Bringing a Bikini to a Sword Fight

I recently got a female friend of mine into World of Warcraft (sorry), and as we sat there, playing together, she turned to me and asked "what's with all the gigantic boobs?" Having been gaming regularly for as long as I can remember, it's gotten to the point where I take certain things for granted. If I'm playing a Japanese RPG then the end boss will probably turn into a monster, a bigger monster, or an angel-monster during the final battle. If there are alien eggs on the ground, they will hatch or explode in your face (or both!) in just a few moments. If there is a girl, she will have unnecessarily large cans.

I'm a heterosexual male, and while I guess I don't actively dislike boobs in games, I like great characters in games far more.
But it's far worse than that. Women in games are usually treated as little more than eye-candy, and frequently, developers will give you a "sassy" female sidekick so annoying that, when given the option, you'd rather shoot her and fail the mission than spend another minute with her whining and yelling for you to save her. When they're not vapid scenery-with-a-mouth, they're helpless objects that need saving. Games are obviously not the only offending medium, but as one of the few popular mediums that has a chance to really develop a character with some depth, games are one of the biggest and most avoidable repeat offenders.

I was in denial at first. My friend said I probably couldn't even name ten strong female characters who weren't completely over-sexualized, and I was positive I could. I got to five off the top of my head, two of whom were disembodied artificial intelligences -- I'll get to them shortly. We debated whether the AIs should even count, finding myself truly grasping at straws. Five characters out of hundreds and hundreds of character-driven games. Meanwhile, interesting male characters are a dime a dozen.

That outfit does not look battle-ready.Why should this be? I tried to justify it by saying that developers know their market -- males -- and that their market, whether we like it or not, likes boobs and little else. That's not true, though. In gaming, the product defines the market. The Sims had a player base split down the middle because it offered something appealing regardless of gender. On top of that, I'm a heterosexual male, and while I guess I don't actively dislike boobs in games, I like great characters in games far more. The compulsive need for developers to make their female characters overly sexy tends to detract from my immersion, especially when they're wearing what amounts to a metal bikini to a freakin' swordfight. Oh good, at least she's got the important part protected, right? In other cases the female character is meant to serve as a traditional love interest for the protagonist. Love stories are popular, but if they're mishandled -- as they so often are -- I find myself liking neither the female nor the protagonist.

This was especially true in Mass Effect 2 with Miranda. If she had been a little less overtly sexualized I may have been more likely to actually pay any attention to what she had to say. Instead I found myself instinctually half-listening whenever she began talking. Which brings me back to the Why. Because sex sells, and therefore boobs are a sure bet?

Perhaps you are asking yourself why having a billion busty babes in games is a bad thing. There are the moral reasons; it portrays and perpetuates unrealistic and frankly unhealthy body images, and regularly paints women as little more than something to save and/or bang. You can see the symptoms of this mentality whenever a girl speaks over voice-chat. I knew someone who once said that women should never talk in online games because of this phenomenon. Invariably the male audience is split into those who instantly assume she is/will be useless at the game, or is dying for some disgusting nerd lovin'.

There are the business reasons; a game with a scantily-clad woman on the cover automatically tells potential female customers that the game is intended for guys, and the developer immediately loses half the consumer base. Then there are the immersion reasons; playing as a guy trying to save and woo the princess might be fine if you're a straight male, but if you're a straight female (or a gay male for that matter), what incentive is there to keep playing?

I'm sorry, what were you saying?There are a few beams of light that shine through the cave of round butts and big boobs, though, that prove that creating a truly interesting lady-character isn't impossible. Let's take a look at some sterling examples of strong female characters and see if we can find a common theme.

Alyx Vance, introduced early in Half-Life 2, is arguably my favorite female character in gaming. She's pretty, yes, but not distractingly so. She's wearing full-length jeans, a T-shirt, and a leather or sheepskin jacket, patched together with duct-tape. She doesn't have long, flowing hair -- her medium-length hair is pushed back with a hair band. She's far flung from your standard drop-dead gorgeous lady, and yet she is the closest I have come to truly caring about a completely fictional batch of polygons the way I might a close friend. The reason for this is simple -- she's realistic. She talks to you, she jokes, she fights, and she's appropriately emotional.

IGN PC Exec Editor Charles Onyett tried to argue that Alyx Vance is supposed to be Gordon Freeman's love interest and is therefore flirty, which is what makes her so great: at no point in any Half-Life game does Alyx ever do any of the flirting. Neither does the perpetually mute Gordon. The only time anything overtly romantic occurs regarding the two of you is when her father suggests you two help "repopulate the planet". The reason Alyx struck Charles as the love interest was because she was so loveable that the player is naturally drawn to her.

