It's coming, I promise...

I've been meaning to post about Blue Dragon for some time, but haven't gotten the chance to do so. Been WAY too busy, plus enjoying my free time playing Smash Brothers Brawl and Fire Emblem. I'm thinking about reducing these posts to maybe 1 game each time, to help me get them out faster...

Unfortunately, I may have also hurt my release schedule by picking up another "hobby" - sprucing up the terribly "XCHKS" subs for Detective Conan. It has been alot of fun (it helps that I'm a huge fan of the show) but my penchant for perfectionism makes the entire process very time consuming. I spent an hour last night "fixing" a mere 3 minutes of the show, although I must say that it makes it that much more enjoyable to watch. Hopefully, once I get used to the subbing program, things will go by much faster.

ctl-c, ctl-v

Apparantly, copy-paste is too difficult for me, because I've had this ready for nearly 2 weeks and sitll haven't posted it. So, without further ado, here it is:



I feel as though I've neglected the "ranting" portion in lieu of the deluge of games that I have played recently. That being said, here are a few things that have been on my mind as of late. Granted, they will not be as detailed as the game reviews (I tend to prefer that more to writing down thoughts that end up making me angry or require a very significant amount of research in order to be more fair), but it's at least something to think on.

Firstly, the whole Fox / Mass Effect deal. I have not gotten around to playing the game yet (and if Blue Dragon continues on like it is, I won't get around to it for a while yet), so my comments on this will be breif. This is basically yet another way that video games get singled out over other media (music, movies, books, et al) on "questionable content". Ever since the "hot coffee mod" hit the scene, it is as though games must be squeaky clean, positive reinforcement learn-fests before they are approved by the media. The woman who went off on Mass Effect (basically saying it contains full frontal nudity when it does not) eventually retracted, admitting that once she actually saw the game she obviously saw herself being in the wrong. She went on to state there is more sexually explicit content in your average 1 hour showing of Lost or Desperate Housewives than there was in this 40+ hour epic adventure. The fact that even the loony Jack Thompson didn't see enough in this game to fight against it shows that either hell itself has frozen over, or it was really no big deal (I personally believe the answer is "both").

Next, we have the presidential race. I've yet to dive TOO deep into the race, as I've already grown incredibly tired of this campaign. It started so early, and people have been speculating and guessing and prophesying for so long that I grew both bored and apathetic. I know who I want to be MY candidate, I can do my own research. I don't have to watch disingenuous attempts at "involving the american public" through the You-tube debates, or at all this baby kissing and hand shaking. I don't care about Hillary's every movement nor Guiliani's insane comments. Perhaps I've become incredibly jaded in just the past 4 years, but now it seems to be "same old, same old". Haven't we been here before? "Washington Insider vs. the "breathe of fresh air" outsider. Candidates trying to fight it out as to who is capable of NOT being the same failure as the incumbent. This all sounds... familiar. I certianly didn't need all that extra lead in time they were throwing at me, starting so incredibly early to try to build up the hype machine and raise even more money (I thought we were supposed to be stopping all that? Whatever happened to campaign finance reform and working away from money buying the seats?) These fools do next to nothing while in office - not on immigration, not on security, not on protecting our freedoms or net neutrality or tax reform, big government and over-budgets, a busting sub-prime market.... the list goes on and on - and yet they want me to pay attention to them now? Where do people find the energy to back this kind of rhetoric? Some of these people have been in political power for years, even decades, and they have what to show for it? Once I get passed my primary, and we start narrowing down candidates for me to focus on... then I can get more into it. But right now it's really just tiring to keep up with news about how these people try to undermine each other and slit each others throats day in and day out. I speak in generalities, of course - not EVERYONE is like that in all aspects - but most talk shows or internet sites, or even news stories certianly make you feel as though this is always the case. Anything to grab some eyeballs and captivate audiences, eh?

So much for not being "too deep into the race"! I didn't know I had it in me, really. Serious topics aside, here are a few tidbits about the group of 360 games I've played recently but haven't had the chance to comment on yet.

Gears of War

I've actually played the game before, but I've never really owned it (and just recently started "reviewing" things again) so now seems as good a time as any to mention it. For the most part, I absolutely refuse to touch the game as a "single player" experience. That is not a statement against the single player campaign, either; the story, characters, gameplay and pacing are all very good. But, having now played through the game twice on co-op, playing the campaign with just one person feels very "boring" or bland, despite the fact that Gears of War is, indeed, a very high quality game. Graphically the game does impress - even more so in HD - although I can't really say that the game inspires a sense of awe or amazement (perhaps this is coming from a present perspective on the game, as compared to when it came out over a year ago). The graphics are indeed great and you'll be hard pressed to find even newer games that look significantly better (though there are a few), but to me the "wow" factor almost always stems more from style than it does from technical prowess. I can say "wow" to pictures of Crysis, yet generally feel no recolletion of the games pictures aside from a few trees and rocks. Maybe some sand. (Also, I've never played the game...) Gears gives me much the same feeling. Characters aside, the graphics impress but are generally "forgettable". You go from some boring, drab, run down building to another boring, drab, run down building... and the process kind of repeats itself. Oh, and in case the buildings weren't bland enough for you, you also go underground only to be surrounded by even more boring scenery like rocks! The rain during that factory level is rather cool, and as I've said before the Characters are well done, other than that it's just more boring, "realistic" looking graphics that focus too much on earthy, dark tones than it does Style. No More Heroes leaves me more impressed overall Graphically than this game does, if only because it oozes a very unique sense of design. However, graphics really mean next to nothing to me in terms of games. It's nice to move forward in terms of more detail or more action on-screen, but without the right style you really can't do much to stand out.

So, obviously, the most important part of Gears is gameplay. The "cover" system seems to give Gears a significant boost over just about every other series in the genre, adding in a nice layer of strategy/pacing where most games tend to be more about "run and gun" or being fast with the trigger. Active reloading really highlights the extra level of strategy and attention required to do well in the game. You can't just constantly spam reload and expect to blast your way through enemies. A well timed active reload, though, can shave seconds off your reload times and really help you out in a pinch.

As with any kind of game like this, the co-op really makes it shine. I admit that playing the game just by yourself can be fun, but playing with a friend makes the game all that much better. The most confusing part of the game is how the story is centered around 4 characters, yet the game remains only 2 player co-opable. Perhaps Halo 3's 4 player co-op has me spoiled, but Gears of War practically screams for it to be enabled for 4 players. Hopefully Gears of War 2 will up the ante and allow 4 friends to take down the Locust together.

Pacing is kind of a mixed bag, something that is also important to me in shooter/adventure type games like this. I do not like finally overcoming a hard or difficult part only to die and have to repeat the process over and over again. A few times is acceptable - blowing through the game would not be fun, either - but being stuck at the same area for nearly an hour really starts to frustrate. I will admit I'm not the best player out there, but playing on co-op and on the middle difficulty setting should not see 2 people stuck for nearly an hour. The hardest parts in the game are, arguably, where you "split up". This makes it doubly difficult because, firstly, you do not have anyone to back you up or cover you and, more importantly, you cannot be ressurected if you die which means that you BOTH have to start over from the last checkpoint. Co-op can allow two people with unequal skill to play on the same level, and these "splits" can really slow you down when one player has a difficult time getting through their portion of the level. It makes the game less "fun", makes the good player feel bored and the bad player feel worthless. I can appreciate that the designers probably wanted to challenge players in these portions but couldn't they have been a little more forgiving, especially with regards to checkpoints? At least not having to replay the entire split would have made things a little more bearable while keeping the difficulty up.

