PSP Go a Ripoff?

Here's what Joystiq had to say:

Michael Pachter retracted one of the most correct statements he's ever made: the PSP Go is a "rip off" for consumers. The PSP Go takes away the expensive-to-manufacture UMD drive and replaces it with cheap flash memory -- and yet it still costs more than the current PSP-3000. Fun fact: You can buy a standard PSP and 16GB Memory Stick Duo Pro right now for less than a PSP Go.

Sure, the new form factor looks nice, but Sony should have no manufacturing costs to pass down to the consumer. MCV asked SCEE's Andrew House if R&D or retailer markups were the reason behind PSP Go's high price. "Those aren't the factors," House admitted. "When you introduce a new piece of hardware you have the opportunity to say there is a certain premium that is associated with it, and we took that into account."

Essentially, House is admitting you can charge more for technology when it's new. It's unsurprising, but it certainly leaves a bad taste knowing Sony can easily charge less for the PSP Go. Perhaps Sony will follow the iPhone's footsteps and suddenly drop the price of the PSP weeks after early adopters pay their "premium" price.

It wouldn't be the first time this has happened, sadly.

See, here's why the PSP struggles compared to the DS.  First, how many revisions of the DS have their been?  Three.  OK, that sounds like a lot, but consider that the original DS still works fine.  It's a little bigger, sure, but not awfully so.  There's no extra features on the DS Lite that make it more essential than the original DS.  It's just a smaller version.  In fact, you could argue that there's really only been one major revision of the DS, the DSi.  In the DSi, we saw WPA encryption, cameras, a faster processor, and flash memory as well as the removal of the now-vestigial GBA slot.  As of yet, there are no DSi exclusives except for DSiWare games.  Anything you can play for the DS works on the DSi or the DS Lite.

However, the PSP has undergone four separate revisions, and the Go is the biggest of them all.  Some of the earlier revisions are fairly obsolete, with bad batteries and weird button layouts as well as weird speaker placement.  Even the supposedly game-changing Go isn't easy to hold for people with small hands.  Many also speculate that the higher sales of PSPs are only there because of how easy it is to crack.  So will the Go really help Sony?

Now, Sony's strategy has a couple of parts to it:  Launch the Go at a premium price, and then launch great games alongside it in UMD-less formats so that you HAVE to play the games on the PSP Go.  There's a major flaw here.  You have 50 million users of your system.  Sure, they can download games too, but let's say that 30 million of them will choose not to.

(30 million is an arbitrary number, but more than likely realistic.  Handhelds appeal mostly to a casual crowd.  A lot of casual players don't care about downloadable games.  Also, there are huge amounts of modded PSPs floating around worldwide.  Also remember that since 2007, we've seen about 30 million PSPs sold, but the ones before then are using old firmware or aren't getting as much use.  By point of comparison, I would say that less that 10 percent of Wii owners, or 5 million Wiis are online.  It's still a substantial number, but not as much as you'd think.  This has been a special message from the department of pulling numbers out of my butt.)

If that's the number of people who aren't going to use the internet on their PSP, you're shutting off 3/5 of your customer base.  Now, you're selling games to 20 million people instead of 50 million.  That puts you back in the same boat as you had before 2007: Not enough install base for the games that you're selling.

"But the sales for the PSP Go will be great, so they'll offset that."  Now we go back to the quote at the beginning from Joystiq.  Sony's charging more than they should.  The hardcore, who are Sony's bread and butter this generation, know that and they're okay with their PSP-3000s.  I understand that Sony has to make a profit somewhere along their line because the PS3 isn't working out for them like they'd hoped.  Still, it's tying off a large portion of your customer base just to make a little bit more money.  Is it worth it?

Will they still sell a lot of units?  Yes.  Definitely.  Will it be a resounding success?  Maybe.  Will it still put Sony in trouble down the line?  Yes.  It all smacks of robbing Peter to pay Paul, but more power to them.  I'm sure an argument can be made FOR the move as well, and I look forward to seeing some.

