GameCop Vs LameCop #2

GameCop vs. LameCop is a feature where Anthony and I argue about video game issues, taking on the persona of either the GameCop or the LameCop as we do so. The GameCop has your best interests as gamers at heart, while the LameCop is just what he sounds like: a total loser.

This week, we tackle several issues including silent heroes, Playstation Home and Blizzard’s epic wtf weekend.


Issue 1

Even though games have grown into full audio/visual maturity, there are still many adventures that feature a silent hero for the player to control. Are silent heroes a legitimate design choice, or a relic of gaming that should be left behind?

GameCop: Eddy

While I understand that some might have an issue with heroes remaining silent in this day and age, I think it’s ok as far as game design goes. I mean, sure, it’d be nice to see a Zelda game with a talking Link, but really, a silent hero doesn’t get to voice opinions that aren’t yours. You get to inhabit a silent hero fully with whatever your thoughts are as a gamer. I mean, some recent games I can think of that were great even though the heroes didn’t make a peep were Dragon Quest VIII, Twilight Princess, Shadow of the Colossus, heck, even Master Chief is kind of a silent protagonist.

If games like Final Fantasy X (where the stupid hero never shuts his mouth) or Metal Gear Solid 4 for the ideal heroes, then count me out. I mean, do that many people need to be told what to think when it comes to who’s evil in the game and who isn’t?


LameCop: Anthony

I wish you had stayed silent on this subject because your logic is about as enjoyable as the Water Temple in Ocarina of Time!

Mario, Samus, Link, Crono, the heroes from Knights of the Old Republic…all silent and all kind of lifeless and bland. Adding voice acting to these characters would let everyone know that the next generation of gaming is finally here! Besides, think of all the actors who would line up to play these roles. Just look at some of my choices and tell me this would not RAWK:

Mario: James Gandolfini…that’s right, Tony bleeping Soprano. The two most influential Italians in all of the world together at last. That’s a spicy meatball!

Samus Aran: Paris Hilton… Imagine yourself down in a cave, magma all around you and fire spouts shooting at you. But instead of some macho one liner out of Angelina Jolie, you hear, “That’s hot” from Paris Hilton. And think of the fan fiction: One Night in Samus will be an instant hit!

Link: Hayden Christenson…why? Let’s face it, any dialogue from Nintendo will not set the world afire, so you need someone capable of saying it and who has more experience with crappy lines than Anakin Skywalker himself?

Start a petition now and get this done!

Issue 2

At some unspecified point in the future, Sony is going to release Home for the PSN, a virtual world/game lobby where users can interact with other online avatars, have their own virtual space and see previews and trailers of new games. Is this an exciting new UI, or just Second Life 2: Lame Town?

GameCop: Eddy

Well if you liked that last one Anthony, you’re going to love this. I think Home is a great addition to PlayStation 3, particularly with all of the publishers signing on to develop some unique content for it. I get why some people might not find it exciting, but hey, at least it’s not like a Mii MMO a la Microsoft or Nintendo.

And really, it’s got a lot more functionality than say, the 360 blades or the Nintendo squares in terms of unique UI’s. I can imagine some cool stuff where you get to walk into lobbies of certain developers so you can watch new trailers, play new demos, and just have a good time. And to be honest, if you’re not interested, you can just leave the thing alone.

Plus, it probably takes a little more intelligence than the average XBox Live user has to navigate the online terrain, which helps us avoid people like Anthony, who will probably create a man with a straw hat, a moustache, and beckon people to come into his online home to “make a movie”. It’s not that kind of game Anthony. Keep your pants on.

Let me prepare myself for your inane comments… now.

LameCop: Anthony

Hey, everyone that appears in my movies has to sign a release form. The judge said so and I don’t mess around with that!

Anyways, Home or as I like to call it Second Second Life. Or Second Life Dos. Yeah, so dressing up an avatar and walking around going into different places to view trailers and play demos and play crappy mini games of pool and darts sounds as lame as it will be. You know whats easier than doing all that? Selecting a demo from the PSN store and watching it without having to go pass a bunch of people dressed like douchebags dancing to “Still Alive”.

If I wanted to dress someone up and walk them around a virtual world, I would still be playing the Sims, creating my friend’s wives and then stealing them away with Antonio the Love Doctor. So tell Virtual Jen to watch out and in fact, Virtual Eddy is getting a little friendly for my taste lately, so it might be time to delete your ambigous ass!

