GameCritics.com Podcast Episode 36: E3 2010 Wrap-Up, Kinect, Move and 3DS

installing on the box makes sense because otherwise it is annoyingly loud (jasper)
and i really regret having got my box this year before this finally, after years of redesigning the inner HW, silent box is being released
very fast, congrats MS...

i still think the kind of remake of goldeneye will be good and this was the only announcement that put a smile on my face

portal 2
The gameplay footage delivered to me the same sharp humor and the same quite simple tough of course also complicated puzzle implementation. Just the same great vibe as the original one.

don't agree with a lot of stuff you guys hated
and i don't see why everyone is excited about the 3ds
i watched 3d-movies, i played 3d-games. ok, the colors were slightly fucked up because of the cyan-red glasses, but it was 3d and that didn't add anything.
The more important change of this DS iteration is imo the slider-pad. That really changes some games.

I have to stop to make a comment and I'm only 7 minutes in. This is probably the most juvenile portion of a podcast I've heard you guys do. Notice I'm not calling you personally juvenile, but this behavior. Its frustrating, not only because of half-truths that are pouring out of your mouths, but because no one has the sense to defend against the accusations that are being thrown out.

You guys are 'hardcore' gamers. I know you all had to have read impression from the people experiencing the games for themselves. Shouldn't you? You don't live in a gamer cave where the only impressions that matter are your own, right? Yes, Miyamoto's demo was frightening. I had to cover my eyes. But, knowing that the Wii's Remotes are bluetooth, and knowing how many journalists carry bluetooth enabled devices, isn't it possible that some interference was going on? No, its just easier for you to believe the Wii is a broken system, even though you haven't played the game for yourself. You won't find an impression of the new Zelda game from someone who has played it that says the controls are borked.

I'd rather you say this Zelda looks to be the same Zelda we played back in 1996 on the N64 than to hate on it based on what you should know as technical difficulties. Which I have doubts about the game becuase I feel like I have played Ocarina of Time 5 times now but with a different title. Seeing how what was shown is a demo and only 5 minutes worth I have to wait on having concrete feelings for the game until its actually shown as a finished product, but right now its not looking good for something new.

Here's hoping I can get through the rest of the podcast without pausing again and going off on another rant. (And I think I'll have to send roses to you all if you're being this idiotic on purpose.)

isn't that like hating on FF XIII without getting past the first 25 hours?

Hating a game after 25(!) hours(!) is perfectly reasonable. If a game doesn't get good after two hours I dump it already. Kudos to everyone who forces himself through more than 10 hours, let alone 25. Twenty-five, that is more than one full day of your life wasted right there!

The funny thing about the 3DS for me is that I'm least excited about the 3D part of it. I don't give a crap about 3D movies or games at this point, but I like my DS a lot and the idea of one with beefed up hardware, a bigger screen, and the slider/nub was enough to get me interested. The 3D is like an afterthought when I think about it -- and given my awful experiences with the Virtual Boy years ago, almost a negative.

I watched Miyamoto demo it. To my way of thinking, watching the creator of the game show it to me with the controller in his own hand trumps the opinion of reporter X at any website or magazine. If Miyamoto can't make it look good, in front of my very own eyes, then why would I care what some journalist writes? If there hadn't been any kind of live demo of the game, then maybe I'd be concerned with what reporters wrote in their impressions -- although, to be perfectly honest, I'd take them with a huge grain of salt because even journalists tend to become gushing fanboys over Zelda at E3.

The only impressions that matter on the show when I'm speaking or in my writing are my own -- I'm not sure why there's an assumption that I'm supposed to factor in the impressions of the masses. You wouldn't want it in a review, and if you want to know what IGN thought of it, I'm sure they have a preview up with their thoughts. They're certainly not factoring my impressions into it. These comments are my impressions of a demo conducted by Miyamoto himself. If he can't get it to control properly or look fun, then there's a problem.

Journalists at E3 have had rooms full of bluetooth enabled devices for ages now. Nintendo's not stupid -- they're at a multimillion dollar event showcasing a flagship game and I'm supposed to assume that suddenly, this year, they just didn't realize a room full of tech geeks with Bluetooth devices might mess up their controller? Even if I am to assume that, what's worse? That an early build of the game controls poorly or that one of the biggest gaming electronic companies in the world is so clueless that they failed to factor that in to their presentation? Bluetooth isn't exactly new technology...

The honest thing to do would have been to say "look, this is still in development -- we're still adding that classic Nintendo polish to the game, but we know you love Zelda and wanted to share this with you on the biggest stage in the gaming universe." Coming out with "oh, the Bluetooth devices in the room interfered with it" just sounds disingenuous.

And yet, I can watch a demonstration of it run by a guy who should know how to make it work better than anyone and clearly the controls were borked. I'll take that over the writings of someone from the show floor pretty much 100 times out of 100. I guess the thing that puzzles me here is you're essentially telling me to ignore what I saw and take the word of someone who played it and wrote about it. I'm not going to offer someone else's impression of something when I can have one of my own.

Well, you can hate on pretty much every Zelda game since OOT on those grounds. We were trying to bring some variety to the show. :P

I think you think they were "technical difficulties" because that's the company line. As I said before, I'm not convinced that's the case. I'm way more convinced that they simply showed a build that wasn't ready for prime time. I'm also convinced that there's no way it will release in that state, but it's pretty shocking to see them throw Miyamoto out there to die on stage like that. Truth is, I'd have been way more forgiving of them if they'd just said it was an early build.

Then I'd have just bitched about how I'm tired of playing the same goddamn Zelda game over and over and how the inclusion of a flying machine and a whip doesn't really mean this is a new and improved game experience.

You're always welcome to rant away, Vince. I think our idiocy was on purpose, but not in the way you were hoping. :P

You've hurt my feelings now. :)

This may sound odd and possibly even hypocritical given that I write about games on a fairly regular basis, but I honestly have never given a crap about E3.

Sure I care about games or new tech or whatever that gets revealed, but the event itself has never even held the slightest interest to me. I've never had any desire to go, never watched any of the press events, and never tried to declare an E3 "winner". I just read the recaps after the fact and watch all the trailers I'm interested in and leave it at that.

