A sacrifice for the greater good

 So now that the explanation is out of the way, which series need to make like a tree?

 Some of our most loved series may be ageless in plot, but unfortunately for them, time passes in the real world and the grey hairs are showing. The next five games you're about to see have seen their time come and go, and while the concepts that they introduced may have captivated us at some point, those mechanics need to find a new home.

Final Fight

 Once the definitive arcade beat-em-up, Final Fight lost its luster once games got their third dimension. The original game was given two proper console sequels that lived up to expectations, but in the 14 years since, its been hard to get a good reminder of what it was like to break through the gangs of Metro City without going all the way back to the original.

 It's difficult to want this series to be obsolete, but it is. Any other game could pick up the basic formula and run with it. The series was known for doing one thing extremely well, and its that very same thing that other bigger titles lack. Many gamers long for the days when a good street fight meant responsive controls and predictable behavior from their character without the need for physics to mess up a good thing. Since physics are here to stay, developers have gone the way of lock-on targeting/combos to make a 3-D plane go the 2-D route, and almost any game you pick up will have the basic hand-to-hand system Final Fight gave us.

 Guy and Cody are back in Street Fighter, and Capcom is known to re-use characters if the opportunity presents itself, so you won't be seeing the last of Metro City. However, its time for the Final Fight franchise to take a bow.

Should be incorporated by: Grand Theft Auto

Driver

 This one goes without saying. Driver did a lot of things right when it was first released, but each installment since has been an effort to do expand the series beyond what it did so well. When it came to feeling like you were truly behind the wheel, Driver was one of the very best on the original Playstation. With each sequel less welcome than the one before it, it's easy to put this series on the list.

 If anything, Rockstar has single handedly made this game obsolete. What Grand Theft Auto doesn't do, Midnight Club does. Any sandbox game worth its salt is going to have driving in the mix, and we now know that at least one or two of them are going to do it better than a Driver game will. When you do one thing well, yet another series that isn't even focused on that aspect does it better, you have a good reason to hang it up for good.

Should be incorporated by: Done.

Fable

 Probably the biggest shocker on the list, but it really shouldn't be. Fable's main drawing point is that you interact with the world, and in turn, the world reacts to you. The sheer freedom of action addicts many gamers, alluring many of them to seduce entire towns while buying up all their property behind their backs. Even your character's appearance changes depending on how you plan the game, leaving this western-RPG with one of the most interactive gaming worlds every created.

 The trouble is that no one can put up a good argument that the story is any good for either game. While the concept is sound, it winds up being boring, leaving many players hoping for sequels that would hopefully improve the whole experience by delivering on false promises made by a certain developer and his big mouth. That day will never come, because Fable is an idea, and unfortunately one devoid of any real direction or execution.

 While I hate to refer back to GTA again, San Andreas gave a glimpse as to what would happen if this idea were incorporated into a real game. If you ran a lot, your character would be more fit. Almost any game with an RPG feel could take the mechanics Fable used and put them into a better narrative, and sandbox games could use those same mechanics to beef up general freedoms. Hell, it's already happening. Why do we need Fable?

Should be incorporated by: Grant Theft Auto, Fallout, Elder Scrolls, and if Blizzard wanted to be a prick, World of Warcraft

Sonic the Hedgehog

Oh, how the mighty have fallen. On the Genesis, his games were golden, offering blistering speed in a time when games just didn't move fast at all. Even the platforming wasn't all bad for its time. As with Final Fight, 3-D just wasn't too kind to the blue blur, and the games suffered from flaws that could encompass a list 100 entries long. For starters, the plots were just plain bad, made even worse by the fact that the games actually focus on them. To be fair, if one were to buy into Sega's claim that creating hundreds of miles of "track" isn't realistic and that the action needs to be broken up somehow, this makes sense, but the plots don't have to be that bad, do they? Then the plots are voiced over by people who make you mute the TV. If you can bear all of this, you're not even treated to true Sonic speed 90% of the time.

 What's worse is that the series has run its course even on the 2-D plane. Even with good handheld games being released, it all feels like a rehash. There was once a way to save this series, but I don't think it can be done anymore. If the Sonic universe had incorporated, say, Super Monkey Ball in between the speed sections, then Sonic would have had something else to offer besides speed that would actually have been good. Diversity doesn't mean sticking 10 other Sonic-clones into a game to serve the same terrible purpose.

 Should Sonic himself go? No way. He should stick around and be the fast and badass mammal we all want him to be. Under no circumstances, though, should he ever be allowed to get a full game to his credit again.

Should be incorporated by: Mario, a Sega Universe title, Mega Man (all you have to do is ask)

Ridge Racer

 A mainstay for Sony consoles, Ridge Racer has consistently been the marker of a new generation. From launching a new Playstation to showing off what an aging console is capable of, Ridge Racer has always been there to remind us that racing titles can be for everyone while looking damn good in the process.

 When I bought my PS3, I immediately went for a trio of racing games to test the console. Burnout: Paradise, Gran Turismo 5: Prologue, and Ridge Racer 7 were those games, and I felt that I was covered as far as my racing needs were concerned. Yet, I never went back to Ridge Racer. The original Ridge Racer and R4 have always been two favorites, but I thought that the series suffered from a couple of miscues outside of that. Little did I know that the series was generally a miscue of its own. It's hard to say it, but Ridge Racer doesn't offer anything impressive any more. If you need insane arcade speed, then you play Burnout. If you want realism, you play Gran Turismo. If you're looking for a sensory overdose, then you play Wipeout. Ridge Racer used to be known for its solid racing mechanics and fun drifting, but the drifting is completely overused to a laughable extent and it doesn't feel like Ridge Racer is fun to play anymore.

 Everything that Ridge Racer does well is easily transferable to another game. When it comes to launching a system, then Ridge Racer is really the only game in town to get your racing fix. If you have any patience at all, then you will be rewarded for not spending your money, and while it pains me to say it, that pretty much makes this series obsolete.

Should be incorporated by: Burnout (with a city based in Japan), and Gran Turismo (having a true arcade mode)


 So there you have it. Nothing against the characters of these games, because we all want to keep the likes of Guy, Sonic, and Reiko, but their series have nothing to offer anymore. Each game possesses a quality that is great, but would be better served working for another team, because those qualities alone do not make a great, or even good, game. Not that it matters, because at least four of these titles will have another sequel. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Law of Convergence

 If anybody read the Grand Theft Auto V retort a few days ago, you may remember that I mentioned the Law of Convergence. I'm almost sure that there is a proper term for this, but I'm too lazy to find it and I came up with it a long time ago anyway. Regardless, the idea is sort of commonplace now, and is relevant alongside Moore's Law and Chaos Theory.

 The technical explanation? Well, it doesn't even strictly apply to games. The idea is that computing power, as it increases, allows for more complex applications to be processed as time passes. As more powerful applications are developed, the job of the new application is to also perform tasks that, at one point, were standalone applications that used the bulk of that computing power. The most basic example is the calculator. When computers first came around, they had to be the size of rooms to perform basic calculator functions and only that. Years later, a calculator could be written as an application booted by the computer, but the computer could only run one application at a time. Even later, an operating system enabled the calculator task to be performed within an operating system, which in essence, is an application. Now, a calculator is incorporated into any program that uses numbers.

 The Law of Convergence also allows for the re-allocation of smaller applications as trends progress. Take AOL, for instance. AOL contained a full suite of internet applications, but AOL was not necessary as an application in itself. As time passed, the functions of AOL such as Instant Messenger and their e-mail service were no longer incorporated into the AOL program, but were broken down into individual parts. Some services become obsolete, and Instant Messenger was given its own lightweight program to be reincorporated elsewhere.

 While the idea is applicable to most technology, its most visible use is in social media and gaming. Grant Theft Auto IV, for example, lets you play an arcade game while your character is in a pool hall. This game is your standard puzzle game that could have been, and still could be, sold as a standalone game. It has been converged into a larger game at the most literal level. Grand Theft Auto, as a sandbox game, pretty much exemplifies what convergence actually does for gaming apart from this time waster.

 As the series progressed, it started taking on the traits of other games. Driver, for example, was pretty much screwed as a competitor because it only did one thing really well: driving. The physics were great and it was loads of fun to play, but eventually Rockstar took everything that was good about the driving and placed it into their flagship series, eliminating the need for another Driver to ever see the light of day. GTA: SA started to use elements from western-RPG's to promote character growth (sometimes literally), and GTA IV has a rudimentary hand-to-hand combat system that allows for basic combos. Flight is also included in the modern games, as well as boating. Many side missions even encourage you to take a stab at taxi missions and street racing, ideas that still manage to have full games devoted to them.