Sp, I guess this game has a multiplayer component? I don't really know. I really enjoy the cover system and the game mechanics from a single player perspective... but it seems like it would be incredibly boring in multiplayer. I've played local multiplayer with friends, and that wasn't nearly as much fun as teaming up in campaign or as other multiplayer games (Smash Bros, Halo 3, etc). I guess if you really like the system but want the challenge of facing a human opponent you might play this over live, but I don't really see it as being something I would enjoy doing (even just to get the acheievements).

Overall, the game is definitely worth playing. If you're like me and just want to experience the campaign, grab a friend and rent the game over the weekend - it is easily beatable in 1 sitting, or you could break it up over a few if you are playing on the higher difficulties. COG tags, acheivements and multiplayer could keep you coming back for more, if you like collecting things or flexing your muscle over live. Even I have played the game through multiple times. My last playthrough was the third time I've beaten the game and it is just as fun as it was the first time. The game is still $50 for a reason... because it is a stellar 360 exclusive. Even if you are like me and don't particularly care for the genre, it is worth it just for the co-op experience.

Crackdown

Crackdown can be gracefully summed up in two words: Agility Orbs. While on the surface crackdown

seems like a "GTA-clone" - a title which has now completely replaced the original term, "Sandbox

Game" - after playing it for about an hour you will see that this can hardly be farther from the

truth. Crackdown involves a large open city that requires no loading (in fact, didn't GTA have loading? and lets you go anywhere you want and do anything you want. Honestly, that is where the comparisons stop, which means that they are just the same genre of game. Beyond that, they couldn't be more different.

GTA is a rather slow paced game. You work your way through the game's "narritive", perhaps indulging yourself in one of the world's many glorified mini-games to increase your "stats", make some money or gain access to new items or areas. Outside of the missions you generally have very littl reason - or desire - to pick fights with people as it will either get you killed or in trouble with the law. Ironically the main draw of GTA is not the sandbox elements (although that makes the game more fun by giving you the opportunity to take the game at your own pace and freedom to do whatever you'd like to do) but in the expertly crafted and cleverly driven narrative contained within. There are many true "GTA-clones" that do not sell nearly as well as Grand Theft Auto for this exact reason. Saint's Row, for all that it added to the "sandbox" mechanism, just doesn't cut it when compared to the story of Grand Theft Auto. Why else would Rockstar be able to sell both Vice City and San Andreas, not to mention the entire collection of "stories" games, when 85%+ of the sandboxing elements in these games are the same as they have always been. Ooooh, they added motorcycles, big whoop! You can finally swim? Game of the Year CONFIRMED!

Look, Grand Theft Auto and many any other sucessful series - Zelda, Final Fantasy, Halo, Call of Duty, etc - are games that largely maintain the core elements of their genre while pushing the genre forward with smaller, more controlled innovations, high production quality and excellent Narratives. Let's face it, Link has been doing the exact same thing since the original Legend of Zelda - navagating a large and compelling overworld and navagating perilous dungeons to expand his arsenal and finally fight Gannon/Vatii/Windfish... whoever. It's the same game! But the games sell well not due to individual parts, but taken as a whole; a sum of its parts.

So where does Crackdown fit in all of this? Well, as someone who is guilty of calling Crackdown "that game no one wanted that came with Halo 3 Beta" and "how original, yet another GTA clone" I feel compelled to prevent you from making the same mistake that I made. Crackdown takes the sandbox idea and gives it a shot in the arm. Your character starts out far from "normal" and just becomes more and more superhero-esque as you proceed through the game. From the start you can already jump several stories high, allowing you to climb buildings, scale mountains or clear obstacles with a single bound. Grand Theft Auto generally starts you off slow... access to only the first town, only a couple of missions available, not much you can work on until you get the story going. Crackdown throws this out the window. You turn the game on and, if you want, you can go straight for the last boss. Considering that you make him weaker by defeating all of his underlings I'm sure it would make things alot more difficult, but you really can do ANYTHING you want. You are limited solely by your current "skill levels" (you probably can't scale some buildings without getting your agility up first) but, for the most part, the world is your oyster.

What's even better is, the game throws action at you almost non-stop; the streets are crawling with gang members (who, by the way, don't seem to like law enforcement) and if you really thin their ranks in a short amount of time, they send "hit squads" to really make your life interesting. You aren't waiting around for someone to cause trouble, or driving through large cities trying to get to your next mission (perhaps the greatest downfall of Grand Theft Auto being so massive in scope). In fact, it's usually so much fun to jump from rooftop to rooftop, sniping enemies or sending heat-seeking rockets into a group of unsuspecting Volk that you will probably forgo driving entirely (that, and civilians have this bad habit of always jumping out in front of you, which gets you in trouble with the law...).

Agility Orbs really add to the sense of exploration and reward you for climbing huge structures and making big leaps of faith. But since there are more than 500 of them scattered throughout the city, the act more like pez candy than they do anything else. You get one, and from that vantage point you can see at least 3 others. Next thing you know, you've collected 40 and you are the complete other side of the map... and going strong. I can't quite put my finger on it but something about jumping from rooftop to rooftop, jumping 35 feet vertically and hundreds of feet horizontally just feels fun no matter how you slice it. Add in the addictive "collecting" quest behind agility orbs (encourages scaling buildings and big jumps) and hidden orbs (encourages exploration and clever thinking with some difficult jumps) and you can entertain yourself for hours on end just trying to collect them. On paper it sounds ludicrous, I know, but once you start playing they are like Lay's... you can't eat just one! (Can I even say that? Is it copyright protected or something? In fact, do they even use that slogan anymore?)

The game is not without flaws, though. In order to acheive this faster paced, more "action/arcade" style of gameplay it has to sacrifice any semblance of a strong narrative ("Bad guy X is in charge of bad thing Y, go kill him!" is hardly a storyline) and compared to the main gameplay, the "side quests" feel lacking or annoying. Driving a car is about as easy as trying to firmly grasp a wet bar of soap - you can do marginally well at slower speeds, but you might as well walk at that point. Boss's, especially the later ones, are more an excercise in patience than anything else. They are ALWAYS the same, the only thing different between them is the number of small-time lackeys that you will have to take out before you get to them (hence my most of the last bosses are in buildings and other closed enviornments, where you are forced through narrow passages and rooms and therefore cannot help but face all the weaker enemies). The strength of the core gameplay, however, helps to augment the tedious nature of the "main story"... especially since round-house kicks to the gut and rockets to the face NEVER seems to get old.

Co-op is a plus for this game, but no split screen co-op is a crime. There's no way it isn't feasable to do 2 player co-op on the same screen; it just screams of a way to make more people purchase copies of the game or invest money into Xbox LIVE. I appreciate that co-op is there - and that it was available over LIVE - but making that the only option is just mean.

You can easily extend your enjoyment of the game, especially if you are a completionist type. Stat points, agility orbs and Hidden orbs will keep even the most meticulous of collectors busy for dozens of hours over normal game play, if not drive them a little insane (why, oh WHY can't they show us where that last orb is. If you have 499 out of 500, isn't that ENOUGH? Just show me where that last one is. Even a hint would be great. You can keep track of which ones I've already collected - how else do they not respawn? - so help me out. Show me on a map where the ones I collected were, or start showing orbs on the map after I collected 75% plus. Having to comb over that insanely huge city for ONE orb is grounds for cruel and unjust punishment). Vehicle races, time trials, and leaderboards extend play for the more competitive amoung us, giving proof of bragging rights between friends... or the world. I think... I haven't really used them yet (too busy with the real game!).

