I attended Capcom’s Fight Club event yesterday, and I tried out Ultimate Marvel Vs Capcom 3 for PlayStation Vita. Never mind that UMVC3 came out in november for Xbox 360, and PS3… We’re at this point because this is about PlayStation Vita!

Enter PlayStation Vita

Unlike the PSP, PlayStation Vita fits into your hands and thumbs like a glove, mostly because the backside has 2 u shaped textures to help you take a better grip of the hardware than PSP. They’re not deep, but they’re actually V shaped like a broken V. One of the first things I noticed about the hardware is the design: The whole thing looks like it fits together like a puzzle. The best part isn’t the face, it’s instead the buttons/analog sticks. Why? Because unlike PSP, your schema of the layout makes you think that the thumbs belong there. With PSP, I didn’t know where the buttons were. It’s like trying to get accustomed to iPhone on the first try. Like, the first time you use it. PSP failed because of the interface, not just because of the launch titles, or even the library, there isn’t really a “plus one” with PSP, it seemed like a typical obscure product. This has been fixed with Vita because of the design.

PSVita teaches and trains you to keep your fingers in a specific area, and that’s what the design of the circular pads do. I find myself pressing the directional pad, and the buttons as if it was a PS3 controller, and that’s where PSP and Vita differs; it encourages you to keep your fingers in one place, rather than slipping your fingers off.

With the screen, you can Vista the Vita

First thing off the bat! OLED on handhelds are awesome! Now I want to buy a OLED TV rather than LCD or any other technology HDTV’s offer. Why? Because with Vita, on it’s small, beautiful screen.. It’s #@^&ing gorgeous! The OLED screen makes MVC3 look a lot sharper than a movie on regular LCD HDTV. Let me put it in another way, if you put a game like Batman: Arkham City, or Call of Duty: MW3 on that beautiful screen, it’s killer. It’s more like the selling point of the hardware isn’t what’s under the hood, it’s the fact that the screen looks gorgeous!

I think this is the big selling point of Vita, and it’s evident through the enormous amount of developer support. Never mind the touch technology, the screen is the biggest selling point of PSVita, period. Once Sony starts the advertising for Vita, the 3DS is good as dead on arrival. In my small time hanging around the PlayStation Vita booth at Fight Club, I realized a few girls has been taking some interest in PSVita than the guys.

The best part is that, the OLED screen, and the PlayStation Vita hardware can handle 60 frames per second, that makes for a silky smooth fighting experience. See for yourself:

I must stress, that this video is half of what PlayStation Vita looks like in action. The screen is more powerful than advertised. That’s how good this hardware is. Keep in mind, this is a launch title. I shudder to think what PSVita is capable of!

The interface of Vita

While PSVita doesn’t really have an in-game XMB menu, as in the way that PS3 does it. A game can be stopped in the middle of a game, and not really interrupt gameplay. Once you press the PS button, the whole game pauses. It takes you to another screen, instead, so that would be your XMB screen, if you press the PS button again, it will take you straight to the Vita menu. And I must say it’s intuitive when you’re taken there. You can load your game right from the Vita menu. Which is a very nice addition. You can go back to the game at any time as the game is running in the background, however, it’s not recommended because your PSVita is still running and still is using battery life. This can be rectified by the invisible solar powered battery technology on the back of the Vita. You can’t see it, but it’s there. You can’t feel it, but it’s there.

Vita has a lot of developer support

And it will be evident in the year or years to come. It’s got UMVC3 at launch, it’s got Uncharted at launch, it’s got WipeOut at launch, and it’s got Twisted Metal at launch! It’s going to get Ninja Gaiden, it’s going to get Street Fighter x Tekken, it’s going to get Mortal Kombat. I mean, all the big companies are supporting Vita.

Here’s Mortal Kombat in action:

As you can see, there are some touch technology being used. And so…

How’s the touch technology, Carlos!?

Depends on how you look at it. When you’re using the PSVita menu, you can intuitively use it, but during a match, it’s a little… intrusive. However, it’s purfect for super moves, or as you can see, fatailities in Mortal Kombat. The touch technology works in some instances, but all in all, it’s not really perfect.

What’s your verdict?

Once again, depends on how you look at it. PlayStation Vita at it’s core is aimed at casuals. It’s aiming it’s crosshairs squarely at 3DS’ general audience. Sony says that the hardware isn’t competing against Nintendo 3DS current dominance, however, they want the same kind of market 3DS is currently attaining. And it shows.

There isn’t any references to Wesker, or Umbrella Corporation. Nothing.