 Basically, Grand Theft Auto will eventually be Midnight Club, Crazy Taxi, Final Fight, Black, Fable, and several other games wrapped up into one title. Unless another game beats Rockstar to the punch, it's going to happen. It's inevitable. It's law.

 So there's the explanation. Now, getting on to the application... Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Minus the spider

 After months of having a "sort of want" view of Infamous (I won't be using inFAMOUS here), a deal too good to pass buy put the game into my possession. I gave a Twitter post reminding of the Infamous/Arkham Asylum/Dark Knight Blu-Ray PS3 bundle for the regular PS3 price of $300, and my intentions played out well in that a friend of mine itching for a PS3 got the system while I got the game at a reduced price for everybody. Hey, the economy demands that creativity be had.

 After playing the hell out of Prototype, I felt obligated to make a comparison somewhere down the line, but that feeling has since passed. These games are just too similar, down to wonky controls and side missions. The criticism I slap down on one easily translates to criticism of the other. If you consider that Prototype was heavily inspired by a recent Hulk game and that you could throw a lot of Spider-Man games into the mix, we're talking about a general superhero problem. 

 What impressed me the most was that the companies behind Infamous and Prototype approached their subject matter in a fresh way. Instead of banking on an already known superhero, the development houses created characters and narratives from scratch to deliver their high ambition games. Short, comic-booky cutscenes littered each game and the player has to learn about what's going on in the background through these plot morsels. It's a good idea, and each game turned out to be a solid effort in the end, so their creativity didn't end up in vain. 

 The criticism, for the sake of article flow, also begin here. As ambitious as the projects were, I felt that the storylines were a bit of a let-down in some ways. With an entire city available for playground needs, plot becomes scarce and amounts to checkpoints in the game. This is sort of the norm, and there's nothing immediately wrong with that. In an RPG, you generally have time to roam until you choose to approach the next step in the ongoing story, and that's what you get in these games. It is something that I think needs changing, and I was hoping that these games would provide a little of that evolution. 

 The reason I say this is because they had a golden opportunity to do something truly revolutionary with their storytelling. The gameplay in each game is heavily flawed in many respects, and the storyline should have picked up the slack. Many entertainment houses are trying to cash in on the superhero, and even comic, tag. Heroes, Lost, and Push (hey, I liked it) have all tried their hand in some way at creating new comic book experiences outside of print, and they generally succeeded while introducing something new from a creative standpoint rather than tried and true legacy heroes that litter every aspect of entertainment. Games have lacked this, despite being the perfect venue to evolve the narrative beyond a set story. 

 Spider-Man 2 and Batman: Arkham Asylum were outstanding, don't get me wrong, but they were more fun than evolutionary, and worse, the pinnacle of superhero gaming. Beyond these titles, you get Spider-Man 3 or Web of Shadows, Ultimate Alliance, Iron Man, Superman 64, Turok, etc. Each game varies on the fun-factor scale from good to terrible, but each one was significantly castrated in some way. Even Marvel Ultimate Alliance 2, a huge release, amounted to little more than a pseudo-RPG designed around unlocks more than anything, fetching junk, mindlessly and unimaginatively plowing through enemy waves, and trying to be Diablo while having none of its depth. 

 Thing is, comic books may be devoted to unbelievable stories of skill and superpowers, but they're also about a multi-layered story. Civil War was an event that hit every major title on the shelves, and you basically had to pick and choose what characters you wanted to follow through the whole ordeal or sacrifice a paycheck. That was just for one week of publications, nevermind the saga in its entirety. 

 So when I say that these games missed a golden opportunity, I mean it. There was a great opportunity here to develop a huge, massive world of characters and motivations that didn't necessarily need to resolve itself within each games' timespan. I understand that there are some exceptions, but those are nothing compared to what could have been done.

 Why are games perfect for this? A movie or TV series needs to focus itself to advance a narrative. Comics need to do this as well, but there are multiple opportunities each week to drop a little bit of the complete story across dozens of titles. There's flexibility there. Games don't need to focus themselves so much, and sandbox games such as these designed around player freedom have even less of a reason to provide a singular focus through 100% of the game. 

 So what happens when a developer half-assedly tries to expand the game world? Fetch quests, the bane of these games and one of the worst flaws that a superhero game can have. I loved the Web of Intrigue idea that Prototype had, but it really amounted to a prolonged fetch quest that I felt had more potential. Each game has too many fetch quests already. Each game had tokens to discover, scattered along the rooftops of each respective city, and you were always chasing something minute down. The problem is that there is such little reward and less imagination involved. You're generally hunting down side-mission markers on a map for some reason or another, and your reward is usually a token, medal, or a mission. While the first two are just unavoidable nowadays, the mission part of each game is terrible. No matter what, you will play the same mission dozens of times before the end of the game. It amounts to a bad ripoff of Spider-Man's "citizen in distress" side-missions. 

 Yet, you're not doing anything other than collecting. There is a battle for territory going on in both games, but I can't think of a time where I completed a side mission and thought that I understood the game world better. I usually felt the exact opposite, feeling like I was mindlessly grinding until all of the side-missions were done so that they wouldn't be locked away from me when I tried to advance the actual story. Specifically, in Infamous, there is a mission called "Spy Games" where you follow a grunt for a few blocks until he drops off a package. You'd think I'd actually be spying on something, but I was actually just following this grunt to "fetch" his tokens when he dropped them. I didn't spy on an enemy to gain story insight; I spied on him for shiny objects. Prototype doesn't bother to avoid this either, asking the player to do missions involving what you normally do around the city, but doing it in a limited space instead. 

 Oh, and the controls are clunky in both games. Not unplayable, just clunky.

 My real beef is just story related, though. All that I've said doesn't begin to describe what the games could have offered. Sure, each will get its sequel and get a chance to expand the characters, but so much more could have happened. A lot was going on in the background of both games (or at least, a lot COULD have been going on), but it was all related to the immediate story. Where's the imagination to go beyond that? If a developer creates a comic-inspired game, then maybe it would benefit them to, well, actually get their inspiration from comics. Comics aren't just about the superpowers. I appreciate Infamous trying to give Son of Electro a black and white choice on the matter, but a good story begins when you take a character, place him into a situation, and see how he reacts to a situation. Marvel Comics in particular deal with this as their MO. Testuo-Hulk destroying everything is hardly character development. Tthough, Hulk is a hard character to write a story for because of this. 

 If sequels are going to be made, then I implore both Sucker Punch and Radical Entertainment to drop the crappy side-missions and go read some comic books for inspiration. Even if the depth isn't that interesting, comic books at least have it. These games don't. It wouldn't stop me from recommending them to other gamers, but story depth is the difference between an 80% metascore and a classic game that goes beyond grading systems. 

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Careful, they bite

 Returning from my excursion into hell, or Black Friday as mortals call it, I checked Digg and read up on an article that described the Bulgarian space program as being in constant contact with aliens using crop circles as cosmic "texts". The idea is that aliens are watching us all the time, but they know we're too crazy to actually make real contact with. If they watch what goes on during a typical Black Friday, then I can see why they're choosing to stay the hell out of sight. I hate to turn holiday shopping into some profound moral lesson, but we're absolutely nuts as a species.

 After a trampling death was reported last year, you'd think that people would sort of "get it", but they don't. During the "3....2....1..." countdown, some dipshit 20 some year old chick was giggling as she broke through the line and jogged her way to the electronics, despite constant reminders not to run, mainly because that would encourage other people to run to catch up to her. It would have been more poetic had they run, trampled her, then continued with no second thoughts. Sorry, but a girl who thinks she's being cute because she broke the line deserved a clothesline along the way at least.

 If it wasn't for the smug look, it might not have bothered me. At least she could have look confused like she didn't know what was going on, or faking a female emergency would have worked, too.

 Regardless, I managed to do some covert actions and snagged me the one piece of loot I was hoping to get, and quickly realized that the hounds were descending quickly. I escaped, but not before seeing people's common sense and dignity switches get turned to "off". Shoving happened a lot, and I hate to say it, but there was a clear gender gap when it came to cruelty. Women were so much more likely to shove, steal, and push their way through everything, where men were just trying to survive. One mother in particular was barking orders to her children like they were going to war and threatening to take away Christmas presents if they did not meet a success quota.