Crackdown takes the tried-and-true "go anywhere, do anything" sandbox method and ratchets up the action to keep you on your toes. Seemingly Limitless enemies, collectable items, time trials and side quests give offer up plenty of entertainment and leave you always doing something. "Supply points" provide a great long-distance travel mechanism, while attempting to not totally ruin the size and scope of the world (they also help keep your full on ammo and give you a wide selection of guns as you "borrow" them from the other gangs). Free downloadable content gives you a little more to do, and pay content even throws in some new vehicles and more side quests to do (although, admitedly, I've never downloaded or played the pay conent). This fresh new take on the sandbox genre might not last you as long on the main story as Grand Theft Auto would, and lack of a true "story" leaves you with very little purpose or direction, but the gameplay is just plain fun. There are so many used copies floating around that it is a crime - no pun intended - for you to not own this game. There is plenty to do and see (and kill!) and you will have a very hard time putting it down. In a genre where everything has to live in the shadow of Grand Theft Auto, Crackdown does very well in making a name for itself and definitely deserves your attention.

Call of Duty 4

Anyone who knows me knows that I'm not exactly a "fan" of first person shooters. I can play them and enjoy them, sure, but I generally do not do so on my own dime (Half-Life being the exception. You could also count Metroid Prime but, honestly, that's adventure). Owning a 360 comes at a price, though; First person shooters do so well on the system that one can't help but run into several "quality" titles every now and then, even if it is a genre I'm not exactly fond of.

So, when I was offered the opportunity to play Call of Duty 4 multiplayer, I reluctantly accepted, mostly because they needed my 360 anyway and I wanted to keep an eye on it. Multiplayer with people I know is perhaps the one saving grace to a first person shooter, outside of a truly emmersive story (hence my caving to the Half-Life series). Ever since Goldeneye on my N64, first person shooters have redeemed themselves in my eyes with a quality multiplayer component. I remember next to nothing of Halo 1 and 2 campaign, but have tons of great memories of 16 player LANs with epic, hour long capture-the-flag matches and nail-bitingly close Slayer matches.

Unfortunately, Infinity Ward seems to have something against playing system link but also having mutliple people on the same console... so even though there were 5 of us, only 4 of us could play. I offered to sit out, but since there was an extra copy of the game... why not play single player? It would at least give me something to do while waiting for them to finish playing.

From a single player perspective, the game did not "break boundaries" in any way, really. I like how it played, and the story was interesting enough (especially how the two stories wove together by the end). Certianly not up to Half-Life standards, but it gets the job done. Some of the "non FPS" levels provided a nice break from the staple "first person, run and gun". Shooting that huge gun from the airplane, providing your character (on the ground, not the one you were playing currently operating the gun) a chance to escape was especially fun. The "stealth" level was also nice to play, although the directions sometimes seemed ambiguous and would sometimes get me dangerously close to a guard... or worse, caught.

It is not a long affair - I beat the game within a 24 hour time period, without even really trying. I played some Galaxy, met with some friends, you know... lived a rather normal life. It is not as though I really had to play the game non-stop to beat it. 6-8 hours, maybe less if you are really good. Then again, I didn't play on the hardest difficulty except for 1 level, and if you played on that I'm sure the game would take you alot longer (but be alot more frustrating, too).

Multiplayer seemed to have much more promise, mixing RPG like elements (leveling up, gaining access to new items, skills, etc) to the standard FPS gameplay (run and gun, shoot, grenades... why am I explaining this?!?) and even using a class system to allow you to customize your guns and items. While I haven't played it myself, friends I know who are big FPS buffs play Call of Duty 4 multiplayer more than Halo 3 mutliplayer, and that's saying something. Personally, though, I don't really like playing FPS's multiplayer without friends, so I've never played and therefore can't really vouch for the system. I can safely suggest it, though, as many people I know would whole heartedly support it (and they are usually very picky).

This game kind of comes across as a toss up. The main story is fun, and if you are really itching for a good FPS then it is worth, at the very least, a rental. You can most definitely blow through the main game in a weekend, even perhaps on veteran. If you've been playing Halo 2 multiplayer for the last few years, then a purchase is almost assuredly in order. The RPG elements give you something to work towards while you play (besides, you know, just being the best and winning all the time) and that can definitely add to the "addictive" nature of online gaming and rank-climbing. On the console versions you can even "reset" to level 1 once you reach the level cap, all for a special symbol being placed next to your name... and you can do it 10 times! Experience doesn't even seem to be tied directly to how well you do (you get more experience for more kills and winning, but you don't move backwards for losing or doing poorly) so even on your off days you can make some progress and those of us (me) who aren't as good could slowly work our way towards those higher ranks. It's more than likely that you already know whether or not you want this game (actually, that you already OWN this game or not, considering how many it has sold) but if you are on the fence, well... you are definitely missing out.

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly...

Assassin's Creed

It is kind of difficult to put into words just what is so amazing about this game. Despite watching two other people play most of the game (including seeing several plot twists and even the ending) I still felt a need to go out and obtain a copy of the game for myself. This is the kind of game that is both fun to play and fun to watch, where literally anything can happen and you are ENCOURAGED to use environnments and stealth to your advantage, while not being forced into doing so if you don't want to. Sure, anyone can probably take on 20 guards at a time once they get the "core" mechanics of the game down and nothing really changes from the first boss to the last one, but that core gameplay is so good that you can play through at your own pace and honestly never really notice it.

There are some, however, that did complain about how "repetitive" it was and how boring it became... and it makes me wonder just what game they were playing. Is Halo 3 "boring and repetitive" because you basically spend the entire game shooting enemies? Is Super Mario Galaxy "boring and repetitive" because you spend most of the game jumping? Hardly. So what is the beef with people and Assassin's Creed? Why is it so special that it deserves this criticsm? Pehaps people were over-hyped for the game. Perhaps they were expecting something bigger, or better, or different than what Ubisoft ended up providing. But that would make me wonder... what exactly were they hoping for?

Now I admit that the game does have its share of flaws. The story, as good as it was, falls flat on its face in the end because it amounts to nothing more than a big tease. The game does a fairly good job of not forcing you to do anything you don't want. You can use rooftops or "blending" to avoid guards and confrontation in general. The main story, however, takes it to a near minimum, requiring only 2-3 "investigations" before you are allowed to assassinate your target... which means you could literally blow through the main game if you really wanted. Someone who takes time to explore the city and accept all the side quests, however, could spend hours on just one assassination mission alone.

This is really the only point of ontention I have with the game: the "investigations" are generally well mixed and offer a fair amount of variety of things to complete (albeit, some of them are fairly boring; sitting on a bench, listening to a conversation? Not exactly the pennacle of interactive entertainment...) but your choice of "optional" side quests is very limited in scope. Not counting collectable flags and templars(AGAIN with punishing 99/100 collectors? ugh!), optional quests include one of two options: saving citizens or climbing to look out points. Now, these acts in and of themselves are not terrible. Saving citizens is both fun and challenging because it makes sure to throw several guards at you at once, theoretically making it a more challenging engagement then you are used to. When done correctly, they are entertaining diversions to the stealth, run around and ignore guards style gameplay. The problem arises when there are citizens trapped in large, market like areas... and it seems as though there is a never-ending flow of guards to face. Sure, 4 or 5 are OK but once you are on guard 10 or 11 because that pack of 7 guards roaming that area found you (which they almost certianly will) it can really seem to drag out the fight, especially since you originally intended to only be fighting a few men and be on your way.

