Weekend Confirmed Episode 43

Great show guys!

Garnett, you asked for ideas on the future of shooters, and what developers can do other than follow the current popular model.

I actually think that Shooters as a genre are actually enjoying a time of great diversity, with lots of truly top-tier games that take very different approaches to game design.

I'm assuming that by "popular model" you're reffering to Modern Warfare. That being the case, I actually don't think shooters are in much of a rut. I see lots of great shooters that are not simply copying Modern Warfare's formula. In fact, most of the truly successful shooter franchises do unique things with the genre. Halo, Gears of War, Bad Company, Crisis, Killzone, Call of Duty.... they all do their own things with the genre. Even Mass Effect could now be included in the genre, or at least as a title that shooter fans will enjoy. Modern Warfare has been such a massive success that we are bound to get a steady flow of copy-cats, but that's true of any gaming benchmark. A few years later, the copycats won't be remembered.

However, that doesn't mean that I don't have ideas of where I want shooters to go in the future :)
I'm very curious to see what Bungie is planning with their next game. We've seen them innovate with the Halo series by way of taking a fantastic core-shooter mechanic, then giving the players a bunch of different ways to enjoy the game engine. What if Bungie's next title takes all the seperate elements they have developed with the Halo Series (Sanbox combat, adanced AI, Theatre mode, Forge, Co-op, competative multiplayer, custom game creation, etc) and finds a way to bring all these isolated experiences together in a more connected way?

I'm a college Student at Occidental College in LA, and I would be 100% down for driving out to a live show. Please do it!

I'm sorry but Garnetts alternate ending sounds 100 times more cheesy than the actual ending lol. Everyone running around powered up? Please god no.

Ran across an interesting book that might make a good discussion on a future show!
Jane McGonigal’s Reality is Broken: Why Games Make us Better and How they Can Change the World looks interesting. I'm not familiar with any of the author's previous work, but the review I saw on Wired piqued my interest.
According to the article, McGonigal argues that games shouldn't be looked at as escapist pursuits, but as a source for isolating areas in the real world that need improvement - and that games can be used to enhance reality and make the world a somewhat happier place to be.

Has anyone else run into McGonigal's work before? Anyone planning to read this one?

So Square thought we'd rather FFXIII-2 with those same bad characters over a proper Kingdom Hearts 3. Are Japanese game companies run by idiots or am I mis reading message what every fan has demanded since the end of Kingdom Hearts 3

I'm very disappointed that Brian Leahy has left Shacknews. I feel like he was the person on the podcast that really 'got' the hardcore gamer mindset.

Garnett and Jeff are very good at what they do but I see them as 'story game' guys.

ps. Please for the love of god stop going on about WoW. People that want to listen to people talking about WoW listen to dedicated WoW podcasts, not Weekend Confirmed. I quit that game in order to introduce some variety to my gaming.

I really loved the ending of HALO REACH, even though I feel as though it highlighted all of the narratives shortcomings. I guess you can say I liked it more on a conceptual level. I never agreed with Bungie's idea to not characterize their protagonist in favor of letting gamers "project" themselves onto them. It always ends up doing more harm than good.

If REACH would have really built up the character of Six then the ending of the game would have been a lot stronger. It's a testament to the game's set pieces and what little of the narrative and characterization there is that the ending still came off as strong as it did. I would love to see the Halo universe done properly in the cinema space. I wouldn't mind taking that challenge.

Great podcast once again guys!

I'll miss Brian. He was the hardcore PC gamer of this podcast. Someone needs to fill in the role asap. We already have a lot of console-oriented gaming podcasts out there. Best of luck in your future endeavours mister Leahy.

Guys I gotta disagree with your assertion that reviews were all "just someones opinion. That in may ways is true. However certain things are not opinions. Such as plot holes, characters behaving in ways human beings don't actual behave, glitches, bugs, long load times, crashing your system when you run it, screen tearing, low polygons, and the controls literally being awkward enough to cause discomfort. Things like these are inherent truths of the game. You may say in your review that despite these flaws "this this and this" make its still good. Which would be a matter of opinion. However there are certain criticisms that are technical so neglecting these is not a matter of opinion. If you wrote a review of New Vegas and gave it a good score and ignored all these issues it would be dishonest. If you said it was still great despite technical difficulties then that would be honest and your opinion. I think most of reviews is a matter of opinion but I think you should be careful to not get carried away with making everything subjective.