However, as you can see in this trailer….

….The game is pointing towards an action-oriented direction. In other words, I have a feeling that Wesker is going to make an appearance, preferably as a boss. Or, he had sex with Alice or one of her clones to create his son… I mean, we’re talking about Resident Evil …10 years after the events of Resident Evil 5/AfterLife. The other thing that I notice is that the game also seems to point towards more focus on gun combat.

I have been playing Resident Evil since it came out for PlayStation in 1996. It’s been in Racoon City, the primary location for Resident Evil games, it’s been in Africa, and it’s been in Las Vegas, too. That’s just scratching the surface. Resident Evil 6 takes place in… China! And the best part isn’t the country it’s inhabited in, instead it’s going to be a breathing world. It’s colorful from what I see. That’s exactly what the series needs, a colorful mix.

Finally, it looks like this bioterrorist has combined the ingredients of the T-virus, and this monster. So, therefore, the big boss of RE6 is going to be him, a deadlier version of Nemesis from RE3. As you recall, Nemesis followed you everywhere, making it one of the most intimidating, one of the hardest Resident Evil games yet.

Yeeeeeap. I think it’s going to be crazy #@^&ing time.

Resident Evil 6 arrives this november for Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3, with the PC version to follow. Wii U owners will have to wait a little longer to get their port.

Anyhow, enjoy.

Over the weekend, UbiSoft confirmed Rainbow Six: Patriots is indeed in full development via a new trailer. The game is set in New York, and the game will release in 2013 for Xbox 360, and PlayStation 3. UbiSoft used the 2011 Video Game Awards to show off the game.

I think the game is shaping up to be a crazy game so far. What do you think?

Much to my surprise, the implementation goes beyond the typical “add the character to the playable list” downloadable content. Arkham City goes beyond and against the grain by implementing the whole DLC as part of the story. Catwoman in Arkham City, even though a DLC character, is more than just a downloadable character; It’s an extension of the pre-existing game. The Catwoman DLC is one of the best downloadable content that I have ever encountered.

When the game gets to a climax plot point in the game, the game switches to Catwoman’s perspective in the story. Catwoman doesn’t borrow anyone’s moves, at all. She is her own character – everything from the moves, to the gadgets, to the story, to her own Batman lore. To reach Poison Ivy as a boss in the game, you need Catwoman. To reach Two-Face as a plot in the story, you need Catwoman. If you play the game without Catwoman downloaded, the story doesn’t really make sense until you’ve really taken time with Catwoman. Especially at the beginning of the game, where Catwoman is captured. There’s a plot point before she gets captured, and you need Catwoman installed to see it.

The controls are drastically different, radically different from Batman, too. Some parts of Arkham City prevents you from reaching Catwoman’s locations even though that you have Batman’s Grapple. Catwoman’s moves are just as flexible as seen in the comics, or the movies.

I donno, something clicked for me with Catwoman’s DLC inclusion. It feels more complete than anything. I’m on my second playthrough of Arkham City, and I’m lovin’ it so far. Good job Rocksteady!

I think the way that Rocksteady/WBGames implemented the DLC’s is something that other game developers need to take notice of, and follow in the years to come.

I had some hands-on time with the Battlefield 3 Open Beta for PS3, so when I saw this article, the first thing that came out of my mouth is “That looks a lot more fun than having 32 players capped.” I am used to Call of Duty’s “find enemy x and kill” so this video here:

Makes the console versions pale in comparison to the PC version since 32 players is the maximum they’re willing to go with PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of BF3. Playing on Operation Metro with 24 other players in the beta was in a word: Boring. Like I said in the hands-on article, you spend more time walking or running from A to B.

On youtube, everyone’s complaining about the maximum number of players in BF3. One would argue that they can’t fit 128 players in a map like Operation Metro. Others argue that the maps would have to be smaller in order to fill the 32/64 player lobby. Others brought up MAG, an FPS title that can hold 256 players in a lobby, the maps were large, but it was hectic. The problem with MAG, for me was the controls, it’s not exactly… responsive as Call of Duty. In order to deal with a hectic gameplay such as MAG, you need to be able to move fast, and think on your feet. MAG’s controls did not allow for such gameplay.

BF3 doesn’t either, but it wasn’t designed to be a copycat of Call of Duty. It was designed to take aim at Call of Duty in the marketing sense of the word, but not much else. Multiplayer is vastly different, but it also is realistic enough to please military personnel.

