Don't Single Me Out!!!

EA Proclaims the End of Single-Player Only Games

Browsing through the magical internet today, I came across an article on some hefty words from the man behind gaming giant Electronic Arts. EA Games' label President Frank Gibeau says he believes the days of single player only games are over, and that "online is where the innovation, and the action, is at." If you can't grasp the implications of this, then grab the nearest electrical outlet with your fingers. EA is one of the biggest monster developers/publishers in video games, followed closely by Activision. These guys either develop or publish Triple-A title games the likes of Dead Space, Mass Effect, and Medal of Honor. That's not to say there's some truth behind Gibeau's statements, but there's something unsettling about his words.

Hey...nice plasma cutters

The fact that Gibeau singles out single-player only games is something we as gamers should be wary about. For those of us who have been playing games since before our eyeballs were fully developed, we've been bred on the single player gaming experience. Over the years, games have become more and more advanced in terms of graphics capabilities and story telling, and with each great game I play, my anticipation is ignited to wait and see what can possibly come next. Unfortunately, this announcement; this off-hand statement from EA's top boss, could derail the progress developers have made in creating these lush worlds for us to jump into.

I can't knock on the popularity spike multiplayer has gotten over the past decade. Games like Goldeneye for the N64 and Halo really paved the way for a new style of gaming, which ultimately requires us to bring a friend along for the virtual ride. The thrill of playing with another person soon took hold of the internet, and multiplayer has since ballooned into an obese cash cow for developers, who are displaying brilliant marketing tactics by offering downloadable content online. Just think about it, you pay $60 for Halo:Reach, only to be duped into paying another $10 for every new set of multiplayer maps, not including purchases like clothes for your avatars, which also costs some dough. At the end of it all you're paying upwards of $80 for a single game! It's absurd! There's no denying that online multiplayer games ARE the way of the future, but it would be a tragedy to completely ignore the significant audience that enjoys single player games.

To those of you who have played an online multiplayer games...or for that matter, watched someone else play, you can tell it's, for lack of a better word, chaotic. Online adversarial games like Halo or Call of Duty feature some of the most obnoxious human beings to grace this planet. I can't tell you how many times I come across a 13-year-old who shotguns me in the back of the head, only to run up to my corpse and embarass me even more by pretending to be a necrophiliac (all this of course is happening while he's calling me a bitch who just got effed in the A). While I do still continue to play these adversarial games online with other people, it's gotten to a point where I don't put on my headset anymore. I just don't have the lung capacity to get into a back and forth argument with a child who tells me the reason why my penis is small. The point is I don't want to be forced to always play games online with other people. Sure there is loads of fun to be had when you can get together with an honest, good natured group of players who simply want to have fun, and those are the sweet moments I cherish, but 9 times out of 10 gamers will have to brave the toxic pools of incoherent gamers, and that's something I can avoid by dabbling in the single player.

This is what happens when you devote yourself to multiplayer

EA's top dog went on to clarify his explanation of the single player/multiplayer argument, saying "I volunteer you to speak to EA's studio heads; they'll tell you the same thing, they're very comfortable moving the discussion towards how we make connected gameplay – be it co-operative or multiplayer or online services – as opposed to fire-and-forget, packaged goods only, single-player, 25-hours-and you're out. I think that model is finished." In the words of my favorite flap-head Canadians from South Park "F**k You Buddy!" But seriously, how can I sit by here like a defenseless deer about to become a hood ornament and not be upset by this? A good single player game offers great gameplay mechanics, a sense of control, and if done correctly, a great story to be immersed in. I also have to point out, if you're playing a 25-hour single player game then sign me up right now. I'm hard-pressed to find games that can make it past the 10 hour mark.

Some of my all time favorite single player experiences came with Resident Evil 4 and Bioshock. Both games told an immersive story, had tight controls, and were riveting adventure. Even years after their release, I can comfortably sit down, pop in the disc, and enjoy the experience all over again, and guess what, no 13-year-old will shove his nuts down my throat. Ya can't tell me that isn't worth the purchase alone. Seriously, all kidding aside, this statement should also be taken with caution considering the source. EA doesn't really have the best track record when it comes to delivering a great online experience. Sure Battlefield 2 and the plethora of sports games under EA can qualify as great online games, but we're also talking about the company who released Dante's Inferno and Army of Two. Still, I'll give EA the benefit of the doubt once their highly anticipated sci-fi horror game Dead Space 2 releases this winter. For the first time Dead Space 2 will feature competitive online multiplayer, which is rightfully creating a buzz. Still, the original Dead Space didn't have a multiplayer component to it, and was a surprisingly engrossing and lengthy single player experience. I tend to appreciate developers who spend all of their time and talent meticulously detailing their environments and animations, while setting up great pacing in a game. Pacing is one of the most pivotal things a developer can create in a game, and unfortunately it's impossible to do in a multiplayer game.

In the end, it troubles me that this is the philosophy EA is approaching to creating games. I love multiplayer as much as the next rude teenager, but I also love to engage in a single player experience. I know that Gibeau's announcement doesn't mean single player is dead, it's just when a company usually tends to put all of its eggs in the multiplayer basket, things don't always end up so well. Just look at Bioshock 2 or even Resident Evil 5. Still, I hope EA can be professional enough to create the best of both gameplay worlds without sacrificing too much to either side. It's almost like a movie production company saying "hey, we know that people really like bonus features on their DVD's/Blu-Rays, so we're gonna give you more features and less movie." I dunno, at least that's what it seems like to me.