 

Is Activision the Most Evil Company in the World?

 

It's a statement I've heard made in this very office, among other gamers, at Gamestops, in bars, at industry events, on blogs, in tweets -- Activision is the most evil company in the world. Or at least something along those lines.

So I thought, what better way to get The Gold Standard shut down than to investigate that very question? I mean, have you (a person who has probably at some point uttered disdain for Activision) stopped to really analyze the company's position as the most evil around? Probably not. But you probably should.

Figuring out if a company is evil (and in fact one of the most evil around) isn't that easy. Sure, if you want to be lazy about it, you can just cast a stone and say Activision is the bad guy. But I like to analyze first, throw stones second. So let's see how Activision stacks up against some other evil companies.

Halliburton
Claim to Infamy: Halliburton, corruption is thy name. Whether it's snatching no-bid contracts in Iraq and New Orleans and (allegedly) sucking out billions of additional tax dollars or a bribery scandal in Nigeria, it seems Halliburton always has one hand in the cookie jar and the other in the immorality jar.

Evil on a Scale of 1-666: 599

Vs. Activision: Some could argue that Activision is "corrupting" gaming with its annual sequels, but as far as I know, Activision hasn't worked with any members of the "Axis of Evil." Pretty sure they didn't sign a publishing deal with Bungie through a no-bid contract.

BP
Claim to Infamy: Spilled 185 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, causing horrendous damage to the environment. Also, gas costs way too much. Thanks a bunch.

Evil on a Scale of 1-666: 601

Vs. Activision: Well, to be unfair to Activision, I'm sure all those plastic Tony Hawk Ride skateboards eventually ended up in landfills and are slowly ruining the environment.

Pfizer
Claim to Infamy: Pfizer is blamed for the high price of prescription medicine, the deaths of more than 50 children in Nigeria with the use of an experimental vaccine, and giving kickbacks to doctors who unnecessarily prescribe certain medicines. Ever wonder what company inspired Resident Evil's Umbrella Corporation? Oh wait, did I just give that away?

Evil on a Scale of 1-666: 661

Vs. Activision: Activision can't really be tagged for price gouging or for causing the deaths of Nigerian children. The major difference is that Activision charges for things people want; Pfizer charges for things people need.

Phillip Morris
Claim to Infamy: In case you didn't hear, smoking causes cancer. Phillip Morris makes Marlboro, Parliament, Merit, and Virginia Slims among other cigarettes. When you make a product you know kills your customers and sell it as something that helps them look cool, well, that's pretty evil. As a bonus, smoking can also kill people nearby, because carcinogenic smoke is an area of effect attack.

Evil on a Scale of 1-666: 665

Vs. Activision: Playing Guitar Hero does not cause emphysema. Just, possibly, finger cramping.

Cyberdyne Systems
Claim to Infamy: Built Skynet, the computer network that nearly destroyed the human race with its Terminator machines. Responsible for a nuclear holocaust and improper use of time travelling devices.

Evil on a Scale of 1-666: 666

Vs. Activision: If Activision's games ever became sentient, we could be in some deep s---.

We pretty much have to accept that, when compared to other companies outside the games industry, Activision is pretty harmless. So, no, it is not the most evil company in the world, because we live on a planet with Philip Morris, BP, Pfiezer, Halliburton and dozens of other corporations that are responsible for destroying the environment, profiting from wars, and directly or indirectly causing the deaths of millions. Guitar Hero V didn't spurt oil all over your living room when you opened the case. Activision never spiked the cost of prescription drugs or screwed anyone out of legitimate healthcare coverage. Call of Duty: Black Ops does not cause cancer. (As far as we know).

So no, I am sorry to say that we can pretty much rule out Activision as being evil on a global scale. Hell, Cobra was more evil than Activision and they weren't even real. No one at Activision is a Nazi, there's nothing in its back catalog that's comparable to the Holocaust (Jew certified), and they aren't selling blood diamonds or testing strains of the Ebola virus on the innocent. Sally Struthers is not standing outside of Activision's Santa Monica offices begging you to "think of the children" and cajoling you to give just 25 cents a day (which, I assume, can save a poor child from having to play another Tony Hawk game).

Let's scale down just a touch. We know Activision isn't the most evil company in the world, but are they evil in general?