So, back to my original point of this article: 128 players isn’t overkill. Actually, it’s the perfect number of players for Battlefield 3, since after all, Operation Metro feels like 2 large maps in a single multiplayer map. I feel bored by BF3′s 24 players in the beta. Yawn. Maybe I should go pretend I am flying:

Excuse me, while I tuck into my bed today… I’m sleepy.

Battlefield is a series that has some history, and have been there, done that. Electronic Arts wants to take the series to places it’s never been before. With Battlefield 3, Electronic Arts wants to break company records. Reach new milestones.

Battlefield 3 features a new engine called FrostBite 2. The Frostbite engine deployed with Battlefield: Bad Company, which is more or less a spin-off. It was released before Battlefield 2 landed on retail shelves, EA then released Battlefield 1943, and Battlefield: Bad Company 2. Each game has sold at least 1 or 2 million copies worldwide. EA wants to go beyond this.

Without further ado, Battlefield 3!

So, how’s the [Open] Beta like?

The first thing that you will notice is that the graphics are superb. But beta software is usually riddled with bugs, and whatnot. With BF3, this couldn’t be any more true. Once the multiplayer game loads, you will be treated to a waiting ticker, and you can turn around freely. As you do this, you will notice a flashing blank screen flickering. Once the game releases your ticker, you can now rush, go anywhere you want. By this time, the game’s bugs are in plain sights, textures flicker everywhere. Those trees, those walls starts clipping, and flickering, those rocks flicker, too. There will be some times where once you lay prone, you can fall into the textures. As if you were glitching. Yeap, it’s that glitchy. At one point, I went into this lil’ hole that looks like a crater. I was trying to lay prone and try to pick off enemies, but instead, it was like getting stuck in a sandstorm.

Battlefield’s maps are the largest multiplayer maps I have ever played on.
And I have played Battlefield 1943, and Bad Company 2. I didn’t like BF1943 because of the theme, parts of it felt like a PS2 game. The maps were large and happening. Each map were in an island. The spawn points were spotty at best, which is a good thing, actually. But I could never get over how clunky the controls felt, and in my opinion, how slow the game feels. On the other hand…

BFBC2 was more forgiving, and tolerable. The maps were large, but they were good enough. The character movement had been increased and firefights were better. I had a better time sniping than I do as a rifleman.

Battlefield 3′s Beta Map was twice the size that of any of the Bad Company 2 maps. Imagine the size of the maps in BC2, mutliply it by 2. How Frostbite 2 is able to stream that much memory from that draw distance as seen in BF3, is amazing. However, you can’t really see any of your enemies. The draw distance for seeing an enemy from a distance is really bad with an assault rifle, or when you’re not using the sniper scope. In the daylight areas, this is true. But in the tunnels, you can see some enemies from a distance, but only by circumstance. It doesn’t matter which weapon you’re using.

The problem that I have with Battlefield 3 is – there’s no way to identify who your enemies are in contrast to your squad, or your team-mates. This is bad because it means that the player has to work twice as hard in order to find enemies from a distance, or close range, or from a short 5 meters.

This brings me to a new point:

If you think camping was bad in Call of Duty think again.
There is a lot of camping in Battlefield 3. I mean, a lot. It doesn’t matter if you’re in broad daylight, or in the tunnels, camping is inevitable. BF3′s camping makes Call of Duty’s campers look easy.

These campers take full advantage of the environments than Call of Duty players do. They will hide in bushes, they will hide in the darkness of the tunnels, they will do absolutely anything, including camping in plain sight.

First of all, Close Quarters Combat in BF3 is non-existent. I mean, the movement is still slow, not on par with Call of Duty’s fast movement. This makes it hard to just move your gun to the camper at CQC range. When you see enemies laying prone from a distance, you can’t really shoot them and expect them to drop dead unless you have the opportunity to do so. Don’t expect to be able to switch weapons “on the fly” in BF3 because the time in which the switch takes is quite long. The other weakness I noticed is that it takes a long time to pick up weapons. I don’t know if it’s just me or not, but you can’t really switch your weapons and pick up the new weapons.

Let me put it this way:

Suppose I’m holding an MP5 in Call of Duty 4, and I see an AK47 on the ground, and I have a pistol as secondary. I can trade the pistol for the AK47, so I have two rifles.

In BF3, from what I have experienced, if I had already picked up an assault rifle, and I see another one on the ground… I can’t trade my pistol for the weapon on the ground.

In addition to these problems, I have noticed that the spawn points are ridiculous in BF3. And people are exploiting it. I have been killed IN the same place that I spawned, in less than 5 seconds of spawning! DICE, make it even more random! People who complained about spawn points in Call of Duty games should look at BF3′s.