I love all the information that comes out of it, but I've just never had any attachment to the event itself.

I usually find your commentary insightful and interesting (I don't always agree, but I still enjoy the banter). This time I felt you need to push the discussion a little further and correct a few details.

First kudos for being skeptical of the 3DS. After being at the show and seeing the demos I would say that this handheld is going to be more than $200... My guess is $250. And the exact angle you have to hold it at... I am not sold until I can try play a real game for an extended play period.
And the earliest it looks like now is March of 2011.

Oh and nothing mentioned about price of games... First party Nintendo DS titles are $35 and Nintendo has said Development costs for 3DS games are in the same neighborhood as Wii Games. So does that mean $40 or even $50 portable games? Personally I avoided the PSP for years because the games were $40.

Some details you got wrong. Move shipping date and Pricing. September 19th was announced in the press conference and the Starter bundle was announced with includes all the pieces needed plus one game for $99. (Like all things to truly get the best experience you have to spend more money but when is that not true in life?)

They also made all their motion based software only $40. I mean even if you don't like motion games you have to applaud them for pricing their games aggressively below even what the Wii charges?

Microsoft just totally missed the boat as they had a full year from last e3 and they couldn't come up with a single worthwhile integration of the motion controls into a game.

Hopefully you guys can make it to PAX West in September and give these new systems a real try yourselves.

The Skyward Sword demo onstage was bad, but I think you need to give Nintendo the benefit of the doubt when they tell you that they're having technical difficulties. I've watched countless live demos of that game and read just as many previews from journalists who actually played it at E3, and it's clear that the problems during the press conference were exclusive to the press conference.

With regards to SWtOR, it's true that the interface looks rather WoWish, but the fact that you have to cover so many games has clearly limited the time you have available to spend learning what makes this one unique.
When Bioware said they were adding story to the game, they weren't talking about the amount of lore it has, because WoW actually takes place in an interesting universe. They were talking about how in most MMOs, the player character and the characters he interacts with are boring, emotionless drones. Players don't grow attached to any of the characters in MMOs because they're all entirely interchangeable, and mostly forgettable.
In truth, while the Warcraft Universe has an amazing story, the actual game of WoW has none whatsoever, and if you were truly interested in the story of Warcraft, you wouldn't play the game, you would simply read the books or the lore pages on their website.
The Old Republic is attempting to bring personal story into the MMO genre by having your character pair up with interesting companions who have personalities and grow over the life of the main campaign of the game, much like they would in a Bioware single player RPG.

P.S. I agree that Dance Central is probably going to be the best actual game on the Kinect, and will be something that hardcore gamers won't need to be ashamed of owning.

I completely agree with you guys at how bad E3 was. I am the type of gamer than has never even played my Favourite games more than once because i am always looking for new experiences. Everything on show was just yet another sequel and even nintendo was the best of a bad bunch.

I consider myself a pretty hardcore Zelda fan, but i cannot even fathom playing through the same game YET AGAIN, for the billionth time.

The only game that i am really looking forward to this year is The last guardian and that was a no show.

As much as i think the 3ds looks cool its amazing how quick you adapt to 3d even in a theatre and before you know it, the experience is not better than watching a film normally. So it's only to be expected that it would wow journalists with a short demo.

It seems more and more as i get older games are offering me less and less. Sometimes i find myself being cynical, but honestly when there are only one or if we are lucky two games a year that are even worth playing, no wonder

I dunno, love the podcast though :p

Regards Old Republic and story, it was very late in the day for me when it came up, I think it was one of the last things we discussed so that would have made it around 5am my time, so hope you can forgive me for not explaining myself too well.

I think you're right, I am probably a bit too cynical of SW:TOR but it's hard not to be when there is so much talk and no bite. I guess from my perspective, I look at the way BioWare talks about specific origin stories to introduce their classes/races and I think, well, WoW did that, every MMO now does that. Sure, in WoW you don't get much character attachment, but you do get a world attachment, an appreciation of the values, interrelationships, and larger context of a world. I also think that's natural with an MMO, and that to try and implement character attachment is very unnatural for an MMO, so I'm cynical until I see it in action. I do think BioWare, as a newcomer to MMOs, might be being a little arrogant in their aims. Or ambitious, I suppose! But after that CGI trailer, I was leaning on the former.

Thanks for all the comments. Speaking only for myself, no, this was not our podcast's finest hour. Too long, too disorganized, and as host that all falls on me.

Here's the thing: I watched all the E3 coverage and came away completely, totally, and utterly disinterested in nearly everything. That I couldn't come up with more than two games to be excited about (Dead Space 2 and Civ 5, both of which I already knew of) demonstrates that this industry and my personal gaming interests are flying apart in two different directions. When I used the word "ambivalent" in the opener, I meant it.

(On the plus side, I'm going to save a hell of a lot of money in the next year.)

So producing an entertaining show about a subject matter brimming with BLAH was a challenge, and a challenge I did not meet. It's a testament to the brilliance of my co-hosts and Sinan that they were able to shine through such a dark mess.

We'll get back on track next show.

(My "Chi Three" joke was pretty damn good, though. You can't take that away from me.)

Sinan, first of all, I forgive you for not explaining yourself.
Anyway, when you say that WoW gave each of its races/classes origin stories, I think you're giving Blizzard a bit too much credit. In WoW, you have a very interesting backstory for each of the races, but not so much for the classes (excluding the Death Knight). Basically, you play through fifteen or so levels of race specific areas before you join the "main" world, and everything becomes the same for every player. In truth, the "unique" part of your story in WoW only lasts for a few hours

I didn't want to sound like I was a fanboy who did no research and just pulled things out of my ass, so I went back to this video for a quote.
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/starwarstheoldrepublic/video/6206235
At the 3:15 mark, James Ohlen, Studio Creative Director and Lead Designer, says this:

If what he says is even remotely close to being true, then The Old Republic is more than just WoW with voice-over. It's more like they re-made KOTOR eight times and attached them all to a Star Wars MMO, which excites me.

