It's A Bird, It's A Plane...No, It's Super-HYPE

Flurry Of Pics Surfacing From Upcoming DC Movies

Set pictures. You either love 'em or hate 'em. The upcoming and overly anticipated films Superman: Man of Steel and The Dark Knight Rises have been releasing some exciting pictures as of late. Today was a big bombshell, with the first pic released of British actor Henry Cavill in full garb as Kal-el, or as he's better known to the world...Superman. Take a look-see...

So Mr. Kent...Will you be making a withdrawal today sir?

Refreshing isn't it? The costume looks somewhat reminiscent of Bryan Singer's take of Superman back in 2006 with the damper, less vibrant colors. There are some big differences when you look closer though. First, the iconic "S" symbol is a little higher up on the chest, and the cape is a lot longer than we're used to. Anyone reminded of "300?" A film which was no-so coincidentally directed by Zack Snyder, the same man behind the helm of this new Superman. 

The costume also shows a big difference in the texture. It's loaded with fish-like scales, similar to Spider-Man, which is sure to pop-out at people once the film is released in HD formats, and most likely 3D. But look a little bit closer at the costume, specifically at the testes-satchel area. No, I'm not admiring Cavill's bulge, but you can make out that the red underwear is gone. The producers of the film, one of which is my cinema king Christopher Nolan, said they were going to make the costume a little more solid and unique by taking out the red-over underwear. A minor gripe for devoted fanboys, but maybe it's for the better. It just makes the character look too cartoonish.

God my undies are sexy

My first impression of the picture was a little jarring. I guess I've been itching for a great Superman live-action movie since part II way back in the 80's, but I'm growing to like it. I love the primal look in Cavill's posture and pose. If you remember the first pic released back for Superman Returns, it showed Brandon Routh in the more usual iconic pose, resting his arms on his waist; very stoic. But now Warner Brothers is throwing a curve-ball. "Superman looks like he's in a Wolverine pose?" "Nooooooo!?!?" Relax everyone, this is what we need.

For too long Superman has been behaving very Dog Whisperer-like: calm and submissive. The man is faster than a speeding bullet, can punch through steel walls, and can take a beating. Go back and watch Superman Returns, and count the amount of punches he threw on-screen. That's right ... there were zero. Now, go watch any of the animated films of Superman and you'll notice the big difference in his portrayal. Fist-fly faster than E. Honda from Street Fighter, and he's always getting thrown around by baddies like Metallo, Darkseid, and even a robot-riding Lex Luthor; who I'm ecstatic is NOT making an appearance in this upcoming film. It finally seems like we're going to get a brutal take on the man who represents truth, justice, and the American way. That's not to say we won't get our typical portrayal of the Man of Steel. Cavill is after all British, which if James Bond taught us anything, means he must have some kind of charm about him. And how can you deny that beautifully stone-chiseled jaw-line? 


It looks like Snyder and company are on the right track so far. The only thing that sucks is that we'll have to wait until Summer 2013 to watch it.

Moving on now to the other 500 lb. gorilla in the DC room: Batman. The Dark Knight Rises is easily the more anticipated of the two films, considering it's already established itself as a worthy film franchise. New pics rose from the narrows of Gotham City last week, showing Tom Hardy in his full Bane costume. Don't let this pic BREAK YOU...

A lot of people, including myself, were a bit baffled when it was announced Bane was the main villain in the film. But once it sank in that Tom Hardy was playing the intellectually muscled threat...I was at ease. It looks to me that Nolan has again found a way to stay grounded in his realistic take on the comics. Hardy definitely beefed up for the role, but he's not the massive, luchador-mask-wearing wrecking ball we're accustomed to. Instead, he's got a fur jacket, a bullet-proof (maybe batarang-proof?) vest, with his combat pants topped off with that S&M mask, which is likely the source of his Venom serum. 

It just seems too coincidental

Other than his mask, there's nothing that really stands out with Bane's costume, but this is a good thing. Once you get too flashy with a villain's costume it distracts the audience from the performance of the actor. Hardy is a great actor. I know it's cliche, but he was meant for this role. Don't believe me? March your nerdy butt to your nearest NETFLIX instant queue and devote an hour and a half of your time to watch "Bronson." Hardy plays Britain's most notorious prisoner Charlie Bronson with a meticulous portrayal that pushes the limits of the character to insanity. Bronson was a bald-headed, handlebar mustachioed bulky prisoner, who loved to cause trouble for prison guards by holding them hostage, psychologically torturing them, and then buttering his naked body up so that when he'd fight them, he'd be harder to get under control. Sounds a bit like Bane right? Except for the whole mustache, naked butter thing. Whatever, you get the point.