Secondly. For niche games I personally don't bother reading mainstream sites. I usually see no point at these reviews as the reviewers all ready go into ti disliking it. So its unlikely they will overcome their personal bias and give it a fair shake. You can say if a game is good it should be able to make people overcome their bias against said genre. However, that is of course ridiculous because it ignores human nature. People are defined by their biases and no matter how hard they try they can never be completely objective.

Love the show. As a big Planet Gamecube & NWR fan glad Billy is on.

im not quite sure where to give song suggestions so i thought that here would be as good as any.
http://soundcloud.com/aamusic
thats their link on sound cloud but you can also check them out on facebook and twitter as well as youtube at Auditur and Auditus. They are just two guys who make some surprisingly good music. i personally would suggest listening to submariner, kids like drugs and serious delirium.
Cheers,

On the subject of shooters, there is ABSOLUTELY an opportunity for developers and publishers to compete with the big dogs and still use their own, original formula. It just has to be a good idea, executed well, and released at the right time.

Let's face it, the current formula we're all talking about is basically the Call of Duty formula. Fight, earn experience, unlock new weapons, perks, and toys to play with, and use those to create a class suited to your play-style. Mix in a few challenges for extra XP and bragging rights.

What people seem to be forgetting is that this now-established, dominant formula has only been around for about 3 years in the popular game space. CoD4 brought it about in 2007, back when another formula, the HALO formula, was thought to be an untouchable standard.

CoD4 wasn't THAT huge compared to the CoD titles released now, it actually came in kind of under the radar of the Halo 3 hype train. I'd argue that people were getting a little tired of Halo by the time Halo 3 came out, or at least didn't feel Halo 3 evolved the franchise enough to warrant buying a new console for it. CoD4 came at the right time - it offered something new, fresh, and with just as much accessibility as Halo.

Somebody, eventually, will come up with the formula that kocks the CoD model off it's perch, or at least battles with it. I'm personally eager to see what DICE has in store for Battlefield 3.

Regarding being addicted to game-buying. I am guilty of being addicted to purchasing games, but I never every purchase full-price games (mostly because a 60 USD game where I live (Sweden) costs about 105 USD. The reason for the insane prices can be discussed for any length of time (greed, VAT, exchange rates, etc), but I think that what is more important regarding purchasing full-price games is if you are the intended audience or not.

My brothers (15 and 21 years old) usually buy full-price games since they want to play the latest games, the same games their friends play. I on the other hand is 30 years old, married with children does not have that much time for gaming. Which means I am generally behind the curve (I can finish about 3-5 full games a year) which means that I don't feel that I can wait for when they are used games with a decent price tag.

Garnett - You asked how you should approach LBP2 (and while I'm sure you already have) I want to say a piece on that. It seems like a lot of the enthusiast press goes into these experiences with the past entries in their mind, and it seems to become the dominant theme in the review process. Instead, I think each new entry into a franchise should be reviewed on it's own as a stand alone product, and after that it done, THEN compare it to it's predecessor. Too often reviews get caught up in "well it wasn't like this last year" (good or bad) instead of looking at what the game might have to offer that's new, be it bad or good.

Granted, there are instances where a game should most certainly be faulted if it doesn't deviate from the formula, but in the end, I think it's best for the majority of games to approach them individually, sequel or not.

Also, this is reaching a few weeks back, but Child of Eden can be done on Move in the exact same manner as Kinect, using your whole body, etc. I think you should take some time to go to Jeff's place and try the Beat Sketcher demo (only so you can see how it would work with Child of Eden). It would no doubt be the superior of the two, you still get the motion and movement, while retaining 100% accuracy and responsiveness.

Garnett you asked for us to comment on whether you thought shooters have to stick to a formula to be successful. I would say absolutely.
My examples would be Rogue Squadron and Dark Void both of which approached the subject of gameplay in a new fun way.
Rogue Squadron which was for PS2 was the first game I ever played that had shooting out of cover in a spray method instead of just standing behind a box. It also gave you powers by downloading chips of your fallen clone fellow soldiers.
Dark Void was a shooter but also had the awesome flying that the team was known for in crimson skies. You could switch between either mechanic and it was awesome. They also added a cover mechanic where you could leap from one spot to the other. This was best utilized in going up or down a column and using your jet pack for a boost.
These two games are both innovative and did not stick to the recipe for shooters at the time they came out. Although both suffered from budget looking graphics the gameplay was more than fun enough to make up for it. Alas they both failed.