Climb points are much more fun, as they tend to have you go into interesting portions of the city to "synchronize" and give you an idea of what is in the area. Climbing anywhere and everywhere almost never gets old, a few of the larger buildings present almost puzzle-like challenges that require more thinking than just holding up on the stick and waiting, and the wide-pan view of the entire freaking city from way up in the air never fails to impress. It provides you a good escape from running around on rooftops or sneaking around in the streets, and in my opinion gives the game alot better pacing and flow then just trying to steamroll your way through the main events in the game (which would surely agitate and frustrate me). Sandbox games allow you to "go anywhere, do anything", but rarely does one encourage it so openly.

Flags and Templars add a "collectable" aspect to encourage even more exploring but with no in-game interface for keeping track of which ones you have already gotten and which ones remain, it can be frustrating to complete (even with help from a map) and usually offers only smaller diversions for players who catch them out in the open on their way to other areas or while on the run from guards.

What Ubisoft could have done to make the game feel less "repetitive" (a designation which I firmly deny to be true but entertain as a possibility nonetheless, as obviously someone feels it is true) would be to add in a greater number of "side quest" options and pull back on the number available in a given area. No one wants to feel like they should complete the same task TWELVE TIMES or more before having "finished" and area and preparing for the boss, but if you want to rescue all citizens or climb all viewpoints you just might. Instead, put a max on perhaps 2-4 (a larger cap for viewpoints, perhaps upwards of 8) and add in some other tasks to mix it up a little. Maybe pretend that the templars built "secret underground tunnels" and have Altair find and "explore" 2 of them, opening them as "waypoints" between different areas of the city. Or maybe an "Assassin's Challenge" to see how many guards Altair could stealthily kill in a set amount of time; that would even allow you to compare results with friends over xbox live. Maybe have a "training camp" similar to the tutorial area in Masayf where Altair is required to perform a certian number of moves in a give time frame. As you can see, turning those 12 "save the citizen" tasks into 3 or 4 groups of 3 or 4 tasks each would help to increase the variety of gameplay and keep the game from feeling "repetitive".

Overall the game represents a refreshing and exhilirating experience supported with meticulous attention to detail and enviornment design. The "little" things never fail to impress, from the unique camera angles available as "memory glitches" during cut scenes (that generally give a more cinematic feel to the story unfolding before you), the amount of care that must have gone into creating each city and character, and the "back story" behind the TRUE story. If you only go through the game with putting for the minimum amount of effort and never read any of the emails, pay attention to the detail given to you in each investigation, or watch the more cinematic camera angles in the cut scenes, then you really are missing out of some of the true entertainment and "magic" that this game possesses. Participating in the story as it unfolds, watching the characters interact and seeing Altair's transformation from "know-it-all" rogue to "inquisitive, learned informant" plays out very well and helps to slowly dole the truth behind the story to you in bits and pieces that give you just enough information to cause you to think, without unveiling the true secrets until the appropriate times. Some twists are more expected than others, but sometimes it is not the plot twist itself that remains interesting, but the journey that led to it. Altair's (and Desmond's) role in the whole thing become some of the most intriguing parts of the whole setup, and again, the story fails by seemingly dropping the game to an "end" sequence in a big tease of a cliff hanger more than a true "resolution" one would expect. In many ways, it plays out like an episode of LOST, but without the smoke monsters and attractive female lead character.

It is hard to recommend this game as a "rental" because in order to fully appreciate it you need to approach it with an inquisitive mind and not be straining to beat the game within a certian time limit. Truly exploring the world and story could push your play time well over 20 hours, and while collectable flags and templars can add several more hours on top of that, it still wouldn't scratch the surface of most RPG type games. I suppose if you think you can somehow squeeze that whole 20 hour play session into one rental period then by all means save the money; as fun as the game is, it does not really have any replay value outside of a full completion. Just know that you will probably miss out on alot of the game by restricting yourself to a certian time frame and trying to brute-force your way through the game. I would instead recommend a purchase; the story and gameplay are worth the monetary investment and freedom from time restraints, especially considering you can find the game as low as $30 to $40 already (depending on if you are looking to buy the 360 or PS3 version). The game is just plain fun, the story is cinematic and engrossing (even if a bit predictable), and the production values and attention to detail are top notch. Hopefully, the brisk sales will encourage Ubisoft to release "downloadable content" in order to expand on the game and keep us involved until they can release a sequel.

Well, there you have it. Four more games put on the chopping block and disected for your reading (and, perhaps, wallet's) pleasure. Considering that Super Tuesday was this week, and several other major stories have been brewing as of late (5 huge fiber optic cables in the ocean accidentally go offline in 1 week? sounds fishy to me...) expect the blog to shift back to a more half/half rant and review style then it has been as of late. For those interested in games, though, here's what I'm currently playing (and, therefore, you should expect reviews for coming shortly):

Title, System (comment)

Phoenix Wright: Trials and Tribulations, DS (This has been completed, so definitely this one)

Blue Dragon, 360 (completed for the most part, few achievements aside, so you'll see this soon)

Halo 3, 360 (completed, but don't expect multiplayer to be talked about much on my part)

Undertow, 360 XBLA (Played through single playet campaign, at least)

Uno, 360 XBLA (Played it some... isn't that enough?)


Games I'm currently playing that you'll see in the future:

Enchanted Arms, 360 (Just started... expect within a month or so. It is a JRPG so it may take a while)

Advanced Wars: Days of Ruin, DS (Also just started... expect campaign impressions soon, but replayability will keep it being mentioned for a while)

Viva Pinata, 360 (Been playing off and on, kinda far so I have initial impressions but there's alot of game left here)

Overwhelmed

Boy, am I behind! I've so many games to catch up on - no thanks in part to just having gotten my 360 - that I'm going to be busy for a while. Add to that the fact that 2008 already has some killer titles coming out as early as February (Apollo Justice) and continuing throughout the summer (GTAIV, Brawl, etc) that I'm not going to be in a "gaming drought" anytime soon. That being said, here are my personal impressions on the latest titles that I've played.

Super Mario Galaxy

We'll start off with the Wii, and you can't possibly talk about the Nintendo Wii without mentioning Super Mario Galaxy. Mario games, as of late, have not exactly been my cup 'o' Tea. Super Mario Sunshine (GameCube) did not exactly strike a chord with me; not only did I not collect all the shines, but I didn't even beat Bowser. I borrowed "New Super Mario Brothers" from a friend hoping to see if it was good enough to warrant purchase, and while I can say I enjoyed the game on some level overall I felt it lacked any real pizzazz and never did finish it or buy it. So when Super Mario Galaxy was first announced, I approached it with a certain level of trepidation. Being burned by the last two 'true' Mario games instilled no sense of loyalty in me and I couldn't even imagine how the Wii Remote could be used to "enhance" a game like Mario. I was content to love Mario 64 and, perhaps eventually, pick up Mario Galaxy. The Intention was to purchase my most desired game - Smash Brothers Brawl - and once Galaxy reached "player's choice" status or whatever they call it for Wii, finally give it a whirl. After all, even Sunshine was fun to a certian extent, and a Nintendo game generally has enough Polish to be worth a purchase at some point, regardless of being "Game of the Year" quality.

