Breaking serve.

 Oh Sony, you really did ask for it.

 I've spread it to as many people as possible once I realized it had happened: the PS3 is hacked. Sure, it's old news, but not by much. Sony's response was characteristically quick, patching PS3's across the board with 3.42 to plug the leak. Normally, I wouldn't mind so much. I have a useless PSP and I haven't complained much since the Half Byte Loader project has allowed me to run what I'd like to run while avoiding ISO dumps of new PSP games. I still have my complaints, but that's only due to the fact that the PSP is generally useless as a piece of hardware.

 While I understand that software companies have a legitimate stake in what happens with this exploit, I find it hard to put my backing behind them, and when it comes to Sony, all I can do is laugh. This was deserved. Sony was asking for it. Slap around a fanbase long enough and they will, rightfully, be pissed off. Why should a consumer like myself defend Sony? If you're out there, please answer this for me. You've done everything in your power to make the PS3 just as useless as the PSP. You've done everything in your power to avoid responsibility in stealing features that you promised. You have treated your fan base like they are all pirates. I said this before, and I'll say it again...Sony themselves have asked me to back the pirates.

 So naturally, I am laughing at Sony for this one. Sign me up for a used, second-hand PS3 that offers no profit to Sony in any way just so that I may hack it and use it for my own purposes. They begged me to do it, and I will do just that.

 As far as the software makers of the world, I would like to turn my attention to EA, Ubisoft, and Activision. If you honestly think that people should feel sorry for you in any way when you decide to bitch about pirates cutting into your profits, then please feel free to learn along with Sony about how not to treat your customers. Maybe when the PS4 gets hacked, we can fight this war again. Together, even, as allies.

 Let's just get one rule out of the way before we have to do this again someday:

 If you treat us like the enemy, if you act like we're the enemy, if you punish us because your enemy is beating you, and if you gouge us to fight the enemy...then we're clearly the enemy. It might actually be the better side to be on, because at least we know we'll be your top priority, for once.

 Speaking of which,

 www.ps3-hacks.com Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Now, put a dollah in the box!

 This whole $10 mess is starting to get a little out of hand. First EA "pioneers" a system that was technically already in place. Then Ubisoft and THQ spoke up about agreeing that it needs to happen while bashing second-hand economics along the way. Activision openly plots of ways to gouge money out of their customers. Now Sony is thinking of joining the bandwagon, and while they have historically relieved themselves on the fans who buy their gaming products, it may be time for the community to stop relaying reports and start to speak up about it all. Nintendo's probably going to be the last to agree to this for several obvious reasons, but out of every other company out there, Sony may the biggest and last company that could reverse this trend. 

 I call out Nintendo for a number of reasons, but mainly because they are a shining example of how to treat a fanbase. They certainly have a tainted history, and no company can be considered "perfect", but Nintendo has come the closest to meeting customer expectations and this stance has reflected well in their game sales. Sony put out a mammoth, overpriced machine that was low on fun and high on maintenance. By maintenance, I mean ego. They were the gold digging company that wanted to charge you a high price just for the privilege of having a ride, and sure it looked nice, but Sony wasn't able to perform when it needed to. On top of that, they started asking more and more from you until things just started to go missing as if you never actually owned them to begin with. Let's face it, Sony has already broken up with you, they just won't tell you yet. 

 Nintendo, by contrast, put out a comparatively cheap product that inspired fun, at least for a little while. Their online service is going to be free for the forseeable future, everything costs less, and they haven't treated their customers like criminals. They also have had a decent track record in giving customers opportunities to open their wallet for a decent reason instead of greed. Sure, the games on the Virtual Console are intangible and sometimes overpriced, but a few companies have had IP's revived do to retro interest, and the costs involved aren't all that much. Would we have received a sequel to Final Fantasy IV without the VC? Debatable, but at least I'm not being charged what amounts to a $10 toll that assumes I'm a pirate or need to pay for the developer wasting their money when developing products. 

 Which brings us back to the point. What is the purpose of the $10 charge? The companies will tell you, and have told you, that they are doing this to combat the GameStop's of the world that they neither do business with (they do) or care about (they should).

 Let's debunk that myth here and now. There is a basic economic principle that's called "supply and demand". The majority of people who have at least made it to high school have heard about it, and even the ones that don't understand this principle by practical application. If you print a million games, but no one wants them, then your demand is low while your supply is high. Instead, you print a lesser amount of games, much like Atlus does, charging only for games that you know will sell and reprinting when necessary. Those games move off the shelves, and maybe not all the way, but at least you know that you're meeting your demand and only spending the necessary amount of money to make that happen. 

 Now, what the companies are telling you is that used game sales enter into this problem. In a way, they could, but not as much as you would think. I'll side for the companies for one moment. Let's say that a million copies of Fallout: New Vegas were printed. A half a million fly off the shelves during the first week, but 200,000 of those people beat the game within a week, don't like it, or decide that they like the game enough but are more interested in making the switch to PlayStaion Move and need all the trade-in credit they can get. So, even though the expectation was that a million people were buying the game, only 800,000 copies were actually moved. Thus, sales are are culled by GameStop simply existing.

 So what if GameStop didn't exist? What if those 200,000 people simply couldn't trade in their games for an obscenely tiny amount? Hell, GameStop is making money off of this without programming one line of code...why not the company who made the damn game? Fair point It's feasible that companies could meet their expected demand, and what's more, maybe those 200,000 people who bought the game second-hand turn into retail buyers, boosting the million mark to 1,200,000. It makes sense...

...until you start to get into what's really going on behind the scenes. Call of Duty: MW2 didn't originally force people into extra charges for their game, nor did they punish the second-hand buyer. In fact, people who had outlived their use of the game were able to trade it back for credit towards something else, providing a market for people who weren't there on day one to get into the MW2 scene. By having that used game market, you effectively bolster your own online community while giving gamers the choice of liking your game or not. If they don't like it, sales across the board will plummet. Look at Bionic Commando. I don't hear Capcom bitching that we need to be charged an extra $10 for the "opportunity" to play that game. The game sucked, and the $9.95 price WITHIN A YEAR OF RELEASE reflected that. Nobody wanted the game. MW2, however, still costs nearly full price. Hell, the original MW demands some big money for an old game. People still talk about playing MW, so a thriving online community is created who have positive word of mouth about it. If MW wasn't so cult-popular, then MW2 would not have had the explosive release than it did. Would you rather have a $60 customer that hates your company and your game and is stuck with a copy of that game? Wouldn't it make sense to have a fan who appreciates your game owning that copy, even if it is used, buying your DLC and hyping up Black Ops? I, for one, take the latter. 

 Also, take any EA sports franchise. EA truly treats their games like crap. The only way to justify $60 every year is if it is a truly different game each year. I understand that they have the license, and they do insane amounts of research in developing and maintaining their games. However, that's not the point. Imagine what they could do if Madden or FIFA was released every two years with a $25 update in the off years. Suddenly, you see that retail sales are huge. Second hand sales, and values, rise. That $25 update? It's now mandatory for any fan of the game to update their rosters and maintain themselves on the newest updates. Sure, a million people sold the game back because they didn't like it, but a million others take their place, you still sold the original copies, and the second-hand buyers will buy the DLC at a rate comparable or even HIGHER than the retail counterparts. 

 The supply and demand argument also helps when it comes to the quality of games. Sure, Bionic Commando retailed at $60. So did Uncharted 2. Which company spent it's money better? Do you ever hear Nintendo complaining about development costs? Yet, when Final Fantasy XIII came out, we were expected to pay $10 more for a game that literally wasted millions upon millions to end up with a sub-par attempt at a Final Fantasy game. They aren't even a company asking for the $10 "toll", either. 