Upon more investigation, I have found that you can select a spawn point: Those selections on the top are your team-mates, usually with a rank tag.

Who would you recommend this game to?
If you want a tactical game – in the general sense of the word. This is your game. I know some people want a tactical shooter. Some players are from the military, so Battlefield 3 fills a void for the army, the marines, the navy, the seals, you name it. [Proof is at CODForums]

The problem is that Electronic Arts is aiming their crosshairs at Call of Duty’s marketshare. This is the wrong way to go about it, if what I say is true about filling a void. As much as Battlefield 3 is a game first, it can be an educational media, too. When people come back from deployment, some want to get back in the groove of war.

Will casuals enjoy this?
Yes, and no. I’ll start with “No.” The bulk of the Call of Duty market is made up of people who enjoyed and loved COD4. As much as COD4 can be a tactical game – It is an arcade shooter more than anything. The other bulk of the market is the Zombies market – games like Left 4 Dead, Dead Rising, Dead Island (which had just been released) followed this market trend.

What made Call of Duty 4 a smash hit is the fast, and frantic gameplay that has tactical, realistic play mixed into the game itself. If you wanted to be a stealth person, like I am – you’d have to know the maps themselves and run around rushing like a crazed lunatic who has a thrust for speed. But to win a match, you would need a strategy to keep this up without dying because you’re marked red on the radar, so you add a silencer, and a pistol that’s easy to swap at the drop of the hat.

60% of COD gamers are either snipers, or campers. Snipers are far more respected in Call of Duty, than the ones that camp in the corner of a room or location throughout the entire match like a little baby. Those that “complained” about camping in Call of Duty will have their @$$es handed to them, and be given a piece of their own medicine with Battlefield 3. Why? Because each lobby is capped at 32 players, and I mentioned earlier that each map is large. You spend a lot of time getting from A to B, than you are shooting at your opponents, this is the part that I don’t like about the Battlefield series. 70% of the time, it’s not about memorizing the map itself, instead, it’s about being able to see your enemy. Those who have high altitude have better advantage than those who are at the bottom, because of the visibility. The other thing that I have found is that 50% of the time, those who are facing at the direction of where the shadows are – those are able to see almost everything, even those who are hiding behind a bench, a sitting stool, just about anything that shows your face or body. However, those who are on the side of the map where the sun is pointing at you are the ones with the disadvantage. Why? Because there’s a LOT of bushes. The sun is covering their body, or face, so enemies become shadows, so that bodes well for those “tree huggers.” They are able to camouflage themselves even though that they’re not using a camo suit such as digital camo, alligator camo, and so on.

So, where you spawn determines who wins a firefight, or wins the match?
Yes. Those who spawn on the side with shadows are the ones with disadvantage, those who are on the side where the sun is hovering over them are the ones with the advantage.

Now, let’s move to the “yes” part. A majority of the 60% I mentioned earlier are campers, and snipers. Battlefield 3 is both Camping, and Sniping heavens. Battlefield 3 is going to leave out rushers, rifle players, and what have you. If you like to hold an assault rifle, or be this Support person with an AK, I really don’t think this game is for you. While you can switch weapons on the fly and kill your enemy on the fly, the game’s mechanics doesn’t allow you to “counter-attack” your enemies. Once an enemy finds you and has the opportunity, you’re dead. There’s no way to counter his shots. In Call of Duty 4 and beyond, you can be shot and turn to counter-attack.

You can find out if someone has their sights on you with BF3 – Oh, it’s possible. Its a great technology the programmers at EA/DICE has been able to pull off. You don’t see this in a lot of shooters. This is the one thing that will set BF3 apart from it’s competition.

There are a few ways – a mounted laser, or a mounted light. While I like this mounted flashlight tech, it’s going to be troublesome when you see it because you can’t determine either one of these two: That’s it’s your team-mate, or where to shoot.

Alright! I want to know what’s so good about this game?
Well, for starters, like I said before: The graphics are superb. But that’s vague, and I’ll into detail right now. The team at EA/DICE are one killer combination because the graphics will be noticeable once you load the game – everything from the textures, the shadows, the light sourcing, the special effects, everything was crafted in every conceivable detail. The light sourcing is something many companies these days don’t really pay a lot of attention. It’s good to see that a company has stepped up the plate and addressed this. At the turn of the century, everyone suddently stopped showing off light sourcing from rockets, guns, even mounted attachments. Once you shoot a rocket in a tunnel, the whole radius lights up like a beautiful fireworks. When you go from broad daylight, to the tunnels, the game is designed in such a way that the further you go in, the more the graphics change. This is evident once you go deeper and deeper into the tunnels. Once you get to the train station, it changes again, once you go upstairs into the ticket booth, or back down, it changes colors, fog, smoke, as if the developers were designing a new game console. I have never seen this technology in any game this generation. Game developers should take note, and should definitely follow suit in the next few years.