 Is it all worth it? You know, it's hard to say. All I know is that there's something to be said for random people who have never met before from all walks of life being at a crazy event and just cracking jokes, having fun, and helping each other find the best toys. Not once have I ever gone to a Black Friday opening without taking a few moments to see if I can get my hands on something for a person I've never met before, and it's nice to know that the favor was returned. I always bump into someone that makes me smile, and that part is worth it even if 20 others are probably plotting my doom before the ropes even go down. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

From the only man who ever got the 4th triforce piece

 A friend of mine came over when I decided to go through the original Legend of Zelda on the NES. I went through the first dungeon, making my adjustments back to the strict 4-dimensional ways of gaming, when the topic of A Link to the Past came up. The response? He had never played it. The only stories he could relate about Zelda were his Ocarina days.

 A lot of people throw Ocarina in as one of the best games to ever grace a console, and they would be right, if it wasn't for the fact that it isn't even the best Zelda game. It's close, I'll give it that, but it comes out a clear second every time to a game without a 3rd dimension. A Link to the Past, in my eyes, was hands down better than Ocarina could ever hope to be. There's a few reasons why I believe that, but I'll just start out by saying that every standard in the Zelda series beyond the absolute basics began with this game and did it all right.

 Later games, post-Ocarina, come off as a bit gimmicky. I know that the gimmicks began with LttP to begin with, but it never felt like you were being asked to do something stupid just to get through the story. As good of a game Wind Waker may be, the fact that you spend half of it sailing takes away from the core experience. That doesn't mean it's a bad mechanic, but it dilutes the purity of Zelda.

 When the original first hit the NES, gamers were dropped into a world with a basic idea of what they were doing and a manual to go with it. I still vividly remember the little books that came with it. It took everything boring about the PC RPG and put it on a console with a controller, letting you manipulate everything and rely on skill and reflexes rather than aimless grinding. You earn your stripes in Zelda, having goals to pursue and tools necessary to make the adventure possible. The secrets in this game were many, and gamers were mostly left blind to figure out what to do, which made the satisfaction of beating the game monumental. It was a completely different experience from today's Zelda games, but it's understandable considering that a game like the original Zelda is a hard think to duplicate in today's gaming climate. Yet, the basics were there, and A Link to the Past hit the ground running to create the modern Zelda when it came out on the SNES.

 Nintendo knew what made the original game classic, but it also had the task of creating a game that didn't just duplicate, but evolve the series out of blind adventuring. The Super Nintendo was, at the time, a beast of a machine, and to just copy the original Zelda would have been extremely bland and counter-productive. Hyrule became a lush world of bright colors in its "light" form and dreary, decrepit, and twisted in its "dark" form. NPC's roamed the land and a new form of interactivity with the world was invented that would become the Zelda norm.

 To begin the game, Link wakes up and immediately starts his quest with an unseen cry for help. The first thing you do is storm a castle to rescue Zelda, with a simple dungeon serving as a tutorial or "warm-up" without actually being on. This idea is lost on later games, and although the complexity has risen since then, it's tough to beat that feeling of "getting on with it" rather than spending a half an hour talking to everyone and their mystical tree just to get your sword and shield. That, and speed is paramount in LttP. I appreciate the 3-D worlds given to us by Nintendo, but they tend to slow gameplay down at times. In Zelda, if you need to get somewhere, you haul ass across an action packed landscape to get to where you need to go, hardly ever needing to slow the pace down to introduce the new creatures you meet to the business end of your sword.

 That doesn't mean that brains aren't a factor here, but you'll spend less time looking at an entire room top to bottom in an effort to craft solutions to problems and more time meeting your goals and getting some good loot out of it. The game has just as much equipment as any other Zelda game after it, but it is much less of a headache on the gamer to get them. This particular Hyrule is easy to learn by heart, and the in-game map it comes with it probably the easiest world map to use in any Zelda game ever.

 As I mentioned before, the original Zelda left you blind through most of your quest, but the SNES version is very different. Because of the introduction of an in-game plot, you get more clues about where you need to go, giving you the simplest form of direction. Instead of Navi or Midna being at your side constantly to be your portable hint system, you are still left to determine the "how", but thankfully the "where" is pretty easy to figure out. Should you forget, there are places you can go to drop that reminder. Now, I realize that half of the Zelda formula is the dungeons with the other half being Hyrule itself, but this is the one game that really strikes that perfect balance between leaving you alone to figure things out and making it as painless as possible to do so. When people get stuck in a 3-D game, it's 10 times more difficult to figure out what you need to be doing to get past a certain point. With this game, you simply don't get that frustrated, as the answer is always right around the corner and easy to find.

 By easy, of course, I mean quick and painless to find out. You still have to know what you're doing, and you certainly need brains and skill at all times. LttP is challenging, and is no walk in the park to figure out if you've never played it before. You need reflexes and effective use of your tools, but thankfully this is the best controlled Zelda game to ever exist. Yes, it's easier to perfect a 2-D system, but that doesn't mean that the game should receive less credit for achieving that. Gameplay ultimately makes or breaks a game, and that's probably why I consider this game to be the best.

 It's not the longest game that Nintendo has produced for the series, but it is still huge, nonetheless. It offers up a very good challenge for gamers to this day, and even if you've played it before, it's hard to not come back to this game and have new kids of fun with it. When I played it again, I found myself sequence breaking everything I possibly could by sheer accident, and it added a welcome challenge. For those who never did play it, I urge you to give it a shot. The basics are all there; sound, graphics, and gameplay are excellent. It is the Zelda equivalent to Super Metroid in its perfection, and that's one of the highest praises anyone can give to a game. Lastly, if you're an Ocarina child, you're bound to love this game. It's much easier to pick up and enjoy while still retaining that Zelda-punch that the N64 provided. Don't expect anything archaic here. This game has stood up on its own for almost two decades now as a true classic, and don't expect it to go anywhere in the near future. This is THE Zelda game for now.

100%

 Now, I am a devoted Zelda fan. Not to the point where I will gobble up anything Zelda related, but I love my Zelda. I admit that I wish some of this more recent stuff would just go away, as I think that I could not only do without the gimmicks, but also because I sort of liked the vagueness of Link as a hero. Growing up, Link was just a cool looking hero that was the exact opposite you could expect from a sword-swinger on a quest to save a princess. The greatest thing was that the plot-lines were so thin and so little history was given to Link that he sort of had this mystique about him. The Triforce was equally awesome, as only someone who played and loved the game would recognize it, and they would always love the reference. Now, it's everywhere. Link has partners, girls get Triforce tattoos all the time, and the games sort of take away the mystique a little bit. That's just my view, but don't think that I'm bashing the franchise. I'm not, and I know that I'm sort of nostalgic rather than realistic about those views.

 That said, the series needs a kick in the balls.

 For all of the reasons stated above, Zelda needs to return to its roots. This game, ideally, should start by dumping you into the game world immediately, no apologies. If there's a forced tutorial, then it cannot possibly take itself seriously. I don't even care if the game has an "attract mode" introduction to the story in full cut-scene splendor, but even then, the basics of what's going on will be fine. Besides, it's only going to be "This is Hyrule and Zelda's kidnapped.", so the cut-scene can't possibly be intrusive.

 The game should look epic, like a good fantasy movie without the frills. I'm talking gritty 80's here. I don't care what it takes, but the next "true" Zelda game needs to make graphics a priority, because this game needs to have a bite to it. This game should have a threatening vibe without getting too creepy, more in tune with the NES games. NPC's can be in the game, provided that they don't look like cartoon versions of a douchebag like they have been lately. Impa should be in the game, and the old man should come back for fun with some moblins, too.

 As far as sound goes, bring back some of the old tunes for authenticities sake. I'm tired of barely hearing the familiar fanfares of games past. While we're at it, a full orchestra is in order. No fake orchestra, no electronic synthesizers...only an orchestra will suffice. As far as sound effects go, I want that shooting sword back with its original sound effect.

 In the end, this game would need to be fantastically grounded. I think that the series could benefit from some of its own nostalgia by trying to achieve the results found in pre-CG fantasy effects with movies as a style point. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that the tangible nature of those films gave the sense that the fantasy was being lived rather than just existing as eye candy. In modern Zelda games, there's a whole lot of additions that make a "look at my game world" vibe come off a series that never needed to define its own make-up. The funny looking NPC's I run into seem pretentious, but a more realistic game could borrow some of that Jim Henson magic.