Garnett you asked for us to comment on whether you thought shooters have to stick to a formula to be successful. I would say absolutely.
My examples would be Rogue Squadron and Dark Void both of which approached the subject of gameplay in a new fun way.
Rogue Squadron which was for PS2 was the first game I ever played that had shooting out of cover in a spray method instead of just standing behind a box. It also gave you powers by downloading chips of your fallen clone fellow soldiers.
Dark Void was a shooter but also had the awesome flying that the team was known for in crimson skies. You could switch between either mechanic and it was awesome. They also added a cover mechanic where you could leap from one spot to the other. This was best utilized in going up or down a column and using your jet pack for a boost.
These two games are both innovative and did not stick to the recipe for shooters at the time they came out. Although both suffered from budget looking graphics the gameplay was more than fun enough to make up for it. Alas they both failed.

I'm just going to put it out there. Not nice to talk negatively about the recently departed, but Leahy was a douche. I liked him at first, he spoke knowledgeably, but then I noticed that he had contempt and a dismissive tone in his voice at all times. He increasingly drove me nuts, and I almost stopped listening. It wasn't even so much his tone, as the superiority and arrogance than shined through. Never ONCE, in any argument on the air, in the year I've been listening, did he ever say "Hmm, yeah I guess I see your point", or anything to that effect, or give an inch to the other side of an argument. Nor did he show any joy. He didn't even laugh, except when he was chuckling to belittle something.

IT'S GAMES COVERAGE. GAMES ARE FUN. SHOW SOME ENTHUSIASM!

Leahy may be a smart dude, but when you're negative 99% of the time, and your entire demeanor is one of "psshaw, whatever, you're stupid" it doesn't matter how smart you are, it's still a downer.

Jeff, for the proposed new song, do you mind not using the Lords name in vain for it? I am a more religious person and know that people will say what they will on the show, but saying that as a regular segment of the show will make me uncomfortable. And I've always enjoyed the singing parts of the show.

On pigeonholing of FPS design:
I find this question somewhat amusing because its basically a continuation of the trend that brought the FPS to such prominence in the first place. FPSes were doing well, so more and more developers began making FPSes. Then Infinity Ward hit on a FPS formula that does better than others, and now everyone is copying that. However, with each one of these steps, the room for innovation grows smaller. Given the incredible amount of FPSes currently in production, eventually the pace of innovation will slow down to the point that people will grow tired of the "perfected" formula, and then the masses will pick another type of game to make into a mega-hit.

I'm going to use this question to go to a more conceptual level and ask whether gamers and game journalists have a duty to challenge developers and publishers on gameplay diversity. What is currently happening in the FPS genre demonstrates a process of homogenization in gameplay mechanics and design. Another example is the Mass Effectization of Dragon Age 2. This process had led to a discarding of gameplay mechanics which are still (I believe) perfectly valid, yet nobody seems to be challenging this process of gameplay homogenization. I don't think any of us are comfortable with the idea of a one-FPS future (a bit of an exaggeration there, I suppose), but will gameplay diversity in triple-A titles be so easy to reclaim after throwing it by the wayside? Do we need to protect "endangered genres"?

Have you guys completely forgotten about EverQuest II? It's about to launch it's 7th expansion, has a free-to-play model, a successful RTM store and a TCG associated with it. It's certainly more successful than a lot of the other MMOs you guys mention on the show.

Since apparently everyone on this podcast has horrible taste in Final Fantasy, I thought I'd point out that FFIX has the best cast of characters of the "modern" run. Like as in its not even a contest. Zidane, Garnet, Steiner, Freya and Vivi are best characters the series has produced in the last 10-15 years. Like as in, its not even a contest. They're actually personable characters, and not just bland archetypes.

You guys seemed to have totally forgotten the sequence after the Lezarevic boss fight where you run out of the crumbling Shambala ruins, and then have to shoot the enemies off of Chloe while you'd sliding down a collapsed bridge.

There's no way you can give props to the ending sequences of Halo 1 and 3 and then turn around and crap on Uncharted 2's ending when it does the exact same thing only in a more intense and striking fashion...

http://au.xbox360.ign.com/articles/114/1144550p1.html

Epic has just filed a trademark for "Gears of War: Exile". Is this the Kinect Gears that was meant to be announced, a prequel to the trilogy a spin-off focussing on different characters, a mixture of two of these or something completely different?

While I'm intrigued as to how a Kinect-enabled Gears would work, I'm not entirely sure it would be a compelling interactive experience, then again, I've been wrong about Kinect before. If it's not the Kinect Gears, I'm hoping for a revamp of the series focussing on different personalities in the Gears universe. Less meathead and more character driven stories. It's nice to want things, i know.