Review: The Legendary Starfy

Developer: TOSE
Publisher: Nintendo

Nintendo has more characters and mascots than you can shake an Ice Climber at.  There's Mario, Link, Samus, Kirby, Bowser, Captain Falcon, Pikachu, Olimar, and so on.  One of the mascots that's never seen a release in the States is Starfy, who launched during the Game Boy Advance era in Japan.  Nintendo's always felt that his games would be "too Japanese" to make it here.
Apparently, Nintendo has made an about-face and decided that they like money, lots of heaping gobs of money, preferably enough to gold-plate every item in their house including their wife, kids, and basset hound named Duke.  To that end, they've launched The Legendary Starfy in the US, hoping that he'll gain a foothold and they'll have another lucrative franchise to milk run into the ground diddle make games for.  So, is The Legendary Starfy truly legendary?  Does it have a shot to make it?

Starfy plays like most every side-scrolling platforming game you've played, with a twist. Starfy spends a large portion of its time underwater.  Normally, I hate underwater games, since your control is greatly limited and in some cases you have to worry about drowning. Here, however, the words of a wise crustacean ring true:

Darling it's better
Down where it's wetter
Take it from meeeee

Indeed it is, Sebastian.  Truer words were never spoken.  That's not to say that Starfy's a slouch above ground, but his move set is a touch more limited in the open air. His signature move, a spin move that you use with Y, is much more potent in water on land. He handles quicker underwater, too.

The Legendary Starfy looks great as well. The characters are drawn in very well-animated 2D, with the backgrounds in 3D. It's a shame that the 3D didn't get used more, as it looks really nice when they let it out to play a bit. Still, for a 2D game, Starfy animates excellently, and you barely notice that it's in 2D.

However, there are a couple of problems in The Legendary Starfy. First, Starfy was obviously made for kids. That's not bad in and of itself, but Starfy is so ridiculously easy that it's not even funny. The whole game I was trying to figure out whether I was too good for the game or it was really that easy. I think it's a combination of both, but if you're a seasoned gamer you might be put off by the excessive simplicity.

That simplicity also stretches through to the levels. In most games, the developer will try and put their best foot forward, right? You try and put your best levels in the beginning of the game, your most memorable encounters and most fun stuff. Well, TOSE didn't do that with The Legendary Starfy.  They put the best levels toward the very end of the game.  I was practically ready to slam my DS Lite through my skull in order just to feel something for this game until I got to those final, more interesting levels. Maybe Stockholm Syndrome kicked in, but that's when Starfy started clicking for me. They shouldn't have held their best stuff for last, but at least they had good stuff in there.

I also see why they thought it would be too Japanese to make it over here. Every couple of steps you're interrupted by more story and exposition. Look, TOSE, I'm going to give you a little bit of advice.  You're making a game about a starfish helping a space bunny. You really don't need that much story.  I skipped a large chunk and was still able to piece together what was going on. There was one funny moment where someone hides in Moe the Clam's shell and complains of the smell, but beyond that, it was mostly just annoying. A platformer doesn't need that much story. You just need to point in a vague direction and tell us how to kill whatever is in our way.

You're also able to collect treasures and pearls, which can be used to buy outfits for Starfy. This would be fantastic, except you can't use those outfits in-game. The only place you see those outfits is when you're in the pause menu, and then there's a 3D avatar of Starfy walking around on the upper screen with your chosen outfit. How does that make any sense? Why would you give us the opportunity to give Starfy an outfit and then not let him wear it in the game?

All that being said, The Legendary Starfy is a solid game, if uninspiring. It does everything a platformer should do. All the old standbys are there, like an ice world, a fire world, a jungle world, a sunken ship, and so on. The controls feel great. There's a lot to see and do. It's not a bad game, just a little dull, especially at first. It's also, once again, far too easy for core gamers. I would still recommend it for a minor diversion, and it also would work as an excellent introduction to platforming for someone who'd like to get a better understanding of the genre. So while Starfy may not be legendary, it might be worth a look if you need something to play and you can find it cheap.

Sony Price Cuts?

Here's a little something from GoNintendo:

"Logically, if Sony cuts the price of PS3 to $299, Nintendo may be forced to cut to maintain sufficient price differential versus the PS3 and 360. In other words, hardware sales, while slow now, are about to get a boost in the near-term driven by price cuts." - Sterne Agee analyst Arvind Bhatia

I really don't see things that way. I don't think those looking to buy a Wii are really paying attention to what's going on with 360/PS3 prices. It's a different market, and the core that do follow games already know what's going on…and probably have a Wii by now.