Hardy is going to own this role. He's a fearless actor, who's not afraid to step up to the plate and deliver a notoriously villainous role in the Nolan inspired Batman universe. He's spoken on countless occasions of his displeasure of Schumacher's version of Bane in "Batman and Robin," who served merely as a henchmen who loved to mutter the word "BOOOOMMMMBBBB." He also admitted to sharing a great deal of respect to Heath Ledger's take on the Joker, but says he's not daunted by the task of following the performance, saying "Brilliant actor, brilliant work – that's it. I've got a job to do. ... It's the same with Mad Max and Mel Gibson. I'm not here to engage in a competition with their talent. It's to play the character that I've been given."(Little asterisk here, Hardy is playing the title role in the upcoming Mad Max 4: Fury Road)

Heath Ledger raised the bar when it comes to memoriable villain portrayals; now, Tom Hardy is ready to power clean it over his head, and hopefully break its sorry ass back. July 20th, 2012 is indeed much too far away.

I'm watching you July 20th, 2012 -- Watch your back (cue drum snare)

    

Shuffling My Way Towards September 6th

Zombie Games To Distract Yourselves Until 'Dead Island'

Does This Image Hit You On An Emotional Level? Good It Should.

Some of you may, or may not know, the significance of zombies in our culture. I could go on and on about how amazing zombie lore has been amongst my fellow nerds, but alas, they're shuffling their way towards the limelight. Movies like "Dawn of the Dead (remake)" and "28 Days Later," helped usher zombies into the 21st century with their new running abilities. Still, you cannot help but thank George A. Romero for introducing, and reinforcing, zombies into American Culture. Heck, they're almost at the point of surpassing vampires in popularity. Again, I say almost, because the extraordinary TV series "The Walking Dead" is still building up steam.

Um...Mike Alstott?

I can't tell you what it is that attracts me to zombies. Maybe it's the hypothetical scenario of unleashng fury on a lifeless being without being morally judged. I know it sounds morbid, but I think human beings are inherently violent, and we need to channel our fury through other distracting measures. But this isn't an article to deconstruct the psychological attraction humans have towards zombies. No, this is an article about Zombified video games. Specifically, I'm talking about Dead Island.

This first person melee zombie survival horror game turned heads in the gaming community, and the mainstream media, with its poignant reveal trailer showing a family's demise at a tropical paradise resort in reverse time. Yes, that entire description describes Dead Island in a nutshell. If you haven't seen the trailer yet, or just need to watch it again like I do....here you go:



God that was refreshing!!! In Dead Island players will take control one of several survivors on an island getaway, fighting off waves of zombie hordes; all with the help of three other friends. Yes, it's online drop-in, drop-out co-op. From what we've seen so far in gameplay videos, the game looks solid. The visuals are crisp, and the combat looks tight, responsive, and creative. Many in the gaming community are drooling for this game to come out, which is just around the corner on September 6th. However, we need to get our daily zombie fix, and fortunately for you, if zombie-games were a rubber tube, heroin-filled needle, well then call me Tubbs, your friendly neighborhood drug dealer. These are some of the best zombie games out there that you can get your hands on and chew on for the next two months.

1. Left 4 Dead (1&2)

Yes...You do get to kill them all

If there were ever a game that could possibly match the feel and atmosphere of Dead Isalnd, it's this game. You play as one of four survivors trying to make your way across a zombie ravaged city in this first person shooter. Left 4 Dead surprised gamers with its tight gunplay mechanics, as well as its strategic cooperative nature. You cannot go guns blazing all alone without your teammates, because you WILL die. Whether it's a Smoker, Boomer, or a Witch, this game demands teamwork, and damned if you don't play it with other people.

Dead Island looks to hit some of the similar beats that made Left 4 Dead so successful, but the big difference between the two is the realistic approach Dead Island seems to be approaching. You won't be able to take out 50 zombies with a single pipe-bomb. No, Dead Island makes you work for the kills, as each zombie you take-on could be the end of you.

Left 4 Dead is an experience best played with friends either split-screen, or online. You'll have to coordinate, attack, defend, and protect at any time ... and damnit, there are a buttload of zombies for you to kill.