It's a Marvelous World Out There in DC-Land

My Hands On Time With DC Universe Online

Easily one of the biggest titles to be hitting store shelves in 2011 is DC Universe Online. For those of you who haven't heard, DC Universe is an MMO (Massive Multiplayer Online) title from the minds of Sony Online Entertainment...the geniuses who created the hardcore, and not so user-friendly MMO "Everquest." DC Universe is looking to rain on World of Warcraft's parade next year by offering a unique playstyle in the realm of MMO's on both the PC and PS3. Players can create their own superheroes or supervillains, and fight alongside some familiar faces in the DC world like Superman, Batman, or even the Joker. I had the good fortune to try out the PC Beta version, and while the game has some been there, done that moments, there is a lot to be excited about.

Welcome to the Justice League

First thing's first...I have to talk about character creation. At first glance, DC Universe will draw many comparisons to another MMO of past, "City of Heroes." Heroes was the first game to try its hand at the superhero MMO genre, but was met with less than thrilling expectations. While hero customization was the highlight of that game, quests were stale, the city was lifeless, and loot didn't change the way your character looked. Well, I'm happy to say that DC Universe improves on what City of Heroes failed on, but there's still much work ahead for the folks at Sony Online. From my 3 hour playthrough, I got to roam the skies of Metropolis, Gotham City, and inside the Justice League, with Gotham being my favorite of the three. Gotham is dark, gritty, and pulsing with evil at every corner. Arkham Asylum is cut off from the city as it's menacing facade reflects off the dimly lit waters of Gotham, while Scarecrow's toxin constricts the Narrows, blinding anyone who enters with illusions of evil. It's a marvel (no pun intended) to behold, and I'm sure much more awaits for the full version of the game.

Sony has done a tremendous job in allowing players to live their fantasies as a superhero. Thousands of combinations are available for players to tinker with, whether you want to look like a beefed up chunk of madness a la Hulk or Bane, or whether you want to be a nimble, agile, hero similar to Wasp or Atom Ant, the possibilities are endless. Capes, Boots, Utility Belts, Spiked Gloves, or even Claw Hands (wink wink Edgar), the sky is really the limit as to how you want your hero to look. During my playthrough, I created a caped crusader who looked like a cross between Magneto and Spawn. I was really feeling the helmet and red/purple aethetic for some reason. His name..."Red Wisp" -- a name that will send shivers up the spines of crickets everywhere.

Yes, you can actually fight alongside all these little kids

Once I created my hero, I was then forced to choose an allegiance and play style. I'm sure more heroes and villains will be available once the full game releases, but I had the choice of siding with either Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Joker, or Lex Luthor. I decided to go the route of Superman (surprise, I know) because I had already checked out Gotham City while watching my friend Edgar play, and I really wanted to see Metropolis with my own eyes. Who you side with plays an important part in both your heroes' abilities and storyline. Choose Batman, and you'll be more of a gadget oriented hero. Choose Superman, and you'll be more of a genetically enchanced wrecking ball of power, and so on and so forth. Once you're done picking sides, you'll then be asked what kind of attack style you'll want, and this is the fun part. Depending on your affiliation, you can choose either to wield guns, rifles, one or two handed weapons, bare hands, or hand blasters...which is what I picked. Nothing says superhero to me than shooting pockets of fire energy out of the palms of my hands. You can then choose what kind of powers you want to have, and for my character, I chose fire. What can I say...I've always dreamed of shooting fireballs out of my hands.

Fighting alongside Superman...nerdgasm

Once your good to go and you've picked out a worthy superhero/villain name, the game begins. For the heroes, your journey begins inside of one of Brainiac's spaceships. According to the story, which was penned by DC scribes Geoff Johns and Marv Wolfman, Brainiac has managed to kill off all of the villains and heroes in the world, except for Lex Luthor. Luthor manages to go back in time to warn the heroes of Brainiac's plans, which has already been set in motion, and that's where you come in. You are the newest batch of superheroes called in to help defeat Brainiac, and there will be twists and turns to come in the story. Your hero wakes up in Brainiac's spaceship, and Oracle gets in touch with you to help you bust out of there. The game will feature plenty of in game voice acting (probably not to the caliber Bioware is aiming with its upcoming Star Wars MMO), and it helps drive the story along. Sony has really done a terrific job at creating a believable world where your favorite Heroes and Villains inhabit. There are even plenty of characters whom I never knew existed. Can anyone please tell me who the hell "T.O. Morrow" is? Comic junkies will be pleased with the amount of depth there is to the DC world, as even the secondary heroes no one gets to tsee in action wander the halls next to you. I was surprised with the amount of Green Lanterns there actually were in the DC Universe. Now to the big part of the game...combat.

To me, combat in DC Universe is like watching an episode of South Park. You know what to expect, but you're pleasantly surprised with the outcome. The way combat works in DC Universe is a combination of typical MMO elements woven together with action beat em ups. That's right, the game is more action oriented than most MMO's out there. You can actually dodge incoming attacks rather than fall mercy to a stupid computer accuracy percentage. Your hero can throw light and heavy attacks by clicking either the left or right mouse button, and your powers are hot-keyed to your keyboard. As you level up, you can set (for lack of a better word) "talent" points to your powers and attacks, and learn new moves along the way. The combat is still a little clunky at times, but I think it's because the game is still in its Beta stage, but overall its very satisfying. Most importantly, you feel like a true superhero while attacking. You can engage 10 enemies or more at a time and not suffer too much of a penalty in terms of health and your power supply. In typical MMO's like World of Warcraft, you can realistically only handle 2 or 3 enemies at a time, depending on how experienced your character is. DC breaks that norm, and lets players go bonkers on low-life thugs. I mean, the idea IS to feel like a superhero after all.