While GoNintendo is obviously pro-Nintendo, I have to disagree with their statement.  The main advantage of a Wii is it's cheap in a bad economy.  Nintendo is already raking in money hand over fist, making almost $60 on each console.

(By the way, $60 x 50 million? 3 billion dollars.  Chew on that number for a bit.)

In other words, if Nintendo dropped their console to, say, $199, they would still have the advantage in price, putting them firmly in the lead and encouraging the fence-sitters to buy.  The only thing they need to do next is allow the Wii to play DVDs or bring streaming video to the States to really land the knockout punch.

Baseball Giggle Of The Day

So, Scott Boras, agent for recent No. 1 draft pick Stephen Strasburg, says that Strasburg is in a 'special class.'  Good for Strasburg!  I also hear he wears a bicycle helmet and drool bib to the mound.

Tried and Failed

Well, I asked my wife if she loved me enough to let me drop about $400 between a PS3 and Rock Band, and the answer was a very firm "No.  Not that much."

Ah well.  I still have my Wii, PC and DS.  I also still have to possibly fix my PC since it keeps rebooting randomly, so I suppose.  Still, Blu-Ray!  MLB The Show!  Ratchet and Clank!

Sigh.

Screw It

I'm trying anyway.  I'm going to run it past her and see what happens.  If I get shot down, at least I tried, right?  Man, I'd love a PS3 something fierce.

PS3 Deal...Oh So Close

I just came oh-so-very-close to getting a PS3.  It was in my shopping cart.  You see, Amazon is offering the PS3 for $349 today.  Combine that with a cheap Rock Band bundle from Gamestop, and I would be all set with a Blu-Ray player and an HD gaming system.

Alas, I couldn't pull the trigger.  I know that if I did pick one up, my wife would eviscerate me.  It would be brutal.  I would be sleeping on the couch for months on end.  It's not even worth trying to convince her.  Ah well.

Game Design: Goal Achievement

You can't throw a 360 controller these days without hitting a new scientific study about video games.  "Gamers are addicted!" says one.  "Gamers aren't addicted!" says another.  "Gamers are psychopathic killers!" says another.  "Gamers are totally normal people!" says yet another.  In all of these studies, no one ever asks the question, "Why?  Why do people play video games?"

It's an odd question to ask.  I mean, why not?  Video games are fun!  That's why we play!  It's so simple!  But why are they fun?  Some people find video games mind-numbingly boring.  Why?  Isn't fun universal?  You have people like this 11-year-old kid who says video games are a waste of time.  We don't feel that it is.  Why would someone say such a thing?  The answers to these questions are fundamental to our understanding of gaming, game design, and the industry in general.

Humans are very goal-oriented.  When you waste an entire day watching TV, you don't feel very well afterwards.  You don't feel like you did anything, right?  Our goals are fairly dynamic as well.  In a few minutes your goal may be to read an article or wash the dishes or sell X amount of sprockets at your job.  We have long-term goals and short-term goals.  The more difficult these goals are, the more inward satisfaction we feel once they're completed.

Video games work on this level.  Each game provides us with artificial goals.  If we're playing Halo, our goal may be to win this multiplayer round.  If you're playing Super Mario Galaxy, your goal may be to get to 90 stars.  If you're playing World of Warcraft, your goal may be to use that shiny new bow that's sitting in your inventory.  When we reach these goals, we feel satisfied, secure in the knowledge that we did something.

Now, are these goals necessarily noteworthy?  No, not really.  I mean, in the grand scheme of things, winning a Counterstrike match isn't going to change the world.  There's still a sense of pride that fills us when we do these things.  Why?  Because it fulfills a basic human need, a need to get things done.

This can explain many things.  For instance, why are Diablo and its variants so addicting?  Is it because of the awesome storyline?  No, it's because it continues setting goals in front of you.  They'll give you an awesome new weapon that you can only use once you achieve level X.  You want to achieve that level to use the weapon, and once you do, you feel contented.  However, Diablo doesn't stop there.  It's already given you another weapon or piece of armor that you need to work towards.  It's constantly setting easily attainable goals in front of you and letting you accomplish them.  MMOs do this as well, which explains why they're so very, very popular.