 This is a topic I could write a thesis about. The "toll" doesn't work, and only serves to insult the customer and treat the best fans of a game like dirt. Some people just want to save a buck here and there, and if the developer can't be bothered to make their game that worth it, then why should good customers pay more? If Modern Warfare 2 costs $55 used and the game is that damned good, I'll just buy the retail game for $5 more. but I've bought FIFA a year late before. If it wasn't for EA telling me that they are going to punish people like me for discovering that their series is worth buying, then I won't buy FIFA 11 no matter how worth it the game may be. I've been shafted, I've been insulted, and the game's value will rest in EA's hands instead of my own. It's no different from owning a cartridge of Super Mario 3 or Super Tecmo Bowl. Imagine if you were told that, "Oh yeah, the game costs $15, but if you want to play the last level, you gotta call Nintendo and spoon out $10."

 Sure, it would make money, but I don't think many people would view those series as having any future value ever again. Sony, you have to put a stop to this. Why are you always the one I'm preaching customer service to? Why are you the last one to listen to the fans? Why are you the first in line to steal things from people? How the hell are you still in business? Save face, and bail out of this NOW. Otherwise, you're just one more formerly valuable brand that we can simply forget about. 

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

No no no, you've got it all wrong.

http://kotaku.com/5604223/the-game-that-wasnt-there

 Click it, read it. I've got nothing but....OK, he's missing the point.

 Why would I stand up and criticize someone who wants the exact same thing that I want? I dare to do so because the logic isn't there. There is a here and there argument that isn't made with him.

 When you look back to the days of the vintage RPG, you can't help but recognize that there were a select few that stood out above the others. I grew up in the day when Wizardy was getting its start, but I will never be the person to tell you that there was ever a glory day, because there wasn't. First person RPG's were a difficult mess to get into, and WRPG's as a whole suffered from the same shortcomings. Playing Ultimate, no matter what Spoony may have said, was a chore.

 I've delved into some pretty good first person dungeons, and I've been impressed when it's done right. I've also been lucky enough to experience when a good RPG shows up to change the game a bit, giving the player more options. This is where I can agree with Joel Haddock. The customization, the personal attachment, the building from absolute scratch, and the consequences of action...they just aren't present anymore, and that is something that we should all pine for. Just as my last article showed, it's quite possible to throw new life into a genre that has become so hung up on graphics and formula by going back to remember how a true classic was made when neither element existed. A good concept is a good concept, and it always pains me to see developers throwing too much into expanding a current staple rather than going back to something that actually worked 10-20 years ago.

 Take Dragon Age. There is nothing that this game offers that hasn't been available for, in the experience of some gamers, their entire lives. I didn't buy Dragon Age because it just wasn't innovative enough, despite the fact that critics heralded it as something different. It was nothing but the same thing we've all come to know about WRPG's done in a more fashionable style.

 So how does Haddock miss the point? Cause and effect. The WRPG market buried itself when games like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest arrived on shelves. WRPG's wouldn't change. There was little innovation, and what the JRPG was telling gamers was that games could be done in a more intuitive fashion. People tend to cling to something they can wrap their heads and hands around. Fallout 3 was a terrific success, but only because it was a genuinely great game, but because everything clunky about Fallout was removed. I agree that there is a certain functionality to turn based RPG's that should never leave the genre, but WRPG's used to be archaic pieces of crap with a terrible learning curve for a newcomer. How can a player get inspired over a screen of pixeled dust while being able to control a party only with intimate knowledge of an entire keyboard's command bindings? The games were never paced well enough to attract gamers, and to be honest, the stories sucked.

 Go out and kill the evil wizard, you are told. If that's ALL the game is about, then shouldn't JRPG's be proud of what they are? JRPG's tend to be 40 hour marathons, but at least there's a hint of substance in them. No matter how awesome your lvl 20 ninja is, there is no substituting that feeling of purpose and belonging within a game world. Final Fantasy VI allowed me to customize every single party member to my liking, and with the exception of a select few skills, everything was up for grabs no matter the character I chose. Now, it's not the perfect freedom that a seasoned RPG vet may want. In fact, the linear storyline may turn off some. However, it's the ease of use and engaging world that kept me, and most fans, in the game.

 A title like Final Fantasy XIII throws all of that out the window, but it is the clear product of gamers wanting the "so easy I don't even have to play" setting. The truth is, gamers do want the experience of an old, freedom loving WRPG, but we're relearning our desire for it. The question isn't "if", it's when. When the original Final Fantasy came out, even WRPG fans heralded it for pretty much everything it was, despite the bare bones storyline and limited choice of character development. Once the basic formula was in place, Final Fantasy V and VI expanded on what you were able to do with the party while still maintaining the linear story. Later on, the series began to add in side-quests and random events that would make a linear world seem more eventful. It's simply a product of the rapid switch to a more gratifying storyline with an easier system of play. Gamers loved it, and the formula started to expand back to RPG roots no matter what series.

 Even Fallout 3 can be used as a shining example of effort being put into this expansion of method. While not perfect and unlimited, the title re-introduced certain aspects of the WRPG without getting too complicated. On top of that, is boasted a FPS engine that would make the regular gamer feel right at home without the threat of being turned away by ungodly menus and button combinations. It played like a simple shooter, but carried quite a bit of RPG depth. When New Vegas comes, I wouldn't be surprised if the formula was expanded on in some way to encompass more choice in the player's quest.

 It's simple....we made the move to intuitive...then we made the move to graphics. Many series are at least trying to get back the old charm by expanding a game's scope beyond just a pretty looking story. It'll happen eventually, and I'll admit, it's not happening fast enough...but it's around the corner. You'll get to recruit a mouse one day, Joel. Trust me. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Attn: Rockstar...a decade of failure

 It's high time we call out the sandbox genre for what it is. Don't get me wrong, sandbox games have put out some true gems, and it's history is starting to become lasting rather than some brief fling stumbled upon when developers figured out that rendering an entire city was possible. The genre is here to stay, but unfortunately for the players, it is one without direction or substance.

 Just click on any Yahtzee review of a game with sandbox elements, and you get mostly the same complaints each round of bashing. The story has no immediate impact. Shop elements give you everything you need once you've reached a certain point. Story is sprinkled around freedom, and that freedom is so great that the rewards for lashing out within the sandbox don't make a player feel as mighty as they should feel when given that much to do with the world around them. Come on, you can fly attack choppers through a crowded downtown street destroying whatever you want. How did they manage to make this anything less than rewarding?

 You can pick any game you want, and the same things are wrong with it. Grand Theft Auto has this problem in any game. Red Dead Redemption has the same problem. It's not even Rockstar that does it, it's everyone.

 The trouble is that no one knows how to add weight to a sandboxed world. If you level a city block, you get nothing. If you die, nothing really happens except that you restart from a save point or a hospital. If you fail a mission, you can easily try it again. Once you get enough money in your wallet, you can do pretty much anything. There's no restriction to what you can do, so whipping out a rocket launcher and going to town isn't going to be fun when there's nothing to make you question your moral code. Of course, the whole point is that there is no moral code in these games.

 There's one simple way to fix it all, but no developer seems to remember what it was. A while back, I reviewed Star Control II, which was a gimme A+ game that required no talent at all to evaluate. A race against time to save the galaxy from oppressive aliens, Star Control II offered quite a bit of freedom to meet the ultimate goal. In fact, the game had so much basic freedom that you could consider it a sandbox. It has all the qualities of a sandbox game. From the get-go, you could set a course for any star out of the hundreds available. If you met an alien, you didn't even have to talk with them; you could immediately choose to start a fight while skipping the chit-chat. The entire draw of SC2 was that you had SO much freedom, you had to be extremely careful of what you did. Your ship had extreme limitations, and going too far away from Earth could kill you unless you were prepared for everything the galaxy had to offer. You needed to learn your limitations, tread lightly, and spend 90% of your time playing the defensive side of things.