Exploring Gotham City is probably the most fun you'll have wandering inside a video game rather than fighting

While combat is the big draw for many players, I have to say exploration comes a close second. I decided to choose a flying superhero, and there is a thrilling aspect in searching every nook and cranny of Metropolis or Gotham City. There are no limitations to where you can go, and it's a fulfilling gameplay element that can only be compared to a game like Spider Man 2. And if you're the type of person who likes to PvP and rain some pain on some lower level villains or heroes, you'll be having a feast on the noob frustration. Questing works the way most MMO's do. You'll have your usual "fetch" quests and assassination quests, a majority of which take place in the cities, but I can't really say for certain if this will become a hindrance once more players buy the game and start doing the same quests as you. 

Scarecrow...a man you'd want to babysit your kids

Other than that, another cool kick I got was how Sony is implementing the bigger known heroes of the DC Universe into the game experience. You'll come across certain quest moments where you'll have to fight alongside a hero. I was having a complete nerdgasm when I was fighting off droves of Brainiac's robotic minions with the help of Superman. We were like the two best friends that anyone could ever have. And Sony isn't shying away from supervillain encounters either. There are quests that have you fighting the likes of Scarecrow, Gorilla Grodd, and even the Joker. It's really a blast, and best yet...it works well on the fun meter.

Dude...your wings are so gay

Another thing to point out is that no two superheroes are alike. The customization in the game is equal to none, and I found myself entertained by checking out other people's creations. During my playthrough I came across all kinds of unique superhero looks, and some not so unique. I found a guy who looked like a carbon copy version of Superman, with the blue tights, and even the red cape with the "S" on the back. What's the fun in that? On the contrary however, there were some nice homages to heroes not in the DC world. I came across guys who created deadpan versions of Deadpool and Spiderman, and both looked like legitimate knock-offs...which is a good thing. And like I had mentioned before, the loot you get does affect your character, but only in a cosmetic way. What do I mean? I got new shoulder loot for my Magneto/Spawn hyrbid hero Red Wisp and when I equipped it, his appearance would change but it kept the red/purple motif that I had going. Unlike games like World of Warcraft which forces you to keep both the color and style of your loot, DC forces you to keep the style and not the color, which is a major plus.

A world waiting for comic junkies everywhere

Overall DC Universe is a step in the right direction for MMO's. Combat adds a pinch more action than we're used to, but I'm all for it. No more will you have to rely on random misses of your weapon, but more so on your ability to bob and weave through enemies. Character customization is the highlight of the game, with no two superheroes looking the same. I promise you that. Exploring the deep and engaging worlds of Metropolis and Gotham were a blast, but I hope Sony pushes the envelope and throws a couple of curve balls at us. Atlantis anyone? The game isn't expected to hit store shelves until Spring of 2011 for both the PC and PS3, but I'm sure there will still be a delay or two. Still, I'm curious to see as to how the PS3 version will function. Most MMO's tend to work better with a mouse and keyboard, but only time will tell. Until then, I'll be keeping my sights on X-Ray vision as this game comes closer to its release date.

Nathan Drake is Already Spinning in His Future Digital Grave

Marky Mark and The Funky Drake 

I'm not "feelin it, feelin it"

Let me begin this post by admitting I am in utter disappointment in some recent Hollywood casting. Today, it was revealed that Mark "I'm a Star" Wahlberg will in fact be playing the iconic, fast talking, charming video game character Nathan Drake in the upcoming movie adaptation of the Uncharted series. To anyone who hasn't played the game, Uncharted can be best described as an action-adventure game about a fast-lipped treasure hunter named Nathan Drake. His bravado is contagious, yet his charm and compassion is utterly human and lovable. Uncharted takes a page from the original Indiana Jones trilogy, which weaves together impressive dialogue, realistic characters, and fascinating exploration set pieces that make me feel like I'm 10 years old again watching 'Raiders of the Last Ark' at my grandmother's house. Nathan Drake is a future inductee into the video game hall of fame...if such a thing existed. He's one of the most memorable characters to grace our gaming consoles, and thanks to the mindless imbeciles behind the movie version...they've ruined much of the anticipation I've had for this film.

David O. Russell, the man behind such films as "Three Kings," and "I ♥ Huckabees," is taking directorial and writing responsibilities for the Uncharted film. I never really had a problem with Russell signing on until today's boneheaded move. His relationship with Wahlberg is very well publicized. Both are good friends, and for the most part, work on great films together. I enjoyed both Kings and Huckabees, but I was really hoping Russell would think outside of the box on this project.

The first Uncharted game didn't release on the PS3 until 2007, with the second game blasting expectations, and our minds, in 2009. The series has a very humble and devoted following (myself included), so the source material is pretty fresh in everyone's mind. With that said, everyone has their expectations on what kind of person should play the titular hero, and only two plausible names come to mind. With much confidence that the internet trolls would agree with me, the two men who should be in Drake's shoes rather than Wahlberg are Nolan North, and Nathan Fillion. Here's why.

