EA DICE was making another Call of Duty type game.  Those are fun, but they’re not Battlefield.

When I got to try out the multiplayer beta, and later the demo, my concerns were eased — somewhat.  The classic Battlefield elements where there: large maps (for a console, at least), vehicles, weapon kits, mortar strikes, mines, etc.  Strategy continues to be very important, rather than just running around shooting everything that moves.  Teamwork has always been essential to Battlefield and Bad Company makes it work.

But the multiplayer only has one game mode: Gold Rush.  Essentially, one team must defend some crates of gold, and the other team must destroy them.  (Why they destroy them rather than stealing them, I’m not sure, but that’s the game.)  Fun, for sure — but what about conquest?  Conquest is the main game mode in most Battlefield titles since the beginning and it’s noticably absent from Bad Company.

But not for (too) long.  Due to heavy demand ever since the beta, EA has promised that they will be delivering conquest mode in an upcoming update.  I’m not too sure when we can expect the update, but it’s coming.

Bad Company pays a lot more attention to the single player campaign.  The campaign is comparable to those in the Call of Duty series and other big-name FPS titles, but makes use of the large areas and different weapons/equipment that are the signature of the Battlefield series.  Story, clever dialogue and some pretty good voice acting certainly make it more enjoyable.

But Battlefield is still about the multiplayer.  One of the most noticable additions, especially for those who played BF2: Modern Combat on the Xbox 360, is the system of squads.  Unlike most games in which a exists as a single whole, BF2 teams are divided into squads of 3-4 people.  It’s your squad who you communicate with over voice, meaning that you have to work in smaller groups to work effectively as a team.  You also have the option to spawn with your squad when they’re out in the battlefield.  If nobody is alive in your squad, you’re stuck spawning back at your base.

The squad system changes the gameplay dynamics.  The ability to spawn with your squad cuts down on travel time — since big maps mean either lots of walking or reliance on vehicles to get around quickly.  It also gives you the opportunity to spring into action and help out a squad member in trouble.  On the other side, you can (and will) find yourself spawning in the path of bullets, with little or no opportunity to find safety.

The squad system also limits communication.  While it’s usually better to work in small groups and avoid too much chatter in your ear, you also have no way to communicate with other members of your team if needed.  I tend to play the Support class more than others, and I often find myself wishing I could tell an injured teammate to slow down for a medkit or to warn someone about an incoming mortar strike.  (I’ve killed too many team members when they ran into my mortar strikes — had I been able to say “wait, don’t run in there”, I might have better reputation levels.

Despite a few flaws, BF:BC is an incredibly fun — and highly addictive — game to play.  If you’re a fan of FPS titles, try out Battlefield: Bad Company.
[Get it from Amazon.com, Amazon.ca or Amazon.co.uk.]

Score: 91%

When Activision announced that Call of Duty 5 would return to the World War II era, I had mixed feelings. WWII games shooters can be fun, but the genre is a little tired, and after a while the room for innovation gets smaller and smaller — unless you’re willing to throw history out the window (as Turning Point did).

The announcement that Treyarch would return to develop the next installment didn’t help things.  Although many of my friends found Treyarch’s Call of Duty 3 to be a disappointment, I actually enjoyed the online gameplay quite a bit.  Still, it didn’t reach the popularity and level of detail found in Infinity Ward’s Call of Duty 4.

So, with CoD 4 in the top spot on Xbox Live, why ignore the things that made it successful to make the next title?

Well, it looks like Activision got at least some things right.  The engine that powers Call of Duty 4 is being re-used and upgraded by Treyarch to power the next game, and last week we got our first look as the trailer for Call of Duty: World at War hit Xbox Live.  The game will replicate the darker feel of CoD4 and bring in some new improvements, such as destructible environments (not unlike the newly released Battlefield: Bad Company).

The repetetiveness question has been answered as well.  World at War will take place outside of the typical areas for the genre, and will focus on battles further East, and along the Pacific.  Take a look:

I think World at War looks promising — or at least less disappointing.  What do you think about the trailer?  Will Treyarch manage to mould a uniquely exciting game out of Infinity Ward’s engine?

Infogrames & Atari boss Phil Harrison told videogaming247 and Eurogamer that he thinks the end of single-player gaming is on the horizon, and that games like the upcoming Alone in the Dark will be among the last in the industry.

“I don’t think the industry is going to make many more of those. I just don’t think consumers want to be playing games that don’t have some kind of network connectivity to them, or some kind of community embedded in them, or some kind of extension available through downloadable content.”

