In Third Person

A personal look into video games, the video game industry and video game culture.

Image from Fanpop

The original Bioshock came out of nowhere for me. It was a game that was a getting a lot of buzz from the journalists, but from the little I had heard or read about it, I didn't care at all for the game. In my eyes, it was just another first-person shooter. Then the demo came along and rocked my face into another planet. Everything about that game to the spooky atmosphere to the combat and the impressive plot progression of that demo had me sold. It was the first game to ever sell me based on a demo. I rushed out on the morning of release and bought it.

I beat that game in a week and was extremely satisfied with that experience. It had its faults, and I'm not so sure the game deserves the hyperbole it has received since its release, but it was an excellent game that deserved to be as successful as it was.

This is where corporate steps in and makes me feel really weird. It was shortly after the success of the first game that 2K announces a sequel to Bioshock. On there end, of course you make a sequel. The first one made a lot of money, so here's your chance to make even more money. 2K even mentioned possibly making five more Bioshock games on top of the original. I loved the first experience, but never did I feel like that game warranted a sequel. I still don't feel like there needs to be a Bioshock 2.

Image from ztgamedomain

Everything up to this point for Bioshock 2 feels like a corporate cash-in. They put the sequel in motion the moment the money made sense, removed the original team from producing it, and did a bunch of focus tests "to see what people wanted". They keep hyping this up as the sequel to Bioshock. They brag about how the game is a return to Rapture, but who wants to go back there? They say that now you get to play as a Big Daddy. Spoiler Alert: You sort of play as a Big Daddy in the first game. It sucked. I know they're the cool characters on the box, but no, I don't want to play as them. Also, they've decided to put multiplayer into Bioshock 2.

That last point is extremely alarming as it is a clear sign of cashing-in. It actually disgusts me to see all of these games that aren't built with multiplayer in mind have multiplayer jammed into it because the corporate big-wigs saw how many hours gamers were putting into Halo and Call of Duty and figure they can do the same. Games like The Darkness, Condemned and Metroid Prime 2 had shoe-horned in multiplayer modes that didn't fit the game, aren't fun and nobody played. Even Assassin's Creed is getting online multiplayer. Ugh.

Before I go off on a tangent, let me get back to Bioshock 2. The original game was amazing. I will be the first person to eat my words and buy a copy of Bioshock 2 if the game is mind-blowing and respectful of the original. However, I can't help but feel that Bioshock 2 completely ignores the creative vision of the original and only exists to fatten the wallets of executives who couldn't give a damn about video games. It's that principle that makes me reluctant to dive back into the world of Rapture, even if it's good.

Image from Joystiq

In many parts of the world (my own included), Boxing Day is on now. Normally, I don't flinch at the opportunity to tear up the mall or other retail outlets, but for the past few days I've been wrestling the thought of purchasing a Playstation 3. For many years, I wouldn't have entertained the thought of owning a Playstation product even if you put a gun to my head due to my once-rock-solid loyalty to Nintendo. However, thing's change, people change and platforms mature from their $599 giant enemy crab roots. There are a number of places here that have PS3 bundles that come with three good games for free, which has made the possibility much more tempting.

For your entertainment, I thought I would go the various points and counter-points crossing my head as I try and justify whether or not I should invest in one.


POINT: "It Only Does Everything"

For $299.99, you get a lot of bang for your buck. In terms of a straight-up comparison for what you can get with a $299.99 PS3 and a $299.99 360, the PS3 has it beat. Free wi-fi out of the box, Blu-Ray capability and an overall more powerful system makes the system the better buy if you're comparing spread sheets.


COUNTER-POINT: It does a lot of things I'll never use

I don't watch movies. I don't need a multimedia hub. I don't need something to interface with a PSP I don't have. It would basically be a system I buy only for PS3 exclusives.


POINT: It has some great first-party support

Not to short-change those PS3 exclusives, but I will admit that games like Uncharted and Little Big Planet have piqued my interest in the platform. I'm sure there are at least a few more PS3 exclusive games I haven't even thought about playing that I could totally get into.


COUNTER-POINT: Everything else I can play on my 360

Third party games 99.9% of the time end up on both the PS3 and 360. Often times, the 360 version is better, not because it's a more powerful platform, but because it's easier to develop for. If the majority of games I purchase are from third party publishers, then I might as well stick it out on the XBOX.


POINT: Free online

Having to pay a subscription fee for something every other system lets users have for free sucks. If I were to start buying everything I could on the PS3, maybe I could bypass the $60 a year for XBOX Live.


COUNTER-POINT: XBOX 360 online is better

There are a number of objective and subjective reasons for this. No cross-game party chat is a huge downer for the PSN, and Playstation Home looks awful. Most people don't have headsets on PSN, because they don't come standard in the box like the 360. The big reason XBOX Live is better to me specifically? Most of my friends are on XBOX Live and only a handful of my friends are on PSN. I'm normally not one to join everyone jumping off a cliff, but it makes for better Modern Warfare 2 matches, so be it.

Image from myps3

POINT: I'll finally won't miss out on great console games because I own all three major platforms


COUNTER-POINT: I don't have the time to keep up with Wii/360

With a full-time job and a social life, gaming has been very difficult to squeeze into my schedule, even though my love for the medium has never changed. I have an ever-growing list of "Pile of Shame" games that are still waiting for me to play them. Would I just make things worse by having to support another platform?


POINT: I kind of want one

At the core of my desire for a PS3 is something very impulsive and gut-feeling. Regardless of how I spin it in my head, I kind of just want one.


COUNTER-POINT: Do I really need one?

Right now, the answer is, "No." I have a lot of gaming to be had on my Wii and 360 and the content I can get through those platforms is more than enough to keep me satisfied. However...I'm still kind of jonesing for a PS3. Maybe someday I will be able to rationalize it.