Nolan North

Nolan North isn't very well known to non-gamers. North is the voice behind Nathan Drake, as well as the body...sort of. Uncharted uses full-body motion capture in all of its cut scenes, with North providing the voice, facial expressions, and body movements. North would clearly be the top guy for the job, however regardless of the video game magic he brings, the guy isn't in what you would call tip-top shape. North is responsible for creating such a lovable character in the firts place, so I would give him the benefit of the doubt if the CIA didn't have him pushing too many pencils. As for Nathan Fillion, it's a crime pass on him for what seems like a prophetic role for him. First off, Fillion bears almost a twin-like resemblance to Nathan Drake. Second, Fillion has the perfect personality to compliment Drake. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the folks at Naughty Dog (the creators of Uncharted) wrote the character of Nathan Drake in homage to Fillion.  To anyone who's seen Fillion as Captain Mal in either the Firefly series or Serenity, you'll know he has the swagger, charm, and swashbuckling attitude that encompasses Drake. Thirdly, and probably the most important, Fillion wants the role...badly. He launched his own Twitter campaign last month in order to get him signed on for the movie. Fillion has a deep respect for the source material, and won't have to familiarize himself with the games the way Wahlberg will have to. Plus the guy's name IS Nathan. It seems too easy. It really is a shame Russell was so narrow-minded...almost to a Tim Burton resemblance of "hey, lemme just cast Johnny Depp in everything."

Why the hell can't David O. Russell see what I see in Fillion?

I can complain all I want about this casting choice...the fact of the matter is Marky Mark (yes..I will still call him that) WILL play Nathan Drake, and no one can do anything about...unless they give him a bad case of the shits by sneaking a large quantity of Maalox into his alcohol, which may or may not rupture his digestive tract. One can only dream right? Still, the only thing to look forward to at this point is the supporting cast. Rumor has it that Robert De Niro will play Drake's senior-aged crisis partner Victor "Sully" Sullivan, which is a solid pick in my eyes. Still, it doesn't change the fact that the same guy who bombed as a video game character, (Max Payne) and was atrocious in "The Happening," will be playing such a lovable role. And I'm sorry, Wahlberg isn't lovable. All we can hope for at this point is that he doesn't talk to animals mid firefight and tell them to "say hi to your mother for me."

I'm Nathan Drake...Say Hi to Your Mother For Me!

The Netflix Nix

The Blockbuster Video Killers Jack Up Their Prices

A bit of upsetting news was announced today by the notorious, red logo company that single handedly slayed the media giant once known as Blockbuster. Netflix says it is increasing subscription fees by $1 in response to the growing demand of online streaming. A subscription that allows customers to rent out one DVD at a time and stream unlimited content from the internet will now run about $9.99 a month instead of $8.99. Current Netflix customers won't see the increase until January, while new customers will penny up the new cost immediately. Other packages are available for those who fear sunlight and don't wish to walk out of their homes to pick up DVD's from the mailbox, as customers can sign up for an internet streaming only monthly deal, which will go for about $7.99. Announcements like this aren't new. Big name companies jacking up their rates is the way the capitalism game is played, but I have a minor gripe with Netflix's logic in the decision.

We know who won this bout

According to Netflix, the company is catering to it's slow, blob-like growing online streaming market. The popularity of streaming content online has skyrocketed over the past couple years, considering anyone with a Netflix account can stream movies and TV shows through their computer, DVD/Blu-Ray players, TV's, XBOX, PS3, Nintendo Wii, and most recently the I-phone. While it sounds logical to increase their prices, I have to point out the obvious key point to the price increase...HOW WILL THEY MAKE IT BETTER?!?! For anyone who's scrolled through Netflix's online library, at least 60-70% of what you find is garbage. I'm sure someone out in the cornfields of Nebraska would love to pay an extra $1 a month to see glorious titles like "Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus" or "Paranormal Entity," (not activity) -- but not me. If Netflix wants to justify this price increase, they need to expand or refine their online service.

One of the big problems that comes with the online service is the control, or lack thereof, customers have. Customers can browse movies, set up a queue and all the jazz, but we still can't control things like audio/subtitle tracks, or check out things like commentaries or behind the scenes footage that comes standard with many DVD's. I can't tell you how grateful I am to have subtitles whenever I watch a film that was shot overseas. You try watching a great film like "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" the first time without subtitles ya wankers! Not only that, movie nerds like myself love to listen to commentary tracks. I thrive on learning everything that went into making a particular film/show that I thoroughly enjoyed. Plus, many Asian film lovers enjoy watching their movies with the Japanese audio track. I personally don't, but the market is still there.

This is Oscar gold compared to some films on Netflix online

Besides the lack of technical control, many movies/tv shows on Netflix streaming market are obscure. Over the past couple months, I have noticed an increase in A-List Hollywood titles, but the ratio is still not in our favor. For every solid movie you find, you'll also come across 5 other campy films that not even SyFy channel would air at 3 in the afternoon. Plus, the justification of a growing online market contradicts the recent deal Netflix made with several Hollywood studios to release DVD's to subscribers 30 days later in exchange for more copies. How do you justify a price increase when you're not adding anything new to the online market, and you're making even more money through your DVDs?

DVD's, a bane to many capitalists

Just to be clear, I'm not complaining about online streaming. It's convenient, easy to use, and you avoid the clutter that comes with opening the DVD packaging slip. I, like so many others in this shaky economy, want to make sure we're getting what we're paying for. Maybe some new improvements are in fact coming to Netflix online market, but right now they're evidently not there. It's almost like going to the supermarket, and being told you have to pay more for bananas because people really like them, even though there's no shortage of them. I understand it's just business, but at least give me a better tasting banana if you're going to charge me extra for it.