The game’s color palette is something that a lot of developers are NOT taking advantage of in current generation games. BF3′s color variety is something I keep noticing in the back of my head. Someone in the art department inspired DICE so profoundly that it’s not even funny. All these little details I notice while playing – amazing attention to detail. The color changes in every aspect of the map, especially in the tunnel, and the train station.

The developers did a great job with the animation of BF3, every time I jump over an obstacle, like a fence – I’m in awe. In fact, I have a habit of trying to jump over the fences or other objects because of it. Even laying prone is satisfying, even though the beta has some glitches with regards to prone animation. Sometimes you go through the textures, so to solve this, crawl forward or backwards. Some places are hard to get out of [like that crater I mentioned earlier], so you’re stuck until either you commit suicide, you get killed, or wait until the game is over.

How are the sounds?
The sound effort in the game is excellent. You can hear fire fighting from a distance, you can hear bombs going off, the guns being shot, and these weird whiz by’s – honestly, I think that’s the worst part of the sound effects.

How are the controls?
If you read up to this paragraph, you will know why I don’t like the controls. It’s not fast enough, it’s not arcade enough to make the game fun for me. And the worst part is that the default configuration is stupid. I mean, to lay prone, you’d have to press R3. One thing I noticed is that there isn’t sprint – it may seem like there’s sprint but there isn’t. What you’re doing is running. Knifing is ridiculous! Pressing R3 swipes, and stabs, but in Battlefield 3… R2 button or Right Thumber is the button to press?

Needless to say, I was confused, and still am confused.

What’s the best thing about Battlefield 3?
What I like best about Battlefield was the ranking system not just how it’s calculated, how much experience you’ve gained since your last play, or how much progress you’ve made so far, how much weapon progress you’ve made so far, all of that is great. But then, BF3 goes against the grain by awarding you all kinds of stuff, like spawn ribbon, rush ribbon, like a real military ranking system. The ranking system is very deep. And I bet it’s only just scratching the surface of what BF3 is going to offer.

When they show you all of your awards – I love the presentation in which you are being awarded. Modern Warfare 2 almost did this same exact thing, but it only showed a summary, and whatnot.

Overall, EA/DICE has done a great job with Battlefield 3, they’ve outdone themselves. It’s a beta software and the game seems great so far.

This doesn’t make sense to me, at all. Electronic Arts is a major supporter of Microsoft with Xbox 360. Microsoft is a major supporter of Electronic Arts through many exclusive Madden, NASCAR, and other EA Sports brands. I understand that Electronic Arts wants to place a bid for the market leader of simulation racing games on the market over the likes of Gran Turismo and [obviously] Forza. But blocking Porsche from Forza from the other developers will just hurt the racing ecosystem, just as Dan Greenawalt says:

“We’ve always found that we just weren’t willing to block other racing games from having Ferraris outright, as we believed that this would do nothing but hurt the racing ecosystem.”

Good Job, EA, for hurting another sports industry. I mean, the last time you pulled a stunt like this, it was with exclusivity over NASCAR, and to a higher extent; NFL. And NFL isn’t doing so well right now. Not only did the exclusivity to Electronic Arts hurt the football “competition,” from other game developers via complete industry monopoly, then comes a lockout of the entire NFL ecosystem, then a rivalry gone bad:

Not too long afterwards, a murder takes place.

My point here is that companies are too worried over a single car’s exclusivity, than it is to sell a high quality [racing] game. Especially between two companies that are supposedly supporting each other. Might as well withdraw the collaboration because if you’re going to pull a stunt like this, I say, forget collaboration. Forget mutual understnding. Forget it.

During the PS3 vs Xbox 360 era, Square hasn’t released enough to satisfy investors, and shareholders. Square-Enix once again had been on the hunt for acquisitions, they acquired Edios, notoriously known for games like Tomb Raider, and TimeSplitters. Tomb Raider’s re-debut is slated for 2012. TimeSplitters is pending an announcement soon.

Recently Square-Enix nabbed the rights to True Crime: Hong Kong. At this point I’m wondering to myself: “Why didn’t they think of buying Take Two?” Take-Two has been open to acquisitions recently, calling themselves a “great investment.”