Going back to WoW comparisons, their origin stories are exclusively what their name implies, and only affect the origin of your character, with everyone sharing the same endgame. I could be reading into this a little bit, but based off of Ohlen's statement, I think each class will have not just its own beginning, but its own version of the middle and endgame, in addition to the "common middle" and the "common endgame" shared by all players.

I was ranting for a bit, so I'll get back to actually replying to your post. Another important argument you make for you skepticism is that character attachment is unnatural in MMOs, and that this is Bioware's first try at an MMO.

I'll address the second problem first, as I think it is the simpler of the two. Although Bioware's core staff worked on single-player games, I have no doubt in my mind that EA was able to use its near-infinite supply of funds to steal away plenty of experienced MMO designers and programmers from other companies. Furthermore, the main problem that MMOs have at launch is bugs, and I have never played a Bioware game that I could describe as buggy. Lastly, EA is putting absolutely no pressure on Bioware to release the game anytime soon, so when it does finally come out, either for Holiday 2011, or Summer 2012, it's reasonable to say that it'll be polished.

Now, with regards to character attachment being unnatural, I think we won't know that for certain until we've tried it, but the way SWTOR is going about telling the personal story and the fact that you'll have companion characters that are with you throughout the course of the game means that Bioware won't necessarily be hampered by the traditional rules of MMOs. I should flush out that statement because it's vague: in WoW it would feel unnatural to become attached to a character because there are no cut-scenes, no dialogue trees, no voice-overs, no irreversible story choices, and no companions (pets don't count). The Old Republic will have all of these things, so the attachment process will be totally plausible.

Wrapping up, I think Bioware is being ambitious, not just arrogant, but I agree that the CGI trailer was a waste of everyone's time, and frankly a little insulting. I have more things on my mind, and I could discuss MMOs (this one in particular) for hours, but his post has already turned into a novella, so I'm going to stop and give you a chance to get your thoughts in.

Let me first point out that I'm slightly exited about the 3DS, but I don't care as much as everyone else. I'm glad it's getting a graphics upgrade and an analog...thing, but people with amblyopia (lazy eye) are physically incapable of viewing 3D images, so that part of it does not matter to me personally.

Moving on, I was disappointed that there was no news about Fable III and nothing substantial about The Old Republic (player ships, big deal). The other games I'm interested in are Deus Ex, Witcher 2, Halo Reach, Rift: Planes of Telara, Shogun 2, Skyward Sword, Child of Eden, and Dance Central, but you'll notice that only the last three were new at E3; everything else we'd heard about.

Regarding Skyward Sword; you guys are totally right that it's basically the same game they've been making. The only new feature is that you have to swing your sword in a certain direction to kill enemies. Granted, that's an awesome feature that adds new levels to the combat, but it's the only new feature they showed. They're totally revamping the Metroid series with Other M, and people have been clamoring for Zelda to be a new experience, to tell a new story with a new villain, with complete voiceovers for all the characters, but Skyward Sword looks like you're standard fare. I'll still probably play it and enjoy it, but it's not going to blow my mind.

As long as I'm talking about Nintendo disappointments, I should point out that that new game featuring Kirby is not a Kirby game. Don't believe me? Watch the trailer again, then watch some gameplay videos. What don't you see? Kirby never sucks anything up to absorb its power. That's the main premise to the character, and they threw it out; they might as well have made Mario: Epic Yarn, or an entirely new IP because they did not include what makes Kirby Kirby.

I've said before that Dance Central and Child of Eden are the only games worth getting for Kinect, and I stand by that statement for obvious reasons.
I'm totally disappointed in Microsoft for basically making Kinect into a casual gamer's device/hands-free remote control. Sony had the right idea when it comes to this; they're making Move a way to introduce casual gamers to games while also pleasing their hardcore audience with games like SOCOM and Gladiator.
One thing that disappointed me regarding Move is that no one has discussed its true potential. People don't seem to have realized that it is both a Wii-mote and a Kinect in one device. You could have games that track your whole body and the controller, but not one game talked explicitly about this feature to my knowledge. You could argue that the Xbox could do the same thing if you held a controller while jumping and ducking, but the fact that the Move wands allow you to separate your hands makes the experience much more versatile.

Even though I praise Dance Central and Child of Eden, I still won't get a Kinect because some idiot at Microsoft decided it would be acceptable to release these games without any kind of same-couch multiplayer. A dance game where you have to dance by yourself? What would possibly make them think that's ok? Eden as a rail shooter doesn't necessarily need multiplayer as badly as Dance Central does, but Eden as a Kinect game most certainly does, since the whole point of Kinect is bringing new people to gaming, and the best way of doing that is to sit them down on the couch with you and play the game with them. Speaking of couches, you can't sit down while playing Kinect, so screw the whole thing.

On top of all this, both Kinect and Move are going to cost too much. Kinect costs $150 for Microsoft to make, then the retailer needs to make a profit as well, so it'll be at least $200. For $100, you'll get a Move stick, a game, and an Eye Toy, then to play the good games and/or play with friends, you'll need another Move stick, and one or two Sub-controllers, so you're looking at $200 dollars. Luckily, Move exclusive games are going to be $40, and you can play your regular games with them too, so all things considered, Move is the better value.

In summary, I'll buy a 3DS and turn the slider to zero, Zelda will still be good and a little different but not "fresh" or "new", Kirby is dead, Move might be worth buying, and Kinect is a waste of money.

First off, thanks for all of the comments. I'll stop saying three people listen to me make an ass of myself every time we do a show and amend it to like six. Double digits of listeners, here we come!

Randy:

Your comments about the 3DS price point make sense to me. I wouldn't be surprised if this thing was $250 at release. I wonder how that will affect sales if it turns out to be true. Where's the line where parents say "I'm not paying X amount of dollars for a handheld for my kid"? I'm guessing it has to be around $250.

This was not our finest show by any stretch -- the E3 show is always something of a disaster because there's so much to cover and we know no one wants to listen to us for 5 hours -- three hours is at least two hours too much, and maybe two hours and forty five minutes too much some days. We missed some things (Twisted Metal) and didn't get as deep on some topics as we should. I suspect we'll be revisiting a lot of these things in upcoming shows, so hopefully we'll get deeper into all of them then. Thanks for the feedback though -- it's genuinely useful.