 There is another huge difference, however, that ultimately shows off how badly the sandbox games have handled themselves. Star Control II ran on a time-clock. You only had a few years to achieve success, otherwise the enemy would steamroll through the galaxy with impunity. Events in the game were just plain going to happen unless you altered the course of time. It was a simple trick, but it changed the sandbox entirely. You couldn't spend a year of your game time screwing around and choosing when to approach every mission in the game, or the game would leave you behind.

 A sandbox could benefit from this simple innovation that time forgot. What would happen if events in Liberty City happened with or without you being there?

 The game begins. You go through your tutorial, break out of jail, and now you're a free man. You take your time to meet your associate who has agreed to house you until you get on your feet. He gives you the keys to a beat up car, and then the clock starts. Miles away, someone is making plans to murder your new friend. Just a block down from that, a millionaire is planning on bombing his rival's safehouse. In 2 months, a boat will land, stay for a month, and then leave...and that boat happens to be the only access you'll ever have to a high-class gang that could change the entire course of the game if you chose to join it. A serial killer roams the city, and each month, he kills someone, and who he is ties directly into the main story line in a way you would never know if you ignored him. A shootout will go wrong in month 5, and if you can be there before the cops arrive, you will find a suitcase filled with $5 million that is free for the taking.

 Suddenly, the game really changes. Stories become more important, and your choice on which plots to follow can dramatically affect not only the way you play the game, but the way you perceive the story. That's just in a Rockstar game. Imagine if Resident Evil or Alone in the Dark gave you loads more freedom, but also paired up with a time clock.

 This is something that could change games for good. Having a hundred different subplots, a hundred different NPC's that can be a part of your experience, several endings depending on your choices and when you made them....it's unreal the type of game that could happen, and it gives much more weight to what a player chooses to do in their playtime. Sure, you could grab a car and run zombies over for an hour. You may even get a tank to play with. Yet, it's much more satisfying to know that everything you do, every action you take, and every friend you make will have a profound influence on the way the story plays out. Your ultimate goal may be to unleash an airborne retro-virus to kill an undead horde, but any game offers this. What they don't offer is a way to uncover the truths or events that happen on your way to do it. If events go on in the background, with or without you, the player would have to pick and choose their approach. Maybe you end up rescuing a competent engineer that can jump start any car, break any security, and easily create the circumstances that beat the game. Yet, in doing so, you forgot to pick up the phone in someone's house that led you to the origin of the virus. Maybe the love of your life (game) dies at a certain point unless you are there to stop it from happening. Maybe a different danger is going on in the background that dwarfs the fight you're in, making you wonder why your ending is always depressing even when you kill the undead. Suddenly, just like in Star Control II, you're exploring and playing it safe, or taking a risk to make an ally that changes everything.

 Learn from this, Rockstar. I've never been impressed with the open world, but if you can pull off a narrative that plays to the strengths of the sandbox, then I'm on that bandwagon. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

In defense of LeBron

 I've been a fan for LeBron James for a long time. It has very little to do with being a Cavaliers fan. Throughout my entire life, Cleveland has been a big part of my sports upbringing. I grew up loving Mark Price, that incredible Indians lineup in the mid-to-late nineties, and Michigan will always be looked down upon. Yet, I've never been that serious about my Ohio roots. It bothered me when Art Modell uprooted the Browns and left, but we got the team back and it's not as if they ever managed to produce anything outside of Bernie Kozar. The Indians still haven't won a thing for over 50 years. I don't even hate Michigan fans, and it's just a funny joke to me.

 When LeBron came to Cleveland, I was excited. It was a great story in the making for fans of basketball and Ohio natives. A hometown kid getting drafted by the Cavaliers, LeBron was a gift to Ohio. He came into the league and immediately became one of the most watchable players in league history, and he seemed to enjoy himself while doing it. Nobody particularly likes the "killer instinct" versions of Jordan and Kobe. As a sports fan, I can get behind a player who truly loves what he is doing on the court or on the field. I always liked Magic better than MJ. Kirby Puckett and Ken Griffey Jr. had those infectious smiles that you could identify with. Those are the players I love to watch, and to be honest, that's why I got behind LeBron to begin with.

 He gave Cleveland 7 years of his life and put himself through more hell than 99% of the league's players while still being expected to do more. The very second he left, you could see what appreciation the state had for the likes of him. He is public enemy #1 in Ohio, and the reasons are difficult to justify when you consider what he had already brought to the state. He single-handedly turned the Cavaliers, an absolute joke of a franchise, into an immediate contender. The team value shot up over $100 million, and he did everything by Ohio committee. He brought Shaq in, who never would have came to Cleveland under a different circumstance. He even pushed to keep Z, who was effectively slowing the franchise down no matter how much we loved the guy and wanted him to succeed. He claimed the league's best record. He claimed MVP honors.

 No, he didn't bring the title home...but when you make all the right decisions only to turn to Mo Williams and realize that not one person on that team outside of Shaq was capable of elevating their game, can you really blame him? Let's be real for a moment. By getting LeBron, you effectively guarantee yourself a title so long as you have players willing to take it. LeBron didn't have anyone like that. Even Shaq was capable of only really doing that in a game or two of the last playoffs. Even if LeBron did quit on his team in the playoffs this year, how much of the blame goes to him for doing so?

 That's really where the defense breaks down. If LeBron had finished strong in the postseason, and we still don't know just how hurt he really was, do we still bring the hate to his doorstep? I don't think we do as much. We really don't know if he did quit, either, so we can't hate him for just that. It's also unfair to say that he needed to be loyal to Cleveland. After 7 years, he clearly did not need to be loyal to them any more than he already proved himself to be. When Bret Favre left Green Bay, Green Bay told him to hit the road because they were not going to play his game. What Bret Favre wanted to do was hold a franchise at gunpoint while he took his sweet time in deciding. The only person to blame for the Cavaliers being held at gunpoint is the very same owner slamming LeBron in the media right now.

 Dan Gilbert basically bent himself over and tossed LeBron the lube this offseason. Gilbert deserved what he got, and anyone in Cleveland knew it. Cleveland didn't go sign a free agent, didn't get creative, and didn't make the effort for LeBron anyway. If LeBron was the last key piece to fall in the market, then what was Cleveland doing the entire time? You really expect LeBron to be enticed by another postseason of Mo Williams? You really think Shaq is going to be better next year? Gilbert caused the Cavs to be held hostage, not LeBron.

 LeBron was a little...ok, a lot...narcissistic when announcing his plans, but the plans itself is nothing to get fussed about. Say you and your three best pals grew up playing Goldeneye and Halo together for the past decade. You always have a blast playing together, and sometimes another opposing household comes over for a 4 on 4 match and you smoke them every time. You also all play in a gaming league, with each friend being on a separate team. The opportunity comes up the next year to enroll all of your friends on the same team, knowing that you'll have an incredible time doing it while also being encouraged by the potential league domination you could do. Do you say no to that just because some sniveling brat that goes 3-25 each map brings the donuts and Dew to the games wants you to stay? Effectively, that's what Gilbert is in all of this. He's the one crying "YOU DIDN'T SEE ME! YOU'RE HACKING!" while his hands are covered in Cheeto-stains, and the second he doesn't get his way, he cries in a corner.

 So, before you go burning your LeBron jersey, just remember...he may no longer be allowed, by default, to be the best player in the history of the game. Provided something massive doesn't happen in the next couple years, there's no way that he gets compared to MJ.