The Lofty Promises of Cinematic Trailers

Video Game Trailers Taken with a Grain of Salt

Beautiful graphics, delicately chosen camera angles, A-List voice acting, and the promise of something grand in scale. These are the things that go into many of the most anticipated game trailers of our generation. These epic displays of art are there to hype our senses into overdrive, just enough so that we're begging for the next batch of details. While on paper this sounds great, the reality is that many game trailers should be viewed and enjoyed from a distance. Lofty promises are always great, but it's always easier to be disappointed than surprised. When it comes to riding the hype train of a certain game, the impeccably witty college football analyst Lee Corso comes to mind with his trademark catch phrase: "Not so fast my friends."

Rockstar, you know, the guys behind some small games like Grand Theft Auto, Red Dead Redemption, and Manhunt, are putting all of their eggs in one basket this spring. The trailer for the upcoming, and highly anticipated open world game "LA Noire," released this month and it's getting quite the buzz, and all for good reason if I might add. If the film LA Confidential had a video game attached to it...this would be it. The game follows the story of a Los Angeles detective trying to piece together a recent murder. The game has the flair of the 1950's era, where men in flannel suits and border hats litter the gritty streets of LA. While the look of old LA seems to be intact, it's the tech of the game displayed in the trailer that has everyone turning their heads.

Interrogations are a key element to LA Noire

Rockstar is teaming up with a small company called Team Bondi to create LA Noire. Team Bondi was started up by a man named Brendan McNamera, who was also the man behind the 2002 PS2 game "The Getaway." If you ever played Getaway, you'll know that story reigned over gameplay in that British caper, and that's the direction LA Noire seems to be taking. New motion capture technology is being implemented in the game that is expected to outperform current motion capture technology, ultimately rendering one-to-one facial recognition from actors. Nervous facial ticks, eyebrow movement, lip synching is expected to be unparalleled in LA Noire, and after watching the trailer, I would agree. Don't believe me? Take a look for yourself....

More L.A. Noire Videos

Now you notice why the game is getting such hype, but here's my problem with it. We don't see any of the gameplay elements. What ultimately makes a game successful is its gameplay. Without it, well, there wouldn't be much of a reason to call it a video game. What we do know is that if Rockstar is behind this game, we can expect the usual open-world sandbox style found in games like GTA and Red Dead. However, at no point in the trailer does it show anything resembling shootouts, car chases, or even side missions. Not that they're not there, but I'm not going to hop on the bandwagon just yet until I see some hard physical evidence.

Lets explore this dull, repetitive, FF XIV world together!

I've learned the hard way you can't judge a book by it's cover, and it's happened over the course of video game history. Most recently, games like Final Fantasy XIII and XIV released lush, beautiful, and jaw dropping cinematic trailers that had RPG nerds worldwide changing their Japanese tailored undies. Once the games came out though, they were met with less than stellar reviews...especially XIV. Another overly hyped game...Fable. Since the very first game, director Peter Molyneux offered grand promises of his open world game that haven't quite lived up to their promises. Again, it was a game that was receiving plenty of media attention, but fans felt they were duped. Fable II and III were also touted with hefty promises, but also failed to live up to expectations.

Little did the police know they were dealing with a kid throwing a churrasco at the wall.

Despite my trepidation, I was deeply impressed with the tech behind the LA Noire trailer. The facial tweaks and gestures were unlike anything I've ever seen, even in some of the highest quality mo-cap games like Uncharted and Red Dead. It's almost as if you could feel the breath of these digital characters as they deliver their top-notch lines. From what I've read in Game Informer, the facial animations will prove to be a key element in the gameplay as you interrogate suspects and witnesses. As the detective, you'll have to determine whether a suspect is lying to you just by their body language and nonverbal communication. Eyes roll, facial twitches, sweat pouring, pitches in their voice...all these elements will help you get to the truth of the investigation, which offers a new and unique gaming concept we haven't seen before. How you go about the interrogations is a cause for concern, as gamers will be forced to choose between three different choices in their conversations, similar to what we've seen in games like Mass Effect. Hopefully, conversations will be more intuitive and less predictable than Mass Effect, but we'll see what happens.

It's blood.....Son of  a bitch!

There's a lot left to be heard in terms of the action moments of the game. While LA Noire does have the makings of a classic gaming experience, we still won't know how it controls until it releases sometime this spring. Rockstar usually has a great track record in delivering the finest action sandbox games in the market, but hopefully it doesn't play like a Grand Theft Auto in Cold War Los Angeles. I loved the experience to be had with Red Dead Redemption, but the game controlled way too similar to Grand Theft Auto IV. All I know is I won't be fooled again by a beautiful trailer until I see some cold, hard gameplay footage. Until then, I'll be doing my own detective work on LA Noire until the day it hits store shelves.

I've Got a Rare Case of Sequel-itis

Too Many Twos and Threes out There

While this is usually the goal in gaming, sometimes bigger is not always better

The latest and greatest in the Call of Duty franchise has hit store shelves this week. Black Ops came out Tuesday and is probably selling like hotcakes at a fat camp. I too am one of the millions of gamers out there who got their hands on the latest military shooter game, and although I am not yet done with the game, I am left with a feeling of emptiness as I play, but that is nothing against the development team of the game. From the ground up anyone can see that Black Ops is a beautiful and polished game, but there's an all too familiar "been there, done that" feel that could end up biting the Call of Duty franchise in the ass...and they're not the only ones.