Jonathan:

I'm still really not sure what to make of Skyward Sword. I'm really waiting to see it at TGS at this point and see how it looks there. The thing is, as you point out, even if it controls better than it appeared it's still the same goddamn Zelda game I've been playing for what feels like eternity. I get that there's a "don't piss off the fanboys" thing with Zelda, but Christ...something, anything, new would be nice at this point.

I think my concerns with SWtOR are more in that I'm not 100% convinced Bioware is capable of pulling it off. I think some of the things they've promised are very ambitious and I'm still intrigued by them, but I can't shake the feeling that the actual game isn't going to be as amazing as it sounds.

To be perfectly fair, part of this is MMO burnout on my part. After thousands of hours with WoW and FFXI, I'm afraid I'm just apathetic to the genre as a whole -- particularly things aping WoW's combat and interface mechanics. This is why I didn't make it very far into Aion. I'm not saying the E3 showing of SWtOR is a dealbreaker for me -- I'm still interested in checking it out -- but my excitement definitely dropped. Oh, and I agree with your assessment of WoW's first hours, too.

Shane:

Thanks for listening and commenting. As the oldest guy on the show (38 later this year...) I often wonder if my occasional bout of apathy toward games younger guys are excited about is because I'm A. old, B. nostalgic for an earlier time or C. just aware that a lot of this stuff is just rehashes of other things. I think this year we once again saw a lot of C.

I'm a cynical guy by nature, but I don't like being cynical about things I love -- like games. That being said, there wasn't a lot of software at the show that didn't elicit an "oh, that looks kinda interesting -- sort of like a modified "game X".

Tim:

The E3 show's hard to pull off because there's so much material -- all things considered, I think it turned out pretty well.

I totally get where you're coming from when you say that you're tired of the MMO combat and interface. Even "fast-paced" MMO combat feels very detached. It can be very strategic, but mostly in a mathematical sense. There isn't a feeling of reacting to your enemy's movement and attack choice.

I understand that ten years ago, this was done because the technology wasn't advanced enough to handle a lot of precise action from dozens of characters. MMO combat was streamlined so people with slow computers or slow connections would not experience lag.

Unfortunately, I don't think this kind of combat is necessary anymore. There's no reason, technologically, why combat in Old Republic isn't more like combat in Star Wars: Jedi Academy or Demon's Souls.

Bioware games have traditionally had very MMOish combat, but no one has complained for one important reason. Multiple characters; when you control three or four guys, combat doesn't feel as detached because you're constantly switching between them to respond to different conditions on the battlefield. In Old Republic, you'll always control a companion character in addition to your main character, and if they can recreate the strategic feeling of multi-character combat that they had in KOTOR or Dragon Age, then they'll truly have something special on their hands.

However, if you want to play a fantasy MMO that truly revolutionizes combat, then I'd take a look at the upcoming game TERA, which features completely real-time combat. I haven't played it, but based off of gameplay videos, I would describe it as a faster Monster Hunter with an Oblivion-esque targeting reticule. Personally, I don't think it will be good (there's something about Asian MMOs that doesn't sit well with me), but it will at least be a nice change of pace.

I am confused on how you are all saying it is the same old Zelda game. They showed a small area off that was created solely for E3 designed to show off the new controls. There was nothing shown that would lead me to believe that it is the same game as always. They have stated that it wont be the standard 'overworld-dungeon-overworl-dungeon' setup we are used to. Seems as if you are watching the demo and filling in the blanks to your liking (or disliking, as it were).

This. I think what is so hard about covering E3 is that as fans of the medium, we want the show to be a giant fall preview. The reality is its a sales pitch that we get to have a glimpse of. This show is where behind the scenes deals take place, with the stage presentations being the initial pitch. What we see from anyone giving a presentation has to be assumed as a temporary demo unless they outright say otherwise.

After finishing the show, I didn't really finish it. I got to the end, but I jumped ahead a number of times. I listened to what I cared about and when you got off on some tangent or game that I have no interest in... JUMP. And it wasn't just that I had no interest in the game in question, but in conjunction with your general lack of enthusiasm makes for a slow plow through the fog.

I am looking forward to the next show and will keep this one in mind when the next E3 rolls around. Actually, I remember last year's and the discussions that was had around it. I wonder if its still on the site...

Skyward Sword may turn out to be a bold, fresh, re-imagining of the series, but look at the imagery in the trailer: Link, in the forest, in the same green outfit, with the same Master Sword, with the same shield, fighting the same enemies, grunting his same grunts, shooting the same bow, the same slingshot, etc., etc., etc. How can you possibly say nothing was shown that would lead you to believe that it is the same game as always? That's ALL that was shown. Sure, I'm a little bitter after being burnt by the dreadful Spirit Tracks, but my eyes did not deceive me here. That's Ocarina of Time Part 27.

Jonathan, I hope you're right. I really do. My question is this: If two million people are playing Old Republic, how many players are going to have the exact same companion characters? How deep and personal and customized will my relationship with these companions be if half my guild is also having a deep and personal and customized relationship with their own version of the same character? (Don't say "cloning!") I dunno. It feels like Bioware's goals here would have been more appropriate for a proper single-player KOTOR3.

I'm reminded of a story I heard about Lord of the Rings Online, where a quest takes the player to the Prancing Pony for an intimate, one-on-one meeting with Aragorn. Upon arriving at the Inn, the player did indeed have that meeting, along with 12 other players finishing the quest at the same time. Kind of kills the mood, doesn't it?

I hope Bioware has it figured out. But as I discussed on the show, I have my doubts.

The Chi 3 joke was the highlight of the podcast ;-)

Two hours is just too long! I think it would have been better to make 2 shorter casts instead of this extremely long one.

The only thing at E3 that got me somewhat excited is the 3DS, and to some extend Portal 2 (despite being a sequel). The rest of the show... meh. Another Zelda *yawn* a new Kid Icarus *shrugs* Killzone 3 *yawn* Gears of *yawn* 3, Final *yawn* XYZ... was there some outbreak of a virus that affects creativity at last years E3, that people return just with more of the same this year?