Show Notes:

Man, I was bummed about Brian's sudden departure. I started listening for Jeff, who I had a big fanboy crush on, but then he let me down over and over again disagreeing with anything I posted or giving up on games I thought we might have in common (Epic Mickey). And then it turned out that Brian, who I had nothing in common with was the voice of reason for me on the show.

Granted, I was turned off by his droll tone but you really can't judge a person by things they can't change. Who knows if that's Brian's personality?

Garnett, you rock at reading the news and you're so much better than Brian in this regard since he seemed to be doing it begrudgingly. It only makes sense the host would do this and let the other two-three chairs comment. Plus you have the enthusiasm and skill to phrase the news as ideas to discuss.

Can't wait to see who you get to permanently fill the third seat---I like Billy but agree you need a min/max gamer to fill the void that Brian has left---so that the show is on a more even keel.

Re: Game Endings

New Super Mario Bros., ironically this throw back does mix up the boss formula for the end. Spoilers when you get to Bowser at the end they make it seem like you will battle him as normal, but after you defeat him he grows to giant size and you have to run from him. In fact you have to bait him into breathing fire on certain obstacles so you can pass.

I think that games can come up with new climaxes other than fight a giant guy at the end, especially in platformers the idea of escaping a crumbling structure and leaving the antagonist trapped inside works well, especially if the characters are not intended to be superhuman.

On Uncharted 3 I think Garnett over thought the new ending. Instead I would just have Drake barely beat him to the sap, have him flip out ignite it since he can't have it all to himself and then you have to escape while he chases you shooting at you with a grenade launcher. You can shoot back to slow him, but you loose speed aiming. A nice climax where the bad guy's greed is his undoing.

Nobody here has been playing 999: Nine Hours, Nine Doors, Nine Persons for the DS have they? I finished it and think it was one of the best stories in a game in 2010. Another adventure game (visual novel really), I imagine it's a good companion game to Ghost Trick.

I think 'bosses' are important in terms of offering players characters to defeat. Part of the reason I found Mass Effect to be a more rewarding story than Mass Effect 2 was because Saren provided this tangible enemy to focus on, instead of 'oh, this weird race and the Reapers...probably'. I don't even remember the boss fight with Saren to be honest, but I remember wanting to beat him.

For me, the most satisfying boss fights I can remember were in the original Soul Reaver. Each of those bosses were Raziel's former friends, who stood idly by while Kain maimed him. I hated all of them and wanted to make them pay. In the time Raziel had been gone, they had all evolved into monstrosities, far too big and powerful for Raziel to simply fight.

So they were basically designed as puzzles, where players had to use the environment against them. It's been done since, but never as well IMO. It didn't feel hackneyed or repeditive or boring, each one was it's one unique, satisfying challenge.

About game reviews and buying games. What happen if money is not a factor.

I don't care about game reviews, I've played games for more than 20 years now, at this point I just try anything. I love gaming podcast more than anything else because allows me to discover new games and opinions in what I think is the best way, talking. When you read a review you often get one opinion but when talking people tend to challenge that opinion and I get more from that than anything else.

But I don't what to talk about that, I want to talk about what happen when money is not the deciding factor. I live in Argentina and here buying games (or software for that matter) is extremely rare. Piracy is rampant down here and is not because is cheaper, it become a cultural thing, you don't buy software, software is -in everybody's mind- free. Of curse there are people like me that still buy games, but we are few and far away to matter.

But I don't want to talk about piracy (or our particular situation), want I want to talk about is what happen when money is not a deciding factor about gaming. Do people still care about reviews? Do people still assign the same value to a game even if it is free? The short answer is yes, they do, they care about reviews, they value the game even if they won't pay for it, and if they value the game a lot they will buy it as a reward for the developer (this is the best you could say about a game here, is the game sells well here is because a lot of people just love the game).
But people doesn't care too much is about length, we don't have the discussion if you're going to pay for a 10 or a 30 hours game because most people won't pay either, a good game is a good game even if it is a three hours game.
Discovery is a different process too, because we don't have retail outlets (there are, but they are poor managed and sparse) we won't have the release of the month but what people is talking about. And we don't have ads about games (Nintendo is the only company that sometimes appear on TV) See the Halo case, Halo was never a big hit here, the 360 was never launch here and now the time pass and new games are coming, a new Halo game will be just the new installment on a series that no one talks about, why play it?
Internet changes things a lot, now we see what's big up there and we want it, but ultimately what people will get is what they see on their friends houses, or what they hear someone talking about. A deciding factor is not a review, not how much it costs, not it's length, is what people say about it.