This Holiday season is shaping up to be an impressive line-up of high caliber video games. Halo Reach, Fable III, Fallout: New Vegas, Call of Duty, World of Warcraft and even Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood are sure to keep gamers in their dark, cheese puff covered rooms for hours on end, but there is an inherent problem with having too many sequels. It's easy for a publisher to funnel all their cash into an established game franchise, but it won't last forever. I love playing these games as much as the next guy, but gamers will eventually start to see the similarities in gameplay, and slowly start to abandon their interest in the franchise. Personally, I'm passing up the opportunity to play games like New Vegas, Fable III, and Assassin's Creed (mostly due to my economic status) because they don't catch my attention in terms of deep, engaging, and most importantly original gameplay. There's just not enough to warrant me into coughing up another $60 for something that I already know what to expect from. Call of Duty: Black Ops may not be re-inventing the M16 with it's approach to first person shooters, but the online capabilities are still going strong and is worth the buy-in alone.

Halo was once the king of gaming franchises, but Call of Duty is the new chief in town

The thing that scares me is to see a critically and commercially prime, established franchise get benched because of repetitious gameplay. Look at Halo and Call of Duty. When Halo 2 released on the original XBOX in 2004, no one could foresee another franchise knocking Master Chief off his mantle. Once Halo 3 released in 2007, it was still profitable in terms of sales, but Bungie seemed to play it safe and keep the major gameplay elements that were established back in its first game in 2001 the same. Most gamers felt a little let down, but it was still a solid game. Now I fear the same thing is happening with the Call of Duty franchise. Call of Duty 4 changed the way gamers play shooters both in single player and online, and ultimately became the proverbial 800 lb. gorilla in the video game industry. Modern Warfare 2 polished the gaming experience further, but now with Black Ops, I feel history is repeating itself. Black Ops may be a great game, but gamers will start to lose interest if the next Call of Duty doesn't reinvent itself. Granted, the Black Ops development team (Treyarch) is different from the team of both Modern Warfare games (the now dissolved Infinity Ward), but now Activision wants to release a Call of Duty game once every year...which isn't a smart decision. Development will be rushed similar to how EA Sports games work, and gamers will be over-saturated in repetitive gameplay.

That's for calling my mom a slut!

So what needs to be done? Frankly, I have no clue. What I DO notice is the growing popularity of downloadable content. Games like Splosion Man, Braid, Limbo, Shadow Complex, and even Castle Crashers are wonderful, and lengthy, games that can be purchased online for about $10. While most of these games don't really bring anything new in terms of revolutionary gameplay...for example Splosion Man is a Mario-like platformer, while Shadow Complex is a military Metroid type game...they offer gamers new Intellectual Properties to explore. Games like Limbo and Splosion Man are simple platforming adventure games, but the art style and presentation is something that's never been seen before. Limbo gave us a unique black and white, almost silent film animation, and it was fun and new to us. Console game makers need to take a page in how downloadable games present themselves. Sometimes you don't really have to come up with something new and engaging in terms of gameplay, but you can mask it by presenting it in a way that's never been done before. Plus, downloadable games are cheap. Gamers don't have to beat themselves up too much if they end up not liking a particular game. 

Sequels are teetering on a fine line of originality

Sequels are here to stay; it's a fact. However sometimes too much a good thing can turn dull and dry. Developers need to spread out their games and make us beg like Oliver Twist to play some more. Publishers need to spread their games apart because if not, they'll end up turning into the Dynasty Warrior Franchise...which I'm sure is already working on releasing it's 7th game sometime in the near future, except now you can press the same button fifty five times instead of sixty.

Open For Less Business

Open World Games Becoming Too Expansive?

Dude...Where do I go?

Fallout, Red Dead Redemption, Fable, Assassin's Creed, Elder Scrolls, Grand Theft Auto, Borderlands. All of these games have one thing in common, and that's the creation of a sprawling, expansive environment for gamers to waste dozens of hours in. But...is there an inherent drawback to games like this? I recently found myself going through a second playthrough of Red Dead Redemption, and found that with minor differences in the way I approach certain environments, the game was essentially the same. That's not to say that makes Red Dead a bad game, but I started to notice that the foggy perception gamers have with an open world game isn't all it's cracked up to be.

What makes an open world or sandbox game work is it's environment. Without it, there's not much incentive for gamers to wander through it. Players can explore that extra canyon, or look to see what's under that bridge over yonder, or maybe even check out that campfire way in the distance. As great as this sounds, it's baffling to me that my want to explore something will leave me unrewarded most of the time. During my 2nd playthrough of Red Dead, I wandered into an abandoned mine shaft that was being inhabited by a local gang. With ease, I took out the inaccurate, gun-toting baddies with my trusty carbine repeater (I didn't even have to use my dead-eye). Hoping to be rewarded for my trials and tribulations, I was left the dank mine with nothing in my pocket. It was beyond frustrating to come to the realization that I wasted about a half hour exploring the wild west, only to come across a mildly lengthy enemy encounter which left me empty handed. It left me feeling like Rockstar (the developers of Red Dead) are laughing at me while they light their cigars with wads of burning cash.

So...I'll get that shiny orb when I kill you right?

I came to the realization that this happens in a lot of games. The last time I got as frustrated as my Red Dead encounter was when I played Elder Scrolls IV. Everyone talks about how that series is the game changer of open world exploration in video games, but again, I wandered into an old mage temple, only to have wasted about a half hour fighting random mob encounters and to leave empty handed. Before I get drowned by the number of ccomplaints fans of these games have, I will admit that there are some benefits to exploring certain environments. Gamers will eventually come across that ruined city that is housing that mystical, ultimate weapon, that can only be obtained by beating that rare, incredibly difficult boss character, but the effort in finding that location on your own can only be achieved by either A) a 13-year-old goofball who has no social activities other than when his World of Warcraft guild gets together, or B) somone who is getting paid to do it...which I totally condone. I want to be rewarded every time I take a stroll off the beaten path and explore something new, regardless of its difficulty. There's not much incentive for me to take out that gang ridden mine shaft for nothing when I can do the same thing by going along with the story campaign.

