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.

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!