2. Dead Rising (1&2) 

I Would probably go with the Fire Axe to take these guys out

This is what Dawn of the Dead would look like if it had a video game tie-in. Dead Rising pits players against a literal horde of zombies in a shopping mall/Vegas Strip. Dead Rising was praised for its creative ways to dispatch zombies. Baseball Bat to the temple? Check. Razord Bladed Boxing Gloves? Double check. This game was fun for one reason, going to town on zombies with melee weapons. You see where I'm getting at? Dead Island looks to have a strong focus on melee weapons, and Dead Rising is just the warm up game.


3. Resident Evil Series (Particularly 2)

I asked if anyone had a quarter!?!?!

What can I say about this series that I haven't said before? This has easily been one of my favorite video game franchises of all time. The story, although hammy at times, is pure perfection that plays out like a male soap opera. Just look at the first game: A former Ari Force recruit, Chris Redfield, investigates a string of grizzly murders at a nearby forest, only to find his tactical response team has been sent into a murderous ambush at the hands of his Team leader. Seriously, guys thrive on this.

What makes Resident Evil so great isn't its story, it's the scares and moody atmosphere that comes with it. Although Alone in the Dark is credited as being the first survival horror game, Resident Evil perfected it. Who ever knew that a rabid, monstrous, bloodthirsty dog jumping through a window would be so terrifying? The sound design was also something to applaud. Resident Evil featured a gritty atmosphere that was only enhanced with the painful moans of the zombies, and the blood soaked shuffling of their feet. I challenge you to play Resident Evil 2 in the dark, and try to imagine yourself back in 1998 playing it for the first time. This game was way ahead of its time, and is still fun to this day. But again, the game perfected the survival horror genre. Essentially, it's a "one versus many" situation, where you're given a limited amount of resources to survive. Dead Island looks to play off what Resident Evil perfected, with scattered weapons and health.

4. Red Dead Redemption: Undead Nightmare

They're just begging for a quick dead-eye trio headshot

It may be a spin-off to a Western Action game, but Undead Nightmare was still fun to play. It again introduced the fast running zombies, which could only be dispatched by shooting them in the head. Target a specific limb, and you can see the effect it'll have on a zombie goon scurrying towards you. The initial Red Dead Redemption game touted a fun, although clunky cover system, but if you try and use that in Undead Nightmare, you'll be overrun.

What made this game work was the panic you would get seeing dozens of zombies running at you, and you can do nothing else but run and gun, and hope for the best. I hope Dead Island can infuse this sense of panic, because that's what makes zombie games so much fun to play.

5. Zombies Ate My Neighbors

You're not a gamer unless you've at least played this game for 5 minutes. Zombies ate my neighbors was a comical, yet strangely violent shooting game during the early Nintendo era. You play as one of two kids who have to take out the trash, and by trash, I mean the undead. The game was colorful, but pretty violent for its time. I guess the only thing Dead Island can take from this game is to give us the unexpected. Don't give us the predictable "save the defenseless family" scenario. Instead, give me a "we need to try and save this poor helpless family" situation, only to find out that you were too late, and you must kill off their undead remains that are trying to eat your calf muscle. Yes, I want an emotionally resonating game, and from the looks of the reveal trialer, we're about to get it.

Honorable Mention: Stubbs the Zombie, Rebel Without a Pulse.

Hey evildoer!!! Need a hand?!?!

This quirky zombie game was similar to "Zombies Ate My Neighbors" in that it presented a comical main character, Stubbs the Zombie, who would commit questionable acts of violence. It was bloody, fun, and only reinforced gamers gratitude for great zombie fiction.

====

Like I said...Beautiful

So there you have it my fellow Dead Island enthusiasts. Sit your butt down and play these games to get your fill of all the digital gore you can muster out of a zombified brain. I really hope developer Techland can pull this dead rabbit out of a hat and give us one of the most visceral Zombie games ever created. The game has gotten an extreme amount of hype because of its beautifully rendered announcement trailer. Even though there was no actual gameplay shown, it just left us all with something we've never seen before; a zombie game that rings on an emotional level. Of all the zombie games mentioned above, none have really taken themselves too seriously. To quote a very good Christopher Nolan film, I think it's about time we get the zombie game we need, but don't deserve. Here's some actual Dead Island gameplay video to get your palette nice and wet. Enjoy!