Back to Home: anyone want to bet that every wall will be graffitied with product placement? It might end up looking like a Marc Ecko game and we know how those turn out. Home is lame, it’s Third Life for people like Dwight Schrute and I intend to stay Home-less.

Issue 3

Over the weekend, Blizzard announced that Starcraft II is so big, it’s going to have to be a trilogy. In addition, they’ve said that won’t be free in the future. Fair or foul for gamers?

GameCop: Anthony

I know what Eddy is going to say: that he is thrilled to throw more money at Blizzard and can’t wait to sell his car in order to buy all this crap, but let’s face it: times are tough in this economy and this move by Blizzard (have they changed their name to EA, yet?) is passing the buck on to its consumers. They know that they have a legion of followers out there that will buy anything they crap out, so why not split Starcraft into 3 games?

Starcraft II: The Trilogy. There are so many things wrong with that. A sequel that is actually 3 games. Wow. That takes BALLS. The Zerg and Protoss and Terrans need to be in one game or it isn’t really Starcraft.

As for, people will pay for anything if they are addicted enough and taking a quick glance at World of Warcraft…yeah, you guys are screwed. My advice? Stay away from PC gaming for a few years.

LameCop: Eddy

Wow, so much whining out of someone who wouldn’t know Starcraft from his life-sized Sackboy doll that he shares a bed with. It’s creepy, Anthony. I promise.

Since when was it wrong for a corporation to make money, people? I hear all this griping and complaining about “oh man, they want to charge me every time I log on” or whatever it is that people are peeing in their pants over. Companies like cash. Get over it. Next thing you know, fatty gamer will be balking at the 13.99 his triple meatmcbeefburger with cheese is running him out at the local fast food joint.

Look, things cost money, ok? In these trying economic times, Blizzard/Activision’s got to look out for them and theirs. I mean, imagine all of the inflation that 10 million WoW addicts shoveling out money hand-over-fist is causing to the company’s bottom line. Poor guys. They probably can’t even afford the $100 bills they used to use to toke up every day before giggling themselves into a fit over all of their microtransactions. They’ve probably downgraded to Lincolns!

I salute your spirit Blizzard, for being bold enough to take a stand for capitalism, no matter what the cost, be it fans or subscribers or even millions in the long run. I can’t wait to play your one-game trilogy. I mean, imagine if Godfather had been split into 9 movies. I mean, nobody would be complaining then, right? This is probably kind of the same thing. Only instead of Italians, there are aliens. Rock on!

Now that you’ve seen the GameCop vs LameCop stance, what are your thoughts on these issues?

Written by

I write about samurai girls and space marines. Writer for Smooth Few Films. Rooster Teeth Freelancer. Author of Red vs. Blue, The Ultimate Fan Guide, out NOW!

7 thoughts on “GameCop Vs LameCop #2”

  1. Silent heroes are fine in my opinion, it makes it fun. You can give whatever voice to gordon freeman.

    Home…..Second Life on steroids/lame. Sorry, it may be cool, but its kinda stupid. It will do well I bet, people like the sims and Second Life is apparently decently popular. I just think its kinda silly, Id rather dicka round in a game while voice chatting with someone

    (Microsoft, phht hey, make voice chat more than ONE PERSON AT A TIME PLEASE!)

    I wont agree with Eddy on this one, Guild Wars is free, whos bitching about that? Their company seems fine, they keep producing games. I know things cost money to make and things cost more now, but what if Steam charged you to play? No one would like that.

    IF we should pay we should do what Microsoft did with live. a NOMINAL (and competitive) $50 (max around 70) a year to play online. That is worth it I think. I wont play a pay for MMO anymore, I think its stupid to have to pay.

  2. 1. Ah, I guess silent protagonists could be considered “outdated”, but I like to think of them as ‘traditional’. While it’s pretty much only Nintendo and in some cases Sony who hang on to the silent protagonists, a lot of great games have silent characters, and usually go unnoticed. Call of Duty, Half Life, and Halo could count, even though the MC does speak. But that’s just because him being totally silent wouldn’t fit. And that’s the thing. It’s all about if it would fit.
    You know, I WOULDN’T want to see Nintendo slap some voice talents onto their characters, at least not the old ones like Mario and Link and Samus. In fact, ESPECIALLY NOT those three. Those are the old faithfuls and it would break my heart if Nintendo corrupted the fond memories and tradition of the Great Silent Three. I mean, Nintendo has prostituted Mario to death, but having him say “Say hello to mah little Mushroom!” would just kill it all.
    So in closing, silent characters are a way to make the player feel like THEY are the character, not that they’re just controlling the character. In some games, like FPS’s or RPG’s that want to immerse you, silence is key. I don’t want my guy screaming “Enemy grenade!!” That’s for my friends to say. I just keep my mouth shut and kill folks.