Even a game like Fallout 3, a critically acclaimed and all too fun game was also getting on my nerves because of its vastly large and menacing post-apocalyptic world. There are no vehicles in the game, which leaves traveling from lcoation to location a major chore and treacherous time waster. In your journey you'll come across a variety of enemy encounters (which are insanely brutal during your first playthrough) that are preventing you from reaching your next objective. With no easier way to explore the world, and the vicious enemies you'll undoubtedly come across WILL kill you, ultimately forcing you to double back and wander the world some more. It just seems childish and masochistic sometimes. Most sane gamers like myself tend to stick with the main storyline. Sure we may wander off the main path every once in a while, but it seems to pay off rarely when we do. Overall, we as gamers are becoming more enthralled by the propect of a good storyline, and it helps the pacing of a game the way the developers intended. Pacing is pivotal in any game, you never want your players doing one thing for too long, or too little. In giving players the choice to explore the environment themselves (without the aid of a strategy guide) they are unknowingly entering into their own gameplay experience, and it's a big gamble. I can only wander aimlessly for so long before my interest is no longer peaked.

Open world exploration done right. Now if only I could find that haystack.

Regardless of my gripes with certain open world games, they're still a blast to play once you know what you want out of it. The way I accomplish this....strategy guides and walkthroughs. Never be ashamed in using online guides or walkthroughs when necessary. Some gamers are into the whole aspect of discovering the vast, open world all by themselves, but to me, I play games to get immediate satisfaction, and I can't do that when I'm forced to spend 20 hours wandering a desert, only to find that the mystical weapon I was looking for is over on the other side of the world. It just seems like a cop out to me in order to get me to play longer. Instead, give us a reason to search the world. Tell us something like "Hey, if you search this area over here, there are some fetch quests you can do, or beat-up quests, or some gambling to partake in." To me, Assassin's Creed II perfected the open world genre because it labeled every type of activity you can do in the game. It gave me an incentive to explore the environment by forcing me to traverse all of Renaissance Italy by forcing me to discover lookout points so I can see what else I could do. I want to control my game, not the other way around.

Until more games handle their open world formula similar to Assassin's Creed or better, I leave the searching and wandering to the people who DO have time for that, and I'll find out later whether it's worth discovering. Most of the time I'd rather just go from point A to point B in order to get the story going and enjoy whatever gameplay elements are to come. Good or bad, open world games will be on the market for years to come, and I'll still play em. They're still a marvel to behold and enormous in scope, which is definitely  a testament to the talent found in most developers today. I just wish I could find the patience to handle the anti-climactic encounters.

Riddle Me NOT Batfans

The Dark Knight Rises

SWEAR TO ME!!!!!

In case you Bat-fans haven't heard already, there's some interesting news that hit the airwaves this week concerning the third installment of the beloved Bat franchise helmed by Chris Nolan. The bat-tacular director announced the title of his third Batman film, will be aptly called "The Dark Knight Rises." I'll get into my thoughts on the new title in a second, but the biggest news, and most surprising to many speculators out there, is that Nolan himself handed a little golden ticket by saying that the Riddler will NOT be the villain of the new film. Hmm, do I hear an uproar of green suited fanboys ready to overthrow Nolan for cerebral control of Gotham? I hope not...here's why.

If Nolan has taught us anything with his Bat-films, is to never expect the obvious. Over the course of the first two Bat-films, Nolan has redefined the comic book film genre each and every time. With Batman Begins, he taught us that even the most obscure villains can be taken seriously, and with the Dark Knight, well, Nolan showed us that an iconic villain can be made even more menacing than before, but that's due to the excellent casting choice of Heath Ledger. So how will Nolan up the ante from the Joker's reign of chaos? In all honesty, the Riddler wouldn't have been the answer. I've always been hesitant about the idea of Edward Nygma tearing Gotham apart with his narcissistic ways because Nygma was never a physical match for Batman, or cerebral one at that. On top of that, the only way I could see Riddler working in Nolan's universe is if he held Gotham ransom where only Batman could save the city by deciphering an all-too complex puzzle. We already saw something like this in the Dark Knight with the ferry-bomb scene, and it would be too similar in format. Plus Jim Carrey may have left a bad taste in all our mouths after that spectacularly awful performance in Batman Forever. I may have loved it as a kid, but I also loved Power Rangers...you do the math of my incompetence.

So here's where the crazy speculation begins of which villain will appear in the next Bat film. In order to calm the tidal wave of theories, I figured in honor of the world's greatest detectives, I'd do some detective work of my own in zeroing in on just who will go toe-to-toe with the Dark Knight. So here are the clues we have so far....

Clue #1 The Title of the Film

"The Dark Knight Rises" -- A title like this should evoke the greatest emotions out of comic book fans. When we last saw our Dark Knight in shining military flex-armor, he was branded a criminal in Gotham. Now the entire Gotham police force is after Batman, and the whole city probably hates his guts. With a title like the Dark Knight Rises, Batman must be beat down to a pulp and rise out of the ashes as the savior of Gotham, meaning it is not going to be a walk in the park. He must be thrown into the proverbial societal blender, mixing it up with the dregs of society, and becoming his own one man army against Gotham's underworld.