So here I am, 120 stars later, and willing to admit that I should not question what a plump, platforming plumber can do to a grown man. Galaxy grabs you and hooks you into simple, addictive gameplay so refined that it's almost impossible to convince yourself to put down the Wiimote for anything. You really get that "Just 1 more star" mentality and pretty soon it's 1am and you're wondering when the sun went down and why you haven't eaten dinner yet. In an era where First Person Shooters and RPGs seem to rule all the sales charts and be the apple of every critic's eye, this little gem goes down as the game that just might be able to top Mario 64 in my opinion as the best Mario game.

Hands down, the best feature is the crazy use of gravity. The clever gravity puzzles, the ability to jump off of a high tower and "fly" all the way around the planet to the other side, the gravity changing fields and "oh wow" factor of running upside down on the roof or straight up the wall. It's all there, everything you could possibly image (and more) and it isn't limited to a few over used "see-saw" puzzles (see: Half Life 2). Sure, the gravity is not "logical" or even physically plausible, and it is true that on more than one occasion you'll become disoriented and have no idea how to corectly move mario in the direction you want him to go. These are but small flaws in a system that genuinely takes an old, tired game genre and - no pun intended - flips it completely upside down. Has it been done before? Probably. Is it perfect? No. I found more than one time where I died because I wanted to run left but Mario instead ran right, or couldn't see around corners or in tight areas due to some 'iffy' camera controls, but overall the game delights in so many ways that you do not account much for these.

I've already completed the game (and by complete I don't mean beating the last boss, which can be done with only 60 stars, but having collected all 120 stars) and simply cannot wait to play the game over again. The only complaints I really have for the title lie with it's potential, which may be somewhat unfair. When I say it could have been better, it is not because it was bad or lacking, but because suddenly I can see even MORE they could have done. Perhaps the biggest tease (warning, SPOILER!) is the fact that near the end of the game you can gain access to a "flying" cap similar to that in Mario 64. Unfortunately, this never seems to be utilized in the actual levels and instead is completely limited to the "overworld" area. What gives, Nintendo? Some of the most enjoyable levels from Mario 64 were the stars that required using the flying cap! Shooting yourself out of a cannon and then flying around the level always felt amazing and was loads of fun even without the necessity to have a set "goal" to accomplish. You even went so far as to add it into the game, so why not make use of it? Perhaps I just missed it, but I've collected all 120 stars and still have not seen it available in any of the normal levels. Obviously the hat couldn't be used in several places - ones in outer space that you generally "flew" around in anyway with pull stars or bubbles and the like - but even one measly "observatory" filled with 5-10 "bonus" or comets that would visit some of the bigger planets would've been enough.

I also missed the 100 coin stars and 'collect 8 red coin' stars, which were replaced with 'collect 100 purple coins' stars. The 100 purple coin stars were my least favorite because they generally involved exploring levels down to the most detailed of nooks/crannies, and while 95+ would be easy to find those last few would always take several minutes of not-so-fun backtracking to find. 'Hunt for the 8 red coins' was by far a better system, focusing on exploration combined with innovative or unique collection (flying, climbing, sliding, jumping, fighting, etc) rather than a laundry list of holes and corners to hide things behind. While these levels were generally still "fun" and I'd often find myself discovering new areas or "secrets" within each level I would revisit, overall it was always haunted by this fear of "great, how long will THIS collection take?".

"Comets" were a great way to "up the ante" for more hardcore gamers looking for a challenge, and generally were handled very well. I especially liked the daredevil challenge, as you faced the familiar while being required to not lose a single life. Sure, it could be frustrating at times, but you always knew it was because of something you did, not because you were "unlucky". Cosmic races weren't quite as fun or unique as the N64 versions that inspired them but still added a bit of variety to the challenges.

Overall, Galaxy was an incredible experience and one I cannot emphasize enough for any Wii owner. In all likelihood, though, you already knew that. So let's move on to...

Zack and Wiki

The game doesn't have a lot going for it from a "mass market" standpoint. Cartoony visuals combined with rather bland or uninspiring titles aren't exactly the one-two punch for a best seller, given the target market for Zack and Wiki is not going to be pre-teens. Whatever funding was lacking in marketing, however, must have been because they diverted all of their attention to gameplay, and it shows. Zack and Wiki is a "point and click adventure" which in this day in age has been relegated to "niche" status, barely holding it's own and scraping by as a genre. Games like Sam and Max and Phoenix Wright keep the genre going almost exclusively through well written (and often times humorous) plots more than the sense of "exploring" or puzzle. These games are good in their own right (I can only speak for Phoenix Wright, having never really played Sam and Max) but they fall very short of the genius that is Monkey Island.

So when Zack and Wiki was announced, quite a few heads turned... especially since the Wii platform offers such a unique opportunity to really push the game to a new level. And let me tell you, Capcom didn't just push, they SHOVED. The first few levels may be easy, but the difficulty quickly ramps up and each puzzle offers a unique solution (sometimes even two or three) that make full use of all of the Wii-motes many unique features. Gesture based actions (pushing/pulling), IR sensing (moving/blocking), position based actions (turning keys, attacking with swords) - just when you think you've seen it all, Campcom finds some other way to astonish and amaze you. Wiimote speaker? Wiimote Balancing? Wiimote Shaking? It's all here. And they don't feel "tacked on", either. Each one is deliberately and lovingly thought out to the point that many solutions could not simply be boiled down to "pressing a button". I can't go into too much detail without giving away some of the puzzles in the game, but with any other controller this game would more than likely have to rely too much on it's graphics and story (neither of which are really anything to write home about), and the game would lose quite a lot of its charm and character.

Speaking of which: personally, I enjoy the way the game is presented. It's not quite up to "Galaxy" levels, and the art style is definitely something that will be just as limited by personal taste as it was by artistic direction, but the more anime-inspired cartoon look really gives the game a life of its own. I will admit that I am a fan of the sort of "over the top" emotional response that come from these anime-like visuals, but everything from Zack's little "Victory Dance" to Captain Rose's "Angry" animations will almost always elicit a chuckle, if not an outright laugh. The character interaction is it's strongest point, showing off an impressive set of "emotion" responses that, while canned never seem to get old despite their overuse. There's no real "Voice Over" work, aside from a few simplistic "cheer" or "grunt" sounds (like, say, Mario or Zelda) which is both sad and good at the same time. Generally, new IPs offer the best option to adding Voice to a character because that character has yet to truly be "defined" in the minds of gamers. Zack and Wiki could have reached above and beyond, giving their already strong character line-up an extra level of "depth" with some quality voice work, but at the same time I can see how sticking to text was a better choice. Given the art style, the setting, and the select "voice" already available in the game, I can see how having to listen to this for prolonged periods of time would really start to grate the nerves and serve as a detraction from the overall experience, and not as an addition to it.

Despite it's flaws, Zack and Wiki remains a very solid title with beautiful presentation and ingenious gameplay. The lower price point ($40, and perhaps already dropped to as low as $30) only add to the value packed into this highly overlooked title. While I can safely assume that most Wii owners know about Galaxy and have made up their minds about it, Zack and Wiki seems doomed to be lost forever to almost zero marketing and stylized graphics. For your sake, as well as mine (I want a sequel!), please go buy this game. I can guarantee you will NOT be disappointed (if you are, there is something definitely wrong with you). It's not hard to miss this game when walking through the store, but it's hard not to fall in love with it once you pop it into your Wii's disc slot.