 Just one game needs to happen that's a zero BS, sword-swinging, pure adventure without the frills and gimmicks. If every Zelda game after that has something to do with a different element, time travel, more masks, or even colors of the rainbow, I could care less and will even applaud them for it as long as they keep doing their series right. It's just that the purest of adventure and fantasy somehow got lost along the way. Drop the player into a gameworld with minimal narrative and let the fantasy do the rest. Don't explain anything. Don't help the player out minus minor cues about where to go. Don't litter the world with useless NPC's. Don't have tutorials. Don't let the player have a companion. Don't include cats. Don't get cute. Don't gimmick the game up with music and masks as a theme. Just get back to the basics for one game and give the gamers one hell of a ride for it.

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Foundation

 IGN recently put up an outline of what they...I'm sorry..."we" want from Grand Theft Auto V when it happens. It sounds as if the plans for location are already in place, so I'm sure Rockstar was more than keen to change their approach just on their behalf. The list can definitely be expanded upon, as it's too...expected. Nothing in the IGN list is new. They are listing what amounts to the bare minimum required content of a sequel. Let's ramp up our desires.

Incorporation

 I can't remember what the theory is actually named because somebody gave it an official name after I did, but the Gaming Law of Convergence should go into effect as of the next sequel. Rockstar has themselves a patented sandbox environment that has worked to their needs so far, but the control scheme is getting too familiar and stale. For the most part, a legacy control scheme is best not toyed with, but in this case its time to make the upgrade. The car physics have always been upgraded with each installment, so I don't see them doing anything less but making them at least a little bit better, but it's time to start making the necessary steals from other franchises.

 Steal Resident Evil or Uncharted's combat scheme. The former would tailor well to precision on the run in a much tighter way than we're used to in the GTA series, while Uncharted's controls would make already loose gunfights a little more epic while getting a significant upgrade in overall effectiveness.

 Steal in-house from Midnight Club and allow for a very elaborate garage system without getting too close to Midnight Club's authenticity. Something slightly better than Saint's Row 2, but not nearly as deep as an actual racing campaign.

 On the topic of parkour, just go with what worked in Uncharted one more time. It may be difficult to litter a city with climbing points, but if you're going all-out already, it's hard to see why this wouldn't make sense. That way, they wouldn't clinging to the freerunning fad and they could still add a new dynamic to the player-character. GTA is also about wrecking things up, and while it's badass to guide your character as he storms a gang's stronghold, I've never gone through a GTA game truly feeling I'm in an 80's action movie. As in, the unlikely duo isn't jumping from cover to cover, making buddy remarks at each stop, and at least looking like they are making the effort to lay siege on the big baddie. I know these options are sort of there, but I just don't get the Way of the Gun vibe during the times I should.

 GTA has always been about doing a little bit of everything, but the next game demands that they start taking this concept seriously. Everyone expects GTA to start incorporating other genres. It has to be done, period.

The Playground

 Yes, you're in a sandbox, and by definition your MC can explore anything and everything he sees. Launching yourself from the tallest skyscraper in town is great, but we've played enough games to know that there are significant steps that can be taken to instantly double that freedom. The GTA series thinks big, but the problem is that sometimes their design leapfrogs all of the smaller things. Yes, GTA IV has several arguments, but we are allowed to be greedy in our wishes. They are wishes, after all.

 The processing power of the current systems should be able to handle, with some trickery, the ability to enter buildings without ever "leaving" the city. I know that this has happened a few times already, but I'd like to see this explored more and even to the point where it would be a rule to exploit this freedom. I'll get to that in a moment, but the previous GTA games, despite the immense freedom they offer, sometimes backtracks on that freedom when it comes to being on foot. IGN had one thing right; there should be more foot chases. How badass would it be to have a car chase, only for the driver to wreck his car and go on foot with you doing a tuck and roll and hot footing it after him? Well, that's child's play, but imagine if you took that chase through a coffee shop, out the back door and back onto the streets, then losing your prey in a crowd only to find him heading into a newspaper tower. The MC gives chase, playing a little bit of catch up, and your only clues to catch up with him is being able to read the frantic chaos he leaves in his wake. Eventually, you are nearly there, tracking him all the way to the rooftop. You run out onto the rooftop and he has a chopper waiting for him, ladder included. You stop, realizing that two gunners now have a bead on you. Runing back into the building, glass shattering everywhere, you try to make it to the elevator on the other side. If all this happened without a loading screen, without a hiccup, and all seamlessly without ever changing the "map" you're on at any given moment, it would be absolutely awesome.

 That said, if the architects of the new city took this into consideration, every room of every building would be your personal playground. Imagine being able to set up shop by creating a Sim-Base anywhere you can explore. We've dealt with the pre-scripted ideology the whole time, but being able to pick the island and building a mansion on it would take your criminal empire to a new level. Don't have the money? How about the specific warehouse that meets your needs? Picking any location of your choosing from an entire city and actually modifying that part of the city in real-time without ever separating yourself from the "map" would be priceless. This is also a crime game, so bringing the player into the equation when it comes to the actual planning phase could easily be manipulated with such freedoms.

Graphics

 Look, I'm all for a graphical upgrade if the systems can handle all of the above. If they can't, then screw it. Keep the graphics exactly the way they are and advance the actual game. I would love for the city to take advantage of more vivid environments, such as the mentioned neon lights that would be a great Vice City carryover, but that's about all I'd really demand. I may speak for myself on this one, but I wouldn't want the series to create near photo-real graphics and stick to the same damn formula they've been using the whole time. The game dynamic needs to get a boost, and I think that the graphics should only improve to the point where it can keep up with the power required to make all of the above possible. I know it's a pain in the ass to render every room of a skyscraper as well as the entirety of downtown, but it can be done. I'm pretty sure the gamers would be more impressed with truly massive freedom rendered on par with GTA IV.

Seamless Online Play

 Remember the system Demon's Souls used? It's nice to jump into a multiplayer match with your buddies, but it is indeed a match. There's Free Mode, but there's no mission to go on. Open up that cellphone to include other multiplayer options, too, such as teaming up for a mission, and even dedicating a large number of additional missions towards this mechanic. You're supposed to be living the criminal lifestyle. Invite your buddies to see your tailored stronghold and your island home with several boats parked there. Plan a crime together and carry it out. Do several missions together and part ways. It should no way be a requirement to complete the game, but as dependent as games are on the internet these days, it seems natural that there should be a good hundred missions you can tackle with a friend or three. I can already envision several missions where this would be, how you say, epic.

 Basically, just as Demon's Souls, Rockstar should make the online part seamless. Every once and a while, as long as you're connected online, other players should be wreaking havoc in your city without inviting you to the party. There shouldn't be many players in your game, but while you're floating around the bay, you should see an explosion in the distance or something on the radio that makes you curious. Or, it could go quasi-City of Heroes. Say that you approach an area that another player crafted a stronghold out of. Before you even see the building, it loads up in the background, and when you turn the corner you'll suddenly realize that the boring warehouse on 57th and Kennedy looks like it got a facelift. Storm the place, if you can, and steal a briefcase that can be sold to a well-know info buyer in town, and you just raked in a hundred-grand. If someone does the same to you and fails, then you can claim a bounty on his head for having such an impenetrable crib.

 Once again a reminder of a criminal lifestyle, "gang-wars" could easily start with this kind of system. Say that you got to the source of the explosions downtown, and a member of the BRAH clan is doing the damage. Well, a BRAH killed you a couple days ago when your back was turned, so it's time for vengeance. Get on the phone to your buddy playing across town to get him in on the revenge. Why do AI gangs always have to be the only threats? Start your own grudge match and incorporate that into your story.

 While I understand that a full fledged on/offline campaign would be a legendary undertaking, we're not asking for that much. These extra touches don't demand that kind of attention but would add so much to the experience.

 All I'm saying, IGN, is that you're wishing. When you wish, get greedy and as for some truly impressive things. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Where I stand

 With the previous article out of the way, I'd like to immediately fall into the trap by expressing my opinion of a game that I've been hearing a lot about lately: Chrono Cross. I'll be straight; I did not like this game. Before anyone tramples my e-mail address saying that I do not understand what happened in the plot-line, you are wrong.

 Chrono Trigger was one of the best games ever published, and no one can argue that fact. Some even consider it to be the best RPG ever made, and that is debatable, but it makes a very strong case for itself. There's almost nothing wrong with the game, and anyone willing to look past the very childish, so-so nature of the opening will find one of the deepest, intellectual, and arguably dark RPG's that have ever graced a console. I say dark because the game is all about the very serious "end of the world" scenario, except the difference is that you actually see it first hand. Should you lose, you are reminded that your failure causes apocalypse to rain down from the skies. What's even worse is that the thing causing it is at your front door the entire game, and there's very little you can do about it until later on.