Clue #2 Casting Tom Hardy

The Forger from Inception was hand picked by Nolan to play an unspecified villain role in the upcoming film. If anyone saw Hardy's earlier performances that weren't Inception, such as Layer Cake, and even Star Trek: Nemesis, you'll clearly see a talented Brit with a knack for playing dark characters. Hardy has many qualities to his advantage as a villain: He is young, not a chick (sorry Poison Ivy & Harley Quinn), not fat (sorry Penguin), and not a skinny wimp (sorry Ventriloquist). I could be wrong and he does end up playing one of the characters above (I hope he's not a cross dressing Ivy) but because of this we can probably narrow down the list of possible villainous candidates.

Clue #3 Nolan's Believable World of Batman

Sounds like a good theme park name. Seriously though, the world of Gotham City that Nolan has created is something to treasure. Gotham City is a crime-ridden, dark, gritty world that looks like Chicago. I kid, I kid, it IS Chicago. The world of Gotham isn't what we were used to seeing in Burton-Schumacher land. No more are our villains characatures that would make even their animated series counterparts weep in dismay. No, these are villains that could be considered believable by today's degenerate standards. They are methodical, twisted, and anarchists by nature. So with that being said, you can rule out a couple villains just by this clue alone. While Riddler could've been translated successfully, Nolan hammered the final nail in the coffin with his latest announcement. (Which I called by the way...Don't believe me...check out my earlier blogs ya doubters)

Clue #4 Other Sources

Batman in the Bayou?

I added this clue because I overheard through the reliable friend of a friend scenario that some of the production on The Dark Knight Rises is scheduled to film in New Orleans. At his point everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but it does peak my interest. Why? Well, one of the more notorious villains in the Bat-Universe who has some deep comic book connections with the bayou city is none other than Killer Croc aka Waylon Jones. I know, I know, the inclusion of Killer Croc is hard to imagine within the confines of Nolan's realistic Bat-universe, but still, you gotta admit it would be an unexpected, yet welcome curve ball if that's who our villain turns out to be.

Hypothesis of Possible Villains

So with the clues that we have, we can start to pinpoint closer to who our villain could be, and here are my guesses beginning with the most likely:

Hush

If it were up to me, Hush would be the perfect villain for this movie. 'The Dark Knight Rises' will be a film about the struggle Batman will go through in order to win back the people of Gotham. In order to portray this film in the grandest of fashions, Nolan will need to introduce a villain that knows every move Batman will make, and that's where Hush comes in. Hush, aka Thomas Elliot, was a childhood friend of Bruce Wayne who grew up under similar circumstances with wealthy parents. However in Elliot's case, he hated his parents, and was jealous of Bruce. Nolan and crew could play with this relationship in a number of ways on screen, which could allow for furthur character development for Bruce Wayne. Elliot is also a master strategist, and according to the comics, he's known to have been an equal to Batman in both physical and mental prowess, and is a superb marksman. One of Hush's story arcs even had him manipulating some of Gotham's most vile criminals for his own purpose of ridding Batman, including Riddler, Joker, and even Killer Croc (wink wink). Plus Tom Hardy has the same charming looks as Christian Bale, and can easily be identified by audiences as the anti-Bruce Wayne.

Black Mask

Black Mask could be a major possibility within the context of Nolan's universe. Roman Sionis was another rich kid but his story is sadder than Hush. He was hated by his parents and he was bad from the get-go. A failed businessman, Sionis later turns to a life of crime, becoming a mob leader of the "False Face Society," where every member must wear a mask of their choosing, and he subsequently becomes the Black Mask after an incident with Batman, where his face was melted onto his Black mask...duh. I can see Black Mask in a Nolan film, especially with Hardy's casting, however the only problem I see with this is the whole mob connection. It's been done already in the first two films with Falcone and Joker, and I don't really see a chance for Nolan to add onto the emotional development of Wayne.

Ra's Al Ghul/Talia Al Ghul

If Liam Neeson makes a surprise appearance, I will officially s**t myself. If anyone analyzed the ending of 'Batman Begins' the way I did, you'll notice how Ra's peacefully closed his eyes before the train derailed, as if to say, "this will be merely a flesh wound!" Ra's al Ghul is immortal in the comics due to the mystical powers of the Lazarus pits. If Nolan wanted to up the ante of this film he could bring Neeson back, and maybe introduce Ra's daughter, Talia al Ghul as the new love interest because remember, Rachel went boom-boom in The Dark Knight. It would be nice, but that leaves the casting of Tom Hardy a mystery, unless he of course plays someone else we don't expect.

Killer Croc

As cool as Croc is in Batman lore, I am only including him based on clue # 4. It would be really difficult to include a character like this, mostly because it would either require an unbelievable amount of prosthetics or CGI to create, and I know Nolan won't be too keen on that. Plus, it doesn't really fit well in the believable realm of Nolan but hey, you never know.

=============

So those are my 2 cents on the possible direction of the new Batman film. I am thrilled that production is finally taking off with this film after a two and half year wait since the release of The Dark Knight. As great as Joker was, he should be left out entirely in the new film due to the tragic passing of Heath Ledger, and if anything, only be mentioned in an off manner. Maybe something like "Holy Shit, Joker escaped Arkham. We'll never find him." Maybe not exactly word for word how I put it, but you get the idea. Whatever the case may be, we're still a year and a half away until the Summer 2012 release date of The Dark Knight Rises, and anything could happen between now and then. Still, all the elements are starting to come together, and I know Nolan will make this a worthy third entry into a mainstream series. I wish I could say the same thing for Spider Man 3. I was seriously going into cardiac arrest when I saw Peter Parker dancing down the sidewalk. Hopefully Alfred won't bust out with a konga line.