While we're on the topic of Nintendo, let's move to the Nintendo DS:

Final Fantasy XII : Revenant Wings

Most people know that I have an unnatural love affair with Square. In my younger, more naive years, slapping "Final Fantasy" on just about anything would have me immediately place it as a "Game of the Year" contender regardless of having ever even seen or played the game myself. $50 for "Final Fantasy: Cooking with Cid?". SIGN ME UP! But after a punishing myself on Final Fantasy X (who, as a game, I loved, but as a story I despised) and refusing to even acknowledge FFX-2 and FFXI as real games (a true sequel and an MMO? What was Square thinking?) and having my bank account nearly shattered by the release of Crystal Chronicles on Gamecube (loved the idea but could never get enough people/Gameboys/cables to complete it), I've become more skeptical of Square games. Tactics Advanced helped to woo me in a time of betrayal and abuse, but Square no longer gets the automatic seal of approval that it used to from me (This is left to Blizzard and Nintendo, it seems...). I had no chance to play Final Fantasy XII (I finally got my PS2 back, and now own a copy, so I'm working on that fact) but when it was announced that Square would make a "spin-off" of FFXII on the DS I simply groaned out my usual "who cares, another sequel" and went on my merry way. Then, I heard it was an RTS... and I started to pay a bit more attention. An RTS? On the DS? Can it be?!?

Sure, maybe Heroes of Mana did it first, but now we're talking an RTS with the story of an RPG on a system with a touch screen and a rather large world to build off of (FFXII received very high reviews, so I was hopeful here). Not being able to contain my desire for Phantom Hourglass gave me the perfect excuse to add FFXII: Revenant Wings to my Christmas list, and I can safely say it was a good choice.

The game plays sort of like WarCraft III, in that you have "hero" units with abilities and stats above and beyond your normal units. There is no real "resource management" in this game, so the gameplay is much more focused on the battles. The battle system is, overall, a positive for the game. Gambits help to remove the monotony of having to continuously watch all 5 characters and cast their magic spells without completely overpowering them (you only choose 1 spell to auto cast, so any others you still have to go and select manually). The diversity in level design is an added but possibly unnecessary bonus (it's not always "kill everything", although that usually works to complete the level, too) and, aside from the last boss and last few "free missions", you don't have to "grind" out levels. Controls can be somewhat frustrating, especially when trying to select just 1 specific unit/hero. Too much on the screen can make the slightly-imperfect touch screen stand out as a limiting input factor, but overall the touchscreen does a very good job of bringing RTS games to a platform that otherwise would have never worked.

The "Synth" system does quite a bit to overhaul the standard fare "buy better items" syndrome that tends to plague RPGs. You are offered the chance to purchase low and sometimes medium grade "ingredients", or go on a scavenger hunt to find that "high" quality piece that will really give you a big boost in stats. You can also "customize" the weapon to place a bit more emphasis in one area over another (say, stamina over speed, defense over damage, etc) through the use of cleverly worded (but sometimes rather ambiguous) "questions" about the characters or what you might do in certain hypothetical situations. It adds much more "strategy" to actually upgrading your weapons, considering you will have to share ingredients among several different units. So, if you use "high" quality on 1 or 2 characters, several others will be forced to use "medium" or "low"... or perhaps not get upgrades entirely until the next recipe book comes along. It would have been nicer if the game was a bit more forgiving on telling you where you could go to "find" these high quality materials, but perhaps that is a part of the "exploration" elements.

Overall, the game was quite enjoyable and offered a few dozen hours of impressive story telling, character development and, of course, it's fair share of large-scale battles. The last boss and free missions are more an excercise in annoyance than seems fair, but I suppose they are more the "Omega" weapon of this game. Having my level 50 units under constant and relentless attack from level 90 units was neither fun nor encouraging, but I'm sure someone sees this as a "challenge" and will try to grind it out until they can defeat them... but unless I become woefully lacking in games, this option does not seem likely for me. My units did not have enough HP to take on the last boss, so it did take grinding out 5 or 6 levels (and a few weapon / armor upgrades) to finally put an end to him, but if you find yourself focusing more on a core set of units (I tended to try and level them all equally) and play around in the "free battles" more (I only did 2 or 3 free battles up to that point) I'm sure things will go much easier for you.

Overall, the title comes recommended. It is hard to outright name it a sort of "MUST BUY" title, especially given that the DS has a HUGE library of amazing games, but if you like RTS or Final Fantasy I'm sure you can easily become engrossed in this game. My heart will always lie with more "turn-based" strategy games (Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2, where are you?!?!) but Square certainly deserves some credit for pushing their AAA productions outside of their established markets and into new territory.

To make this easier on me (and you, the reader) I'm going to break this one up into a few parts. Despite having "finished" or played enough of these games to write about them now, I'll leave it up to my next "rant" to give myself more time to prepare for it, and to not just hit you with a wall of text. Also, it leaves me a nice buffer zone in case I start to get behind in my games (which will probably start happening once I hit all of these 40+ RPGs I've got lying around.)

Left to do: Title (System)

Assassin's Creed (360)

Crackdown (360)

Call of Duty 4 (360)

Gears of War (360)

As you can see, the next post will probably be a little Xbox heavy (although AC and CoD4 are on the PS3/PC as well), so for the curious here's what I am currently chipping away at. You can expect to see mentions of these coming up in the not too distant future:

Upcoming: Title (System)

Blue Dragon (360)

Phoenix Wright 3 (DS)

Brain Age 2 (DS)

Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn (Wii)

Marvel Ultimate Alliance (360)

Achievement Unlocked! (Rant Version)

Thank you for indulging me. Now that I've had a couple of nice days off, I'm ready to get back into ranting before the REAL holidays begin.

Most importantly, graduation. It is a very strange feeling, not having school to worry about. Ever since I started school at Georgia Tech it was like all I ever did was worry about school: what's that next project? When's the next test? What's my grade? What classes am I going to take next semester. Limitless questions, endless options, tons and tons of problems and always something new to look out for meant that even holidays were spent doing homework, working on group projects, or studying for tests. Now that I'm done done - not just "done with this semester, on to worrying about the next one" done - life seems so much more... enjoyable. Not that life at Tech wasn't enjoyable; while it was grueling and taxing it was also loads of fun and I made a plethora of new friends that I still talk to on a frequent basis. But when I was in school, I could never seem to really enjoy myself because there was always that other thing I knew I should be doing: studying, working, organizing, updating, researching.

Even though this week hasn't been easy on me - finding an apartment, setting up internet/gas/electricity, changing addresses and phones and all that moving nonsense - I've actually found that I enjoy myself even though I still feel rather busy. Maybe my mind has finally released its death grip from my emotions and allowed me to enjoy my free time with friends and family for a change, but after being home for the holidays it makes me half wish I had just taken a job here to be even closer to home because, aside from a few people, I really miss them and they are all people I really enjoy being around. Things have been so hard on my family recently - mother getting engaged, grandmother dying, my moving, brother bombing in college, lawsuits and financial issues and all that jazz - that I'd feel better being able to keep up with them week to week instead of month to month.

But, I know I'll enjoy myself in Austin - I still know quite a few people there, and I'm really near to 2 great friends - and being close to Houston will at least give me the capability of coming home if need be, even if $4 gas starts to scare me away from doing so.

It is odd to think of myself as a "adult", and I suppose that on some level I will never feel that way. I've always been a "son" and even though now I'm out of college and well on my own I still find a need to have a "parent" watching over me to make sure I'm not screwing up. Not of my own necessity, but just as a matter of... it has always been there and feels odd when it isn't. Finding an apartment on my own was probably the first LARGE decision I've made without ANY input from my parents, and while I know I did my research and know that I made the "right" decision, not having someone there who knew "the ropes" to look towards for a thumbs up or thumbs down kind of approval was very strange.