 The plot itself is very solid, and I think that one of its strengths is that it tends to avoid confusion, playing safe and keeping things simple while hammering home its points. Pair that up with a chilling, epic, "ticking" soundtrack, and you have yourself a story theme that's hard to forget.

 So with all of this perfection floating around, the game presented the then-Squaresoft with a double edged sword. Obviously, they followed up with its popularity and money making potential, but they had the capability to get in-house and borrowed top-tier talent to create one of the few legendary sequels ever. Or, they could have failed miserably and sullied the upstart series.

 Let's get this out of the way: neither happened. The game was not legendary by any means, though it carries too much perfection to be considered a failure. I prefer to see this game the same way I would imagine Kobe Bryant showing up drunk during game seven of the NBA Finals.

 Everything about this game, aesthetically, screams perfection. The soundtrack was more subdued than the first, but it nonetheless became as memorable as the first. While you may find that there are few epic tracks to be found, the same sense of "ticking" could be found, thankfully preserving the theme from the first game. The graphics are outstanding for a PSX game (because I refuse to use the PS1 title), and the controls do anything to hurt the already patented RPG methods. What's most surprising is how well the oft-bashed battle system works out. It has several shortcomings, coming across as a stamina-based card battler at times rather than using a turn-based, menu driven system. Anyone coming over from Chrono Trigger one has the right to curse, but I have to give a little credit for its attempt at innovation.

 The troubles begin with this "attempt". Once you've discovered the intricacies of the battle system, it's very hard to look at it and think that things are at all upgraded. Say what you will about how this system works and defend its uniqueness all you want, but the system is terrible when compared to the big boys. Can you do techs in Chrono Cross? Well, yes, except they are extremely rare, and with the sheer number of characters in the game, odds are high that your particular group won't have one available to them. Techs were second nature in the first game, and part of its innovation was that things were moving on the battlefield, affecting the way you used your skills. Not only do enemies not move in this game, which is completely understandable, but techs are never once second nature to the player, thus removing a good part of nostalgic charm and replacing it with a color wheel.

 On the topic of characters, think back to your standard RPG. Even in the good ones, you meet a character with an important place in the storyline of the game. In almost every instance (Suikoden aside), these are NPC's with little use to you except being the bearer of an important sidequest, or the catalyst for the next story arc. Maybe it's not even that important. It could be that drunk old man that's hiding out in the corner of town that happens to have more dialogue than most of the narrow minded world you're in. Well, this game encourages you to stick them all in your bag-of-tricks. There are over 40 acquirable characters in the game, and very few of them have any real significance to your story. Some of them don't even have stories.

 Case in point: Starky. You find this alien crash landed on your planet, and he eventually joins you with the pretty predictable wish of getting his ship repaired so that he can leave the cursed rock. That's it. At the end of the game, I thought I did something wrong, because I didn't learn anything about him. Turns out, that's exactly what the developers meant. He serves as more cannon fodder for the team, and his personality doesn't go beyond that. Here I was hoping that he was going to bring this tearful story about being from a previously destroyed planet that Lavos had been to at some point, or some alien viewpoint about what's going on, or even just an investigator wondering why this planet was so effed up all the time. No, none of that.

 Trouble is, there aren't many characters that progress much further than Starky. Only a select few get their moment of fame, and the developers' gimmick was to taunt you with the interesting potential of the rest, then leaving you high and dry. What is the point of introducing that many characters if there's really no good reason for them to be in your party anyway? There are some reasons, I suppose, but they all sound like bad excuses. I barely remember half the characters I used (and didn't use), and yet another character drove me absolutely insane for just being there. What's worse is that I'm not sure why Squeenix even bothered to give some credibility to this character with their DS remake of Chrono Trigger.

 You meet someone in the game that looks like someone you're VERY interested in having in your party, except even Square said that even though they wanted it do be, it wasn't the droid you were looking for. They flip flopped for a while, but in the end it didn't matter, as even if it WAS the character you were desperately hoping to recruit, he didn't do anything important or advance any fanwanks. Basically, Square half-developed a character to the point where he had the most basic of personalities, then tried to figure out what they wanted to do with him, and when they couldn't, they left him at blah and called it a day.

 If that doesn't clue you in to the quality of the plot, then I shall enlighten you. 80% of the plot, a very generous number, is utter crap. The ending is the only thing that merits it being in the series, and unfortunately, the entire premise of the ending is dumped onto you all at once like a garbage truck emptying its payload. "Bond-monologue" doesn't even begin to describe it, mainly because the plot gave you so few connections to the revelation by that point. It's really hard to connect the dots when you aren't given dots to start with. Yes, things happen in the plot about the Frozen Flame, but it still doesn't make sense why they approached it in the way they did.

 My theory on this is the exact same one that I gave that certain character. Squaresoft had a game on their hands that was meant to be standalone, and they developed it up to the point where the plot was barely passable. Somebody decided to slap the Chrono label on it, and instead of tailoring the game to be a true part of the series, they just slapped a few extra areas, a monologue, and an end boss to link the two games and called it good. What's troubling is that because of this, I can't recommend the game as a standalone, because the game relies so heavily on these thrown in plot-points that a newbie wouldn't get what was really going on. The only way to recommend the plot to a series fan is to tell them to load up the game 80% of the way through and start fresh from there. Sure, they'll be confused at first, but a couple people step in and explain everything in the most long-winded ways possible, so it works out.

 That's why I have a very hard time with this game. It is quite possibly the most perfect bad game to ever come out. If it wasn't for 80% of the plot, this game could be a worthy heir, because everything else about the game is done with extremely high standards. From the opening scene and the accompanying music to the ending, this game has greatness written all over it. Yes, the ending is great, because what you ultimately buy the game for (its link to Chrono Trigger) is worth experiencing despite the reasoning for it being shoved down your throat. The rest of the plot just keeps hacking away at the credibility of it all.

 Also, in the first game, there were several moments of true badassery. Remember Crono and the Mammon Machine? You'll find none of that here.

 As promised:

 78% Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Where they stand

 I've recently become fascinated with the masses' ability to go beyond the levels of rage when it comes to their opinions of how the video game world "should" be. In some cases, I think they are wrong, as evidenced by my own criticism of Modern War 2's boycott movement. In some cases, they are very right to bash whoever they feel like. Take, for example, the douchey Squeenix exec Shinji Hashimoto saying that "If people want a sequel, they should buy more!" in reference to a Chrono Sequel. 

 Got news for you Shinji. They bought lots of copies and they loved them. You may want to consider your qualifications if you can't translate a basic sales number or meta-critic score. You've also released the original Chrono Trigger three times already. Chances are fairly high that I don't need a third copy of a game I already own twice over. I'll come back for you later, Squeenix. 

 There's just so much rage going on right now that it's hard, even for me, to avoid becoming too political when it comes to basic gaming. If a game gets a score that doesn't seem right, people go nuts. If a feature is toyed with, boycotts happen. For the purposes of narrowing the focus of this article, I'll be sticking with review scores for this go.

 Video games are very difficult to quantify. Movies are a different beast, because however difficult pinning down a score might seem, all that the reviewer ultimately needs to determine is whether or not the movie is worth watching. It comes down to a movie being a "must-see" 5/5, or a 3/5 aimed at people who are fans of a specific genre or just have some free time and need to spectate. Games, on the other hand, are hampered by a million major and minor things that all have to add up. Some elements are passable and some are not, and that also determines on who reviews the game. If Braid receives a 95% and Uncharted 2 receives a 90%, then one would assume that Braid is a superior game. However, that doesn't take into account that Braid is a simple 2D platformer, that Uncharted has an expansive multiplayer campaign, the platform in question, and the general fun a user will have playing it. Price and replay value are also factors, but you wouldn't know this from a score. We're also assuming that if the same reviewer handed out both scores, than he could easily be biased to a certain platform, genre, or anything really. Money could even be a factor. 

 So scores shouldn't be that important, but in a way, they are the most important thing you don't realize. If I walk into my local GameStop and see a game that interests me, I will look the game up before buying to see if it stands up on its own. If the game registers at 72%, my first misguided instinct is to lean toward the "don't get" side of the spectrum. Millions of choosy gamers don't have the kind of patience I do, so when 72% shows up, immediately they drop the notion of buying the game at all. What if that game was Devil Survivor, a game that is considered an excellent entry in its genre, but a game that some people would outright hate? While nothing can top being informed, it would truly suck if gamers who loved the game saw the sequel potential fly out the window because 10,000 people who would have loved the game never even consider buying it because of a numbered rating? At the very least, that score was powerful, even if the actual numerical rating isn't all that important.