Vanquish could be ok but I dread another "evil Russians invade the USA" story *rolleyes*

Seriously: are you Americans so paranoid that you think everyone is out to get you? Every game that's set in more or less realistic circumstances these days involves some "evil foreign power" (Russian Ultranationalists, North Korea, Russians again, more Russians, The entire northern part of the Korean Peninsula plus maybe the help of Russia) that want's to invade the home of the free to bring them universal health care.

I thought about splitting the "Games of Significance" section into its own show, but I think most listeners would have been too depressed by the end of part one to come back for part two. :)

Jim, Vince. If they had a bold re-imagining in mind, why would they not tell us? Look at the pattern of things that happened at this E3; they talked about their bold new look for the Metroid Series, and they talked about the completely new ideas for the character they claim to be Kirby, then they talked about the re-invention of the Golden Eye saga, so why would Zelda be the exception, especially if it's what the (non-Japanese) fans want?

Tim. You're right, at this point it does us no good to speculate about whether or not Bioware can pull it off. We just have to hope at this point. If I were them, though, I would make all of the one-on-one personal stuff happen in your ship or some other instanced, private environment.

Li-on. You're basically right; there were a lot of sequels, but there were a few new ideas too, The Fight, Gladiator and Sorcery for Move, Dance Central (the idea of a dance game isn't technically new, but it's never been done like this), Enslaved: Odyssey to the West might be decent, Epic Mickey should be fun.

Tim. Don't listen to him; if I'm listening to a podcast, it's because I'm bored at work or have nothing to do at home or in the car, not because I need to quickly and efficiently get gaming news. I enjoy the commentary, and I enjoy discussing it on the website, so as long as the commentary isn't bad or childish the more the merrier. Make the podcast as long as you want.

The main reasons I'm giving SWTOR a chance is a) it's ostensibly the replacement for the KOTOR3 that we never got and b) it's a BioWare game. I normally avoid MMOs but I'm holding out hope that maybe, just maybe, this one will be different.

I'm 24 minutes in, and I'm wondering... have any of you guys heard of the Virtual Console?

You can play an awful lot of old games at $10 or less apiece.

That's exactly what you're asking for, right?

Also, the tech demo's on 3DS are just that, tech demos, and I have to admit that I'm a little embarrassed about how people are freaking out about playing a game they already have before with shinier graphics, but that doesn't mean we're gonna get those game remakes, which is how it should be, as they're all on Virtual Console anyway, you can buy and play them right now.

---

Hour in now, pretty sure there's a quote floating around about how piracy is what killed the PSP from a Sony representative, which is totally true that if you own a PSP, you may be playing a lot on it, but you're not buying anything for it.

The lack of a second stick is more a control issue, and developers not wanting to adapt to using one stick means a lot of games are crippled from the get go.

---

Hour 45 minutes, I think Assassin's Creed multiplayer sounds an awful lot like the Ship, an old Steam game (god, has it really been long enough that we can call games on that system "old" now?) that had you trapped on a ship with a dozen other players, and to win you had to kill exactly one other person, and you couldn't let that person know that you were trying to kill them, and someone else on the ship was trying to kill you, and it created a wonderfully tense atmosphere of paranoia and fear.

If they can do it well in Assassin's Creed, then it'll be a huge game of cat and mouse, and I'm looking forward to it.

---

2 hours 12 minutes, god, can't agree with you more, Golden Sun looked like ass at E3, what the hell?

The whole point people liked the GBA games was because they looked so good, seriously, go look up the summons on YouTube, the sprite art and particle effects still looks way better than anything the SNES/GBA ever managed to do, while the new one, it looks worse than the Final Fantasy remakes, and those looked pretty bad, too!

I don't know how Gladiator compares to Red Steel 2 (which I really hope will have a HD variant now) and Enslaved looks really pretty, but so did Ninja Theory's last game Heavenly Sword. HS turned out to be a repetitive, albeit pretty, button masher. That makes me careful when looking at Enslaved. I didn't see enough of Sorcerer or The Fight to give any opinion and Dance Central is just not up my alley.

Epic Mickey... I give Warren Spector the benefit of a doubt, but shouldn't this man do the next big thing, which should make Deus Ex and Thief look like childs play? I expected a bit... more...

Wow, you're all quite bitter about this year's E3. I was there and while I admit it wasn't as great a showing as last year's, I felt like there was still a lot to be excited about.

Unsurprisingly, I want to defend Zelda. Re: the technical difficulties, those were specific only to the press conference. I played the game and had no trouble aiming. Unfortunately, I had different problems with it.

You control the sword with your right hand, but to aim with the bow you pull back your left hand. I'm perplexed to. I also found myself constantly forgetting to have to put my left arm back up after every swing to bring my shield back to the block position. In the 10 min I played I can say that the controls need some work. Then again, Twilight Princess demoed horribly for Wii at E3, but they fixed it by the time it was released.

So why am I defending it? Because we saw precious little of it and Eiji Aonuma has never disappointed me yet. Contrary to popular opinion, I don't believe every Zelda game is the same. Aonuma's first game as director, Majora's Mask, was a huge departure in structure. Wind Waker had a very unique style and design as well. Even Twilight Princess, which played it safe in comparison, had a lot to offer the deeper you got into it. Despite the blocky graphics I thought it was just oozing with style, though that may not have been apparent from a brief demo. The DS games too had a very unique control scheme that I felt enhanced the adventure too. As such, I feel like while Skyward Sword didn't demo well, we have yet to see what the full game will be like and I expect the world to have all the diversity, character and charm that made the last few Zelda games so special.

I also wanted to defend Epic Mickey. I've not played Deus Ex, so I can't compare, but I think the paint and thinner mechanic is pretty great. Maybe it's because I really like exploration in games, so the idea of searching for secret passages with thinner, or using paint to uncover a series of platforms to find an alternate route really appeals to me. In the demo there was a neat part where you could sneak into the back of a shop (using thinner on the wall), steal a merchant's supplies, then sell them back to him. But if you take too much, he notices and gets mad at you. It was stuff like that that got me really excited, and the attention to detail in the Disney universe is astounding. It was probably the best game I played at E3 (though my most anticipated is Portal 2, which wasn't playable).