You're Not Going Anywhere Console Games

Mobile Games Think They're So Tough

Stop pissing people off dude

Hey all. So I know it's bee a while since I've written in one of these things, but need thou not be afraid, because I have returned from my eternal slumber, like a dragon with big beefy arms awakening inside his cave, ready to attack and kill all of the village goats.

So over the past couple weeks I've been replaying this one comment over and over in my head, and as much as I dwell on it, I can't seem to find any logic to it. Here's the rundown...The lead designer of that insanely addicting mobile game Angry Birds, says console gaming is dying. I know, that's a tough pill to swallow. According to him ... his name is Peter Vesterbacka by the way ... he says mobile gaming is more "nimble," and that having gamers fork up $60+ for games that are hard to update is a tall order. Yea right...tell that to the 13 million people who bought Call of Duty: Black Ops. So let us dissect this from every angle like Raiden cutting a butt load of watermelons in Metal Gear Rising.

This is logically unfeasible ... but damn it it's fun!!!

First, lets lay out the facts on the table. Mobile gaming had taken a sharp turn to success over the last couple years. Games like the above mentioned Angry Birds, Words With Friends, Plants vs. Zombies, Bejeweled, Cut the Rope, and so forth, are fun games, but offer much less in terms of true gameplay variety. Here's what I mean. When you play angry birds, you get the concept...sling-shot birds into a fortress of green, squishy pigs. The game may introduce more complex fortresses to knock down, and different birds with different abilities, but the concept is the same, knock down the fortress. Playing a console game like Red Dead Redemption offers much more throughout it's campaign and multiplayer. One mission may have you escort a friend through a bandit ridden cemetery, or hunt down an elusive cougar in the mountains. Essentially, each scenario forces you to fine tune your gameplay as you progress.

That's not to say that mobile games don't suck in gamers for long periods of time ... but remember, it's called a mobile game for a reason ... you're on the go. Most people can't sit and play through Angry Birds for three straight hours unless they're parent-deprived, or have a sick sense of accomplishment by accumulating the highest score worldwide. They're meant for short play-periods, while console games tend to last for longer periods of time. To put it into perspective, mobile games are like hitting up a fast food restaurant. while console games are a nice sit down restaurant.

Hey....nice chancletas

I love a good story as much as the next guy. Some games are better than others, but one thing is for certain, story telling in mobile games will never match those of console games. Why? Technology. There's only so much room on your smart phone, or whatever piece of gadgetry you use to play mobile games. In order to have good story development, you need to be able to introduce characters, arcs, plot twists, climax, etc. and you can't do that with a mobile game that has a simple premise. Could you imagine angry birds having a comprehensive story? Why the hell are they even attacking those damn pigs? Oh they took their eggs? Sorry buddy, but I like scrambled eggs as much as the next pissed off pig so stop whining and take one of them prisoner and turn them into bacon bits or something. The point is the best mobile game out there can't properly convey a story unless it's given the time to develop. One mobile game that was very promising in terms of story was "Infinity Blade." It looked like it was going to finally break the mold for mobile games, but once you play through it you realize that you're actually playing through time-line after time-line through the same castle, facing the same enemies, and even the same boss. Hell, each descendant looks the same and has the same armor/weapons as your ancestors. It was kind of a cop out, but the actual gameplay itself is fun....for a mobile game. When it comes to story, we've been spoiled with voice acting, and proper dialogue, and for mobile game developers to store that kind of info onto an i-Phone game is a tall order.

Another problem with the mobile game space is the controls. Some mobile games control better than others, but you can only do so much with so little space. Probably the most complex game to play on the i-Phone is Dead Space. The screen is split in half, with one side controlling movement, the other controlling your sights, while different taps on the screen control how your weapon fires. It's a little jarring at first, but you can eventually pick it up and play it like second nature. For it to be a mobile game, it needs to simplify what you can do as a player. So when you compare the Dead Space on the console to the Dead Space on the i-Phone, you'll notice several weapons, characters, movements, etc. that are left out, and that should tell you something.

