Is this the latest sign that traditional RPG titles are being shoved out the door to make room for more MMORPG games and shooter games?

I suppose you could argue that a KOTOR MMO does not necessarily preclude a Knights of the Old Republic 3 traditional RPG title, but in my opinion, reading between the lines, the answer is pretty clear. This MMO is being developed instead of a traditional sequel to Knights of the Old Republic 2, not in addition to such a sequel.

This depresses me beyond measure. Is there truly no market in the video game industry these days for single player, story driven role playing games with memorable characters and branching plot-lines? Have we as video game players truly sent the message, via our wallets, that developers should no longer bother with traditional rpg titles and instead focus all their time and effort into making power-leveling MMO games?

I would write more analysis, and probably will write more at some point, but right now I'm just too damned disappointed to belabor the point any further.

Well, as your friendly neighborhood RPG fanatic I can't allow today's news about Final Fantasy XIII, formerly a PS3 exclusive, now being slated for simultaneous release on the 360 pass without comment.

I admit to feeling a bit of mixed feelings about this news. On the one hand, I am, of course, happy for anything that makes RPG games sell better because they have become, sadly, a dying breed the last three years. I'm not saying that they are completely gone, and that they won't experience a revival at some point, but the scarce and low-quality nature of most RPGs released this console generation has certainly been depressing for me.

So therefore, I naturally support anything that will make a top-tier RPG manufacturer like Square Enix make more cash. They may not be everyone's favorite RPG maker, as the split between JRPG fans and WRPG fans remains rather pronounced and growing, but everyone needs to at least respect their place in the RPG universe. Sadly, this doesn't mean that I completely support how Final Fantasy XIII lost its exclusivity.



Currently, Final Fantasy XIII is scheduled for simultaneous release on both consoles in 2008. That very fact contains a hidden nugget of information that can't be overlooked. By having a simultaneous release on both consoles in 2008, it is extremely obvious that either the 360 version of the game has been in production for a very long time and Square Enix never bothered to tell either Sony or its own fans that it was working with Microsoft behind the scenes on this, or one of the two versions is going to be a junky port.

Think about it for a moment. RPG development cycles are long and expensive. It is one of the reasons so few top tier RPG games are being made these days. If Square was planning on bringing this title to the 360, and 2008 is the release date for both versions, either it must have been working on the 360 version in secret for a very long time or one version is being developed in a hurry.

Of course the other possible explanation is that neither version is going to be released in 2008 after all and Square Enix isn't bothering to let us know that the release of this top title is going to be pushed back. But assuming that it isn't the case, and they really do intend to release both versions in 2008, then one of my first two explanations must be true. This is very disappointing to me. I'm disappointed because Square let fans of their games believe it was a PS3 exclusive for a very long time after they knew it wasn't true. Some of us, me included, had Final Fantasy XIII as one of our prime reasons for buying the PS3 in the first place.



I am also disappointed because what they did can easily be described as mildly unethical. While I don't really have a favorite between the 360 and the PS3, loving them both for different reasons, I don't support deceit. If Square Enix really has been working on FFXIII for the 360 for many months now, then they have been deceiving Sony by letting Sony believe, and plan their business strategy around, FFXIII being one of their top-shelf exclusives.

Don't get me wrong. My sympathy for Sony has very definite limits. They were arrogant in the last generation and to a lesser extent in this one, but I think folks may want to keep a close eye on Square as a company going forward and examine their statements rather closely. They definitely showed a very ruthless streak in how they played this one.

What's that old saying? All's fair in love and war. And as we learned with Bioware selling out to EA, no company is really any different from any other. All the more reason to love the games and not the companies behind them.

During one of his debates with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama stated that at some point during every election year "silly season" begins.

I've decided, for my own personal amusement and because some of these are just too obvious to be left unremarked upon and not pointed out, to compile a brief list of how you can recognize when "silly season" has begun.



You know Silly Season has begun when.......

1. The "Marriage Protection Amendment" is back in the news again. Here's President Bush talking about it on June 5th, 2006.. Ironically, I heard nothing about it in the year and a half following the 2006 elections. It's like the issue doesn't really matter to Republicans unless it's an election season and they can try and use it to try and get evangelicals to come out and vote for them.

Lo and behold, here's the issue being brought back, this last week. I'm sure the timing is a coincidence. I'm also quite positive that moral pillars like Larry Craig and David Vitter being among the bill's chief sponsors is hilarious.

2. Grover Norquist tastefully describes Barack Obama as John Kerry with a tan. Score one for racial sensitivity! The biggest news organization in the country refers to Obama's wife as, quote, his "baby mama". Score two for racial sensitivity. And, a fist pound for good luck between a husband and his wife is referred to as a, quote, "terrorist fist jab". Score three.

3. Politicians actively campaign against a particular bill and then try and take credit for it when it passes anyway.

4. Politicians spend millions of dollars that they don't have (always a good signal of their ability to manage the largest economy in the world) on negative attack ads against the opponent, and then ask their opponent to pay them back when they lose in return for their support. Hard to see how a couple with an estimated net worth in excess of $100 million dollars can ask people to help pay back their loans to themselves. Score one for chutzpah!

5. Hideously immoral and evil issues go unreported because there's another missing white girl who needs breathless 24 hours a day coverage.

6. The most important issue presently facing my country will receive two minutes of coverage per WEEK in the news over the course of the year to date. It's a good thing we don't have 150,000 troops in Iraq right now or else that might be a travesty. (How many missing girls are there to focus on? Sheesh...)

7. Budget crises will take a backseat to governors being caught in oh so tender moments with former Playboy bunnies while they're in the middle of going through a divorce. (Three cheers for the party of moral values!)

8. A man who claims to personally exorcise demons will be mentioned as a top-tier VP candidate. (I'm just wondering how that would look on a job resume. What job that you submit a resume for would you list "exorcist" as being among your qualifications?) If you're a superhero who can battle demons, shouldn't you be wearing funny tights and driving souped up cars around instead of sitting behind a desk all day?

9. Liberals will begin attacking each other. Seriously, it just wouldn't be the Democratic party that I know and love if we weren't busy eating our own young during election season instead of focusing on the Republicans. Ignore what I said yesterday about wagering on Obama to be the next president. We should never underestimate the ability of Democrats to snatch defeat from the gaping jaws of victory.

10. Democrats will cave in to a President with a job approval rating hovering around 25% because they don't want to look...weak. Once again, it wouldn't be the Democratic party if it didn't apply the bizzarro world thinking that the best way to look strong on national security issues is to back down from a weakened president and give the minority party 98% of what it wants.

Despite my own political inclinations on the issues, I tried to bash both sides more or less equally but highly doubt that I was successful. Still, considering all of this was in the news in the last two days alone this is what military folks like to call a target rich environment.