 But, it was either that, or become KG. For all the loyalty that guy had to his team, franchise, and fanbase, it took an incredible toll on his mind and body to work through it all and come up with nothing. I don't know a single Minnesotan that hates KG for anything he did. He deserved to jump ship and get his title. No one faults him for it. It only makes sense that it was KG that gave the little piece of advice to LeBron right after his playoff exit.

 Loyalty only gets you so far. If you have an opportunity to do what you want to do, go get it.

 He did. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

We sittin' here talkin' 'bout practice...again.

 I've been out of practice with this blog. I'll be honest, I've had a ton to write about, but can't seem to get back into the rhythm of typing is all out. So this may just be a throwaway article, but who knows, maybe you can help make something of the idea behind it.

 Having just checked out a Smash Bros. Melee video via Kotaku and GameTrailers, I immediately wanted to stand up and applaud. For a couple of years, I've often wondered what secrets are still out there in our games that have yet to be discovered. Apparently, in 2008, someone figured out how to play as Master Hand through a glitch at the character select. That's seven years after the game was released, which is astonishing, especially when you consider just how fanatical fans of the game are.

 How many more secrets are out there? Sure, Aeris isn't coming back, but that's only because we've intentionally butchered that game in order to find a way and forced Squeenix to make sure that they gave us answers. That's one in a million cases where we can honestly say that something just isn't in the game without the use of outside help like a GameShark. For the rest, gamers are usually left in the dark about what is and isn't there.

 To be clear, I'm not talking about glitches, though the Smash Bros. glitch suggests that there is definitely gold in the results. No, I mean actual secrets that we just haven't discovered. If someone found a hidden revelation in the plot of Final Fantasy VI, there would be a HUGE response. What if there was a stage in the original Super Mario Bros. that no one ever found? What if there was a hidden room in Super Metroid, and someone turns up tomorrow and shows the world how to find it? What if someone managed to sneak Mega Man into Super Street Fighter II?

 These are all quite specific, and largely implausible, but you see where I'm going with this. All of those examples can be disproved by means of ROM utilities, and the bigger the game, the more you can bet that several people have wasted nights upon nights digging through the sprites, texts, and maps of each game. Trust me, it happens all the time. Some genius took the time to discover an empty room in Final Fantasy VII that was never seen in the game. The problem was that the room couldn't be accessed within the game, and nothing was ever scripted to happen there. It was just a floating room within the code that never got used. People do search for this stuff, and people have ever offered cash rewards for it as well, which is another topic I've previously mentioned.

 The unfortunate part is that because of these methods, we sort of already know what isn't in games that we really want. We kind of eliminated that on our own through technology. If we can break into a game, we will. There will be no extra, undiscovered scene from Persona 3 because someone's already dug through the entire audio and text of the game just because.

 But what if? What if a game we've loved for years had one last thing it was hiding from the whole world? Wouldn't that be something? I'd love to see it happen, even if the odds are very slim. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

I brake for Zelda.

 A while back, I focused on the Legend of Zelda franchise and how it may be better off to go back to the basics. After E3, I digested the videos that Nintendo gave us when revealing Skyward Sword, not quite sure how to approach the topic. Zelda is loved by nearly every one, and that's not a statement I make lightly. Nearly every gamer, even the casual ones, have either put their hands to work for Link for at least five minutes or have watched someone play for at least an hour. I'm almost sure that my parents, who are strictly the non-gaming types, know at least something about the series. That said, it's difficult to say something ballsy about the franchise that made many of us fall in love with games in the first place.

 It needs to be said, though; things aren't looking promising.

 Even though they may have started the downhill trend, there's nothing flawed about A Link to the Past, Link's Awakening, or Ocarina of Time. Nintendo knew that fresh gimmicks were needed to keep Zelda shiny for the gamers, so the introduction of musical instruments, time travel, and parallel worlds weren't considered to be a hindrance. The games were perfection on whatever system they graced, so it never truly bothered us that we had already strayed from the original titles. No one will argue that these gimmicks weren't a good thing, because they never felt like gimmicks in the way we associate them with other games.

 Let's list a handful more Zelda titles that came afterwards.

Majora's Mask
Wind Waker
Twilight Princess
Skyward Sword
Minish Cap
Spirit Tracks
Oracle of Seasons/Ages

 The common thread is that every title implies that there is a gimmick involved, and it's not so much an implication when the facts are in our gaming collections. Are they bad games? Not by a long shot. You're guaranteed that every game in the series is going to be good, except for those who happened to purchase a CD-I. If anyone wants to send me a CD-I gamepad in an attempt to change my mind, I'll be open to a neutral re-review, but I'm still not quite sure how that's going to change anything.

 The problem lies with the reliance on gimmicks as a rule. With each new Zelda, a new mechanic is heralded for gamers to try. Sometimes, Nintendo just wants to try something new and show it off in the perfect way. Other times, they want to show off what their tech can do with a familiar face and a neat premise to mix things up. Unfortunately, this approach is really backwards. No one in Nintendo seems to want to make a great Zelda game that has a good gimmick. They seem to be more occupied with making a good gimmick and then turning it into a Zelda game.

 That's a really uneducated thing to say, really, because we all know that statement isn't very accurate, but it certainly feels that way. We're getting great games with good gimmicks, so we really shouldn't have anything to complain about, but when you watch the videos to Skyward Sword, you begin to realize that we lost the magic somewhere. We're getting Zelda games built around the Wiimote and the DS, and we really aren't getting the next legendary Zelda game.

 I've already mapped out what needs to be done to get back that feeling, so I won't retread about it here, but I will say this: Skyward Sword looks boring. I'm tired of z-locking in battle. I'm tired of using the stylus and Wiimote. I'm tired of having to deal with the gimmicks. I'm tired of dealing with "themes". Skyward Sword looks good, maybe great, as a regular game...but it feels like it's going to be just another Zelda game with a twist. The twist seems to be just an overall usage of motion controls, which is perfectly fine...but something is missing. It feels like Nintendo wanted to make a Zelda game that showed off their motion controls and not the best Zelda game they could make that just happened to have motion control. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Handing out the hardware.

 E3 is underway and still going strong, but a few days into the expo and we're already coming away with prime information about what the Big 3 intend to do in the next year. This year is a little different from most. It lacks a new console unveil, but it has captured that very feeling of "new". With Microsoft and Sony each taking their official stab into the motion control game, as well as the expectation for Nintendo to update its current offering in some way, its tough to read the news without feeling as if the new generation of consoles is right here and now.

 There is a lot of importance to this feeling, as Microsoft and Sony have plans to maintain their systems for another five years. Every company went into the fight years ago with their hardware of choice, but with so much innovation on the horizon, this is a battle of identity more than anything else. We, as consumers, are actually seeing new consoles materialize before our eyes due to the fact that the companies are willing to make such a shift in strategy. When Nintendo introduced their "revolution", they anticipated that we would perceive gaming in a completely different way while changing the industry at its core. There is no arguing that they have succeeded in doing so. 

 That said, each camp had an agenda that they absolutely had to stick to in order to come out of E3 with a "victory". With each year, there is a growing sense of competition. Much like the NBA Finals going on right now,  each team has keys to victory and a game plan that must be followed, and there will be an MVP. 

 The Big 3 have spoken. Their plans are no longer secret. The names or their projects are final. Let's see how they did.

Microsoft 

Project Natal - 

 Much like the Revolution, we can dispense with the daring and alluring name and start calling it something family-friendly and boring. Kinect is the final name of the 360's add-on, and it's looking a lot sleeker than we've come to expect. 

 I'll give it this. It is what everyone expected it to be. However, Microsoft actually managed to play this remarkable technology down to the point where I'm wondering why I still bother remaining interested. Voice commands, there. Hands-free, there and effective. Integration with Windows apps, there. Ripping off Wii Sports, there. 