There are two sides to this coin.  When a task is too easy, we don't feel like we've accomplished anything.  I'm playing The Legendary Starfy right now, and I'm bored out of my mind.  It's decent, but it's not difficult at all.  I'm plowing through it easily, and I haven't felt like I've accomplished anything yet.  Conversely, when a task is too difficult or too obscure, accomplishment gets stymied.  We stop playing.  This is why we don't like backtracking and wandering aimlessly.  This is why we like to have current quests waiting for us.  If we don't, we feel like we haven't done anything, haven't accomplished anything, haven't gone anywhere.  It's not satisfying.

This is also why most casual games aren't as bad as you'd think.  Games like Peggle or Wii Fit help someone set goals and achieve them, just like a normal game.  A game like Wii Music is comparatively a flop for the same reason:  There's no goal.  There's nothing to achieve.  You cannot improve with the game.  It rightfully can be called a failure in game design.

This also explains the explosion in motion controls.  Motion controls work because they take away one of the barriers to goal achievement, that pesky little controller.  Now, all someone has to do is mimic the movement that they would do naturally and they're able to achieve a goal.  Natal hopes to further cut down on that barrier to goal achievement.

There's more to this, though.  Consider:  Since we all have this basic need to accomplish tasks, and video games provide us with an artificial sense of accomplishment, what does that mean for our psychological health?  Does that mean that we feel more accomplished than other non-gamers?  Does that mean that we might not try as hard in other facets of our life?  Or do we have a higher self-image that other groups?  Do we become accustomed to achievement so often that we search for it in other parts of our life?

These are all questions for greater minds than mine.  Still, recognizing this truth helps us to understand why certain games and technologies work and others don't.  We understand why we shouldn't fear most casual games.  It also helps us to understand a little bit more about ourselves and why we play.

Why Do I Talk About Nintendo So Much?

It occurred to me that I talk about Nintendo a lot.  I mean, a lot a lot.  One might assume that I was a Nintendo fanboy.  I can see why someone would say that.  I mean, I just spent days in a row defending Nintendo, and I frequently blather about why they do such good work.

It's a shame that this journal wasn't more active during the last generation.  During the last generation, I was in a heated debate over whether Sony or Nintendo had the better system with a very opinionated ex-friend.  He was of the opinion that Nintendo had better everything, but that the gaming public was too dumb to understand it.  I was of the opinion that Sony made the right decisions, and while their hardware wasn't the most reliable, they had the best games and were therefore the best system.

To this day, he still insists that the battle was far closer than the final results show.  To that, I respond that the Gamecube sold only 20 million units to the PS2's 150 million.  To put that into sports terms, if a baseball team lost 15-2, you would say it was a pretty lopsided victory.  You might even use the term "trounced."  If a football team lost 45-6, you would call it a blowout.  It wouldn't even be worth debating.  Sony sold 7.5 times the units that Nintendo did.  It wasn't even close.

I enjoy raking Nintendo over the coals for their past dumb decisions, like sticking with cartridges when the entire console world was moving to discs or stubbornly pushing "connectivity" instead of getting online like the rest of the world.  Nintendo's last generation was layered with bad decisions, starting mostly with the games.

Super Mario Sunshine, as I've said before, is blah.  Mario Kart: Double Dash isn't nearly as interesting as it tries to be.  Eternal Darkness wasn't marketed well and had awful box art to boot.  And Pikmin?  Oh, poor, sweet Pikmin.  I refuse to pick up your misguided game, and do you know why, dear Pikmin?  Because I REFUSE TO PLAY A TIMED GAME.  It doesn't matter how good you are, you're a timed game.  Go home and think about what you've done.  Oh, and please release the Pikmin 2 remake for the Wii.  Thanks.

That's not to say there weren't successes.  Smash Bros. Melee was the highest seller, and the Metroid Prime series did okay too.  Zelda: Wind Waker was good too, and sold a lot of copies.  But when you're trying to push the quality of your games as the reason to purchase your platform and you have nothing to show for it, your argument rings rather hollow.

Now, of course, the same ex-friend who at one time was willing to lay down his life for Nintendo now claims that they've abandoned the hardcore audience and that he hopes that they curl up and die for all the grievous mistakes they've made.  But Nintendo is merely doing the opposite of what led them to failure.