    2. lolPS3Home Honestly, it is just Second Second Life, which is a great way to put it. You know, everyone is trying to “revolutionize the dashboard” or what have you. I JUST WANT TO PLAY MAH GAMES. I don’t need to play e-Billiards with friends when could be gunning-down Nazis and stuff. So everyone’s a little guilty. Sony, Microsoft, and Wii, but Wii isn’t that bad because they were the first, and the Mii stuff is fairly far-removed. And there’s no product placement everywhere you look. Sony adn Microsoft are trying too hard to do an unnecessary thing that I find cheesy and pathetic almost.

    3. Blizzard shot, stabbed, and raped itself.

  3. Eddy,
    Your point about the Godfather might make sense except I know for a fact that you have not watched it all the way through!

    Turn in your manhood now!

  4. O noz! My secret!

    Also remember that LameCop in these bits is just a character. We just take turns writing for him. He’s kind of a douche.

  5. 1. Me lieks mah silent heros

    2. To be honest I hate the idea of Home, so much easier with a normal dashboard and its so lame! I can’t see the point of playing darts in game rather than play darts with your mates in ‘real-life’.

    3. I hate the idea of paying to play. Played some WoW and some Age of Conan and its ridiculous because if you have a life you just won’t be able to play for hte time you paid for. Look at TF2, they survive and add huge updates all the time. I don’t get the point of paying for online gaming. And the ‘take 1 pay for 3’ is just rape. They should make all the races in one and add expansions.

  6. I agree with what Turkey said when replying to 3 (as well as to 1 and 2). We’ve found it normal to pay over time for online games when it’d make more sense to buy the game and get free updates. Or if you really need money, have updates that cost 5 or 10 bucks. Okay! As long as the content looks cool, I think $10 is a nice price. I understand that MMO’s are all about basically having another life inside this game, but I guess that’s why I hate pretty much every MMO – I don’t feel like being THAT much of a social reject. And I don’t want to have to pay for a game if I get bored and I’m not playing it! That right there is my biggest problem. I get bored with games, and I bored with MMO’s even faster because of all the grinding. That’s just how I am. I want to PLAY the game, not view it as a job. But if I want to take a break or I want to focus on another game, I have to delete my character because it’s a waste of money. And I’m a frugal man. Kid. Teenager. Whatever.

  7. Well, since Home is of absolutely no interest to me(ditto Second Second Life), I’ll present my thoughts on the other two topics.

    1. Silent heroes are a necessity for a lot of action games. In Halo, Zelda and especially Half-Life, having a silent protagonist means that the player can better immerse themselves in the story.

    The less dialogue a character says is often better than having a verbal overload. Think of Army of Two. A functional, fun shooter, with decent graphics and an interesting(if ridiculous)gun modification system. Now think of the dialogue. Awful, right? Whether we were listening to one character voice his enthusiasm for murder or the other express his thoughts on conspiracy, I was often left rolling my eyes.

    The two heroes of Army of Two talked a lot, but said nothing at all. Given the choice between a silent protagonist with a good story, or an overly verbose hero, I think that giving the player a little lee-way in filling in the blanks is always favorable.

    2. Ah, Blizzard. Why hast thou forsaken us? From a business stand point, trying to get the most money out of your products makes sense. If you alienate your player-base at the same time, well….

    Blizzard really have shot themselves in the foot this time. Monetizing Battle.Net has to be one of the dumbest, least customer-centric ideas to come out of the industry in quite a while. The reason that a lot of Blizz fans are drawn to that service is because it’s free. Some people in the game business need to clue into the fact that people don’t like paying for every single service.

    Paying for things like map packs, new skins and what have you wasn’t popular to start with, but people grew accustomed to it. If you like the game, you buy the map pack. Getting the TF2 and Burnout updates for free is a nice surprise, but it’s the exception to the rule.

    Charging for playing over the internet in a non-persistent environment is insane. Why do we need to pay to play SC2, or Diablo3? Seems like Activision has Blizzard firmly ensnared in it’s grasp of greed.

Comments are closed.