 What follows is a list of failures. Where's the software? By this time, we all know what Project Natal was supposed to be, and what we're seeing now is a dumbed down version of everything we imagined. It can do a hands-free, voice activated video chat with an MSN friend while tracking your movements to keep the camera centered. That's fine. Where is the virtual wardrobe? Why does Wii Spo-...ahem, Kinect Sports look like it's gesture based at times? Sure you can activate keypads via Minority Report hand motions, but those motions are linked to useless applications. I always said that those hand motions could potentially be a huge part of gaming, but what Microsoft presented at E3 was a retread of already existing concepts at its simplest level, and this is the opposite of what Natal was supposed to achieve.
 Sure, it's great that you can have a virtual pet that recognizes you, but Microsoft absolutely needed to show that their tech was serious business. There were hundreds of advanced applications, such as the previously mentioned virtual wardrobe, that absolutely could have been shown off. That, and I still didn't get to see a game that would show off my batting stance or anything close to it. Look no further than the Kinect Star Wars trailer to see why Microsoft flushed their golden opportunity down the toilet.
 As a final note, I would just like to throw it out there how terrible a business practice this is. If you're going to "change the game", then you need to make waves. When the PS3 and Wii came out, we railed on their inability to implement their game plan for the next 3 years. The PS3 was too complex and too expensive at first, but a few years later, and we finally ended up receiving games that were representative of what we expected. The Wii came out with rudimentary motion controls, but it's low price and accessibility carried it in a huge way. Yet, it still took a few years for us to see the fruits of their efforts through Wii Motion Plus, and by that time, the Wii wasn't taken so seriously with everyone capable of putting out the very same tech with similar quality, and the graphics haven't improved much either.
 For Microsoft, this was the perfect opportunity to separate themselves from the pack. They had Natal in their deck for about a year, which was plenty of time to cook up some worthy apps for it. What you don't do in this situation is hope that the public will wait for the software to catch up. It DOES NOT take millions of dollars to create some magical programs for users. Microsoft needed to put together a small package of products that would make us truly turn our heads and go "wow". They had the money. They had the time. They certainly had the potential sitting on their lap, and it was not expensive to create. Now, we look at a console that's sitting much like the competition did at their own launches. Completely undeveloped and begging for us to be patient.

Sony

PlayStation Move -
 This is why I have a hard time listening to outlets like IGN. The PlayStation Move had a very specific way of performing its function, and no one really had a concrete idea as to how the PlayStation Eye was going to help combat against Natal. Basically, it nothing more than a different way of doing what the Wii already does. Where Natal had nearly unlimited potential, the Move only seemed to have tangible controllers going for it. It may sound like the status quo, but gamers aren't quite ready to ditch the controllers completely. So, looking at a peripheral that seemed ripped off and nothing more, Sony needed to convince us that this setup would be different and better than the other two companies.
 Once again, Sony proved how little identity is involved in their decision making. I mentioned before that Sony has no idea what it's doing, and this year's E3 only proved that. While IGN was dirtying their pants over the Move, I looked at the videos and was anything but impressed. As a matter of fact, any hope I had for the peripheral was quickly flushed. I haven't delved too deep into finding out what their plans are, but Sony seemed more inclined to tell us what we could do with the Move than what was possible, and much like Microsoft, they didn't bring any software that would make us think too hard about the evolution. It was not neat to see a robot whip out Wolverine claws. The Wii can do that if you were to plug a webcam into it, I'm sure. This was a big chance to do what Microsoft wouldn't do, and instead, they only proved that they were capable of stealing other people's concepts and doing things just differently enough to put up and argument that they weren't a carbon copy.
 Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that there's more potential in this device than Sony is letting on, but I'm not sure if they have a clue as to what that may be. I can think of a hundred applications for the Move that would help their cause, but they seemed to be too interested in copying Nintendo to notice.

Nintendo

Why you should even care anymore -
 Nintendo was in a difficult position. They had a gimmicky system that has worked well for them, but interest in their console is waning and the competition is out to get them on their home court. The Wii changed everything, and E3 proved that, but they desperately needed to get people to care about their system in some way that would divert attention away from Sony and Microsoft. They needed to get serious about their games and give the people what they wanted, and they needed to figure out how they would compete with new hardware. There was a rumor going around that the "Wii HD" would be announced in some way, but nothing has come of that
 Now, we all remember the awkward presentations from the past few years. The Wii's naming was an instant buzzkill, the Wii Music thing was...yikes, and Cammie Dunaway should never be allowed on a stage again. Somewhere...somehow...Nintendo learned, and gave the biggest middle finger to the competition that I could have imagined. They dodged the hardware battle entirely, and look spectacular for doing so. I don't know if they planned on it, but with Microsoft and Sony underperforming, Nintendo popped up and showed its hand of Zelda, Donkey Kong, Kid Icarus, Pilotwings, Star Fox, Mario Kart, and Metroid. I know I'm missing some titles because there were just too many, but Nintendo threw nearly every IP that wasn't Mario into the E3 arena. Even after all of that, they still had the 3DS to show off.
 In what was a ballsy backhand to Sony, Nintendo decided to flaunt its new 3D handheld, which we already know doesn't require glasses to enjoy. With the promise of 3D movies being watchable on this hardware as well as some inspired ports, the 3DS is looking more attractive by the day. Even if the handheld costs nearly $300 to purchase (it shouldn't), it would still be worth the time for most consumers. The DS is still immensely popular, and by giving the raw power boost to that rather than the Wii, Nintendo scored big. If everyone is going to copy the Wii, why bother giving it an upgrade until next year? The 3DS has many possibilities, and already its launch has one of the most potent and vast lineups of any console in history. You can't help but be impressed by the amount of software that's going to support it. If there's one complaint that I have, its that there has been little mention of turning this handheld into something a little more useful than its predecessor. It's even hard to complain about that, because with the promise of 3D movies, the inclusion of a 3D camera and SD card for personal use, and the hints Nintendo is giving that they have ideas on what they would include in the 3DS's store, it seems as if they are putting themselves into a position to include PDA and iPhone-type features without the need for a service provider.

 In my mind, Nintendo "won" E3 hands down. Sony and Microsoft were bringing new, exciting tech to the table, but neither one of them made it seem like they were serious about what they were planning on doing. I understand that Natal should eventually grow into something useful and game-changing, but now I have to say "should" instead of "will". They literally went out of their way during E3 to make sure I doubted them. Same with Sony. If it looks like a ripoff gimmick, sounds like a ripoff gimmick, and the company offering it can't prove that it's not a ripoff gimmick with any software that could be seen as having potential, then what are consumers left to assume? Nintendo brought out the big guns from their software side of the market and rolled out a handheld that immediately had a focus, purpose, and cool factor. I can't believe I'm saying this, but after years of being the laughing stock of E3, Nintendo impressed me more than anyone else.

 There's still a way to go for 2010's E3, so I'm sure I'll have more to come, but the Big 3 have had their say and I've had mine.

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

All wings report in.

 It';s been just over a decade. What happened? Where did the genre go?

 Whether it was Christopher Blair or a pilot in the Rebel Alliance, the 90's always had some place for you to go in order to get your space-flight fix. It was a great concept when done right. I was never a Wing Commander fan because I never played the games. I was of the X-Wing camp. The last game I played in that series was X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, but nothing worthwhile has come up since. I think the timing is now perfect for a return.

 I feel a rant coming on, so let me organize myself by starting at the beginning. Star Raiders was really the first of the genre, and the Atari release had the wow-factor going for it in being the first of its kind. Largely forgotten by the majority of gamers, it would be forgotten for almost fifteen years. In its stead, computers would show off their capabilities through real-world flight sims and jet-fighter games. If you were buying an Apple II, PC, Amiga, or whatever your box choice was, you were bound to be given a joystick for the purpose of flying a 747 or bush-plane. Don't get me wrong, it was astounding to see at the time. Those were amazing graphics, long before we even had the imagination to dream up the Half-Life engine.