Once all is said and done, that's not to say I don't completely disagree with Vesterbacka. That little bit he mentioned about paying up $60+ for a game that's hard to update is pretty spot on. When you buy most console games, you get your campaign and/or multiplayer, and you're good to go. However in this new age of gaming, we have downloadable map packs, levels, characters, and so much other garbage that I can't stand. (I've already expressed my distaste for downloadable content in an earlier blog if you're interested) It's becoming a bigger investment for a game when you're paying full retail price, and then adding new map packs or episodes for $10, just so you can squeeze a little more life out of it. And God forbid anything is wrong with the game itself...I'm looking at you Fallout: New Vegas. Bugs, glitches, and flat out crashes come with the territory of games nowadays, and developers need to roll out title updates faster than a sex offender offering kids candy. Basically, you're at the mercy of developers until they roll out the update. Mobile gaming is much quicker, and less likely to crash.

Vesterbacka will be comin out any minute

In the end it's different tastes for different gamers. Some people enjoy simple concepts, while other people enjoy their complex button sequencing, strategy games. Fortunately, we have plenty of both. I may prefer console gaming over the mobile game space, but I still love gaming nonetheless. I enjoy spending time with Angry Birds, but I also enjoy wailing on some fool in Gears of War 2 online. The point is gaming should be for everyone, and there should be a healthy, albeit separate, market for console and mobile games. Comments like Vesterbacaka's piss me off because it implants the idea worse than Inception that we need to have more of one type of game. It's unnecessary. All I ask is for game developers to continue to give us video game perfection and give us more of both.  

The Future Of Gaming Has A New Name

OnLive Is The Birth Of A New Gaming Medium

OnLive just sucker punched me and took all my lunch money

I'm always finding myself trying to think of how video games can get better. Graphics, 3D, gameplay; these are all great ways to jump start the next generation of video games, but I think usability and ease of access is the one thing that's constantly overlooked in games today. Ask anyone who's bought a new console and they'll tell you how big of an investment it is. Controllers, hard drives (remember the days when saves would occur within the cartridge?), Wi-Fi connections, it's too much hardware for one person. Not only that, I am always upset when the latest PC exclusive games come out, but are far beyond my system hardware specifications, preventing me from playing them the way they were meant to be played. Well, OnLive is changing all that.

This little guy is a powerful beast

Last week I was able to download a free trial of the OnLive gaming system. For those of you who are unfamiliar with OnLive, it's an internet streaming service that allows you to play video games on your TV or computer, without having the actual gaming system taking up space in your entertainment center. OnLive has what's sure to be very expensive servers that run the games you play, and are basically streaming over the internet the game you're playing. So you don't need any fancy console or TV or PC to run it, but you DO need a high speed internet. For me, I decided to download the service, and use my XBOX 360 controller to try it out. For those of you who'll want to try it out for your TV's, you'll have to buy this little router that's about the size of a wallet, and a controller. Both will cost you about $100, plus the subscription service.

Here's the beauty of OnLive, if you have an internet service that's at least 12 MB/s, the game runs smoothly. Many critics, including myself, said OnLive would never work because the lag of transmitting from your button presses, to the server, and back to you, would be unbearable, basically rendering your game unplayable. I'm happy to say that with my internet, OnLive played with the most minimal lag that wouldn't be noticeable to novice gamers. As a seasoned gamer myself, I sometimes found myself enthralled by the action on screen that I forgot I was playing on OnLive. But the fact that these games have just the tiniest of lag is only the tip of the iceberg.

Just some of the games you can play

OnLive runs current gen games such as Batman: Arkham Asylum, Mafia II, and F.E.A.R 2, and with that pressure of current gen comes the difficult taks to render these games over an internet connection. My friends, these games are beautiful. I played through Prince of Persia: The Forgotten Sands with some of the most beautiful and smoothest graphics out there. In fact, the sharpness and refresh rates of my monitor made the games look too good, that I noticed some texture problems inside the game that developers didn't even touch up on. All the games on OnLive run on advanced gaming servers that push the games to their limit. I started to look at my own XBOX 360 with a face that a father makes when he's ashamed of his child. I kept asking my console "why can't you play this well?" 

Welcome Home...to OnLive

Next up, is the usability and networking of OnLive, which is also, in the words of Kazakhstan's greatest reporter Borat, "Very Niccceeeee!" The service works similar to what we've seen in consoles like the PS3 and 360. There's a "home" screen that you can reach with the push of a single button. Since I was using my 360 controller, I just pressed the big guide button in the center and it took me there. Menus are clean, and it's really simple to navigate. I can set up a friends list, browse through new games in the marketplace, and even watch so-called "brag" clips that other users put up on OnLive. These clips are another big part of the service, and they're really easy to record. At any time in your game, you can pause, set up a clip, and start recording for your friends to see. Best yet, since OnLive uses it's own servers, you don't take up any hard drive space at all. You can also easily jump in and watch your friends game in progress.  They'll even get a little message in the corner that says someone is observing their game. All in all, slick menus, and easy navigating get high grades from me. 