Consider:  The Gamecube made the most overtures to the hardcore audience of any Nintendo system.  They released first-party M-rated games.  The Cube was loaded with shooters.  The N64 saw shooters like Goldeneye, Conker's Bad Fur Day and Perfect Dark.  What did Nintendo get for their trouble?  A big, fat goose egg in the win column.

Meanwhile, the systems that had the biggest casual reach were the most successful, like the Game Boy and Game Boy Advance, and going all the way back to the NES and Super NES.  So, if you were Nintendo, what would you do?  Stick with what's making you fail, or go back to what works?

Even with this supposed casual reach on the Wii, it's amazing what games have come out.  Twilight Princess is as insular and fan-friendly as a Zelda game gets.  Metroid Prime 3 came out, and Smash Bros. Brawl is the very definition of "fan service."  Also, as I've stated before, I'm prepared to call Super Mario Galaxy one of the best games of all time once a little time passes and some historical perspective can be put on it.

In other words, while the second half of last year was deader than the Washington Nationals' playoff hopes or Jay Leno's monologues, there were enough quality games in the time up to that point to make for a quality library.  This year is proving to be excellent as well, with the capable Excitebots and excellent Punchout!!! out, and a pile of second-half releases that all look good, including New Super Mario Bros. Wii.

The next reason I blather about Nintendo is because this generation they found their hook, the reason to buy their system instead of the others.  In the N64 era, that hook was four controllers.  The PS1 had games that could be marked down because of the cheaper cost of disc duplication.  The PS2 had DVD playback built right into the system.  The XBox had online play.  The Gamecube had...what now?  A mildly powerful system that did nothing that the other systems did?  Oh.

In this generation, Nintendo has motion controls.  It was the hook that got them into houses.  Now, just as other systems did in the past, Nintendo must find a way to work past that hook and become more established.  Will they?  Maybe.  The game's they've announced are showing that they're at least trying to accomplish that.

So, in conclusion, I'm now in a unique position.  I'm excoriating the company that I used to stand behind and standing behind the company that I excoriated.  It's not because I'm fickle or a fanboy.  It's because the only way we can learn how to succeed is by learning from successes and not pretending that a failure is a win.

Wait, So....

If Infinity Ward makes a new Call of Duty game every year, it's awesome.  If Microsoft puts out a new Halo FPS, it's a great announcement.  If Konami keeps milking the Metal Gear franchise, it's phenomenal.  If Square Enix puts out fourteen Final Fantasy games, they're amazing.  If Nintendo makes ONE new game based on one of the best games ever, they're spinning their wheels and sounding their death knell.  Gotcha.

I can understand cinephiles and audiophiles.  Their appreciation is for tender French movies based on childhood experiences, or for Charlie Parker jazz solos.  But I can't understand the snobbishness of hardcore gamers.  You like games about gore, tits and explosions.  You don't have the right to look down your noses at other fare.

(E3) Why Nintendo's Conference Was Good

I'm surprised by the reaction of gaming journalists to the three major E3 conferences.  Between Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft, most say that Nintendo's presentation was the weakest.  This strikes me as odd.  Nintendo is in an entirely different position than the other two companies, so their conference was different as well.

Microsoft and Sony are still fighting to get people to buy their equipment.  For instance, Microsoft has now announced that they're planning a ten-year console cycle, the same as Sony.  Why would they do this?  It's because they want developers to know that this new tech that they're demoing will be around for a while so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE start developing for it.  They're letting consumers know that they won't have to replace their systems so soon so BUY OURS PLEASE.

Nintendo doesn't have to fight for gaming space anymore.  They have their base of fifty million systems that are out in the wild.  They now have to get people to buy more games for the Wii.  That was the focus of their presentation, and they handled it well.  They simply had a different objective than the other companies.

People are pointing to the new motion controls on other systems as Nintendo's undoing.  Some now sneer at Nintendo's MotionPlus, saying that Nintendo now has the most expensive and least elegant motion solution.  That's not really the case.  Nintendo has already sold those Wiis.  They only need to convince people to drop $50 for two MotionPluses.  Microsoft and Sony have to convince people to buy the whole system yet, and we still don't know how much Natal or Sony's motion controls will cost.

Besides, who do motion controls appeal the most to?  Hardcore gamers?  Listen to them complain every time the Wii makes them move.  The people who are most enamored with motion controls are the casual gamers.  They're the ones who want to pretend that they're really swinging a tennis racket or rolling a bowling ball.  Here's the dirty little secret:  They've done it already.  ON THE WII.