 Yet, in 1990, Wing Commander was released, to be followed by X-Wing 4 years later. These games changed everything we expected from our PC games. They were high and above the software available at the time because of the way they used things that were already available. In other words, while Mode 7 was still in its infancy, gamers could plop themselves into deep space in relative 3-D and enjoy themselves thoroughly.

 We need these games back. It's been quite a long time since anything worthy of X-Wing's reign has come along, and even the genre itself has changed to be more of a console experience. Star Wars : Shadows of the Empire didn't get the magic down, and Rogue Squadron borrowed more from Rebel Assault than anything else. Even away from space and galaxies far far away, we get games like Crimson Skies for flight-combat. Nothing has stepped up. X-Wing was captivating, Wing Commander had a huge following, and nothing else has really ever touched them.

 Do we need the style to return? I think it's time to consider it. Every controller is already packed with the ability to, at the very least, fake a flight-stick. Whether it's motion control or the analog sticks, we don't have to go out and buy the hardware just to enjoy the genre, though it's way more rewarding to get behind the real thing.

 The games are well suited for the modern gaming climate, flexible to fit into anyone's schedule. The amount of missions available in these games were addictive enough to sucker a gamer in for hours, and with missions of varying depth, a gamer could choose between 10-30 minute battles depending on their schedule. On top of that, we already have the tools that we wanted available back then on our systems now. We all wanted multiplayer as well as headsets, and there's nothing better to fix the Rambo, score-stacking culture than to force players to cooperate and coordinate with their wingmen. Without a wingman, you're dead from the second you leave the fighter bay, and that's exactly what's needed to bring random players together now.

 One thing that could be incredibly innovative is to borrow the idea of medals from the original games. By having teammates vote for your ability in flight, players could have their say in determining whether or not somebody just went Leeroy, leaving your team in the dust for personal glory.So, award medal-credits to fellow players. If a pilot does a damn good job at saving teammates, voting him points will literally leave him decorated as a good teammate for the world to see. Clans are replaced with squadrons, an online/offline game of galactic dominance could be a year-long game of Risk....the possibilities are endless. Sure, these ideas could be used in FPS games, but I think this generation forgot how gripping space combat was. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

To Kyle Kulyk

 Read your article, and I would like to announce to the world some very good news.

 You have no idea what you're talking about.

 Now, before you start drooling in rage, let me rationally let you and the rest of the world know exactly what I mean by "good news". Owners of systems don't have to worry about their systems being broken, antiquated pieces of crap a week after release. If something is broken, Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft will fix it, and even better, they will keep adding to the pile of goodies that you can expect with your purchased consoles.

 What Mr. Kulyk is trying to say is that because the EULA, which is historically proven to mean very little when it comes to legally protecting anything, would become a one way street. Since you can't remove a feature, you couldn't possibly add one without suffering the same legal backlash. Well....no. That's not what it means at all.

 The EULA, TOS, or whatever you want to call it, is generally considered to be a "cover your ass" method of displaying the rules you intend to follow in relation to the law. If Sony were to include a paragraph prohibiting the use of pornographic images as avatars, they could do this. Their servers are a privilege, and for a person to get online flashing junk everywhere is in violation of the standards Sony would like to set for themselves. Legally, Sony may set standards above and beyond what is lawful in a public place, just like private property. If someone sues Sony to allow their junk to be an avatar, they can't cite free speech as a defense, and Sony wins easily.

 What those agreements can't do is break an already existing law. You may absolutely state that you have a higher expectation of a consumer than a law will allow, but you absolutely cannot break the law while doing so. Removal of a purchased feature is like an auto-maker saying that they have the right to come and strip the paint off your car. Certain things are illegal. Theft is illegal. Now, the question is whether or not Other OS was an advertised feature, and that argument is one that Sony is probably going to lose. The reason is that Sony made a profit using these unique feature to separate themselves from the XBox 360. If one person purchases a PS3 knowing that the Other OS was a feature, then Sony made money off that.

 What bothers me is that the suing seems amateur. I read the dates that someone wants compensation for, March 27th 2010, I think, was the closing date. Slim PS3's that have been on the shelf for months have never had the Other OS feature, and should not be a part of the lawsuit at all. Trying to make the argument that gamers are intelligent about their purchases while not being intelligent about what systems are in the mix doesn't sound like a great place to start building a reputation.

 So, Kyle Kulyk, you are wrong. The lawsuits are there to protect you, not take things away from you. The EULA is something that needs to be fought against. It's called precedent. If they take away features now and no one legally stops them, then they COULD, in theory, take away the Blu-Ray player that came with the system by locking it out. If there was a security hole in the Other OS, that's what needed to be fixed. The hole. An EULA can never, ever break an already existing law. Theft is against the law, and Sony is guilty of that. They are absolutely allowed to modify, add, and remove things, but a paid feature being removed is theft. If they took Facebook away, they are allowed to. If they add Twitter, they are allowed to. You're saying that if they can't remove Other OS then they can't add Twitter or update their Facebook functionality, and I'm sorry to say that you're completely mis-informed. Please don't post anything on this topic again. It's all wrong. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Summertime.

 Contrary to what the blog suggests, I do have a summertime life that is quite different from how I live in the winter. Living in Alaska, it's a cycle of polarity. You're either outside soaking in as much as possible, or you're inside hiding from the cold and entertaining yourself with anything electronic. At least that's how is is for the majority of the people I know, because unless snowboarding gets brought up, there's really no reason for a human being to subject themselves to -30 and worse on a daily basis.

 So that means I don't play games nearly as much as I used to, and with the exception of firing up a freeware copy of Privateer, there hasn't been much gaming going on here. A $20 used purchase of Farcry 2 was so disappointing that it's a wonder I even bother trying to get back into the swing of things. All that will change later when I pick up 3D Dot Game Heroes, because I have little doubt that there will be entertainment value in that title.

 Many articles have sprung up in my mind, but sadly, I have to resort to an opinion piece on the direction EA has decided to go with their Ten Dollar business model. It's been mentioned before in the blog, but never head-on, and my recent decision to blacklist EA products from anything I may buy in the future makes me feel as if I need to justify my decision in length.

 The Ten Dollar model that EA rolled out in the past few months is a response to used game sales, or at least that's the way it feels. There are rising costs all across the board when it comes to gaming, but that's not really any gamer's fault, so I'm hesitant to say that EA has any reason whatsoever to be pushing this revenue plan for any other reason. When a game is published, such as the latest Madden title, it's purchased at full price by...we'll go with a million people $60 has been pushed out the door, but a hundred thousand people aren't happy with their purchase or have had their fill, so they send it back to Gamestop and get some store credit for it. Gamestop turns and sells that game back to players for $45 a pop, so $4.5 million is on the table that EA gets no part of. EA wants to make some sort of profit on that turnover, especially when those people will be using servers to play online or benefiting from roster updates. They also understand that there is zero value in their game after a year goes by, and a trip to Gamestop will show you a Madden lineup full of $7 or less titles.

 Also, say that you owned Madden 11 and your friend wanted to "share" the copy with you, using her/her own profile to take on other players without sullying your record. In fact, this is quite common with roommates and college students. Money is tight, and there's no reason to have two copies of something that already includes local multiplayer. Well, EA wants each person in those situations to purchase a $10 pass that will allow them to use the online components, too. Basically, it's a one time MMO character fee.