So with games that run crystal clear with no lag, so there's only one thing left for OnLive doubters to question...and that's the game content. Unfortunately, the amount of games available was my only minor complaint. Maybe it was because I was using a free version of the service, but there were maybe a good 30-40 games available to try out. Of course, I'm the biggest critic when it comes to this, considering how much money and media spotlight was put into this, but it's understandable considering OnLive just launched last month. The quality of the game selection was good for the most part, although there weren't any brand new release games available. I was eagerly searching for Dead Space 2 but couldn't find it. Despite this, OnLive promises that more games are coming. Apparently they've already inked a deal with publishers to release more high quality games on their service, and I'm sure publishers will be keeping a close eye on the subscription base of OnLive for the next set of months.

In the end, OnLive is the game changer it says it is. I was thoroughly impressed with the service from the minimal lag in my games, to the sleek interface. This is the future of gaming, and I don't see how anyone can deny it. Games at your TV/Monitor with the push of your button, playing the way they were meant to be played. However with this service comes questions over how gaming systems will survive. If a service like this was made available, there would be big implications over the survival of consoles. How would developers approach their upcoming games? Do they tinker with their mechanics to better suit a console or for OnLive? Whatever the case may be, I know this will catch on eventually. Maybe not within the first six months, but this is a great way for gamers to play their favorite games on systems they don't own...especially when it comes to PC games that require $2000+ setups like Crysis. 

One thing that's still unclear is how the subscription service will work. There is a monthly/yearly subscription available, but that only includes the service. You'll still have to pay for the actual games, whether you want to buy them, or rent them. Still, I feel the costs are justified, and this is a service that will only get better with time. Not only that, with motion technology on the forefront, it'll be interesting to see if OnLive incorporates them somehow. In my opinion though, the only thing that will ultimately decide the fate of OnLive is how it's viewed by publishers and developers. If they play nice, then I see a future where there are more gamers in the world than Justin Bieber fans....and that's a lot of them. Almost brings a tear to my eye.

Score One for the Little Guys

The Day has Finally Arrived...I'm Excited for a Handheld System

Behold, the Nintendo 3DS

Today was a big day for Nintendo junkies worldwide. Today, the folks behind the "Big-N" announced the price and release date of the Nintendo 3DS handheld system. During it's annual world press conference in New York City, Nintendo announced the 3DS would release in North America on March 27, for the not so consumer friendly price tag of $249.99. Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime promises that the 3DS will release up to 30 games within it's first three months. While there's no official list of the current games that will be available at launch, there's a lot to be excited about with the new handheld system.

I've never been one to ride the wave of popularity most of the world has with handheld systems. Many handheld games are meant for short playthroughs with little emphasis on story development, and due to the obvious lack of technology, were never able to graphically compare to console games in terms of processing. Now, we are finally seeing a paradigm shift with Nintendo. The 3DS allows user to play in full stereoscopic 3D *without* the use of glasses. A 3D filter allows users to turn on/off the 3D effect, to enjoy the most out of their games in either 2 or 3 dimensions. I'm not too sure about the technical jargon involved in making a 3D effect sans glasses, but it's mostly due to the fact that the 3DS has a smaller screen, allowing for the images to be easily combined through use of extensive pixellation for the resulted 3D effect.

This is a huge step in terms of technological advancement. I believe 3D is the future of motion pictures, video games, home entertainment, etc., but with the current barrier of 3D glasses, I just can't seem to go along with the craze. 3D televisions are the hot new "go to" item for retailers, but because many sets require owners to wear re-chargeable 3D glasses, it seems too silly to me. Imagine a time where you invite your friends to watch the Super Bowl in 3-D on your brand new 3DTV, only to realize you have 4 glasses, with only 2 of them fully charged. It's an inconvenience, and frankly, you may impair the vision of your non-3D guests. However, with the 3DS, scientists and engineers have proven that it is possible to make a perfectly clean 3D image without the use of glasses. It's only a matter of time before 3D images can be combined on a much larger scale, allowing us envision a world without the cheap plastic 3D glasses that wind up in our glove compartments.