Assuming that Activision bigwig Bobby Kotick's goon squad (they dress in gold suits sewn together by the profits earned from Modern Warfare 2) doesn't kick in my door, toss a burlap sack over my head and make me disappear from the world of gaming, I intend to answer this question.

Maybe the easiest way to settle this is to look at the definition of evil and see whether or not Activision fits the bill.

Funny little aside. I had a ten minute conversation with IGN fan-fave David Clayman over whether I should use the noun definition of evil or the adjective. Basically a choice between "those guys are evil incarnate or just dicks," as Dave put it. I had to side with adjective, because it's the right thing to do. I mean, it's not like Activision is the big menacing darkness of Alan Wake or anything. (It turned creativity into a destructive force to satisfy its own hunger for power -- ah, crap.)

Morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked. Ex: Evil deeds; an evil lifeHarmful; injurious. Ex: evil laws3. Characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous. Ex: To be fallen on evil days4. Due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character. Ex: An evil reputation5. Marked by anger, irritability, irascibility, etc. Ex: He is known for his evil dispositionPhew. Evil sure does suck. Well, let's try and look at this as objectively as possible. I'm sure that every big business has some moments of impropriety and can be viewed as "evil," but does Activision really do enough to satisfy any of these five definitions?

The four things people tend to focus on when speaking poorly of Activision are how it kicked Harmonix to the curb with Guitar Hero, how it treated Double Fine following the Vivendi merger, the fallout with Infinity Ward, and the serial ruining of once great franchises. To me, the question becomes: Are these acts evil or just business moves? Let's catch up on each of these before determining if, indeed, Activision is evil.

Road Tour Out of Activision's Office
Harmonix has had it rough. It rebooted the music gaming genre with Guitar Hero along with peripheral-maker Red Octane. The series was a hit and Activision wisely wanted in. But not with Harmonix. Instead, Activision picked up Red Octane to continue making the guitar peripherals and handed the series off to Neversoft for development.

The move seemed cruel at the time. To reward the creative team that created a brand new way to enjoy games with a swift kick to the ass is pretty cold. We always want to believe that smart game design and innovation should reap rewards, not exile. Harmonix was bought by Viacom (they once acquired Carson Daly) and re-reimagined the music genre combining guitar, drums and mic for Rock Band. As if that weren't enough, Harmonix built an awesome online music store and delivered weekly content updates ever since Rock Band's release.

But for all its ingenuity, Harmonix must not have made enough cheddar with these endeavors. Why else would MTV let them go? Was that a matter of MTV and Rock Band distributor EA handling things poorly on the business side? In Activision's more capable marketing hands, might Harmonix have been more successful? Only Cyberdyne Terminators can know this answer. But I'd guess yes.

Brutal Treatment
I love Tim Schafer and his intrepid band of heroes at Double Fine. Brutal Legend was a smart idea -- take a (at the time of conception) popular actor, put him in a role as a musical savior of mankind. A spirited love-letter to metal, Brutal Legend is the kind of game fans can get behind. But not smart businesses. It's reported that Activision wanted to turn Brutal Legend into a music game, which it kind of did with Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock.

As seems to happen a lot to Double Fine, it was shown the door in the middle of developing a game. EA was expecting big things of Brutal Legend. Turns out Activision had it wrong on both accounts. Brutal Legend didn't exactly tear up the charts and Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock was a bad game that sold poorly.

Is that evil? Well, it certainly seems dickish.

To Infinity Ward and Beyond
When civil war erupted at Infinity Ward, it seemed that Activision had gone insane. There were security guards dragging people out of the building. It was some crazy stuff. From the outside, we all assumed that Activision was quickly imploding, removing its best people because it thought the franchise didn't need them.

But as new court documents become available, it's starting to look like co-founders Jason West and Vince Zampella were secretly meeting with EA to start a new company. If that's true, then Activision really didn't do anything obscene here. In fact, I'd probably have done worse. But that's because I've watched far too many episodes of The Sopranos.

Everything Good is Ruined Now
Once upon a time Tony Hawk's Pro Skater and Guitar Hero were the biggest franchises at Activision. Now, they are shameful, broken, and best left buried. How did this happen? It's largely due to Activision's insistence on releasing these games annually (and for Guitar Hero, sometimes even more often). There's just not enough time to develop inventive new aspects to the franchise.