 There are benefits to this, but I'm not sure if EA and I are on the same page when I say that. If a person is to pay the extra $10 fee to get into this online "club", then it damn sure better be a club. It would be akin to joining a fantasy baseball team and paying the entry fee to reward the winner and buy the physical goods needed to run it. So if EA is asking me to pay $10 to join this club, then I expect a world of extra content outside of the basics. Everything that has ever been in a Madden game should be available from the very get go. Rosters should be up to date as soon as opening kickoff at no cost to the consumer. Online play should be a function.

 Outside of that, the extra costs should involve detailed league creators and maintenance tools and uncharged extra content such as special teams, players, and rosters. The kind of things that you would dump an extra $10 on in the way of bonus DLC should be included in the pass. It would be like getting a VIP pass to an amusement park. You pay a little more, but you get a lot of little extra bonuses that make it worth your time. For a Madden 11 fan, this might make that title worth it and valuable to them until Madden 13 comes out. The pass should also include guest privileges that you can include in the pass, instantly covering your roommates, friends, or fans who would never buy the game. It would help EA, because that would give incentive for newcomers to try out the game with a world of new content that they would receive when they buy into the EA pass.

 So it could very well be a benefit. But it won't be.

 EA is supposed to be a company of artists, hence the name, Electronic Arts. If you only have so much money to work with, then put the money you have to the best and most artistic uses possible. There is zero justification for a $10 extra charge on top of the full sticker price that never seems to drop year to year for the same old Madden bag of crap. You're paying $70 a year for what 2K Games has proven is only worth $20-30. Suckering more money out of people because you can't think of better ways to flush your Madden budget undermines the development skill you're supposed to have. You're not doing your job. You're not creatin a game, you're creating a self-described black hole for cash.

 It doesn't stop at Madden, either. Mass Effect 2 came out with an extra packed into the game only available to people who originally bought the game, or else they would be subjected to spending the extra $10 to acquire said content. Granted, the content wasn't an integral part of the game and could be subject to the "pre-order bonus" that retailers love so much. I'm a firm believer that a game should be complete on release. Even if you're going to throw down on some DLC, I think that it should not be integral to the experience. In EA's case, they are treading that line. The Cerberus Network was on the disk. It should have been part of the product.

 So EA now joins Activision and Ubisoft as developers I will not buy from due to bad business decisions. They are trying to change the definition of what a game is into something that I just can't appreciate. It's like knowing a mechanic that will not see you as a well of money and as a genuine customer. These are not those type of businesses. They are the ones that see you as a paycheck and nothing more. Sony is also on this list due to their ineptness in handling their consumer base. They had ample opportunity to build that relationship, and they spat on the customers every chance they got. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

There's no crying in baseball!

 You won't find me buying sports games brand new off the shelf every year like most people, but I like to have a game or two in my possession at any given time. It's all about imagination for me. Being able to experience the biggest moments in sports from the comfort of my living room has a lot to do with it, but influencing those moments is what sells it. It's not enough to just slap a league license onto a title and call it good, no matter how realistic that game may be. We're talking about video games, here, where anything is possible. So why are there no women in these games?

 It all sounds a bit random at first, because with games like FIFA 10 and MLB: The Show '10 out, I can see why some people may think I'm nuts for complaining. So hear me out. 

 I picked up a copy of NBA 07 at Wal-Mart for $1. That's right, a dollar. Why? Well, my first thought is that a game with Kobe on the front is clearly a worthless piece of crap. My second thought was that selling an '07 version of any sports game is stupid to have lying on shelves in the first place. It made sense. I picked it up anyway since it was less than a Coke, and it would give me the opportunity to see what the Sony NBA line had to offer. With NBA2K and NBA Live taking the crown each year, I wonder if Sony could even hold a candle. 

 Much to my surprise, I found out that there was no create-a-player option. The first thing that I do in any game is create a player for fun, just to see what's possible and how easy it is to accomplish. Some games are way too complicated but heavy on detail, and some are way too simple and never respond quite the way you'd like them to. Realism is a completely different story, but I look for that, too. Nothing was to be found in this game, as far as I could tell, that would let me create a player. If there is, I'd love to know, because there's almost no way I'm going to bother playing the game without the option.

 Yet, what bothered me the most was that after thinking long and hard about it, I don't remember a game that lets you create a woman to play the sport. I may be wrong here about EVERY game ignoring the gender entirely, but the vast majority don't allow it. That's....stupid. 

 I feel that I'm completely allowed to nitpick, because I'm not really nitpicking. Sure, no woman has ever played in the MLB, NBA, NHL, NFL, or EPL. If realism is the goal, then yes, shutting women out is realistic.  However, making an 8 footer and maxing out all the stats pretty much makes for an impossible player in any league, doesn't it? We're in the world of video games, and while video games are starting to pride themselves in their realism, they seem to forget that that they are still video games. Video games are meant to be fantastical in some ways. Even if MLB: The Show '11 came out and was picture perfect, comparable to a TV broadcast (it isn't out of the question, either)...it would still miss some of the point. 

 What message is this sending to women who love sports? If you have a 7 year old daughter that is crazy about sports and follows a team religiously, why are we not sending a better message with our games? Even if there will never be a woman that can play the sport as well as the men (and I do not believe this at all), why are we not allowed to put that imagination into our games to allow for something to happen that otherwise wouldn't? I'm not 8 foot, nor do I sink 3-pointers 90% of the time, but I am allowed that fantasy in my video games. Why can't a woman get the same feeling? 

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

The plunge

 To those out there that bought the iPad on first launch, I applaud you. You clearly have a much bigger dedication to your brand than anyone could hope to have, because to a regular consumer, that was a really stupid move to make. The announcement of the easily mocked iPad came as no surprise to the tech community, but even less of a surprise was that their competitors would soon follow suit, and if pushed hard enough, would also release their equivalent product at much cheaper prices. 

 Let's be honest here; the average iPad contains no more tech than your average netbook, except with the added cost of a touch screen. What avid computer users have known for years is that it doesn't take expensive parts to make a good tablet, and unfortunately, no one else knows this, because the iPad sold thousands upon thousands of units. I'll give Apple credit, because they turned a very quick profit based on an already existing tech (the iPhone) by doing nothing more than making it bigger and slapping their friendly logo on the shell. They didn't even wait a half a year to release the thing. The guys at Apple actually knew that this was one of the few times where excessive buildup was a bad thing, and by releasing it so closely to the announcement shows that Jobs and Co. are not idiots by a long shot. If anything, we should be heralding Jobs as a genius. 

 This launch was supposed to fail, and it was supposed to fail in the worst way possible. The iPad was a train wreck waiting to happen from day one, and Jobs knew it. It was an old tech that the masses literally had to be forced into wanting (see iPhone again). Microsoft had been pushing for this idea for years. The announcement itself was underwhelming, as the product resembled nothing more than a bigger iPhone or a souped up Kindle. So many features were missing that people began to wonder what the $500 was actually being spent on. When videos became available of the iPad being "gutted", I wondered myself what could possibly justify the price tag being attached to it, and the answer was "nothing". There is nothing in the iPad that is special in any way. 

 If we had time to simmer on the announcement, we would have quickly found that there were other companies out there willing to give us the tech we were finally ready for but with a different interface. I'm not talking Windows, either. The trouble with Microsoft's push towards a tablet PC was that Windows itself was the problem. XP and Vista were terrible operating systems for a tablet. Windows 7, on the other hand, it well suited to the medium, but the push came years ago and Apple reignited the torch when Microsoft stopped paying attention. In otherwords, six months would have hurt Apple immensely. A quick release would ensure that they got market penetration and pushed idiots into buying their tech first and at a premium. 

 Now, Google, Acer, Asus, Microsoft, and various other companies you've never heard of have stepped up their efforts to get a tablet on the market as soon as possible. This was predicted. In fact, that was pretty much a given. Apple's tablet announcement would make tablet's feasible for the rest of the industry, and competition would reign.