My question to you Square Enix: If you’re going to go into sandbox gaming, why aren’t you taking up Take Two’s opportunity? It makes no sense whatsoever to me. While UFG seems to have a big hit in their hands. Building a totally new brand is going to be a very hard thing to do. Especially with competition from GTA, and as ironic as it sounds: True Crime. Even though that Activision has not built a strong fanbase with True Crime, that Rockstar has built with Grand Theft Auto; Activision has billions of dollars in investment capital available at their disposal. So, at this point I’m calling this a risky move unless Square Enix invests more into the product.

What do you say, Square? You ready to take a big investment? If I were you Square Enix, I would take that double risk.

If you want to be back on the map, and be relevant again, I recommend it.

I was creating a thread at MVC3Forum. [this one] And I’m sitting there with different feelings. The annoucement of new characters evoked a lot of cheering joys. Ghost Rider got this crazy pop, Strider got this crazy excited cheer, Hawkeye got this excitement, but Firebrand… everyone went SILENT! #@^&ing silent! With a few laughs…

See for yourself:

…Um. Okay, so let me ask you a question, what the #@^& is so funny about Firebrand’s inclusion? And likewise, what’s so surprising about his inclusion? I’m going to take you back to Feburary, when MVC3 was released. This guy predicted few months before UMVC3 was even teased.

Here’s why I asked: Red Arremer is the name for Firebrand in Japan. He has been a part of the Ghosts ‘n Goblins series as an enemy until Capcom decided to make him a hero. He starred in his own game 3 times already: Two Gargoyle’s Quest games for GameBoy, and one game for Super NES, called Demon’s Crest.

So, with this in mind, by now, Firebrand should have been a Capcom “legend.” When I was watching this video:

I was like “Firebrand?” It was an odd addition, but at the same time, it makes a lot of sense. Ghost ‘n Goblins series has been a very iconic name in the platforming genre back in the 1980′s. Notoriously known for the incredible difficulty.

It started as an arcade title, in which it moved into computer and console gaming, it even was released for apple’s iOS platform in 2010, so anyone could have known Firebrand by now. iphone users, ipod users can download the game on Apple’s App store.

I don’t know what’s funny about his inclusion. So I did some digging. I remember Demon’s Crest vividly when I started another thread at MVC3Forum. You wanna see what is all the fuss about? See for yourself:

Capcom went all out with Demon’s Crest which made full use of Super NES’s color palette, Mode 7, and other effects that made Super NES the system to showcase their games. The designers used every arsenal in their programming power to bring about this classic. The game borrows a lot of the stuff from Capcom’s Mega Man X, which was released a year earlier than Demon’s Crest.

What can Capcom do to bring excitement to Firebrand’s inclusion? Well, I have never played Demon’s Crest, but I know about it’s features. Demon’s Crest allows you to collect powers, just like you do in the Mega Man games. My suggestion is to use these transformations, and “powers” as super moves. Show off what Firebrand’s made of.

The second suggestion is to put Demon’s Crest on all downloadable services such as XBLA, and PSN. [Suggested here by me] Do it, Capcom! DO IT!

Even though this article was inspired by a video that I am about to show you, this article is about Doom 4. What id Software must to revive Doom, and bring it to mass market. In today’s marketplace, the pop culture revolves around modern war games. A marketplace where either you make a World War II theater, a modern theater, or the inevitable World War III. That being said; with further ado, I present to you “Call of Doom,” enjoy:

What do you think of it? Awesome, right? Me? While I think it’s awesome… I think it’s ridiculous. But not the bad kind of ridiculous. Using an assault rifle in a room full of Demons? While watching this video, I am reminded of how #@^&ing ridculous the level designs were. Level with me for a second here, okay? I want you to take a look at Doom 3, and tell me – Is it exciting to you? Here is a Doom 3 montage:

What do you think? Boring? Don’t worry, I agree. When I first played Doom, I didn’t really understand the concept yet. A few years later, I played Doom again; this time on Super NES. I finally grasped the concept, and then I wanted to play more, but due to my social life at the time, I strayed away. Once I got Nintendo 64, one of the first games that I ever bought was Doom 64. Every time I played Doom 64, this eerie feeling of suspense perplexed me. Every time I went into a room expecting to face a few enemies, I find out that some rooms have 5, 10 demons in the same room – trying to pester me and kick my @$$. The more that I played, and the older that I got, the sense of suspense is still there. You see, every time I advanced to a new level – I am faced with new challenges, and each time, I retreat with a resounding “holy $#!^” response.