If you look on youtube, you should find gameplay videos for all the Move games, Gladiator, The Fight, and SOCOM. The two melee combat games look like they control pretty well, better than most of the crap we see on the Wii, although I imagine that Red Steel 2 is the exception (I haven't actually played it yet).

More importantly, SOCOM looks like it's actually playable, not like any of the "shooters" the Wii attempts to put out. Has anyone played The Conduit? It's allegedly the best shooter on the Wii, and by extension, the best motion control shooter, but I think it's garbage. I played it for two hours, fiddled with the control customization options, then put it down and never came back. No matter what I did, the controls just never felt right, mostly because of the inevitable jitter. It could be that that type of game just isn't for everyone, but that excuse isn't going to work forever.

Allegedly, SOCOM Move features advanced jitter negation technology that allows for smoother, tighter, and more satisfying and accessible control, and based off of what I've seen, it does, but we won't know anything until we play it for ourselves.

Anyways, regarding this Nintendo graphics discussion. I played the first Golden Sun, thought it was great. The new one looks like crap, which makes me wonder why it isn't on the 3DS, since that system actually has the power to actually handle polygonal art.
More importantly, why has no one mentioned the graphics in the new Goldeneye game? They look like something that came out on the Gamecube. It's not the worst we've seen on the Wii, but we all know they can do a lot better. It doesn't need to look like Crysis, but it should at least live up to the standards that Resident Evil: Darkside Chronicles and The Conduit set last year. This game doesn't even live up to the standard that Resident Evil 4 set five years ago on the Gamecube!

I am by no means a graphics whore, I just don't like it when games move backwards.

By the way, I might as well take this time to plug the article I wrote in the community submissions forum about melee combat. Take a look, I think it's a good read.

I dont think the "E3 Craze" is nearly as big as the hype would make you believe. The majority of people I know that play games, have never cared about E3 (the event) in the slightest.

especially "announcements" where we dont get to see anything. Where its just a logo or vague concept art.

Being your age, I can tell you that your not alone. I think anyone our age has to roll their eyes at many of these "big announcements" and see them as the headline grabbing gimmicks that they are. Because we've seen it all before.

Getting excited about nothing is for the young.

If your 40, and still getting excited because of a "cool new game" with a "bad ass character" will be coming out 2 years from now... you really need to learn from past mistakes. These things usually dont pan out.

After you've seen these things come and go, a few times, any sane person should see this as the marketing show it is.
Being hands on, playing games... cool.
Watching a press conference for more over hyped trailers... not cool.
Why does everyone think they are steve jobs now?

Of all the games that get announced or shown at E3, maybe a couple will turn out to be any where near as good as the hype.

Remember the last E3, when Scribblenauts was the hands down favorite game of the show? And then those same gaming sites gave it a MetaCritic score of 7.9, just a few months later.

PS - Tim, I like the longer show. People tend to ramble more, the longer the talk. And that is when things get interesting. And you need to mention Zelda more, your comments section seems to jump, when you do.

Do yourself a favor and get Deus Ex! The graphics are not up to date (obviously, since it's an ancient game) but the game itself holds up really well. Deus Ex let you freely decide how to tackle every mission. There's plenty of room for exploration of alternative routes and hidden areas. It's possible to finish the game without killing anyone, it's also possible to finish the game with a bodycount like the black plague. I played it just recently when it struck me that no game has really improved on the promise of total gameplay freedom ever since Deus Ex. Well, hopefully Deus Ex 3 will...

It's on sale every once in a while on steam. I got it for 2,50€ and it's definitely worth that ;-)

Anyone ever wondered why Zelda isn't changed a lot from release to release?

I can only speak for Metroid Prime 3, RE4 wii edition and Disaster- Day of Crisis: they all play a lot better than Killzone, Gears, CoD4... imho, and that even tough they are not exactly shooters.
If Move wouldn't be as expensive as it is, i would much more probable get it for Killzone 3, or for other games.
I really believe pointing features improve shooters on consoles a lot.

Maybe i just like the Gamecube graphics era (also the Unreal2 and Quake3 Engine) but i dislike Conduits style a lot so if it stays true to its original style i am happy enough. I also think good graphics hinder the fps to run smoother and that's maybe my reason why i believe that above mentioned top notch games aren't exactly very well playable.

On Kirby/Zelda. You completely missed the point I was trying to make. It isn't fair to say that I'm complaining about innovation in Kirby and expect that I would complain the same way about innovation in Zelda. This "Kirby" game is extremely innovative because of the yarn mechanic, and it's an exiting new take on 2d platforming in general. However, it is not innovative to take the defining characteristic of a character, the only thing which makes him interesting, and scrap it.

If we follow your line of reasoning, then it would be totally ok to release a Zelda game in which Link never got his sword and shield and never solved any puzzles. I'm sure they could make a game out of it, but Link is a sword and shield guy, so if and when they ever revamp Zelda, that wouldn't be the direction they'd take. I don't think anyone's complaining about the nature of the combat in Zelda because the combat was at its best in Twilight Princess.

Personally, what I've grown tired of is the way the narrative is presented. Everything important in the Zelda story seems to take place before the games start and is told in cutscenes, or is experienced at the end of the game. Furthermore, none of the characters are really that interesting. Everyone loves Link because he's the player, but no one really gives a crap about Zelda or Ganondorf. She as a person is not interesting because the game doesn't give us a chance to get to know her. Ganondorf is the bad guy, but his only motivation is the lust for power, and the only characteristic we know about him is that he's manipulative.
I didn't used to care, but now I've totally jumped on board the spoken-voice bandwagon. Every character in these games need to be fully voiced, especially Link. I know it's not traditional, but the tradition of having these games be all-text was made because of technical limitations that no longer exist.

On Shooters and Wii Shooters, I'm not going to argue Conduit vs Halo because I truly believe that some people are just more suited for one than the other. I'm going to get the Move shooters when they come out, and hopefully I'll just get used to them.

I don't know what you mean when you say that good graphics hinder FPS games. Are you talking about the non-Wii console shooters or are you talking about The Conduit? Either way, I don't think it's true, but even if it were, it's still not an excuse for having graphics that are objectively crappy. You say you liked Resident Evil 4? Those graphics were much better than what we saw in the trailer, and that game was essentially a port of a Gamecube game that came out five years ago.