In Guitar Hero's case, Activision simply bled the franchise dry in the span of four years. Too many Guitar Hero games were coming out annually with too many new peripherals to boot. It was plastic toy overload with almost nothing new being added. Even the first band version of Guitar Hero was just a bite off of what Harmonix did with Rock Band. The series lost its way, and with last year's Warriors of Rock, it seems the entire thing just went off the rails and exploded into oblivion. (Can't wait for Guitar Hero 7!)

Tony Hawk started strong and peaked at the third installment, then slowly declined. Though several attempts were made to revitalize the franchise (Now a story mode! Now a plastic board full of technology!) it fizzled. EA came in with Skate and did what Tony Hawk should have years ago -- made a more realistic, visceral skating game. Tony Hawk could maybe have gone the other way as well -- been more over the top, gone into space or done hoverboards or made a kart racing game -- but it just devolved into repetitive, unimaginative skating tricks stuck between reality and absurdity.

So, About That Evil Thing...
First, let me say that my favorite definition of evil is this: "Characterized or accompanied by misfortune or suffering; unfortunate; disastrous." I like to imagine that a witch cursed Activision, that evil was acted upon the company and some of its poor choices (and shrewd business moves) were the fault of mystical powers, not greedy people in business suits.

But you are here to witness me proclaim Activision as evil, aren't you? I do think you can find this with numerous companies, but Activision seems to very much fit the definition: "Due to actual or imputed bad conduct or character." By this definition, Activision is evil. Because even if the acts themselves are not bad (some are more defensible than others), the fact that the gaming public believes Activision has done bad things (that's the "imputed" part) means they are, technically evil. Sorry, Activision!

Here's the catch. I'm complicit in Activision's evil. And if you've bought an Activision game, so are you. And judging by their sales, a whole lot of us are involved in this. I bought Call of Duty: Black Ops. I liked Call of Duty: Black Ops. I've played 40 hours of the multiplayer. I loved Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions. So for as much as I can say a dictionary definition has condemned the company, I have to accept my role as well.

The whole idea of a game company being evil is kind of silly, which is why it's so much fun to write about. I read a lot of comments on IGN articles and see a lot of the emails that come in from readers. And Activision takes a lot of heat. Some of it is very valid. They've screwed up a lot. They've been (from an outside view) heartless at times. But the reality is that the people at Activision don't spend their days spinning in their plush leather chairs, fingers steepled, thinking of the next evil thing to do.

The people who make games for Activision want to make great games. Sometimes they do. A lot of times they do not. When they do right, I spend my money. When they do wrong, I go buy someone else's game. That's pretty much the perfect working economy for the games industry. If everyone only bought the great games, then fewer crappy games would be made. If you don't want annualized sequels, don't buy them.

Who stopped you from buying Brutal Legend or whatever inventive new game that came out and underperformed? Activision didn't keep these games off the shelf. You could make any cool, unique game a success. The company that publishes it doesn't really matter. Your wallet speaks louder than anything else.

If Activision has committed any sin (if you can call it that), it's that it doesn't use the security of its major franchises to take gambles on smaller, more innovative games. Activision could father a whole new movement of exciting games, knowing it will continue to make billions off Call of Duty and World of Warcraft. But instead, Activision seems to be eager to find the next Call of Duty.

Activision isn't bad for the industry. Any company that can bring this much money and attention to gaming isn't bad. But it is doing little to advance games. It's just not a very inspiring company. That can change if Activision wants it to. If not, that's not really evil. That's just kind of lame.

Nintendo's 3DS Software Arsenal

Nintendo's first public demonstration of the 3DS has kicked off in Japan, and we're starting to get a better picture of what's in store for the system in the coming months. As the event opened, Nintendo's Japanese 3DS site started to clarify some details about the system's software lineup - including which games will be present at launch.

Currently Nintendo has eight titles listed for the February 26 debut of its system overseas, including Nintendogs + Cats. What's perhaps most notable is that The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D and Kid Icarus: Uprising are currently not slated to make launch. Ocarina is labeled as being a Spring 2011 release and Icarus is listed as Summer 2011. Though there was never any indication those particular games would in fact debut with the system, we certainly had our fingers crossed.

We're also hearing a few more details on Nintendo's first-party games. Steel Diver and Pilotwings are due in Spring 2011, with Star Fox coming later in the summer. Mario Kart, Animal Crossing and Paper Mario are all TBD in the release date department.

Also worth noting is the pricing of these titles. Nintendogs has been set at 4800 yen (about $57) while other titles range from 5-6000 yen ($60 to $72). In Japan, a 4800 yen price point is common for DS software.