My point is, Doom was always a suspenseful first person shooter, no matter how bright the graphics seems. Once you find out what your challenges are, you have a “holy $#!^” moment in your hands. You don’t need a dark atmosphere to be scary, or remotely horror theme to have a suspenseful shooter. One of the most memorable levels in Doom 64 is none other than Dark Entries, which is level 15. Why? For starters, you’d have to have a lot of ammo ready before you open that door, because once you open that door; hell breaks loose when demons speed into your face, hitting you with everything they have. Secondly, even if you get past the first wave, the craziness doesn’t stop there.

Moving on…

I had a discussion with a friend of mine and he says that Doom has always been a tech demo. Somehow, I disagree with that. Because Doom is extremely difficult – I mean, we’re talking about Doom here man. Ya know, that First Person shooter that, once you walk into a room; you’re going to be facing more than 10 to 15 demons per room on any map. Some of the maps have rooms that is almost as big as a football field and the designers throws 20 demons at any given moment in these rooms. Some maps are almost impossible to beat on one life because most of the stages pits you in rooms that has hazards such as acid, and lava to name a few. Some rooms have several layers; so if you drop to a second floor or a third floor, you have to repeat the path that you got there in the first place. That means going through the rooms you already cleared. That’s another story; there’s a lot of backtracking if you want to clear some rooms. You miss a jump to a new platform, and that pool of lava doesn’t have a way back up, you’re definitely dead. You think that’s the end of the story? Nonono, these demons come out of nowhere in these platforms that are usually pillars in any given room – and they annoy you like a pest. Most of the time they shoot you with fireballs, you would be lucky to find some health boxes, and armor nearby. You still think that’s it? Bzz! I said before that some rooms are like the size of a football field; most of these rooms have wave(s) of enemies, that includes enemies that you thought were bosses in earlier levels. Once you clear them out, there’s one big boss, and one of the most legendary bosses in Doom is …Cyberdemon. He appears in every Doom game to date starting from the end of Doom.

If you think that wall of text is a joke, I’m going to point you to a video from Final Doom:

So, as soon as the level begins, you will see this ridiculous-looking football field room that acts exactly like a maze. Most of the levels in the Doom games are like a maze. Doom 3 didn’t feel like it. It felt like a normal twitch shooter. Don’t get me wrong, I understand that Doom 3 was going for the scary, dark atmosphere, but it doesn’t have any of the Doom material. Nothing! Unless of course, you’re talking about the enemies, some of them are straight from the classic Doom games, but it doesn’t feel like Doom. And once again, don’t get me wrong, the dark atmosphere is okay, and the technology it was showing off was cool, too. Especially when monsters starts slamming the metal doors and gives off this broken metal effect. It’s still not Doom.

So, how should id Software revive Doom? Well, a lot has changed over the last 10 years now, so I’m going to go one by one.

Part of the reason why Call of Duty is extremely popular right now is because the series is very arcade-y. So, my first suggestion is to bring back the arcade feel that Doom is known for. That means making the game fast enough to make the controls both intuitive and fast. That was the charm of Doom. The second part of this suggestion is bring back the ridiculous level design, I can’t stress this enough. The game has to be fun. Go ahead, treat it like a tech demo, but at least have fun doing it! Show your passion, id Soft!

And while we’re on the subject of arcade gameplay, bring back the arcade-style levels, treat each chapter as levels – that means use pick ups such as health packs, armor, potions, bullets, portals, and warps to keep the the Doom material intact.

For example: Prey is a twitch first person shooter that not only uses walls as a gameplay mechanic, but portals has been a prominent feature in Prey, in fact, it’s part of the entire story of Prey. However, Prey 2 doesn’t feel like a Prey game because the game doesn’t have any of the Prey material.

You see, one of the things that made Doom charming is the fact that the game didn’t take itself too seriously. Let me put it to you this way, you can make a new Doom title and put in front of a Doom player and he won’t give two rat’s @$$ about how ridiculous the level designs are, how ridiculous the item placements are. Most rooms have more than 30 items in a single room, most of the placement has about 5 item per corner or location. You think anyone that played Doom cared about how crazy the item placement are? No.

Remember, a lot has changed over the last 10 years, use the new engine as a way to show what you dream. Yes, John Carmack, I’m asking you what is your dream. Better yet, what your team dreams.