We'll see how life takes me from here: next up is actually moving - which should happen sometime before I start work on the 7th. Once I do start, my family swears up and down I'll be clamoring to go back to college... but at this rate, I sincerely doubt that.


In staying with the title, I'd like to take a few minutes to talk about Microsoft's "Achievement" system, which is a cross between the most genius and most fiendish thing I've ever seen added to a game system. While at first it seems like there isn't much to it, just some "score" to tell you what you've done in the game, if it is done right it really adds a lot of value and replayability to a game, not to mention challenge and, perhaps, bragging rights. There are several games that I've played on 360 that had their "game lifetime" extended significantly because I was trying to get more achievements points. XBLA games benefit from this especially, since theses kind of games tend to not have "goals" or a purpose and I would have quickly lost interest otherwise.

I am mesmerized by Hexic HD, stuck trying to get 75,000 points in timed or multiple black pearls simply because they are achievements. Kameo (which I'll talk about later) has some replability to it.... assuming it is not next to impossible to get "A" rankings in the score challenge mode. Carcassone was fun on it's own, but achievements made me play it more to try and get better and to challenge others online. Marble Blast Ultra (also later) gave achievements for both just beating a level and beating it on par time, which made me more likely to give levels several attempts when otherwise I would've just moved on (see: Mercury Meltdown). And while games like Metroid Prime: Corruption for Wii added an achievement-like system (basically playing Corruption gives you a type of "currency" you can spend on bonuses to the game depending on what you do), the system is not as well thought out or goal oriented as the 360 seems to be. In a day where games are taking fewer and fewer hours to beat (because they are charging you more for less), it is nice to have these extra "goals" to try and accomplish that add replay value and challenge to games I already own. Overall, it is an incredible system, and while it is not as "revolutionary" in terms of gameplay as the Wii was, it is still an incredible addition and I wish that all Wii games had the same thing.

Speaking of my 360, Rock Band has seen an INCREDIBLE amount of play recently. My roomates and I at GT became "Hall of Fame" inductees on medium (with me playing guitar), my other friends and I ended up getting about 3/4 of the way to Hall of Fame (with me singing), and even now my friends and I in Houston are attempting to play through the game on hard (with me playing drums). For the record, drums are HAAAAAARD. However, I find the drums the most fun to play, only because A) I'm already very good at singing so there is no real challenge aside from not falling asleep B) Drums are much more involved than singing or guitar and, while difficult, not as annoyingly difficult as guitar can be and C) because drums just feel more like playing a real instrument. My arms are flailing everywhere, sweat dripping down my brow, foot spasming from trying to do double taps without also tapping on the drum... all very difficult, but also very entertaining. I am getting better at them, but there are 1 or 2 rhythms that I just cannot for the life of me seem to be able to do, mostly revolving around alternating hitting the drum pad and tapping the foot petal during fast songs. Here's a hint, though: DON'T PLAY METALLICA. Songs are so much fun to play, but you basically just lose fans left and right because they are so hard. I mean, for us anyways. Not like we are the best of the best, I guess.

On other 360 news, Kameo (a launch title for the 360 back in 2005) is a rather fun game. I am not quite as sold on the way that their scoring system works, though. Basically, there are three different types of score multipliers: Carnage, Brutal, and Frenzy. As an action-adventure style game, there is alot of sort of free-range fighting with waves of enemies and mobs of trolls for you to dispense at your leisure. Every time you kill a troll, regardless of the circumstance, you get a "carnage" multiplier added. When you kill them in creative or especially brutal ways (for instance, pushing them off a cliff or throwing them into lava) you get a "brutal" multiplier. If you two trolls within 5 seconds of each other, you get a "frenzy" multiplier. So, obviously, it is better to get a hoard of trolls together and try to dispatch them as quickly and mercilessly as possible. Sounds easy, right? Ha. Think again. If you get hit, you lose multipliers. You also have a very limited set of movements and number of times you can use them before you have to wait for your power to replenish. By the end of the game I had somewhat gotten the hang of it, but I'm probably nowhere near to getting "A" scores on levels (required for Achievements), especially considering how many levels have random projectiles or awkward platformer-esque sequences. The game was certainly worth the $15 I paid for it, but at only 11 or so hours for game completion (if that, I'm being rather generous) and how bland the game looks (although for a launch game of the first "next gen" system, I may have been more impressed 2 years ago) I might have felt a little cheated if I had purchased it for $60. I'm glad I played it, but it was certainly no Banjo-Kazooie... which makes me worried about Banjo-Kazooie 3.

Marble Blast Ultra was a cheap little XBLA game that I purchased with some left over MS points after purchasing the Metallica songs for Rock Band... and a new Gamertag Avatar. (P.S. Can we please stop it with the point systems already? What am I going to do with that random 20 MS points or whatever that I have left?) The game is not nearly as difficult as Mercury Meltdown - most levels were beaten under par time on first attempt until I got up to the last 10-15, as opposed to Mercury Meltdown which has taken 3+ attempts since about the first 15 levels or so. Some of the last few Marble Meltdown levels, though, would be nigh-impossible for me to even consider getting under par time on. Just finishing them was impressive to me. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes marble-type games, it is fun and the online multiplayer could really extend its life, and for $5 or whatever the equivalent is you can't go wrong with a purchase. It is one of those games that I may play for a few minutes once a week or every other day just to have some fun and (slowly) work my way towards the online point collection achievement.

Lastly, let me leave you with a few impressions of Assassin's Creed. Having not played it extensively myself, but at least having a bit at a friend's, the game is quite fun and really achieves a good mix of "Prince of Persia" and "sandbox". I am amazed at home much fun simply climbing walls, running on roofs, or (my personal favorite), jump-assassinating guards can be even without following the actual plotline of the game. The game looks AMAZING in HD and, while it did have issues with freezing and glitching at first, it seems to have been fixed since then. Personally, I cannot wait to get this on my 360... but I'll have to hold out on playing until I get my HDTV so I can play it like it was meant to be played. No worries, though... I'm sure Super Mario Galaxy will keep me MORE than busy until then.

Achievement Unlocked!

I'll actually write the rant later (once I'm not busy graduating or driving back to Texas) but here's a little something I threw together in honor of my graduating:



P.S. In case you want to know - and so I don't forget - the next rant should cover graduation, 360 achievements, Hall of Fame in Rock Band, Assassin's Creed impressions, Kameo, and Marble Blast Ultra. (Plus, of course, whatever else I think of.

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.

The Sands of Time

Between my last two plane rides - once to go home to Houston for vacation, and once to go to Austin for an interview - I have completed The Legend of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass. The game is alot of fun, and while it may be "short" it's a lot longer than Minnish cap was, not to mention all the extra stuff you could do to really extend the life of the game.

To say that the entirely touch screen implementation was a complete success would be lying - movement still seemed odd, especially when my right hand would cross in front of the screen because I was trying to quickly move left. Things like rolling on the ground felt awkward and never seemed to work right 100% of the time; instead, I'd end up just slashing in that direction or making Link walk like some drunkard. It did not get me killed or anything serious, but it did prevent me from using those moves, especially when in the heat of battle, and provide a little frustration here or there.

However, to say the touch controls are a complete flop is not only a lie, but a great disservice to the game's greatest strength: it's uniqueness. How Link handles items in game is so refreshing and so much "fun" that it can take some of even the most basic puzzles and give a smile while you are playing it. It's hard to not enjoy drawing your own path with a boomerang or guiding a bombchu directly into an enemy or switch. It's hard to not draw on the map, and allows the game to drop you far more "clues" throughout the game for you to piece together, instead of having to rely on writer's hand-feeding you choice pieces of information over and over again to make sure you don't forget it. When you've beaten a dungeon or explored the ocean and you see all your notes scribbled everywhere with notes like "How do I reach this?!?!" or "big treasure here" it just makes interacting with the world much more fun and less running around at random or memorizing enormous dungeon maps.