 I tend to read my reviews a little differently. I do glance at the score, and if the game isn't thrashed at the 1/5 or sub-30% range, then I check the text. It's important to get together your impression of a game, but equally as important to know what to expect and look for all the cues. Ghostbusters: The Video Game would be a good example, because I can easily this game being reviewed anywhere from 60-to-90%. The game has everything you want if you're looking for a Ghostbusters game, but the lack of replay value and the short story are deal-killers to some people. So seeing a solid 75-80& score doesn't tell me what I need to know. I wanted to be a Ghostbuster in HD glory, and I got that. I was willing to buy it. Other's would not 

 So, when I read a review, I look at what the criticism's are and what the praises are. I know, going into the review, what my expectations are. That includes failures. I rented Eternal Sonata and read a couple of reviews for it, and while the game received generally favorable marks, no positive that I saw matched the positive's that I needed to see. I like my RPG's to be either insanely fun or truly epic, and the impression that I got was that the game was a solid RPG based on a gimmicky story...exactly what I was afraid of. Knowing what to look for in a review can save you from buying a 90% POS vs. a 70% gem according to your tastes. 

 Ultimately, it all boils down to whether or not a game is fun or not. Most reviewers tend to forget this as a rule. The graphics segment of any review is outright bullshit, usually, except for cel-shaded games and first party Nintendo titles, where journalists conveniently forget their own code of conduct. I've seen writers nitpick on graphics and drop the game's rating down at least 5% because the graphics weren't advanced enough for their taste while the game remains fundamentally awesome. 

 So the moral would be to simmer down on bashing game ratings, because it's never going to be close to a perfect approximation of "fun". By all means, continue to bash for logically screwed up things that reviewers do, but remember that a bad score isn't the end of the world. Reader averages and Wikipedia "second opinion" lines do wonders already.

 This is probably why I'm a fan of Zero Punctuation, though. It's actually refreshing to start from the standpoint that a game is utter crap until proven otherwise, and to also hear what a developer doesn't do to advance a genre. Or attempt to, and fail. 

Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Sorid Snaku

 So Paul Anderson wants to direct the Metal Gear Solid movie.

 No.

 God. I mean, no.

 No offense to P-...I can't even say that. I mean to cause offense with this, because I was offended first. Are you   ******* kidding me? When Uwe Boll takes already bad gaming franchises and translates them into terrible movies, we mainly just bash on him for being a bad director that has zero talent whatsoever. Not often do we actually step up to the defense of the franchises, because they were butchered to begin with. Yes, Alone in the Dark could have been spared, but Atari was already making sure that the last legs were removed before the movie came out.

 Paul Anderson, however, despite being literally surrounded by video games in his life, doesn't get it. He doesn't even grasp the concepts of making a regular movie that isn't related to video gaming. I admit, I loved the first couple of Resident Evil movies for its escapism quality, but I realized just like everyone else that Anderson wasn't even going to try and make a true RE movie. The movies were terrible, yet fun, and I actually applaud the fact that there was almost zero effort going into being faithful to anything Capcom invented. Nemesis has feelings deep down. Really. This happened.

 You know Paul Anderson is just making things up and using computer generated images to cover up for those times when he can't direct, which is the main reason why his movies wholly considered pieces of CG garbage. Please don't watch Alien vs. Predator to research this.

 Metal Gear Solid doesn't take itself seriously either, but I would prefer that the directing role go to someone a little more Kojima friendly. Ryuhei Kitamura would probably be best suited for the project. Because of their already solid relationship, I could easily see the directing duties being split between the two of them appropriately. On top of that, the movies that the man makes are suited to the style. He takes some pretty offbeat scenarios and unrealistic action and turns it into edgy, comical, and deliberate. Do we honestly need to see another glorified cheese scene of Milla Jovovich backflipping, or do we need to see something that's equally absurd, yet remains badass to watch? I suppose that depends if Milla is wet or not, but we're talking about Solid Snake, so the latter wins.

 Mr. Anderson...just stay away from this franchise. Please. I'm not a fan of the Metal Gear games, but that's my personal taste. I'd like to stand up for this franchise before you ruin it. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

From your loving daddy

 Told you so.

 . Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Following up...

Dear Infinity Ward,

 On behalf of the gaming world, I'd like to thank you for giving us the opportunity to play Modern Warfare 2, a fantastic game that should truly be a part of every FPS fan's library. The game is reaching legendary sales while sealing up the biggest release day in the history of gaming. Even though the game itself only carries roughly 6-8 hours of storyline gaming, the addition of spec-ops mode and the perfection of what was already a great Modern Warfare multiplayer brings along unrivaled relay value that has finally unseated Halo's dominance in the field.

 Now, about your AI.

 While I appreciate the idea of giving hardened players a challenge, I'd like to point out that your game is a cheating bastard. Many games are cheating bastards, and will pull no punches when it comes to killing the player. While your game isn't impossible, it takes the idea of being a "bastard" to a level approaching...well, other Call of Duty standards. The series has been known for "phantom grenades" and impossible headshots on a twitch from a mile away, but the fans expected better of you. While your veteran mode is a long way from being impossible, it lacks any creativity in making the gamer's life hell.

 Rather, Modern Warfare 2 is strikingly uncreative in coming up with ways to backhand the player should they stand their happy-ass up from behind cover. It seems as if your programmers got lazy in this respect, falling back on the "straight line" approach. This approach is anything but realistic, because it relies on the computer being able to come up with a straight line to the player's head. This would be fine, since this happens all the time with a human behind the controls, but this is a cheating bastard of a computer we're talking about, here.

 In several instances, the computer doesn't actually have skill, nor does it "think" about it's approach to making the player dead. While this makes the gamechallenging, it is not satisfyingly challenging by any means, which I will demonstrate with examples:

 1) In the oil rig scenario, once you reach the top you find yourself in the middle of a thick smoke cloud. The enemy is fighting with thermal scopes. Now, you have to look through these scopes to see your enemy, otherwise you are blind. This logically means that your opponent should not be able to turn a corner one-hundred feet away to face away from you in a heated sprint, then turn around and headshot you in a millisecond through a dense patch of smoke. It is physically impossible to even get your sights up in the time it took for this enemy to make a three round burst into my head, let alone to stop and turn around from his sprint. If he even used his sights, I'd be amazed.

 2) Knowing that your enemies can and will own your face should you step out of line, or even when you're perfectly under cover, you should have taken better care of your checkpoints. On one occasion in the Favela, I was pursuing the story target and ran up a hill only to be gunned down by about four shooters at once with no idea where the fire came from. Understanding that this was probably just a bad corner turn, I tried again. Roughly seven out of ten times, I was given half a second to take one step in any direction before being gunned down. Even after realizing where the shots were coming from, the spawn point made it an infuriating test of patience moreso than a test of skill. This can be said for many other spawn points in the game where the player has nothing more than a second to dive to something and hope that every enemy on the map doesn't just kill them through the cover anyway.

 3) While ducking behind cover in a house to reload, I checked an attached room completely before attempting it. Still keeping my eye on the entrance to that room's entrance, I reloaded, the immediately turned towards the front door where I was met with a "dead" screen. Guess where the enemy was? The second I took my eye off of the adjacent room's entrance, an enemy had miraculously appeared not only in the room, but in the doorway attaching it to my own room. We're also talking "within a second", here.

 4) When I'm sprinting, I sure as hell can't hit a target while blindfiring a football field away. Yet, your enemies somehow manage to blindfire you from a football field away without even facing you. Oh yeah, they're all headshots.

 5) Most of those grenades, I understand, but either you're pulling some of these out of your ass or that chick in the Russian digs has one hell of an arm from across the map...and an aim...and an uncanny knack for only throwing at me when about twelve American soldiers are scattered in front of the next hundred feet of me.

 6) So Soap is running down some stairs killing everything in sight. He turns to a doorway and shoots down some opposition while I'm still on the stairs. Magically, the enemy linebacker plows through any and all support shooting in his direction, goes around Soap without even looking at him twice while he's in a doorway, runs to the stairs and opens up fire on me. The enemy in question shouldn't have even known I was there.

 7) In the very same situation, Soap is taking up nearly a third of the doorway, so enemies on both sides are free to shoot him all they want. I am hurt, so I duck behind cover to a place with no line-of-sight whatsoever. The enemy cannot see me at all, and Soap is just sitting there soaking up bullets. Rather, he would be soaking up bullets if they were shooting at him. Instead, hundreds of bullets are attacking the metal wall next to me, and maybe two shots go in his direction.