My love-hate relationship with WoW

I love WoW, and I love it because I enjoy the experience to be in that universe. I love Warcraft's lore and that's the only reason I keep playing the game. But I don't like the endgame, I hate the grinding and having to work dungeons over and over in order to experience the raids. I want to kill the Lich King because I feel bad about him since he kill his dad. I was invested in his story since Warcraft III and I don't have the time to do grind gear in order to defeat him. I enjoy a challenge but this is not challenge, it's a time sink. I would love to have a new difficult level for raids, for people like me that just want to experience the lore, don't give me any gear, I don't care, I just want to experience the raid.

Blizzard, give me casual raids (with random groups) and I will love you even more. And love, you know, is the most important thing in this world.

On the podcast it was mentioned that people shouldn't feel guilty about not supporting a game company during the talk about buying to many games. It made me think of this question.

You have 60$ and two choices in games, Call of Duty: Black Ops and Little Big Planet 2. The catch is, if you choose LBP 2, you hand the money directly to Alex Evans, co-founder of Media Molecule, but if you choose COD BLOPS you have to hand the money to Bobby Kotick, the controversial CEO, president, and a director of Activision Blizzard.

Seems like an easy choice to me, what do you think?

One of the best game endings I've ever experiences was...Lost Odyssey. The way the game allows the immortals to learn skills from Mortals throughout the game only to force the player to rely on the leveled immortal is fantastic. Forcing that dynamic upon you during the endgame is awesome. Then, the sense of surprise and awe at the climatic confrontation and the proposed resolution left me broken yet yearning for more.

Boss fights have to fit but I will say this...if Mass Effect 3 has a similar ending to Mass Effect 2, I'll be highly disappointed. I think the final confrontation in ME3 may delve into simple RTS territory based on the alliances Shepherd built through the first two games. If that's the case, I think it would work better than the final boss confrontation is Mass Effect 2.

To everyone out there who buys games they never play, or collects games simply to store them on a shelf, I'd suggest you checkout some local charities that could put those games to use.

I know we all like to have 'stuff' and I'm not suggesting you shouldn't get to keep whatever you want to keep, but have a conversation with those people, understand what those games could do for someone like a sick kid, and then decide if you'd rather have them on your shelf or give them away.

Garnett, please stop talking about WoW.

This has been bugging me over the past few episodes, but I think if you're going to keep it up, it has to be said. You don't know what you're talking about.

Now I don't mean to mount a fanboy-esque defense of the game, or try to convince you that you're wrong about your opinions, but you are out of your depth. The "12 million people can't be wrong" defense can be a bit flaky, but in this case, 12 million people know way more about the game than you do. And to them, you sound like someone who plays Farmville debating Starcraft 2 race balances with someone like Leahy. There are WoW podcasts that pull in more listeners than your show every week, where people sit around talking about minutia of mechanics, and while that may be considered a niche audience, it is a fairly large one.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and you may argue you have the experience to justify shouting yours from the rooftops. I won't proselytize you on an experience you are just not interested in. But when you make snyde reductive comments about a game you haven't really played in 5-6 years, that some would say you never truly experienced it's potential even back then, it sounds silly. You throw a temper tantrum, and never let any of your co-hosts complete what they're saying without interjecting.

The fact that you think level 15 is an accomplishment in this game is crazy in itself. I appreciate you dedicated some time to give it a shot, but if you want to honestly say that you have had enough to make an educated analysis I have to disagree. Earlier today I played to level 15 with a fresh character, on a fresh realm, with no support structure or BoA heirlooms to grant me bonus experience. I ran through quests I had never done before, spent my time reading through them and leveling professions, and I was half way through level 15 in 4 hours of play time.

I've never been a fan of the argument that you need to dedicate a ton of time to a game you're not enjoying to reach the true experience. FF17 sounds like a terrible game to me, and every apologist that claimed you had to make it through 30 hours of a linear tutorial to reach the good part made me shake my head. But 4 hours in an MMORPG, is nowhere near enough to justify the attitude you deploy against WoW. You make second-hand reductive comments about the end-game you've never played. You claim the game is nothing but just mashing keys, when it has about 20 times as many actions available as the average console action game, and manages to balance them all well in both end-game raiding and player vs player. And while WoW may have the odd "collect 5 goretusk livers" quests, I could trivialize 90% of the games on the market right now as "go from point A to point B killing all dudes in between".