I’d have to disagree with that statement. First of all, downloadable content doesn’t mean a game isn’t signle-player. Mass Effect, for example, has done quite well as a single-player title, with only a little bit of single-player downloadable content. Fallout 3 is another upcoming game that’s single-player only, although it may have updates and expansions like Oblivion. At any rate, those are single-player games with little networking involvement.

Yes, many traditionally single-player games are adding in more multiplayer and networking features — Grand Theft Auto IV is a prime example of this. But that’s not to say that consumers are losing interest in playing alone.

Myself, I enjoy playing on Xbox Live quite a bit. Between GTA IV, CoD4, Halo 3 and Texas Hold’em Poker, as well as MMO games, I spend a good fraction of my gaming time online. But there are times when it’s fun to kick back with a single-player campaign or an RPG.

Online gameplay is great, and yes, having more online games means we’ll play single player games less opften (or sleep less often), but that’s not to say that we consumers aren’t interested in playing them.

What do you think? Are single player games on their way out? And if they did disappear, would you miss them?

Michael Hollick, the voice behind Niko Bellic in Grand Theft Auto IV, is speaking out about his lack of royalties from the hit game.

The New York Times reported that he was paid about $100,000 for his work on the game, which lasted a little more than a year. Hollick did both the voice acting and motion capture work for Niko’s character. He’s now upset that he’s not getting royalties for the success of the game.

“The first GTA IV trailer generated something like 40 million hits online, and that’s my voice all over it, and I get nothing,” Hollick said. “If that were a radio spot, I would have. Same thing for the TV ads.”

I can certainly understand the point here. Television and movie actors get paid royalties for the success of their films in various formats — why shouldn’t a video game actor get the same type of arrangement?

“I don’t blame Rockstar. I blame our union for not having the agreements in place to protect the creative people who drive the sales of these games.”

Hollick puts the weight of a game’s success largely on the performances within it, in this case his potrayal of Niko Bellic. The opposing camp says that more credit goes to the game’s developers and creative directors, diminishing the role of voice work.

Word is that the actors’ guild is preparing to push for more royalties on Internet content and other forms of media in upcoming talks, which may lead to another strike in the entertainment industry. Maybe job action like this will help video game actors get their cut of a game’s profits?

I’m not sure about this one. While it would be more fair for Mr. Hollick to get his cut when you compare him to other actors, $100,000 isn’t a number to balk at, especially when you’re an unknown actor looking to step into the light. I was going to say that he should have gotten better terms in writing before he started, but chances are that Rockstar would have found someone else.

So what do you think? Whiny, or a good principle?

Here’s a pretty fun game that I picked up this week. CSI: Hard Evidence puts you in the role of a CSI in the popular TV series, and it’s worth a quick play if you’re into the whole crime drama thing. At the very least, its a refreshing change of pace from the standard games out there.

This one actually came out last fall for the Xbox 360 and PC, but it got past me at least. The Wii version also surfaced this January.

A word of warning: Hard Evidence isn’t deep. The stories are very linear, although you have some choice over the order of things. The game itself is also very short.

Basically, you have five cases to solve. You’ll first arrive on the scene, usually a murder, and you’ll get to work with your trusty CSI kit, allowing you to look for and collect evidence.

By default, your partner will hold your hand through the entire process, telling you which tools to use and giving you hints if you ask. You have the option of turning the help off, though, which makes the game a little more fun.

You can’t, however, turn off the unending wit demonstrated by the other CSIs, so prepare to roll your eyes a from time to time.

Each case will take about 1.5 to 2 hours to complete if you do a good job. You could skip through it in less time, or spend more if you keep the help off and examine everything. All of the game’s achievements are earned through the main story — 200 Gamerscore per case. That’s a full 1000 just for playing through, which should take 7-10 hours.

A couple of the cases relate to each other, which is neat from a story perspective, but comes across more as a way to re-use the same crime/interview scenes rather than creating new ones. Tying stories together is interesting, but when you visit the same casino in three cases, it’s a little lame. I’m pretty sure Las Vegas has a few more casinos.

Despite this, CSI: Hard Evidence one is a fun little change of pace that’s good for some casual play or a Gamerscore boost. If you enjoy the CSI shows, all the better. Rent it or find it in a bargain bin if you’re hesitant — or pick it up at Amazon.com for under $30.

I’d like to see a CSI: Miami version.

Score: 74%