 8) On one level, I'm pretty sure that my death-gaze suggested that the sky killed me. I was prone under an ungodly amount of cover for the sole purpose of NOT dying, so I'm pretty sure the game wasn't lying.

 9) It's hard to imagine why American haven't discovered the anti-recoil technology yet. The Russians are quite capable of using the same weapons to unleash fury on a pinprick without losing accuracy.

10) The lack of a single-player kill cam leads me to believe that you don't know what killed me, either.

11) In any game, let your squad move first. Don't even enter the field of battle. Just sit there and wait. Do that for a minute. Now pop your head out and watch it get taken out by fifty people who have been tracking the untrackable the entire time. Oh, and they've fighting a war while they track you. Amazing what spider-senses can do for snipers.

 12) Somehow, if I don't sprint away from a grenade that's sort of near me, I will die. I will lob a grenade in front of about four enemies in an enclosed space, nobody will leave through the exits, and at least three people pop right back up to shoot me, or are magically not there anymore.

 13) In another instance of the sky killing me, I was behind a giant metal box and edged along the wall to pop off some heads in the smoke with my thermal scope. I did so, but I kept getting shot. I looked across the level, without leaving cover, to see if anything showed up on thermal. Nope. Yet every now and then I would get hit by something. When I finally peeked around the corner to check the top level of the building I was sieging, I died quickly only to find out that I was being shot with amazing accuracy by the same thing that was shooting my through the container. Only problem is, this person was apparently invisible to thermal and camping from midair from somewhere twenty feet in the left of the top level of the building. I still have no idea where this magical sniper is.

 14) Also, once I had finally reached the breach point, I hit a checkpoint. Every time I loaded the checkpoint, I would be shot. I decided once that I would find out what was shooting me every time. No one was there.

 15) Just why does everybody have to go to war with me rather than, I don't know, the country they're invading? In the suburbs, I parked crouched behind a curved set of yard-bricks somewhere in the middle of the curve where I wouldn't easily be seen. Of course, it helped that I had two privates to my right standing straight up even further down the curve to the point where they were really only under cover if that evil fence decided to take up arms. I peek my head out, and I died. Same thing, only I shifted slightly to the right, basically peeking out from behind the ass cheek of one of the privates. Near-death shot. The only way I could get the enemy to actually attack the wide open privates would be to peek my head out and quickly duck back so that the fire that was intended for me actually hit them. Beyond that, they could've had a barbeque and the enemy would have ignored them.

 Yes, the game is challenging and far from impossible, as I'm progressing through the veteran campaign steadily in between multiplayer matches. It's just that from the sounds of it, whoever tested your game decided that breaking the laws of reality was a great idea. Getting beaten with skill impresses me, and I can appreciate the challenge in that. There are a zillion ways to make a game, especially an FPS, harder, but you decided that the best way to go was to make sure that the majority of the enemies in veteran mode were omnipotent crack-shots with Flash-like reflexes and a taste for only the player's blood.

 -The Game Bay

 If anyone ever comes across some way to debug this game, I would be happy to put some of these to the test and post the video results. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Obligatory

 Released to the masses yesterday, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is out on the streets, and while it is an extremely impressive game, this is the game that truly draws the line on taking games too seriously. No, I'm not talking about the guys at Infinity Ward. Oh, the game has its issues, but nothing close to a game-breaker comes up. If you like your FPS's, especially the Call of Duty series, then this is as good as it gets when it comes to a reality-shooter.

 The game itself is a little sketchy when it comes to coherency in plot, and I don't mean that the plot is confusing. There's just something off about everything. There is a huge effort to place the game in the real world, despite having a Bond approach to things. That's not to say that the scenario couldn't in fact happen, but the bad guy in the game is really a MacGuffin case to get across the real point. If you're seen the trailers, you already know that the "war" gets brought to the home turf of America. There is no theft of Fallout 3 here whatsoever, in case you were one of the few that worried about that, and you'll be happy to know that the developers know how to keep the player as unsettled as the nuke did in the first. There is one particular scene in the game that is absolutely phenomenal that reveals the war-zone that is D.C., and your jaw will drop.

 What's missing is a few bits and pieces that would string along the plot a little better. There are a few random news clips thrown in here and there for effect, but the full impact of the war isn't really felt until you're actually in it. I'm not saying that there should have been more pointless fillers, but the plot is a little disjointed, which is saying something from a series that prides itself on letting the player experience war from the perspective of several soldiers during the course of a game. In World War II, this makes sense, as the background is already there, but in this game something falls short. Nonetheless, that's a cherry pick criticism and I will admit it.

 The game, however, bears an improvement over Modern Warfare on almost every level. I am absolutely astounded by how much work Infinity Ward went into to take care of the little things. Even in multiplayer, motion captures were perfectly done. Except for the enemies' "grunt" personality that just goes along with the job, there aren't any hiccups in the animation. You won't find a character looking like several cinder blocks chained together, and stringing together actions looks natural and smooth. The AI is...

 OK, about the AI. I can't tell. I'm sure its good, and I have reason to believe that it is good, but if you truly care to find out, play the game on easy. Why not later difficulties?

 I played the game on normal difficulty, because I like to play how the developers meant for the game to be played. There was an experience here to be had, and I didn't want to ruin it by wandering into the most frustrating version of the game and having that be my first impression. The first go around is always for the fun, enjoyment, and experience. After that, if I desire a challenge, I turn it up. I'm midway through veteran right now, and my criticism stems from that.

 Just as in every Call of Duty game before it, regardless of developer, the game is a cheating bastard. If you play on the harder settings, and even sometimes on normal, expect to get bent over in the worst way. There is one part of the game that sums this up perfectly. Three members of your squad go ahead of you into the entrance of a building to deal with a firefight. I tactically peeked into the building from behind them, and my face get shot by everyone at the end of the main hallway within a tenth of a second. They are only gunning for you, they are only gunning for your face, and they will hit with an obscene amount of accuracy. Going on, I saw the edge of a guy's gun pointing at my sarge, who was standing ten feet in front of me on the other side of the door frame. I peeked around the corner to pop a shot off at the gunner, and the AI twitch-spun and put three rounds into my skull before I knew what was happening. Further up on a staircase, by sarge emptied a clip at an enemy five feet in front of him, and naturally he missed every shot. Mid clip, the enemy had decided that the sarge unleashing his rifle within slapping distance was not a threat and decided that I was clearly the top priority. Once at the top of the staircase, once again three soldiers were in front of me to clear out an RPG nest. Two enemies were looking out a window, and I picked off one of them. The other managed to switch weapons, stop camping, turn around and put three pistol rounds into my head the second I pulled my trigger.

 This can be demonstrated later in the game as well, as you will inevitably get sniped with a pistol from a kilometer away the second you peek your head out from a crate despite the fact that twelve of your fellow soldiers are firing on his position.

 This isn't the only issue. The "God grenade" is back, at least on veteran difficulty. For those who don't know, the game will decide that occasionally you need to get a grenade chucked at you. This wouldn't be so much of a problem if it wasn't for the fact that the grenade literally comes out of nowhere. In the infamous civilian massacre stage, I had mopped up the enemies in an area, looked around and saw no enemies, yet I turn back around at a runway filled with zero enemies and a grenade is at my feet. If my teammates did it, then they still threw it at me despite the fact that the previous engagement was well over. So either my team was trying to kill me for no reason (which is funny, actually...), or "God" decided I needed to start dancing.

 Also, I actually have to complain about multiplayer for looking too good. Infinity Ward made the game run so smoothly online that you actually can't tell how bad you might be lagging at any given time. What you see as three shots to the head that connected might not actually BE hits at all, and there's actually a chance you didn't really fire your weapon. How do you tell if you did or not? The post-death "kill cam", and that's it. Beyond that, there are no signs to tell you if you're the lag-monster because the game still looks (on a decent connection, anyway) as if you're playing the single-player game. Animations are all great, movements are all perfect, but firing shots is sometimes guess-work. Your ping may say hat you're full-green, but that doesn't mean all those headshots you got actually made it out of the barrel. Now this is what some people expect from their FPS's, but most games give you a little, however slight it may be, nudge within the game to let you know that you're a little behind the curve. So when I say the game is over-polished in the multiplayer front, I mean that it makes a little lag LOOK good, but it will be frustrating to some gamers who aren't used to it. You'll die AFTER you shoot your amazing headshot rather than before. It can be a huge buzzkill at times.

 Apart from that, everything is excellent. Even the enemy spawn points feel natural, though I didn't play the first title much on the single-player side to compare how the improvement is. All I know is that in most CoD games, you had a wall of enemies that never went away, and you had to take each individual spawn point bit by bit to keep pushing forward. In Modern Warfare 2, there is the sense that the spawn points are used to fill in gaps and reinforce the front line rather than being the front line that never dies.