 Why do I complain? Because a good tablet is only worth $300, and no one should be paying more. Tablets are netbooks, plain and simple. I said this years ago, and I'll say it again. Until tablets reach that $300 price point, don't even bother buying them. Wait for the big boys to duke it out, and then come out a winner a year from now when the prices are affordable and you know what's going to work best for your own personal needs. There is no killer-app for the iPad. There's no great need for an iPad. There's nothing you could do with an iPad that you couldn't do with an iPhone or a netbook. You can wait. 

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Hedgehogs and politics

 Forgive me on the long break, but there's been a sense of hatred towards gaming as a whole this past week. Just coming off of the Ubisoft DRM catastrophy, we were immediately greeted by Sony's middle finger in the form of firmware 3.21. Then I saw the Sonic 4 footage, and I actually quit playing games altogether because I was so...what's the word...pissed off.

 For those behind the times, Sony's 3.21 firmware removed the OtherOS functionality, or Linux, from their old "fat" console models. It should have been a huge rage-storm, but instead the gaming community ended up raging at each other for the most part. Sony managed to make good customers turn to hackers, made potential script-kiddies drool at the thought of custom firmware finally within reach, and also made the community turn on itself in brainwash fashion. The vast majority of forums and postings dedicated to the announcement were filled with arguments over who was going to take the blame and whether or not people actually cared.

 To set the record straight, you should care. What really hurt the gaming community on this particular issue was the community itself. This, along with the Ubisoft DRM, should have been the rallying point for gamers to turn to publishers and say, "No."

 Instead, and even many websites posted this sentiment, the community acknowledged that they were willing to bend over and take it so long as they could still play games and Blu-Rays. Even worse, there were a few websites out there that put the blame for Sony's overreach on Geohot and not Sony themselves. Let's assume, for a moment, that every one of these people bought Ford Mustangs this year. In their own words, they would be very happy if Ford showed up at their house one day and swapped the Mustang engine with a Focus engine just because someone figured out a way to increase the original engine's horsepower. It makes no sense, and it only gives Sony and other companies more rights to steal what they wish.

 When the initial shock from that announcement subsided, Sega release game footage for Sonic 4. Dear God. I knew that the game was going to suck, but at this point, it's almost looking as if Sega wants to kill off Sonic for good. Nothing about the game looks fun or inviting, and I wonder why the fan community has managed to do it right every now and then while Sega consistently fails. Some recent mine cart footage looked painful, though I suppose there are questions about the legitimacy of the video. Either way, it's not a good sign.

 Then, if the week couldn't get any worse, the expected announcement of Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski's re-election campaign turned up in our local paper. She's not as notorious as Republican nut-jobs like Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann, but she occasionally comes close. The very first thing she was quoted on in the article was how President Obama was being too partisan in his politics, and I immediately laughed at her and put the paper down. I am not voting on a Senator that doesn't have...well, brains. I need that in a Senator. These are the people hired to craft the laws and policies of our country as well as representing American interests, so I think it's only fair that we get, at the very least, someone with more competence than a first grader.

 Too partisan? Are you kidding me? You're telling me that a Republican such as yourself who has made stubborn partisanship a policy can honestly get up on stage and give a speech about how the President is playing to one side? Here's a tip, Lisa: You shouldn't run for re-election. That statement alone pretty much told me everything I need to know about your attention span, and I really don't think our state needs to spend money on that kind of ineptitude. Don't even get me started about how you got the position in the first place.

 Speaking of all matters Alaskan, that crazy lady we disowned is making headlines yet again. Sarah Palin has somehow managed to exemplify everything that I've criticized her for in the past with one shot. It turns out that very recently, she went back to her old stomping grounds and managed to get caught up in some high school drama, getting her daughter Willow off the hook for tens of thousands in property damage. Basically, Palin got all the girls that were a part of the "I'm better than you" clique off the hook while all of the guys took the fall. Read it, let it sink in, then meet me at the next paragraph...

 Remember that idiot girl in high school that was popular, except no one could figure out why? I mean, she was never capable of opening her mouth without saying something stupid, she never earned anything she had, and the only thing she was good at was being the communal "puts out" girl? OK, so that explains the popular part. Anyway, this was the type of girl that would say, "Sha! Who cares if you have a Mustang? I mean, you actually worked for that? What a waste of time! You're stupid!"

 ...only to immediately turn to her girlfriends and go, "Ohmigod! My boyfriend got a Mustang from his parents! OH MY GOD that's so cool!

 That's Palin in a nutshell. She's the idiot who still thinks she's in high school who believes that everything is wrong unless it comes out of her mouth. Look it up, she does this all the time. Her double standard is laughable, and I really don't think she's ever had a talking point in her career that hasn't been stolen and horribly misinterpreted. Sarah Palin is an attention whore, and I think comedians have pretty much left her alone lately because she does the work for them. What's sad is that she doesn't have a clue. I won't say I feel bad for her, but look at her on a stage. She routinely mocks people she just doesn't like for BEING SMARTER THAN HER. It's hilarious!

 "How's that hopey changey stuff workin' out for ya?"

 Awesome. Thanks for asking, and thank you for making my political choices MUCH easier to make. I gotta hand it to you, Palin...you're the best thing the Democrats could have ever hoped for. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

The great double standard

 Yesterday I noted Sony's lack of humor on the subject of Linux and April 1st, but it looks like they are turning into the abominable machine when it comes to going through with their plans. I don't normally go to this length on a topic, but this one deserves a little more than one post. After speaking with Sony technical support both on the phone and through e-mail, I got nothing more than a canned message saying that yes, they will be going through with it. From the sounds of it, they are even insulting the intelligence of their costumers by citing their own Terms of Service. Basically, Sony doesn't really care how many people comment, they're going to do what they want.

 Why would we argue about a feature no one uses? Well, a lot of people do. Even if 99% of fat PS3 users didn't use the feature, that still leaves thousands of Linux users in the dust. I'm not one of the 1% myself, but I had plans to use that feature in the very near future when I beefed up my PS3's hard drive, so who's to say how many people were going to take advantage of that feature eventually?

 It's like owning a copy of Watchmen. Maybe you bought it the second it came out on DVD, and it just didn't feel like something you were willing to devote 3 hours to. So, months later, you decide to pull it out and watch it again with your friends, only to find out that there's a note where your DVD used to be.

 "You weren't using it, so I went ahead and removed it." - Warner Bros.

 The Playstation 3 was advertised as having many features outside of gaming, something that made the black monolith something a lot different from other consoles. Even when the box was released, a lot of the dreamy expectations that even Sony had for it came true. The thing was decked out with Blu-Ray, SD card readers, HD support, Linux support, Bluetooth, and more USB ports than we would ever need. It came with more than we expected, and we certainly never heard the end of it. Linux support in itself was advertised as the one thing that would make users forget that they ever needed anything else in their entertainment unit. Yellow Dog Linux even sold for about $60, and was Sony supported.

 It wasn't until the Slim came out that this feature would be removed, a move meant to put the PlayStation at the magical price point it needed to be in order to push systems out the door and keep profits in the black. Fans didn't necessarily like the removal of Linux, as there didn't seem to be much of a reason to remove it, but there wasn't much to complain about. We really didn't use the feature all that much, and at least we knew that this specific PS3 was not a computer.

 With the fatty, we knew exactly what we were buying. A PS3, a Blu-Ray player, and a computer all in one. That was the advertising, it was on the box, it's in the manual, and Sony made money off of the claim. That's why people have a right to be a little crazy about the announcement, but just because we don't care about something or don't use this feature doesn't mean that we shouldn't be more crazy about what they are trying to say with this removal. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit