Easy (co-)oportinity

When Gears of war came out with online co-op it seemed to be a must for games to have. Many games have jumped on the bandwagon such as Halo 3 and COD: world at war. With co-op came a social experience, while still progressing through the story of the game. However, compensation for having multiple people seemed to be the opposite of what games needed. Co-op created an enviroment for even the less skilled gamer to pass a campaign on the hardest difficulty with the help of a few friends. I'm not saying that this is a bad idea in fact it makes a gaming community more tight knit and makes what was once a solitary activity social. But, with the new player came no difficulty modifiers and thus made games easier. Why is it that when a game becomes co-op it has to be easier? It seems to me that with each new person new enemy's could be added or the enemies could be harder to kill forcing the players to work together. Instead, the enemies are hardly more difficult (if even that) and the number doesn't increase. This makes the game easier because twice as many bullets are flying (four times as many in Halo 3) and it even becomes harder to die. For example, in Gears of War a player has to restart from the last checkpoint in single player but can be brought back to life without penalty in Co-op mode. Taking skill away from games can make the games dull and boring no matter how social the experience is. Despite my complaints, I find myself wanting more games with co-op campaign as long as the difficulty is maintained. Left 4 Dead is a great example of how to use co-op. Having a human take over for the AI makes the game slightly easier but keeps it difficult because even if the AI can't shoot as well as your friends, they can certainly distract the enemies. No dynamics of the game are changed while playing co-op as well. A person is still killed and revived the sames, way. The only noticable change in gameplay is that you can talk to your partners. I wish more companies took the example of Left 4 Dead and kept a difficult game difficult and constant whether a player is playing co-op or single player.
I would like to take this chance to try and minimize criticizm on my difficulty statements, yes video games have been getting easier over the years and i wish this trend would stop.

Much ado about nothing (gaming edition)

Before any gaming expo there are alot of rumors that plague the internet and many blogs, websites, and thoughts are filled with speculaiton about these rumors or even starting rumors of their own. The latest of these rumor hyped articles is off of Crunch gear wondering about a xbox 360 team members tweet. I must say that this is one of the more valid options for information rather than focusing on the mass media press announcements. The information comes from the source but not directly hyping the product to a whole mass of people. In the tweet the team member says, "getting an earful cause Xbox 360 broke… What can I say, I still prefer it as a console. Just wait. Even better stuff is coming soon!" This is by far one of the few statements that can be taken as something to actually listen to. Just because a CEO of a company or the owner of a company says a huge annoucement is coming doesn't mean that the announcement is going to be big news. An executive of a company will always think what they have in store for the future is huge because they are one of the first to know and more than likely were one of the people involved in starting the idea. Information from a lower level employee however, is more important because they are the ones that are actually working on the product and probably know a little more about what the final product is going to be and how buggy it was, so on and so forth. Looking back at past news one announcement that stuck out was the Gears of War 2 announcment at GDC. Cliffy B did a great job at gaining attention for this because he (as far as I can tell) created a name on xbox live that looked like his but with slight differences so that he deceived a few, and intrigued many. This use of a forshadowing that is not direct and can create conversation was genious because it created hype that could be proven not to be fact because of the informant. At the same time however, do little tidbits like this really matter in the long run? Why is it that as a community we feel the need to know what is going to be announced before it is announced? The fact of the matter is there are some things we know are coming such as a new console but the release date is unknown. Just because we want something to be true many gamers and game reporters search for any possible statement that could lead to that conclusion. When Microsoft says that they have a big announcement planned for E3, or any expo, sites fill up with rumors of what this could be. Frankly the ideas that come out in these articles are, if anything, an insight into what the gaming community wants to be announced rather than what is most likely to be announced. Through these articles we can find what people want the most and until the actual announcement comes to be, it is simply a matter of who can be the most deceptive and innovative to create the most buzz about a product or idea that  may or may not come to be true. I say all of this ironically because the hype has gained my attention and I am writing about the hype as well. Regardless of rumor, true, or fact we will all have to wait until June to find out what truth's the companies are willing to announce.

Last minute F*** up

News Flash: The Ghostbusters Game is now a sony playstation exclusive. Why is this last minute change neccessary. What about all the people who pre-ordered for the 360. I know the exclusive is only timed but still, one month before release...Is it ethical to do this? I can understand if they needed to polish the game or finish the game to make it better for the gamers. One month before it ships a game should be finalized. If we let companies start doing this they will start making more  console exclusive games. Why do companies make games console exclusive or DLC?? It seems to me that the game developers are now deciding which consoles are selling the best. If ps3 had a lower price point I'm sure the sales would be better but there would still be more xbox360's sold because there are just games with a larger fanbase that are on the xbox360 and, with few exceptions, the DLC is only on xbox360. As I start to think about the last generation I wonder if the xbox would have sold at all if it wasn't for Halo or other exclusives. The last minute exclusive changes are uncalled for. Gaming companies are abusing of their power over gamers money and it needs to stop. This was more indirect than the Resident Evil DLC money making sceme but this is a direct screw you in the face of all gamers. 

Restricted content

The ESRB is a pre-teens worst enemy because of their age limits on buying games rated M. Why is it that games are seen as such a stem of violent behavior and un-suitible themes. Even on the back of the Halo novels there is a warning claiming "this novel is based off a mature rated video game." This is getting out of hand, if the book is so bad and graphic why don't they put an age restriction on it. Many books are worst and are accessible to anyone at any public library. One of the most objected to books in 2008 according to suite-101 was And Tango Makes Three. This book contains And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell. Reasons stated for challenging the book's suitability for schools and libraries: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age GroupRead more: http://womens-literary-prizes.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_most_challenged_books_of_20072008#ixzz0EHLxzCQr&B. Even with the many objections to this book there is no age restriction or even a disclaimer on or in the book saying it contains content unsuitible for any age group. Why is it that violence in a book that is based off a video game is worst than a book with themes that contain content anyone will find offensive. Why claim that just because a book is based off a M rated game it is suddenly worst than sexism, racism, and religous claims? I could go to any book store and buy this novel among others with similar themes and could buy a book with more graphic descriptions of violence than the halo novel without knowing it, without a disclaimer but they feel compelled to let me know that a halo novel is based off a M rated game implying unsuitable content. Are graphic description suddenly better than a video game. WW2 or Vietnam novels are based on a war that actually happened and was more horrific than a video game could ever be simply because it was real blood and real lives that were taken and spilled.
Along with the books the ratings are skewed in a rediculous way. A pg-13 movie can have more graphic and mature content than a game you have to be 17 to buy, why is it that controlling the media becomes worst than watching someone else control it. I starting to wonder if games were rated like a movie if they would be rated R which is the equivilant of an M rating. Are video games being rated wrongly simply because they are games or is it the content?

Adding on...Is it really neccessary to block m rated demos when on a minors account? A parent can say it is ok for the child to download mature content and yet microsoft still blocks that content from that account. Same thing with retail games, an adult has to be there for every single purchase of an m rated game. At a store (gamecrazy for example) if you had an account the legal guardian used to be able to give permission for a minor to buy any m rated game without them being there. This is no longer true regardless if the parent would let the buy the game or not. Just next to gamecrazy is hollywood video, if a minor is on a guardians account the guardian can set the limit to which games and movies the kid can rent, including R rated and M games. Why is it that an M rated game cannot be previously approved by a parent when you buy it but it can when it is rented. This is rediculous a parent should be allowed to decide what their kid can get without having to be there everytime and wasting their own time.