BTW, I don't think this is an issue of "style." Style is a discussion of realistic vs non-realistic, cartoony vs anime-inspired, vibrant vs earthy. It's clear they're going for a realistic style with GoldenEye, but the quality is just bad. If that's ok with you, then that's your decision, but I don't think it's acceptable for developers to prove that a console can handle good graphics and then force us to look at ugly ones. On a downloadable title, maybe, but this is going to be a full-price retail release.

Why not? Mario stars also in games where he is not jumping onto gumbas.
Make a magician game with Link and auras for blocking. Or let him swing an axe. Or a necromant/Overlord thing. Whatever... I would be more interested but i think the most fans see it like you, so they change almost nothing and only dared with this less important/famous figure, Kirby.

should have meant "frames per second" (maybe i mean lag with it or maybe it's just me, i don't know)
More crappy looking games run better, more responsive and that's together with good level design more important than fantastic visuals.
I just think the good looking games don't run as smooth as i am used to from PC. Maybe it's still 30 fps and maybe the controls themselves are not as i want them to be, but Halo-ODST played better and looks not as good as others.

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. I'm not against innovation at all, but if you're going to change everything or the most important things, then you might as well make a new IP.

Back on topic; this is supposed to be about Kirby. Ask yourself, what is the coolest, most unique, and best thing about Kirby? If your answer is anything but the ability to absorb enemies' powers, then you're lying to yourself.

I never said Epic Yarn wouldn't be a good game, (it'll probably be great) but it has no business being called a Kirby game. The reason I think it should be its own IP is because if it isn't, then Nintendo won't feel the need to release a real Kirby game.

Whether you innovate or not, the only thing that ever mattered about Kirby, the only thing you need in a Kirby game is the sucking and absorbing thing. Literally everything else is up for grabs. If Nintendo wants to make the next Kirby game a shooter/RTS set in space where Kirby fights time-traveling vampires, so he can find a cure for his daughter's brain cancer, I'd be all for it, but if Kirby can't eat people to gain their abilities, then it would still be freakishly awesome, but it wouldn't be a Kirby game.

Yes, Mario is in games where he doesn't jump on gumbas, but no one considers those to be "Mario games." Mario Kart is a racing game featuring Mario, Smash Bros is a fighting game featuring Mario, and the various sports games are sports games featuring Mario. Frankly, I don't even see why you'd make that comparison. Those games are not innovative evolutions of the Mario franchise; with the exception of Smash Bros, they're just Nintendo's attempts to make a quick buck.

Regarding shooters, I understand what you're saying, and assuming that there is an inversely proportional relationship between graphics and control, it's still not enough to account for GoldenEye's mediocrity. You yourself said that the best controlling "shooter" on the Wii was Resident Evil 4, but Resident Evil 4 easily looks light-years ahead of what we saw in the GoldenEye trailer. If Wii developers have, according to you, mastered motion control for guns, then why would they need to erase five years of graphical accompishment just so it could control smoothly?

he is a pink ball?

This cute Nintendo character fitted the idea best, so they had to use him? *shrug*

They could have made a new ip, sure, but using an old trademark is always easier for marketing.

Dirt has almost nothing to do with CMR still CM is somewhere in the name.
Ghost Recon is no tactic shooter anymore.

It happens all the time and in this case the innovation seems cool so why should i be "angry" about it being no "real" Kirby game.

RE4 is a rather slow game? Don't know.
Why do almost all wii games look not as good as they could? Production budgets are lower comapred to HD-consoles and here they save another load of money?
Let's wait for the final product. CoD Reflex (also Activision, so the engine should be available) looked good in the videos i saw, maybe they can work in that direction.

Finally got around to listening the podcast. To be honest i did not really follow E3 this year due to the World Cup.

The one thing however that i did read about was impressions on the 3DS. A lot of people who got their hands on the handheld were really excited about it and i think it's one of those you have to see it to understand the big deal. Tbh it's the first 3D product i want to known as i am not impressed about 3D movies and tvs so far.

As for the rest, i am under the impression that both Sony and Microsoft are missing the point.

But with regards to pricing i think you forget that with Kinect that is the total amount you need to spend for (i assume) at least 4 players maybe?

The Wiimote and PS3 move however you need to spend much more if you want 4 people to play.

Consider it to be similar to a Wario game, call it Girby or Zirby or whatever you like if this makes it easier.

It is still the Kirby figure, he just got another gameplay.

And why shouldn't i consider Mario Kart a Mario game? He is the star of it. As is Kirby in this Epic Yarn game featuring Kirby. ;-)

True, but I haven't heard of any good motion-games that actually feature four players, so it may be a moot point. The best motion game for the Kinect (Dance Central) can only handle one. The Gladiator game for PS3 can reportedly handle two people, but also only two controllers, which means that you'll be gimped because each person is supposed to have two Moves for the game to play the way it should. As for the Wii, I don't know, the only four player game I play on it is Brawl, but that doesn't utilize the motion controls, so I don't think it counts.

It's become clear to me that the argument we're having is stupid, because I want to satisfy a power absorption fix that only Kirby can fulfill, and you don't. I want to play a Kirby game, and you don't; you just want to play a game. This is going nowhere.

Zolos!

You've been following the world cup (who you rooting for by the way??) and you're seriously not intrigued by 3d tv!!??

You don't think all those amazing angles and hilarious super slo mo replays wouldn't be mind boggling in 3D?? I've been following obsessively and while I do enjoy 3D movies I didnt really care about tv (and still certainly don't care enough to actually purchase it, jeez it's expensive)...but after watching soccer everyday I gotta think watching it in 3D would make those ridiculous faces players make, and the intense corner/goalie kicks even more insanse than they are in HD.

Not even interested is hard to believe! But hey.

If Bluetooth was the real problem, then why didn't this happen with the Twilight Princess showcase during that E3?

I believe the GC staff made the right call on this one. Nintento and Miyamoto borked this Zelda showcase, and would have been better off calling it what it was, instead of making weak excuses.