How far we've come

Handhelds have found a renaissance of sorts over the past decade, thanks to the creation of the Nintendo DS. The DS proved to be one of the fastest selling pieces of hardware out there, with more than 135 million units sold worldwide since it's launch in 2004. That pales in comparison to the 50 million XBOX 360 units sold since 2005, or the 41 million units the PS3 has sold since 2006. Now, Nintendo looks to instill a paradigm shift in the way we play video games, by turning millions of casual and hardcore players from consoles to handhelds. The games that are on the docket for the 3DS contain some of the most impressive tech I've ever seen in a handheld game. We've come such a long way from the old, archaic, gray, body-building machine that was the Game Boy, to a system that can seriously blur lines between console and handheld. Some of the more impressive games utilize game engines that are just one step shy of making a leap to a console platform. Plus, the 3DS is filled with some of the most gadgets I've ever seen in a handheld. Wi-Fi, 3 different digital cameras, a 2 Gig SD card, motion detection, full blown internet, a soon to be enabled 3DS online store, the list goes on. And for the final cherry on top, it's backwards compatible, meaning you can play all of your old DS/DSI games, even though those games *won't* be displayed in 3D.

The actual 3DS gameplay will feature graphics just like this

Regardless of my excitement, that's not to say I don't have my own concerns. First, battery life on the handheld is said to only last 5 hours tops. I'm assuming the power used to generate 3D will suck the life out of your 3DS faster than MTV sucks the life out of teenagers. On top of that, the price tag is still a little too much for my own taste. At $249.99, the 3DS costs more than a Wii and a 360. I still find it hard to justify paying more for a handheld than a console, but for those of you who are patient and can wait for the price to drop to $200, I say we twiddle our thumbs. On top of that, as with any new console/handheld that's launched, we're sure to see a series of lackluster launch games. While Nintendo IS promising to have at least 30 games out within the first three months, there's still no list or idea as to what those games might be. I will say some of the more promising looking 3DS games that are on my radar are the Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time 3D remake, and a new Resident Evil Game called Revelations. There are some other goodies like Kingdom Hearts, Kid Icarus, and even a Metal Gear game to boot, but those are not in the realm of releasing within the first six months of the 3DS release.

Another concern I have deals with the reports of how the 3DS' use of 3D technology could damage the development of some children's vision. According to several reports, all 3DS' will include a warning for parents of kids age 7 and younger, which claims that if they use the 3D filter too much, their eyes won't develop correctly. Kind of scary when you think about the fact that a handheld now has the power to melt eyes nationwide. I'm a little concerned that many ill informed parents will see an increase in optometry bills for their kids.

Regardless of the faults, and the price tag, the 3DS is looking like a fine piece of technology. Worse yet, I myself haven't even seen the actual 3D effects of the 3DS (considering the evident difficulty for online publications and magazines to properly portray the power of the tech). I'm ultimately basing my faith on the scores of praise from established critics like IGN, G4TV, 1UP, and Kotaku, who sing nothing but praise about their hands-on time with the handheld. Revolutionary doesn't begin to describe their pleasantries, and if it's all it's hyped up to be, the 3DS will make a mark in video game history, or for that matter, 3D technology, for years to come. It's just a shame that Sony is attempting another iteration of its PSP system in a world where Nintendo has a tight vice on parent's balls nationwide.

The Curious Case of Video Game Progress

Video Games and the Mainstream Market

You haven't seen the last of me gamers!!! I'd have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for you pesky kids!

Ladies and Gentlemen...I have returned. It's been about a good solid two weeks since I've posted on my blog. I know you all have been begging for my eventual return to the keyboard, at least, the four or five of you who read this, but with the holidays behind use and a new year upon us it's time to have a little chat about my favorite topic...gaming. So let us begin.