Over the last 5 years, we’ve seen a sheer lack of light-sourcing in first person shooters. 10 years ago, developers were vying for the FPS crown over technical power of a game engine – light-sourcing was the spotlight. For years, I’ve wanted to see more of what developers can do with these light-sourcing technologies. It seems to have stopped somewhat because we haven’t reached a point where we can have more than 20 enemies onscreen at once with a lot of effects turned on. This is exactly what a developer said about God of War 3.

Many people all around the world wondered how it would be like to be in hell. Like, hell. Full of monsters, demons, and what have you. Likewise, many companies have attempted to bring the meaning of “hell” to life. Companies like Electronic Arts, Blizzard, SEGA, and more. The closest thing to that very definition is a property that Activision Blizzard owns: Diablo. However, Diablo is played in a Third Person plane. Doom is a first person shooter, and it takes place in hell, but its all pixelated, and all colorful. Doom 64 came close to being the epitome of a detailed-looking, dark-looking Doom title, but no cigar. With the technology that we have in Xbox 360, PS3, WiiU, and today’s PC’s… Right now would be the time to release a new Doom title.

Well, the problem with that is that we’re closing onto the end of a console lifecycle. In the next year or two, we’re going to see WiiU, PS4, and nextXbox.

The reason why it’s a better business move to put it on one of the new next gen consoles is because my next suggestion is to bring back the frantic gameplay that Doom is known for, so that includes cranking up to 60 frames per seconds and keep it locked. Throughout the entire game. It doesn’t matter if it is single player, co-op, or multiplayer. It’s not just framerate. Rather, crank up the pace of movement. Because for me, the pace of gameplay in Call of Duty (4) is what appealed me in the first place.

I still can’t stress this enough: The level design is important, too. I don’t know if anyone agrees with me or not. But I’m going to say it. The level design of the Doom games seems like a sandbox within’ a level. If Doom’s levels were connected to each other like a puzzle, it would be ten times the size of Devil May Cry. I would like to point out that the way that DMC connects each level lika a jigsaw puzzle is genius, its almost like the levels themselves aren’t even levels. The reason why I am bringing up DMC is because the story actually carries over into the next level. Doom has a hard time telling a story – this is evident with Doom 3, much because there isn’t really a story in the original Doom games.

If you haven’t understood what I suggest with level design, it’s that Doom 4 needs to break from the mold, and have really large, complicated levels. Most of the games on the market are small, and usually linear. Break from this mold! Offer casual gamers, and series fans an option to explore the lore of Doom. Now that we’ve got level design down, let’s talk about.. enemy AI. Make them smart. Like Rage:

Ironically, Rage is being developed using the new id Tech 5 engine that is also going to be in Doom 4. Rage is a game that started as a tech demo that id Software showed off at Apple’s WWD Conference.

Alright, so what do we know about the story? How should the story be told? id Software should be creative with the story. Go crazy. The original Doom games put you in the pits of hell on Mars. Doom 2 and beyond pitted you on earth to prevent an invasion. The fact that Doom 3 took place only in dark, albeit mechanical locations – I think this change has strayed the series from being a creative franchise. Two games are modern examples of how creative your game can be if it took place on earth with a apocalyptic theme: Legendary, and Resistance.

Ya know, I’ve always wondered: Why wasn’t Doom 3 using the same technology that was in Metroid Prime? I mean, the Prime series has always used the visor to show off the technology behind Retro Studios’ engine. I wondered this because the first thing, that you see in Doom is the helmet. It is one of the most recognizable items in the history of gaming next to the likes of Mario’s 1up, Zelda’s Triforce, and believe it or not: Mega Man’s Energy tank! When you start up any of the doom games, you will see the helmet, especially Doom 64′s 3D scrolling until it shows the iconic Doom logo.

For me, the most fondest memories of Prime was related to the helmet – The first time a monster throws a projectile at you and makes a reflection of Samus, or the first time you surfaced from the underground water, or the first time the ice froze pieces of the visor. So, I say to id Software: Make the helmet the best thing about Doom 4, bar none.

And finally, Gears of War. One distinction in the series, that it sets itself apart from the rest of the first person shooters out there – is how Epic designed the armors. When Epic announced Gears of War, it looked like a lot of the twitch first person shooters on the market… that is, until Epic showed off one of the leaders of the Locust. What made them distinctive is that the designs were both futuristic and unique. Doom’s main character always wears this green-looking armor. Its time to revamp this armor to something more modern, or more futuristic, whichever fits the overall theme in Doom 4.

In closing, id Software has a lot of work to do ahead of them if they want to revive, and restore Doom to relevancy. If you think bringing back franchises is an easy task; you have no idea how hard it is. Reviving an icon, an influential name is no easy feat.