Please don't review this (my advertisers will fire me)

Wow. Talk about a very important week (at least to gamers). Two huge stories that have interesting and widespread implications. But first, what you are all waiting for: my latest game impressions!

Mercury Meltdown Revolution - Wow this game is both fun and hard at the same time. I'm only about 1/3 of the way through the game and already I'm pulling my hair out and having to stop myself from tossing my Wiimote out the window and on to the interstate. Of course, that's how I like my hybrid puzzle/marble/goo games... difficult. It's somewhat hard to play in my room, with the TV so low compared to how I stand. It strikes me as funny that even Wii games that do not require throwing your hands around the room or taking large swings require significantly more space than a standard game controller would. I suppose I could play the game with "standard" controls - i.e. just using an analog stick and moving the blob around, but really that takes all the fun out of the game. For $20, though, you CAN NOT go wrong picking this up.


Beautiful Katamari - If you've played one you've played them all, yet this game still does not seem stale to me at all. The music is significantly better than it was on We Love Katamari and the gameplay is just as solid. Only one of the levels is annoying to play, and that is merely because there is no "please make the king stop talking" option. $40 may seem like a steal, but downloadable content almost makes you feel like they held back on what they could have placed into the game in order to charge you even more to download stuff. That is sort of how downloadale contend has always been, though: skirting the fine line between expanding your gaming experience and finding clever ways of taking even more money from you. EA has certainly done well in overcharging, going so far as to ship items on disc and yet still requiring you to pay extra to merely 'unlock' it. HD graphics make the game look alot nicer, despite thinking that the simple graphics would not translate as well as more complex graphics would. Things look alot crisper and there's just more on the screen to see (and roll up!). This comes with a price, though, as there are some points where you will see huge drops in framerate. Not enough to destroy the gameplay, but you do notice it. Can't wait for the soundtrack to come out!

Rock Band - Finally, the choral equivalent to guitar hero. Sing, play guitar, play drums... whatever you want! Here's a hint, though: drums are HARD. Really, really hard. Guitar I picked up pretty easily (at least on medium), but drums on medium still feels very hard. This is more because my brain refuses to differentiate between my foot and my hand, but it's still very fun to play. Get 3-4 people together, make a band, tour the world. Singing is a blast, especially if you know the song. I'm already a vocal expert, but hey, I've been in choir over 11 years. Everyone I play with who claims they "can't sing at all" can do just fine even on medium (well, except 1 person, but he seems to be the exception to the rule). Just... don't try and sing the Coheed and Cambria song. EVER. It's like they just recorded a banshee wailing and force you to try and decipher a pitch out of that nonsense. Definitely my LEAST favorite song in the game.

Rock Band is $170, which is worth it if you have a few friends that will play it with you. If you'd rather go solo, you can always buy just the game ($60), a USB microphone if you have one, and a Guitar Hero II or III guitar will work fine for Bass or Guitar (unless you buy the PS3 version). The drums should go on sale separately in Q1 of 2008. Downloadable content really makes this game shine, adding in songs of your choosing for a modest price (like $5.50 for 3 song packs, not too shabby). I will definitely be purchasing the Metallica song pack as soon as possible, but other big names like The Police, The Who, David Bowie, and Weezer will round out the offerings for this year and who knows what next year may bring. Party game must have, solo player is more up to you. I'd certainly recommend it, though.

Carcassone - A free Xbox Live arcade game in honor of their 5 year anniversary, it's actually quite fun. A "board game" style using tiles where you try to gain points by building roads, cities, monestaries, and more. Online play is really annoying, though. It seems to take several attempts before you can finally get into a game with someone and even then people tend to leave the game if you seem to be handily beating them. It was a no brainer for free, but I'd suggest giving the demo a whirl before you shell out cash for it. Unless you plan on playing with a friend consistently or it just strikes you as alot of fun, the replay value may not go beyond what you can squeeze out of the demo.

Hexic HD - Another free Xbox Live arcade game (came with the 360), this puzzle game is fun but somewhat annoying. At later levels it seems to be nigh impossible, dropping colored bombs in areas that do not have a single matching color within 5 or 6 tiles and forcing you to hope that 2 colored tiles will fall into play so you can get rid of it. Also, screw whoever decided that 75,000 in timed mode was a good achievement - I'm convinced that score is either impossible or requires alot of luck. This is definitely a good "relaxing" puzzle game... so long as you don't let the exponentially growing difficulty get to you.

But enough of games, let's talk news. First off, the one I don't really care to comment on right now: Activision Blizzard. Mega-publisher Activision - who was arguably larger than EA this year - has merged with Vivendi Universal (owners of Blizzard, known for Warcraft/Starcraft/Diablo) to create Activision Blizzard, perhaps the largest gaming monster and now EA's biggest rival. I cannot imagine that having yet another huge powerhouse game publisher will be good for the industry - EA hasn't exactly been known for it's stellar titles - but perhaps the people at Blizzard will teach Activision a thing or two and finally show the industry what it takes to make a quality product. Not that Guitar Hero and Call of Duty haven't done quite well for Activision, but the Tony Hawk series has been on a steady decline in recent years and fans of Guitar Hero II will tell you that Guitar Hero III is showing the same signs. Will quality finally prevail over quantity (edited from "quality", sorry), or will Activision Blizzard become the new EA and drive the games I love into the ground for the sake of a few extra dollars? Only time will tell, but Blizzard is known for it's dedication to quality, so at least there is SOME hope.