Heavy Rain...one of the best titles of 2010

2010 brought some nice thrills in the gaming world. Titles like Call of Duty: Black Ops and Halo: Reach injected a nice dose of blockbuster action, while games like Red Dead Redemption and God of War 3 thrilled us with the dangerously beautiful landscapes of the Wild West and Mount Olympus. Starcraft II proved a 10-year wait to one of the most acclaimed Strategy games of all time is worth the wait. Heavy Rain, the most unexpectedly entertaining and surprising game of the year in my eyes, proved to us that a riveting storyline can lasso in a new direction in story-driven games. Of course there were many other titles that enchanted gamers in 2010, but there were plenty of disappointments as well. Bioshock 2 failed to capture lightning in a bottle twice in traversing and exploring the destroyed underwater utopia of Rapture, while Star Wars: The Force Unleashed II created a combat mechanic that was as entertaining as watching the Tatooine Canteen band. Nevertheless, I'm grateful these games were released. Many hard working individuals worked their butts of to make these games, both the good and the bad, and we're all the wiser because of it. Now, it's time to look ahead at the upcoming titles of 2011, but there is something that seems awry in the realm of gaming.

IGN released a very helpful release date calendar of the big games of 2011. If you noticed, I did you the honor of attaching the calendar above this text. Take a minute to look through it, and see if you can spot the same problem I do. Can you see it? Well, if we're not on the same page, then I'll just tell you what I see. Of the 39 games on the calendar so far, at least 30 of them are either sequels, or games derived of already established Intellectual properties. Of course this list isn't final, and many other games are expected to release in 2011 but have yet to receive a solid release date. Despite that, I'm starting to see a disturbing trend in gaming that Hollywood has already adopted...sequel-itis. The bigger titles of the new year are established games such as Gears of War, Uncharted, Dead Space, and Mass Effect. All great games mind you, many of which I can't wait to get my hands on, but I really question if there is still a creative spark being lighted under developer's asses. What happened to the influx of originality found in the 8-bit/16-bit era, or even the PS1 generation? We were bombarded with original Intellectual Properties harder than a Vietnam napalm strike with franchises like Chrono Trigger, Contra, Secret of Mana, Twisted Metal, and even the very underrated Legacy of Kain series. I know sequels are sometimes a necessary evil in today's world, but I get more excited when a new and exciting IP comes and injects a dose of brain-heroin through my fingertips.

Alright a skateboard in my room!!! Now what do I do?

Regardless of my ambiguous relationship with sequels, I do have to be fair in this argument. As I said before, I too am excited for many of these games, especially the likes of Bathman: Arkham City (puh-lease) Gears of War 3, and Uncharted 3, but we need to point out the source of the problem, and it begins with the publishers. The Call of Duty franchise, which has become the 900-pound Roseanne clone of our generation, is now on a yearly release cycle from Activision. The company's goal is to release a new Call of Duty game every year, hoping to see success each time it happens. However if Activision wants a clue as to why this is a bad decision, it should look no further than it's mishandling of both the Tony Hawk Skateboarding and Guitar Hero series. Both franchises have hit a new low in gaming, basically becoming re-hashes of the same game mechanics from previous entries, sprinkled in with new accessories for gamers to pony up and pay for (Just watch someone attempt to do a simple ollie in Tony Hawk Ride). Both games have hit sales lows, and God only knows where the leftover guitar, drum, and skateboard plastic peripherals ended up. My guess is they'll end up on that AMC show "Hoarders" -- I thought my garage was bad.

Borderlands, one of the best games no one played

Seriously though, publishers are too afraid to take risks. Some of the more recent original IP games like Borderlands, Brutal Legend, and Epic Mickey are fantastic, visceral games that don't garner the sales they truly deserve. Established franchises are fun and worth the money, but we as gamers are ultimately the ones responsible for unloading our bank accounts and determining whether a certain game succeeds. We should broaden our horizons and give the smaller guys a chance. Just browse through your 360, PS3, WiiWare online library and you'll find some of the most creative and addicting games made by indie developers. Games like Super Meat Boy, Braid, Limbo, The Misadventures of Mr. PB Winterbottom, heck, even "I MAED A GAM3 W1TH Z0MB1ES 1N IT!!!" are all designed by development teams of less than 20 people, and are being met with more overnight success than Justin Bieber's hair cut. 

PB Winterbottom, one of the most creative games I've played

I'm not saying we should always avoid games with established roots and high production values, but lets at least spread the word on the smaller games, kind of like a pay it forward system (minus Kevin Spacey's burnt face) in hopes that someone, somewhere will buy them. Games have taken a step forward, some might say beyond, in storytelling and is now being taken as a serious art form that not even Hollywood could mimic. We as gamers deserve variety so we can explore new facets of entertaining ourselves. All the while we're giving small time developers the chance to grow, and make the next big blockbuster gaming franchise.