 As for political statements, the game makes plenty, and this paragraph will be dedicated to <<<<>>>>

 Yes, I give away the plot here for the most part, but mainly because the political statements made in the game  are pretty valid ones. I'm actually sort of impressed how the immersion within games can get people to think in a different way than a movie would. Being in the eyes of a front-line soldier and experiencing everything rather than just watching it is a whole different beast when it comes to social commentary, and they did a tremendous job.

 Several stages in the game do indeed take place in America, though I'm a little confused about the why and how when it comes to Russia invading the country from the east coast. Strategically, it makes sense in some ways, but how the hell did they get there in the first place? That, I don't understand. The fight being on American turf, however, means everything. The premise in itself, even though I called the terrorist a MacGuffin earlier, is realistic. A surprisingly high number of conflicts have begun following third party action, and in todays political climate, it makes perfect sense. Given recent Russian military actions, the prospect of a conflict between our countries was at least on the table at one point regardless of how far or close it was to actually happening. Today's political climate is one of paranoia, and it's also extremely complicated. All it takes is for a suicide bomber to blow himself up in the right place, and it doesn't matter what countries are involved. It could be New Zealand and the Philippines going to war over a soccer match in Spain, and it really would have nothing to do with us, but Americans could be on the front lines.

 In the game, all the enemies are tangos, and it really is the foundation of the game that the general enemy is a neutral, unnamed one. No racial or derogatory terms are thrown into the game at all. That may just be a politically correct thing, but considering that you mow down civvies in the game, I'm not really buying it. The soldiers never cross the line in conversation about objectifying anything, which makes more sense when you consider who the bad guys really end up being in the game. Your own General ends up being the bad guy, and that's something to really think about when you match it up with everything else in the game. The Americans in the game are out fighting a war that reflects our own current "war" on foreign soil, which just starts things off, and then we're constantly reminded that just as in real life, we're the ones who put a lot of terrorists into power to begin with through training and funding. It ends up being the American general that basically causes the invasion of his own country through these underhanded tactics. Being in the eyes of a soldier used as a pawn, which is literally the name of one of the achievements, sort of makes you scratch your head and wonder "why?".

 In one scene, probably the strongest "I hate the enemy" remark in the game is a soldier that says that he wants to do the same thing to Moscow that happened to D.C.. The sarge seems satisfied, but shows patience with his action by replying that it will happen when "the time is right". It's refreshing to see that the pawns in the game are the ones doing their jobs with high regard for civilian life without condemning or demonizing their enemies, showing that even Washington D.C. being invaded can't even be taken at face value these days. It's hard to even know who the good guys are on our own turf, so judging another country or group of people is the last thing that's done in the game. It's extremely satisfying to take down the real villain in the game, especially after a few moments where you feel like he might actually get away with everything he's done.

 It's not high-philosophy, but the game succeeds at putting the complicated matters of politics and war into a simple viewpoint that you can relate to. The view is also an exceptionally good one, too, and even with all of the complications going around in the plot-line, the simple "fight for your country" one is done perfectly as well.  At D.C., the Air Force has been authorized to flatten the city, soldiers included, unless the remaining soldiers can signal that there is actually a force last to fight the enemy with. After fighting what you're sure (after the nuke from the first Modern Warfare) is a futile battle to announce yourself from the rooftops, the fighters acknowledge that they recognize your flair and call off the strike. That was a "whew" moment in itself, but then you're allowed to look at D.C. from high ground, and you see several other flares as well. At that point, you were pretty sure that you were the last complete squad left, and the scene is so well done that you really get a sense of pride and that lifting of the hopeless mood. Props to ya, Infinity Ward.


<<<<>>>>

 Onto the consumers. Look, I'm not buying Modern Warfare 2 for the PC, nor will I play it. I wanted it on PS3, and that's a personal choice for me and not a statement on the PC state of things. What I don't believe, however, is that the PC version could possibly be a broken, unplayable, unenjoyable, POS, 1.6/10 rated game, because as of 11/11, IGN.com lists the reader average as 1.6. I understand that the dedicated server thing got everybody on their high horse, but honestly, are you kidding me? From my understanding, this game is practically a clone of the console versions and if you were to hide the rig behind a wall with an X-Box controller sticking out, no one would even really know the difference. All of the features are there, with nothing missing, and yet the community still complains? I'm all for complaining when things are wrong, but the PC gamers are getting the same thing everyone else is getting and they are bitching about it.

 My second complaint is that when I got online to play the multiplayer segment, there were players already leveled in the 30's and 40's. Today I saw 50's. The game was just released, and I know that I'm in Alaska, but come on. For the people that absolutely had to get the game early from the mom and pop stores, that's douchebaggery and you know it. GameStop, thank you for fueling this. No, really. Even worse, though, is that while I call them douchebags and move on, equally talented douchebags are flaming message boards with impunity to complain about it. At some point, the "it's only a game" line was crossed, which sort of makes you wonder how serious you can get about gaming before it becomes crazy. It's not as if there's money on the line for reaching a certain level first.

 Finally, Infinity Ward is catching a lot of praise and a lot of flak for this game right now, and I'm starting to understand that "fans" are becoming more and more of a problem to developers that are actually good. It's one thing to bash UbiSoft for Assassin's Creed because the game is far from perfect, but the expectations were so impossibly high for this game. Realistically, they met all of those expectations, yet are taking some of the biggest criticisms I've ever seen for a good game.

 When I bought Fallout 3 on its release, I came home to find out that the game was probably had the worst compatibility for an A-list title I've ever seen in recent years. I ran XP, and switching to Vista solved everything, but after installing the game I found so many bugs and crashes that the game was truly unplayable. They also included SecuROM with no announcement whatsoever, and I was furious. The game was truly broken on the compatibility end of things, was buggy as hell, and contained software that has been rightfully denounced as a piece of software that would have been written by the Nazis if they were still around....that's reason to be angry at a developer. One patch later and jumping to Vista, and the game itself was amazing, though still a little glitchy. Even then, I never asked for someone to go lob the heads off of Bethesda's staff.

 Modern Warfare 2 is about as complete a shooter and overall experience that you're going to get for quite some time. All versions of the game are pretty much the same quality game. If Infinity Ward wants the experience to be consistent and structured a certain way on all platforms, that's fine with me. If the game were crappy, that would be one thing, but the game is excellent and they are getting hammered for every little mistake that they make. It's time to start wondering if some people are really taking this gaming thing a little too seriously. A company releases a great game on the PC and the fans hate them for it. Dedicated servers or not, that makes no sense.

 I'm going to go shoot things now. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit

Gates and thieves

 Stargate Universe has been out for a while, and let me tell you, Robert Carlyle plus a stargate equals a lot of awesome.

 But this article has very little to do with that.

 No, I'm commenting on Nolan North saying that Hugh Jackman should play the part of Nathan Drake. Now, I'm not opposed to this idea for the most part. Jackman has brought some gravity to the comic book scene with his portrayal of Wolverine, and he wouldn't necessarily be bad for the role, but I don't really agree with it. Maybe it's me, but he seems a little past his younger days when he could easily have pulled it off without me second guessing. The guy takes care of himself and isn't going to show his age for a while, but he's missing something here. It doesn't seem like a good fit.

 No, I'm going with Joe Flannigan of Stargate: Atlantis fame. I realize this is coming from a total Stargate fan's perspective, but the truth is that the guy has video game likability written all over him. Nevermind the fact that I truly believe this guy could have pulled off Rick Hunter a few years earlier if that movie ever did get made. This serves as an acceptable substitute.

 I even thought, and still think, that at some point he should have been the one taking up The Hat as a younger Indiana Jones. He has all of the qualities that a lead actor in the adventuring game should have. He carries the resemblance, has the chops to look in charge (or at least cool under pressure) in a room full of people who are stronger than him in some way, and he has the comedic remark thing down by now. In fact, when playing the game, I sort of had visions of Shepherd being the lead character instead of Drake because the dialogue was so similar to Atlantis if swearing were allowed.

 I'm pretty sure I'm missing something major that nixes the whole equation, but Atlantis is done and the Uncharted movie won't be out for a couple of years. That pretty much leaves him free, and I hate to rob Jackman of a good role, but I think that the game would connect better into the movie realm with Flanigan involved. I'm sure not everyone would agree, but hey, it's my blog and I'm sticking to that view. Digg It Stumble it ! Reddit