Yeah i agree there aren't that many, especially high quality ones. It's more party games like Mario & Sonic at the Olympics. Don't forget that if you want the "full experience" though you will also need nunchucks. Same applies for PS3's Move.

I have only seen Avatar on 3D and i was not impressed at all. It did not add anything to the enjoyment of the film. In fact i found it distracting when it switched from 2D to 3D and vice versa. Finally as long as you need glasses it's not going to work for me.

I have an honest question here; genuinely no snark intended: What was the game that made Kirby important? I've owned hundreds of Nintendo games over the years, and not a single Kirby game. I couldn't name a Kirby game without Wikipedia. I know him from the five minutes I spent with Smash Bros, but is he actually considered one of Nintendo's marquee mascots? If so, how did I miss that phenomenon?

Yeah i love football!! I supported Greece. We were crap but i love them to bits after Euro 2004 so no real complaints.

Some of the best matches so far included the US btw. Unlucky to go out and it was a missed opportunity. It was a really good chance to reach semis.

I'm a Kid Icarus fangirl, and most of the reasons why don't have to do with the actual game. Like Brad said, Nintendo marketed it like a triple-A title. Kid Icarus was a character in a Saturday morning cartoon called Captain N: The Game Master, which is where I first saw him. (I'm several years younger than most of the hosts). He was small and cute and had an adorable speech impediment, and I was a 9-year-old girl.

It was the first game I'd ever played where you moved upwards (I hadn't played Ice Climbers or the original Mario Bros.) In levels where you were on firm ground--like the Overworld--you moved horizontally. The way your position would shift made total thematic sense, because you were moving from the Underworld to the heavens, and it gave the game a (visual, kinetic) narrative structure, unlike "Mario climbs trees sometimes." Is it groundbreaking now? No. But it was a pretty unusual bit of sort-of-cinematics at that time.

When I finally got to the end (Kid Icarus was an early game I beat, so there's that bit of nostalgia), I felt seriously let down. I couldn't have told you why, although I knew it had to do with Kid Icarus becoming Man Icarus, complete with beard and six-pack. There are so few female characters in games, and here was this child angel that wore a toga and looked really cute. So I could..."pretend" is too strong a word, but subconsciously think of Pit as "girl-like." Link had the same appeal to me, and so do all the effeminate boy-heroes in Japanese RPGs that look more like actual women than the female characters do.

Technically, Kirby is developed by HAL, and sometimes by Flagship (which is really just Capcom), so Kirby is a Nintendo mascot in the same way that Cloud is a Sony mascot.

The games that matter in the Kirby series are Kirby's Dreamland, Kirby: Nightmare in Dreamland, and the insultingly redundantly named Kirby: Super Star Ultra, all of which sold over one million copies in the US (and yes, I needed to use Wikipedia for two of those).

Personally, I think the people who played Kirby games in the US did so in much greater numbers because of Smash Bros., much like what happened with Fire Emblem. So we were tricked into liking him, but I don't mind because eating enemies to steal their abilities (and even combining abilities in Kirby 64) isn't something that I can do with any other character in gaming and it doesn't get old quickly.

How many years ago was the Twilight Princess shown? How many handheld devices were in the audience then compared to now? Or any other devices competing for the same signal pool? It was just either bad luck or poor planning, not realizing what the environment was going to do to the system.

Just wanted to point out that Twilight Princess did not use the Wii Motion Plus while Skyward Sword presumably does. Whether or not Bluetooth is more of an issue for Wii Motion Plus is something I don't know. But there was a significantly different technology being used which could account for the difference between what we saw with Twilight Princess. It doesn't excuse the awful presentation, but given Zelda's history with solid controls I'd certainly give Miyamoto the benefit of the doubt.

To add to my previous comment regarding the Zelda presentation(forgot to put my name I think):

I found it a bit negative and unfair for the GC crew (as a whole)to knock Zelda big time for keeping the same formula installment after installment, but then harp on Miyamoto so much for a bad tech presentation. If you expect the Zelda gameplay to be the same year after year, then you should expect the controls to be solid as well, despite a slip in the presentation.

now you finally got the point what i wanted to make in that first one liner.
You don't want anything about a Kirby-game to change, you think everything that was in the Kirby game you liked is essential in every other Kirby game, as Zelda designers might also do. It has to be a green (and blue and red) dress, master sword, boomerang, no speaking, no proper characterization... change would result in a no Zelda game, just an other game... only crackajack want's to play ;-)
If it's about a sequel declared by the number, e.g. Max Payne 3, i'm on your side (New York, or at least another dark city, was part of the game, you can't replace that and then call it a sequel, it's a spin-off)

And not only Kirby can do that. Every shooter or rpg let's you pick up the weapon of your enemy. Kirby just does it more elegantly.
The transformation was the thing you liked, and this is still part of the game imho. Kirby was from the beginning just a flexible figure, right? And in this Yarn game, even if he doesn't suck in anyone, he does use some variable techniques.
He was tranformed in a yarn and got its abilities! That's enough Kirby i think.
And after watching a Dream Land video, i know why i couldn't remember more than he being a pink ball. He sucks air in to fly and sucks enemies in to shoot stars. No, i definitely do not want to play a "real" Kirby game again.

Kid Icarus may be important in the US but Kirby? Don't know. But certainly more than Icarus.
I only played Kirbys Dream Land and Kirbys Ghost Trap, the Dr. Mario for Kirby. So two games compared to zero Icarus games.

Dont go talking Kirby smack. He'll eat you, and still your abilities.

I've never played a kirby game, that was not on a hand-held. My first was Nightmare in Dreamland on the GBA. Which was an updated port of a classic kirby game. I learned of that one, from a TV commercial. Eight years ago, a hand-held game getting a TV spot was a big deal. I remember it, because they used the music from the Johnny Rivers' song "Secret Agent Man".

The thing about kirby, is that it is kinda just a fun kid friendly side-scroller. It has virtually no difficulty, and doesnt really get updated with each never version (save for slightly cleaner graphics). And as such, I think it makes a perfect portable game.

Asking what the appeal of Kirby is, is like asking what is cool about Winnie the Pooh, Classic Doctor Who, or old time Godzilla.