Diablo III

Yeah, that's the stuff.

I'm not really a PC gamer anymore, I've moved pretty much entirely over to consoles, but when I was a more avid PC gamer one of my favorites was Diablo II.  Since that time I've been anticipating how well Diablo III would do when it finally comes out.  Obviously it's done really well, considering that it's the sequel to a game that people have been actively playing for over ten years; that's right Diablo II, released in 2001, has had active players for the last 11 years.  That's just insane, I can't think of any other game that's really had that much participation after such a long time.

So obviously, when I heard back in 2010 that Diablo III could be coming to consoles, I was ecstatic.  I'm a little disappointed that it hasn't yet panned out though.  I'm still hopeful that Blizzard will wisen up and put the game onto consoles, similar to the latest Dungeon Siege and Witcher games.  Both games ported really well, especially Witcher II with it's similarities to Skyrim, and many console gamers that I know would love to see Diablo II follow suit.  My best guess as to why this isn't confirmed yet is that Blizzard tried to make this same jump a few times with various games and even more various results:  Diablo on PS1 and Starcraft 64. 

If you don't already know what I think about Starcraft 64, take a look at what I said about it previously.  As for Diablo, the game was ported from the PC in 1998, two years after its release.  Die hard fans of the PC game were disappointed with the lackluster graphics, the awful experience with sluggish and high-capacity saves, and the lack of an online multi player experience; though the PS1 version boasted a two-player mode on a single console.  The controls, however, did translate over to the controller very well, and many were surprised at how much easier the game was to play on the PS1 version.  The main components of the game; the dungeon-delving, action RPG, and arcade style game play; were all there so it was still a good game for those that haven't experienced the PC version, but overall the PS1 game was unable to cut the cake when compared to it's forefather.

 I could see all of the same issues with porting Diablo III to consoles today that there were in 1998 with the original, but are those really good reasons to keep it from us Xbox and PS3 gamers?  The saves have gotten better, the controls will still be grand, and you can have your multi player experience and eat it too.   Expand your Diablo III audience, Blizzard, I guarantee that it's worth it.

Day 14: Media

Cartridges were a beautiful idea, quick and efficient.  The limitations came quickly though, as storage space and graphics became a problem.  I mean, there's no way that Halo could have been developed on a cartridge based system.  Back in the days of the Nintendo 64 and the PS1, it was almost novel to see CDs being utilized in every day gaming, even though the Sega CD and the TurboGrafx 16 both used the media.  CDs didn't really catch on earlier than they did partially because of the awful sales that killed both of the consoles.  The PS1 was definitely the biggest winner when it came to CD gaming.  All of the early CD-based systems suffered from the same problems: load times and fragility.  Who didn't sit at their Sega Saturn or their Playstation for 15 plus minutes waiting for a game or specific screen to load?  The system is basically taunting you the whole time too.  Just as you think it's about to load, the game shoots out a telepathic "fuck you." 

It even looks like it sucks; like a giant, old VCR.

The CD-I was the worst of all of the early CD systems.  This thing was shat out by Phillips in conjunction with Nintendo.  Of course this doesn't make it any better, it just means that it could use some characters that were licensed by Nintendo while Sony couldn't.  The thing's just a piece of shit.  Most of the didn't work in the first place, think first generation Xbox 360, and if they did, the load times were horrendous.

I never did understand the design.

So by the time that the PS2, Gamecube, and Xbox were released, most of the load time issues had been resolved.  One game that I do remember being a hassle just exacerbated the issue.  Xenosaga Episode 1 was a pretty excellent RPG game, but it had severe limitations hidden in the length of it's cutscenes.  The fact that you had to wait literally 15 minutes, at some times, to find any playable content was mind-boggling.  It's like all I wanted to do was fight a boss character, but I needed to wait for the cutscene to load, then wait for it to play, then wait for the boss to load, and by the time that the game is ready I'm getting my ass handed to me because I'm half asleep from boredom!

Looking at today's systems, long load times are usually eliminated, though several games come to mind such as Duke Nukem Forever, but if they're still present in a game there's at least something to entertain you while you wait.  For instance, one of the Dragonball Z games allows you to spin a character around the screen while Call of Duty gives you "helpful" hints about various things in the game.  So all of the loading time issues aside, another problem came with the advent of the CD-DVD video gaming.  Freezing.  The entire reason that I bring all of this crap up is that I've recently had my own shitty run-ins with my games freezing and causing me to lose valuable save data.  I know that this is something that's unavoidable, but I don't think I ever once had an issue with a cartridge game freezing.  Can we find some kind of alternative media that's not going to freeze, but allow the same storage space and graphical enhancements?  I know that both the 360 and PS3 are able to download games directly onto the hard drive of your system, so that could be a potential fix, but at that point why don't we just shove all of the game onto separate HDDs and call it a fucking day?  The bottom line is, if you're playing a game prone to freezing or locking up during loading sequences, save often or you'll end up a bitter, angry shell of your former self.  Or maybe you'll just get pissed off and play anyway, your choice.

Day Eight: Star Craft 64

Ah, Star Craft.  What PC or console gamer hasn't heard of this classic Real Time Strategy game set in outer space?  It's a wonderful story of Space Marines, Alienesque (like the movie series) creatures, and your typical "super-advanced" race of Predatoresque aliens.  The game is pure classic however you look at it, and a sequel came out just recently that mimics the great feel of the original and could be a candidate for one of the best RTS games of all time.

These types of games are best played with a mouse and a keyboard.  Not only do you need precise, tactical movements in a large-scale battlegrounds, but you need to be able to move quickly from squad to squad and fight to fight.  With a keyboard and mouse you can use single keystrokes to move to designated squads.  How in the love of fuck do you accomplish all of that with the N64 controller?  So obviously the controller doesn't have enough buttons to have up to ten squads simultaneously yet separately accessible.  Rather than assigning 1 to a squad and 2 to a squad and moving between them freely, the controller only really allows you to move between groups on a fixed basis, so from 1 to 2 to 3 to 4.

The other thing on my shitlist about this pile of crap is the movement.  An infrared mouse is difficult to beat, especially when you're attempting the same level of complexity with an analog stick.  It's like trying to play Halo with an Atari 2600 controller.  Okay, maybe not that bad, but it still sucks ass.  This isn't the only time that a PC game has been ported to a console an been a freaking pile.  The Command and Conquer series also put a game onto a console, but this time, it's for the Playstation.

So here we see the same limitations, but at a much higher rate of failure.  In this regard, again, it's the controller's fault.  The 64's controller is limited, yes, but the Playstation's is even more so, especially if you're looking at a controller that's not Dual Shock.  On a purely button vs. button comparison we see 11 on the 64 and only nine on the PS1.  Fans of C&C might love the adaptation, but at best, it's a butchered version of a mediocre RTS.  Even the expansion packs were released onto the PS1.  Now that's a desperate attempt to expand your game onto a new platform.  If you need a more recent example, there's Halo Wars, and that crap bombed out even though it's part of one of the most marketable franchises in recent gaming history, though it was more streamlined and optimized to be easier to handle with an Xbox 360 controller.  Bottom line, don't port your goddamn RTS onto a console, it just doesn't fucking work  Leave it where it belongs.