Now, I'm not knocking any of the new motion solutions.  The Natal tech is amazing, and Sony's controls work better than Nintendo's.  They would be fantastic if and only if they were first to market.  As it is, Nintendo beat them to it, so they didn't have to push hardware revisions at E3 or new tech.  They just have to convince those that have their console to buy more things with the console.  They handled that objective admirably.

(E3) Curb Your Enthusiasm: Nintendo Edition

Nintendo's press conference yesterday made me all kinds of giddy.  As you can see by my previous posts, I was practically ready to call this generation for Nintendo and move on.  However, I thought it would be a good idea to temper this unbridled enthusiasm with some dark truths.  Anyone who doesn't like cynicism should look the other way for a bit.

Metroid: Other M

The new Metroid trailer looks awesome, right?  Did you see where Samus holds down the monster and shoots him in the head?  AWESOME!  Still, a few things are sticking in my craw.

Samus has been slowly moving from internal character to external character.  That's okay.  We learned a little about Adam Malkovich in Fusion, and we know that the Galactic Empire is mad at her.  We get that there's more to the Space Pirates and Mother Brain that we haven't been told yet, and we want to know that.  Here's the thing:  This is a pretty jarring transition from all appearances.  We're learning waaaay more about Samus than we ever have.

We're also running a major risk in introducing new characters.  The key with Metroid games has always been isolation.  You're all alone on an alien planet, and you must get stronger, defeat your enemies, and make it out alive.  If you add in a wisecracking buddy or chatty enemies, it ruins that feeling of solitude.

Now, I'm not saying that Team Ninja is going to ruin that feeling.  They're working pretty closely with R&D1, so they shouldn't.  Still, it's a major concern.

New Super Mario Bros. Wii

Sidescrolling Mario games are awesome, right?  So it stands to reason that four-player Mario would be awesome too, right?

Here's the problem:  New Super Mario Bros. for the DS wasn't made by Nintendo's A-team, and it shows.  The level design was never as clever as it pretended to be.  There were lots of neat ideas, but it wasn't very cohesive as a total.  The bosses were too easy.  The new Koopa Troopa suit was frustrating to use.

It very well could be that this new game is made by Nintendo's A-team.  It certainly seems that way, and we can hope.  Still, these games live and die on their level design, and the DS version didn't give me enough to believe that they can pull something great out of their hat.

Zelda: Spirit Tracks

Zelda games are always great, right?

Well, the last one, Phantom Hourglass, is much-loved.  It's also home to the Temple of the Ocean King, the single worst thing to happen to Zelda games since EVER.  It was like Nintendo forgot everything they ever learned about game design in one brief, blundering moment of stupidity.

Will they repeat the same mistake?  Or will Nintendo learn from their mistakes and continue making excellent games?

Super Mario Galaxy 2

Super Mario Galaxy was the best Mario game since the 16-bit era.  A sequel HAS to be good, right?

Maybe.  Galaxy 2 will hopefully be full of cool new things to do and see.  At least 90% new.  That, right there, is what has me worried.  Do they mean that 90% of the levels are new?  If that's the case, why aren't 100% new?  I don't want to play a rehash of Galaxy's Greatest Hits.  If they reuse levels, they better have a darn good reason for it.

Instead, do they mean that 90% of the gameplay techniques are new?  Okay, that sounds a little better, but Galaxy was brilliant.  Does it really need that much changing?  To put it another way, how much of Galaxy have they changed?  Too much or not enough?

---

To be fair, most of this doomsaying probably won't come true, but I'm finding that it's a good idea to temper expectations instead of getting too excited.  I'll be first in line for most of these, but there always needs to be the little voice in the back of your head telling you that the game is going to suck so that it can (hopefully) be quieted.

(E3) Console Conference Rundown

Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony all made their pitches to the gaming public within the last couple of days.  How did each one fare?

Microsoft's show was an intriguing one.  They demonstrated what's possible with Project Natal: controller-less gaming in HD.  I mention the HD part of it because whatever Nintendo does going forward, that's still the trump card for both major competitors.  I suspect that once Project Natal starts getting demoed, it'll gain traction among the casual crowd.  It's just too cool not to, frankly.