Other games may pile on the scripting, shooting an in-game matinee at you once and a while to compel you through the levels. No matter what level of polish they've applied, they can all be reduced to "pushing keys". Leveling up all the unlocks in every CoD game takes just as much time as hitting the level cap in WoW, and with much less diversity in experience. Playing as an "OCD" achievement whore on your console and S-ranking as the Bombcast crew like to refer to it, has easily as much grind that an MMO. I'd even argue that they do it with much less finesse, as Blizzard dedicates so much time reducing those types of grinds.

I'm getting side-tracked into a defense I didn't want to write, so I'll sum it up. Love WoW or hate WoW, that is your right, but you need to calm down while other people are talking about it. Your co-hosts are too polite to tell you, and maybe they sympathize with you and the audience members that share the same depth of knowledge of the game, but you don't know anything about it anymore. Interact, question, but please stop judging the game and cheering when a friend decides to take a break.

Why do it to WoW when you wouldn't do it to any other game?

Hey! Football!

1) How good is this Raven's Steeler's game looking? On a side not how much do you hate the Steelers? A little? A lot? Is Roethlisburger the fattest *expletive* in the league, emphasis on the fat? Rhetorical questions aside, let's talk about some football!

This is going to sound douchey, but since you brought it up, what qualifications do you guys have to review games? Is someone who never played Doom qualified to review Halo? Is someone who never played Halo game before qualified to review Halo Reach?

So I'm listening to the podcast now and wanted to chime in on the review scores. I recently started my own blog site www.restarttheuser.com and i'll be reviewing things such as movies, software, games, etc... I only have 3 game reviews and I originally gave them a score (rated from A to F). For everything else I did not. I'm not exactly sure why, but I felt video games required score. Perhaps it was just programmed in my head. I decided to remove the actual score and read it again and I think the reader will get the gist of it.

Review scores will be tough to remove because the reviewer represents the business. Fortunately my site is just a personal one, i'm not making any money out of this and I'm not running a business. Moving forward I'm not going to provide any more video game scores and just provide the best writing I can to convey my opinion. Sadly my writing is suspect at best :( but hey its just a hobby...

As a reader, if I ever came across a scoreless review site, I would certainly be happy to frequent it.

I thought that it was strange how one minute Jeff was like "Opinions! Individuality is so great! Yay!" on the subject of game reviews and opinions, and then the next minute he was dissing a guy for wearing RealD 3D glasses as a fashion accessory. "I wanted to punch him in the face" he said. I guess individuality and unique opinions only count when it comes to game reviews and not fashion?

Here are the contradictory quotes from EA CEO John Ricitiello. And, as it turns out, they were from the exact same interview with IndustryGamers:

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ea-ceo-digital-to-overtake-retail-this-year/
"At the end of [2011], the digital business is bigger than the packaged goods business, full stop. No questions in my mind. Then, you know, I think that we’ll find ways to even sell our packaged goods content in chunks and in pieces and subscriptions and micro-transactions,"

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/ea-ceo-game-discs-not-going-away-anytime-soon/
"Do I believe longer term that the disc will go away? Not any time soon. I think the disc can actually be a great starting point for a digital business, like an MMO, World of Warcraft, for instance. Pushing that off to the side for a minute, we make services, we don’t make products, and I think the challenge I would have in answering the question the way you framed it is I don’t think people want a streaming game service. I think they want their games to work. At times, that will be delivered best with streaming. At times, you should just download the game.

So John Ricitiello is at times a walking contradiction, however, the main message he's been trying to push for the past year is the phrase "we don't make products, we make services." Boxed products don't return recurring revenue; services do. Services can sometimes even bring in $5000 in one month from one customer (who apparently has more money than common sense).

Another funny quote from there: "I don’t think you’d bring OnLive to a LAN party for first person shooters, because latency matters a lot in those circumstances." That's interesting in the context of the FPS games that EA has released in the past year, because none of them would be able to be played at a LAN party, since the server is only available through a GSP like GameServers.com.

Oh, and John Ricitiello hates DRM: http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20655 ...but he still wants you to register an EA.com account and submit to an activation DRM scheme in the games his company publishes.

When it comes to great video game endings, Super Metroid has to be mentioned. The final fight with Mother Brain really isn't much of a fight - but that's not what it's about. At the time it was an amazing cinematic event that didn't need a single line of dialog in order to convey a powerful, dramatic moment. Follow it up with an amazing escape sequence and you have one of the greatest video game endings ever conceived.