As you look through the below graphics, keep a few things in mind. This is a Japanese event, aimed at Japanese audiences. The United States launch software may be different. Also, some of the games here might not see an American release and some that aren't present (Madden) are definitely on the way. Nintendo's Japanese website also has more games listed that we don't have here because, well, we don't speak Japanese.

With that said... let's take a look at what's on the way.

What do you think of the software so far? Is the Japanese launch lineup impressive enough for you? Would you want the 3DS to launch in the United States with just those eight games? Are the screenshots impressive enough? Sound off in the comments thread!

View the original article here

CES: Just Call Hard Corps Uprising a Contra Game, Konami

Playing a game with its developer is a high-wire act. If you're just not digging on the experience, putting on a brave face and trying not to be overtly negative can take considerable effort. However, I had a ball playing Hard Corps Uprising with Associate Producer Kenji Yamamoto of Konami at Microsoft's Xbox Live Arcade CES event tonight. And our enthusiasm was infectious, because we were both smiling and laughing through the entirety of the first stage.

Of course, Mr. Yamamoto could have just been laughing at my ability to repeatedly take a bullet to the face within seconds of picking up a powered-up weapon and thus immediately losing it. But he seemed like far too much of a gentleman to do that.

Hard Corps Uprising is not technically a Contra game -- but don't doubt for a second that this game carries its DNA. This hardcore action game has both feet firmly planted in the 16-bit generation. Though it can be played alone, Hard Corps Uprising is best enjoyed with a friend via co-op. The two characters are the super-soldier Bahamut (the bad guy from the excellent Contra: Hard Corps for the SEGA Genesis) and Krystal, who is equally handy with a weapon. Both heroes must rise up against the Commonwealth, a terrible empire led by the thuggish Tiberius.

Hit 'em with the spread, Krystal.
Defeating Tiberius, though, requires bravely blasting your way through eight stages against the Commonwealth's elite troopers and advanced war machines. Fortunately, you have access to some considerable firepower. Your default assault rifle is good enough for taking down basic enemies, but picking up improved gear like a spreadshot or grenade launcher will assist in gaining ground on the Commonwealth. And if you can hold on the plasma cannon until the boss battle at the end of each stage, you can charge it up for devastating attacks. Just watch out for incoming fire, though, because one hit busts you back down to the default weapon.

Wait, one hit doesn't kill you? Thankfully, Hard Corps Uprising includes a Rising mode which lets you endure up to three hits before dying and there are power-ups to replenish your health meter. However, if you want to take Hard Corps: Uprising old-school, then by all means, play Arcade mode which offers one-hit-dead difficulty.

I enjoyed my demo time with Hard Corps Uprising quite a bit. Not only did I like the pure left-to-right run-and-gun action, but I also loved the art direction from developer Arc System Works. The anime style is a bit different from past Contra games, but then again, this isn't Contra. At least, that's what Konami keeps saying. But come on. You and I know what's up, right?

View the original article here

The Secret History of the 3DS

The road to releasing any console is a long one. The twists and turns along the way can be many. Though most publishers are very quiet about development as it's happening, hindsight or the imminent launch of a platform can cause some of these fascinating stories to come to light. Nintendo's 3DS hits Japan in less than two months, and already some of its biggest names are beginning to discuss its lengthy creation. In fact, the 3DS's origins started much earlier than any of us might suspect... with the GameCube, a home console system first released in 2001.

A home console being a key component of a portable system release almost 10 years later? You'd better believe it. In a conversation with Nintendo designer Shigeru Miyamoto and writer/designer Shigesato Itoi, Nintendo President Satoru Iwata revealed that the GameCube actually had "3D-compatible circuitry built in." In other words, the system could have displayed 3D tech if a certain accessory was purchased and installed. Itoi then prompted Iwata for an explanation as to why this expansion was never released.

"The liquid crystal for it was still expensive," Iwata said. "Simply put, Nintendo GameCube could display 3D images if you attached a special LCD, but that special liquid crystal was really expensive back then. We couldn't have done it without selling it for a price far above that of the Nintendo GameCube system, itself! We already had a game for it, though — Luigi's Mansion."

Can you imagine playing Luigi's Mansion in 3D without glasses? Miyamoto noted that the game would actually "jump out at you pretty nicely." Sadly the technology prevented the publisher from ever moving forward with its plans.