The biggest news this week, undoubtedly, is Gamespot's firing of Jeff Gertsmann. While it is not certian that he lost his job due to his scathing "6.0" review of Kane & Lynch, a game that was being HEAVILY promoted on the site to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, it seems unlikely that it was for any other reason than to make an example of him. Jeff has been known for being harsh to games that generally get good reviews - he game Twilight Princess an 8.9, still a good score, but Nintendo fans have cursed his name ever since - but apparantly slamming the game when a company is paying you thousands of dollars for advertising doesn't sit well with the developing company.

This has always sort of been the giant gorilla in the room in the game industry - if a game you are advertising is bad, what do you do? If you give it a low score, then that advertiser might not come back to you. If you give it a higher score, you are basically cheating the people who are making a purchase decision on your seemingly unbiased review of a game. Tycho and Gabe over at Penny Arcade learned this the hard way, with Prince of Persia: Warrior Within, but they chose their integrity and their readers over their advertiser. They have since changed the way that they advertise on their site, only choosing ads for games they have played and enjoyed. Not something that could very well work for a site SOLELY dedicated to games and who relies heavily on ads (I'm sure the PA guys make quite a bit of money on shirts and books), but it does beg the question of what do these sites do now? How do they prove they are unbiased aside from sheer faith on the part of their readers?

I'm proud of Jeff for remaining faithful to his personal review and not caving in to management and advertisers to fudge the numbers, but can you really blame someone who is trying to make ends meet or feed his family for taking precautions when it comes to keeping his job? "Reviews" have always seemed like such an awkard and nebulous valley of entertainment - how do you rate feelings or "fun", especially when different people have fun at different things? My mother could care less about Ocarina of Time, but is actually interested in Wii Sports and Brain Age. Does that mean that Zelda is "bad", because she can't enjoy it? Do you simply rate it when compared to other action-adventure hybrids involving fairy boys and lost princesses and triforces? How do you "rate" horror films to someone who hates the genre? These aren't physical objects, with technical specs and tangible characteristics that can be measured and rated based on other similar pieces (This TV displays 720p and has a contrast ration of 10000:1, etc).

This, of course, makes for a troublesome paradox. You don't know if the game is good without playing it, but you need to play it to tell the game is good. You need some sort of review system in place, but to break games down into thousandths of a point and try to place all these hard numbers on such an intangible experience as enjoying entertainment is a very fickle game, indeed. I check reviews of games more for my own enjoyment (and read up to make sure the graphical glitches and technical hurdles do not take away from the experience). Personally, downloadable demos and playing games at a friend's house are my ways of finding that diamond in the rough, but I know it's tough for people who don't know others with game systems or who are friends with people like me that purchase games when they are 75% off and in a bargain bin (I jumped into Resident Evil 4 after getting the game used... it didn't even have a cover! THE SHAME!).

It doesn't help that in this industry, it seems like anything below an 8.0 will tank in sales. Which is odd, because I've played plenty of 70-80 range games and still enjoyed them (Beautiful Katamari and Mercury Meltdown both lie around there on Metacritic). Honestly, if you look at a '60' score for a game, you immediately feel "this must be terrible", whereas saying the game got 3 out of 5 stars (or, more simpler, a "thumbs up") would leave you with a better impression. Which is fine, because there shouldn't be a ton of AMAZING games out there. Many do end up being mediocre or small steps forward while the big fish wait in the wings, taking years to create and giant stockpiles of money to produce only to completely revolutionize the genre. Why does every RPG have to compare to the likes of FFVII (or, if you prefer, FFVI) and Chrono Trigger? Why must every platformer live under the shadow of Mario, and every FPS be compared to Halo and Half-Life?

Reviewers are obviously in a tough position. How do you help those who do not keep up with the industry (or the games) a quick-and-dirty answer to whether or not they buy a game, while still working together with advertisers to make money? Is it even possible anymore? Maybe we should only see ads for Full Sail Gaming College from now on (let us hope not!), but I certainly don't believe that reviews should go away: they are one of those necessities that just needs a little bit of tuning. Some of the best reviews I have ever read/heard were either from friends who have played the game, or from Tycho and Gabe over at Penny Arcade (who, also, have played the game). Even they, though, will be smart in a review. "This game isn't for people who don't like card games. For Card gamers, it's a 10/10. For everyone else, it's a 0/10". Something like that. My friends know that I don't like First Person shooters, so when I tell them Half Life 2 is crazy fun... they know that means something (they also know it means that it involves some kind of puzzle or exploration other sort of gameplay, because there's no way I'd be interested in it otherwise).

This may just is a hard lesson for both reviewers and consumers. Reviewers need to find a new way to monetize their business, one that does not place their "journalistic integrity" into question, and consumers need to make sure to read the fine print and see just who is paying the bills before you trust something that someone says. Or just use metacritic.com and take an average of several dozen reviews in order to make sure you wrinkle out any of the crooked numbers. Whatever your choice, you've alot of games to choose from this holiday season, 9.545424647473 out of 10 or no.