If you own a DS, you owe it to yourself to get this game. It's a breath of fresh air, and proves once again that the basic Zelda formula can be applied to a new game mechanic and feel like it's a completely new experience unlike any other Zelda you've ever played. I guarantee, you would not be disappointed.

But enough about Zelda, let's get to ranting. This is something I've wanted to talk about for a long time, but have never found the right opportunity to do so. This past week has given me the spark I need to finally get this out in the open.

Consoles. These mystical, magical devices provide some of the greatest gaming experiences of my time - Final Fantasy VII, Ocarina of Time, Twilight Princess - but at the same time it seems to have created a sub-culture in the gaming industry, where everything is a war and you must fight tooth and nail at every moment to prove your console of choice superior to all others in every single way possible, simultaneously, and watch them bow in shameful defeat whilst you gloat about your amazing "exclusives" and praise those whom provide you your daily sustenance of electrons. Why someone would take this insanely high level of devotion towards a video game company is striking at best, and annoying beyond all reason the rest of the time. Reading Digg's gaming stories (or IGN... or Slashdot... or basically anything that has to do with gaming and allows comments), you would think that this was the Presidential election (wait, nevermind, there's more interest than that seems to garner) or some religious debate (although, to some, gaming may indeed be a religion of sorts).

But, no, it is just some lost fool's completely misguided devotion to a single, "do no wrong" entity. What drives these people to such madness? What creates "X-bots", or the "Sony Defence Force", or Nintendo "Fanboi's"? The only thing I can even begin to compare it to is Apple's loyal following, who (though small in number) have created a community so tight knit and engulfing that once Apple released a product that was actually a commercial success, it seems to have spread like a freaking disease, turning normal people into completely unreasonable product zombies. What causes such a crazy, innate desire to defend a company at all costs?

Well, I have my theories, although most of them are drawn from my own experiences. While I try to stray away from the usual "I love company X and they can do no wrong", I am not without my preferences when it comes to games. Certian companies - namely, Blizzard, Square-Enix, and Nintendo - do get some benefit of the doubt because they have proven time and time again that the games they make will be top notch, AAA titles that will define genres and stay in my console (or PC) for years or even decades without feeling old or boring. When a company has several franchises that it consistently performs well with (Starcraft, Warcraft, Diablo... or Mario, Zelda, Metroid) it's hard to treat these masters of the business the same as one might treat, say, Electronic Arts, who's only legacy is that they have stockpiles of money and can buy you up whenever they start running out of ways to profitably resell the same Madden game each year for $60.

That's not to say, however, that these companies are flawless. Nintendo has more than it's fair share of mistakes - Virtual Boy, Cartridges, Online, Friend Codes, to name very few - so when someone feels the need to complain about these things, I can whole heartedly agree. Currently, Nintendo's greatest faults (despite it's numerous successes) is the butchering of the Gamecube to promote the Wii (Twilight Princess, Super Paper Mario, etc), the insistence on using "Friend Codes" instead of something halfway reasonable like personal name tags, and lack of true High Definition gaming.
I'd even settle for 720p - a good step forward without the price tag of forcing 1080p - but instead I'm stuck playing games in 480p which we've had available for almost the past 5 years. Yes, HD adoption rates are still relatively low over all, but that number will more than likely swing the other way within the next year or two, and the Wii will start to look worse compared to the crisp, vibrant picture of even a 720p output. Halo 3, which only runs at 640p, may not look much different from Halo2 in terms of style, but seeing it on a HDTV makes everything like crisper and significantly better than the bland, blocky look of Halo 1 and 2. I won't even go into games like Gears of War or MGS4, which look simply stunning visually. And while I'm glad I didn't have to shell out $300 or (even $500 or $600) for my Wii, I do wish that some more horsepower could've been placed into the Wii to at least push out 720p content once developers got familiar with the platform.

Does this make the Wii terrible? No. I still love the system, and play it frequently. Nintendo has certainly proven it can still innovate and be creative in a business that was slowly stagnating into "the same old with more power!", and significant credit should be given for the Risk they took in marketing the Wii (and, before it, the Nintendo DS). But why do Nintendo "fanboys" have to act like the Wii will make incredible looking games, or that the friend code system is "great", or that any of the other flaws Nintendo still suffers from don't exist? It's the same with Sony fans trying to justify the flaws of the PS3 (let's not go THERE) or an "X-bot" shrugging off the Red Rings of Death as though massive failures in hardware units should be acceptable. These are still companies, and the only thing that they care about (WARNING: Generalization ahead. Not to be taken to be 100% accurate for everyone it encompasses) is making money.

So why are there people who, day in and day out, fight for these entities as though they are their best friends? Are they afraid they will feel foolish or laughed at because they bought a flawed product? Or that explaining away abuses of power will someone cause other people to jump ship and fight for the "just cause"? Why can't I just enjoy my games and you enjoy yours?

To me, having more than 1 console is a great thing, contrary to EA's desire to have only one. Let's face it, name the last time that an industry turned into a monopoly and it was GOOD for the consumer? If Sony was the only game in town... we'd have to still be using Betamax, UMD, or any other of their failed standards that try to lock you down (Rootkits, anyone?). If Nintendo was the only game in town, we wouldn't be playing games via the internet and would probably still have sweat coming out of our enemies when we hit them. Microsoft, well, we wouldn't have any products that actually work on a reliable basis. ;) But because Xbox Live was such a big hit, Sony and Nintendo are now providing online gaming. Because Sony has been pushing HD, Microsoft updated the 360 to run games at 1080p (or is it 1080i?) and to add an HD-DVD addon. Nintendo has been there to once again completely reinvent the wheel, and to show us that gaming, when marketed correctly, can become a mass-market entertainment device.

So I don't understand when someone wishes for their brand to succeed and the others to fail. Are PS3 owners glad that Sony had to have Microsoft Mop the floor with their Internet offerings before finally getting serious about online? Are Nintendo owners hoping that Microsoft and Sony will disappear so Nintendo can focus on Nintendogs 2 and lose focus on games like Project HAMMER and Disaster: Day of Crisis? Or, perhaps, be stuck at 480p NEXT generation too, with friend codes? Or maybe Microsoft's fan base would love to send their 360's in for repair every 6 months and severely over-hyping even the blandest of games through powerhouse marketing and running billions of dollars in debt every year.

Personally, I want all 3 companies to succeed. Competition will continue to breed better results, and Nintendo's return to the top is already causing Sony to take desperate action and Microsoft to extend it's warranty. Maybe Next generation Microsoft will draw the luck of the cards and it will be Nintendo's turn to once again play second fiddle while it improves it's offerings. Whatever it is, competition has given us all the things that make consoles great today - online functionality, improved involvement (via Wii or Sixaxis), better graphics and expanded ideas.

But please, fanbois, give it a rest. It's great that you love your system, but it's not flawless. Just stay at home and enjoy your games in peace, and hope that this generation stays close so that NEXT generation, we'll see even better improvements as each party fights to win our support and our money. And that, end in the end, means that we gamers will be the true winners. I just hope we aren't winners just in the month of november (seriously, couldn't they release some of these games earlier or later instead of dropping 120+ titles onto the market in 1 month?).