Of course, Nintendo's 3D ambitions precede even the GameCube. Most of us are familiar with the Virtual Boy, an attempt to create a portable 3D system, albeit one that required a headset mounted to a stand. The system never took off, in part due to a limited amount of software but also because, in an era when graphics were becoming more and more sophisticated, the Virtual Boy's visuals were only in black and red.

Miyamoto and Iwata also suggested one reason the Virtual Boy failed was because of perception. The portable was never meant to be seen as a full-fledged videogame system, but more as an elaborate electronic toy. The two noted that had the marketing message been different, perhaps consumer expectations would have been different.

Flash forward eight years after the launch of the Virtual Boy to 2003, the year before the Nintendo DS launched. Nintendo's Game Boy Advance was the dominant handheld, and it had just seen a new edition hit the stands, called the Game Boy Advance SP. This clamshell design would yet again be a testing ground for Nintendo's 3D ambitions.

Now working with a smaller LCD screen, Nintendo's attempts to control the price of a 3D system were approaching success. But they encountered another problem... "Making three-dimensional images that can be seen by the naked eye requires a special liquid crystal, so we tested it out by putting it in the Game Boy Advance SP," Iwata noted. "But the resolution of LCD was low then, so it didn't look that great and it never made it to being a product."

"In order to make images look three-dimensional without special glasses, you display the images for the left and right eyes separately, and deliver each one separately. To do that you need high resolution and high-precision technology. We didn't have that to a sufficient degree back then, so the stereoscopic effect wasn't very sharp."

It would, of course, be another eight years before Nintendo finally cracked the difficult challenge of finding the right technology at the right price to create the 3DS. When you pick up your system in the coming months, realize that the 3DS is not just another portable, but a descendant of the Virtual Boy, GameCube and the GBA SP. That's quite a bit of ancestry.

View the original article here

Flight Control maker buys Puzzle Quest studio

Firemint acquires Infinite Interactive for undisclosed amount; Infinite staff to continue work on unnamed title.

Two of Australia's most well-known niche video-gaming studios are set to merge their operations, with the acquisition of Infinite Interactive by fellow Aussie developer Firemint.

The pair have shot to global prominence over the past few years through several popular in-house-developed games. For Firemint it was Flight Control, a game initially for Apple's iPhone platform, while Infinite Interactive is best known for its Puzzle Quest series. However, both studios also have other notches on their belt.

In a statement, Firemint noted that Infinite Interactive founder Steve Fawkner and his team would join Firemint's studio in Melbourne, which currently has 60 staff, and continue to work on a game already under development. Firemint described Fawkner as "one of the games industry's pre-eminent innovators," having created more than 30 games in a career spanning more than 25 years.

Flight Control has been highly lucrative for Firemint. In January 2010, for example, the developer noted it had sold 2 million copies of its Flight Control app for Apple's iOS platform--which costs A$1.19 ($1.19). The game has appeared on a number of "top 100" paid apps lists around the world and has held the top spot in some countries, including Australia. Most of the sales at that stage (46 percent) had come from the US, with Australians contributing 8 percent of sales.

Infinite Interactive, too, has achieved critical success. For example, Puzzle Quest: Challenge of the Warlords from 2007 has a metacritic.com score of 87/100--an aggregation of many reviews scores.

View the original article here

Sengoku Basara: Chronicle Heroes being told on PSP in Japan

Capcom's historic beat-'em-up franchise confirmed for PSP release in island nation next summer; Western outing TBA.

Capcom didn't exactly win over Western critics with Sengoku Basara: Samurai Heroes, a Dynasty Warriors-style beat-'em-up that received a drubbing upon its release for the PlayStation 3 and Wii in October. Still, the game did attain a measure of commercial success, with Capcom saying as part of its April-September earnings report that the game met or exceeded its sales expectations of 500,000 units.

As such, it comes as no surprise that the franchise will continue beyond Samurai Heroes. Today, Capcom updated its official blog to reveal that Sengoku Basara: Chronicle Heroes will arrive for the PSP in Japan this summer. Unfortunately for Western audiences, Capcom has not yet confirmed a release outside of Japan.

Capcom did not detail what gamers can expect from Chronicle Heroes. However, it will likely stick close Samurai Heroes' formula. In that game, players hacked their way through the events and people of feudal Japan, much like Koei's long-standing Samurai Warriors franchise. The game featured large-scale battles of "hundreds of opponents," and players were able to assume control of more than 10 legendary samurai for use on the field of war.

For more on the most recent installment in the franchise, check out GameSpot's review of the Wii and PS3 versions of Sengoku Basara: Samurai Heroes.

View the original article here