While Halo isn't really my thing, Halo: ODST looks good, Alan Wake was demoed, Metal Gear Solid was showed off, and Final Fantasy XIII has a firmer release date.  All-around, some good things shown off.  While the games weren't revolutionary, I would give Microsoft's show an B, if only for Natal.  It has the potential to revolutionize gaming or to be a giant flop, but at least they're trying for something new instead of mimicking the wand technology.

Nintendo's show was all about the games, and they delivered.  After a lackluster 2008, Nintendo came roaring back with several big reveals for the Wii.  New Super Mario Bros. this year, Metroid: Another M, Sin & Punishment 2, and, above all, Super Mario Galaxy 2.  That alone made me wet my pants.  I don't know about you, but when I saw that the "big Mario reveal" was New Super Mario Bros., I was a little disappointed.  I liked NSMB all right, but it wasn't what I was hoping for.  Galaxy 2 made my day.

That was just the Wii side.  The DS has more great stuff coming out this year yet, like Spirit Tracks and Mario & Luigi.  If games are what make a system, the Wii and DS are ready to go.  I will admit to disappointment at not seeing a new Kid Icarus or Kirby game, but what they gave us was more than enough.  Definitely an A.

That brings us to Sony.  I was expecting to be thoroughly bored during the Sony conference and not to see a lot of exciting new stuff.  I was wrong.  ModNation Racers has a cool, LittleBigPlanet vibe to it.  Assassin's Creed II looks awesome.  God of War III looks nice.  Sony had a lot of leaks before the show, so things like the PSP Go! and the new Metal Gear Solid game were already out there.  Of course they demoed Final Fantasy XIII, but the shocker was the announcement of the online-only, PS3 exclusive Final Fantasy XIV.  Didn't see that coming.

Of course, Sony has its own attempt at motion controls as well.  I thought that they would try and ape the success that Nintendo has had with the Wii, and the tech looks good.  The problem comes down to price, once again.  How can Sony compete when they're telling customers to shell out upwards of $500 for the system, these wands and games as well?  It's crazy talk.

Still, Sony's conference deserves kudos for acknowledging the leaks and providing things that we didn't expect.  As much as it pains me to say it, Sony's conference was as good as Nintendo's.  The only thing missing was a price drop. Grade A stuff.

(E3) SWOON

So we have New Super Mario Bros. for the Wii, we have a new Metroid game, Golden Sun DS, AND Super Mario Galaxy 2?  Nintendo's back, baby!

I can't help but feel a little snobbish after this presentation.  I mean, how much more can they do?  They're giving everyone exactly what they want.  This year is going to be STACKED.  I'll break it down a different day.  Now, to gloat.

(E3) WANT

Beatles Rock Band trailer.

(E3) Project Natal Looks Cool

With E3 upon us, I thought I'd give my thoughts on what we're seeing so far.

First, if I were Nintendo, I would be a little nervous about Project Natal.  It's a cool new platform for games.  No controller?  Sounds neat.

However, it's important to remember specifically why Nintendo is ahead.  Let's say you get a 360, then you get Natal.  How much money are you spending?  We don't know yet, but let's guess that it's about $350.  Let's say you buy a Wii and get the Wii Play bundle.  You're sitting at $300 AND you can play every game in the Nintendo library with the equipment you have.  Not so with Natal.  Not every game is Natal-ready.  Heck, pick up two MotionPlus addons and you're at about $350 WITH a pile of extra games.  I really wish Microsoft the best, and I'm excited to see what Natal will bring to the table.  Still, I don't see it supplanting the Wii anytime soon.

However, let's chew on these numbers for a moment.  In the last generation, the PS2 was the clear winner with 140 million units sold, with the XBox sitting at 30 mil and the Gamecube pulling up the rear with 20.  (To put that in perspective, the PS3, which is widely considered a misttep by Sony, has ALREADY sold more units than the Gamecube did.)  In other words, the PS2 sold over 4.5 times the units of its nearest competitor, and 2.8 times the units of both other consoles combined.

The Wii has so far sold 50 million units, but the 360 is sitting at about 30 mil and the PS3 at 20 million.  The Wii has a strong lead, but it's not insurmountable.  I think Nintendo knows it, so we'll see what they bring to the table tomorrow.  I'll be watching.

It better not be Wii Music 2, or me and Nintendo are done professionally.