And with a new School year...

Come many thoughts flooding to my head about what to write about... I know i didn't write over the summer but, lets face it if you read my blog, your one of maybe 5 people at this point in time, maybe that'll change but now with the new school year my head juices are flowing and the blog must get re-going (i know that sounded dumb but it just came to me). With the shadow of fall the anticipation for more and more games build and build and with that anticipation my wallet becomes easier to carry.

Easy (co-)oportinity

When Gears of war came out with online co-op it seemed to be a must for games to have. Many games have jumped on the bandwagon such as Halo 3 and COD: world at war. With co-op came a social experience, while still progressing through the story of the game. However, compensation for having multiple people seemed to be the opposite of what games needed. Co-op created an enviroment for even the less skilled gamer to pass a campaign on the hardest difficulty with the help of a few friends. I'm not saying that this is a bad idea in fact it makes a gaming community more tight knit and makes what was once a solitary activity social. But, with the new player came no difficulty modifiers and thus made games easier. Why is it that when a game becomes co-op it has to be easier? It seems to me that with each new person new enemy's could be added or the enemies could be harder to kill forcing the players to work together. Instead, the enemies are hardly more difficult (if even that) and the number doesn't increase. This makes the game easier because twice as many bullets are flying (four times as many in Halo 3) and it even becomes harder to die. For example, in Gears of War a player has to restart from the last checkpoint in single player but can be brought back to life without penalty in Co-op mode. Taking skill away from games can make the games dull and boring no matter how social the experience is. Despite my complaints, I find myself wanting more games with co-op campaign as long as the difficulty is maintained. Left 4 Dead is a great example of how to use co-op. Having a human take over for the AI makes the game slightly easier but keeps it difficult because even if the AI can't shoot as well as your friends, they can certainly distract the enemies. No dynamics of the game are changed while playing co-op as well. A person is still killed and revived the sames, way. The only noticable change in gameplay is that you can talk to your partners. I wish more companies took the example of Left 4 Dead and kept a difficult game difficult and constant whether a player is playing co-op or single player.
I would like to take this chance to try and minimize criticizm on my difficulty statements, yes video games have been getting easier over the years and i wish this trend would stop.

Much ado about nothing (gaming edition)

Before any gaming expo there are alot of rumors that plague the internet and many blogs, websites, and thoughts are filled with speculaiton about these rumors or even starting rumors of their own. The latest of these rumor hyped articles is off of Crunch gear wondering about a xbox 360 team members tweet. I must say that this is one of the more valid options for information rather than focusing on the mass media press announcements. The information comes from the source but not directly hyping the product to a whole mass of people. In the tweet the team member says, "getting an earful cause Xbox 360 broke… What can I say, I still prefer it as a console. Just wait. Even better stuff is coming soon!" This is by far one of the few statements that can be taken as something to actually listen to. Just because a CEO of a company or the owner of a company says a huge annoucement is coming doesn't mean that the announcement is going to be big news. An executive of a company will always think what they have in store for the future is huge because they are one of the first to know and more than likely were one of the people involved in starting the idea. Information from a lower level employee however, is more important because they are the ones that are actually working on the product and probably know a little more about what the final product is going to be and how buggy it was, so on and so forth. Looking back at past news one announcement that stuck out was the Gears of War 2 announcment at GDC. Cliffy B did a great job at gaining attention for this because he (as far as I can tell) created a name on xbox live that looked like his but with slight differences so that he deceived a few, and intrigued many. This use of a forshadowing that is not direct and can create conversation was genious because it created hype that could be proven not to be fact because of the informant. At the same time however, do little tidbits like this really matter in the long run? Why is it that as a community we feel the need to know what is going to be announced before it is announced? The fact of the matter is there are some things we know are coming such as a new console but the release date is unknown. Just because we want something to be true many gamers and game reporters search for any possible statement that could lead to that conclusion. When Microsoft says that they have a big announcement planned for E3, or any expo, sites fill up with rumors of what this could be. Frankly the ideas that come out in these articles are, if anything, an insight into what the gaming community wants to be announced rather than what is most likely to be announced. Through these articles we can find what people want the most and until the actual announcement comes to be, it is simply a matter of who can be the most deceptive and innovative to create the most buzz about a product or idea that  may or may not come to be true. I say all of this ironically because the hype has gained my attention and I am writing about the hype as well. Regardless of rumor, true, or fact we will all have to wait until June to find out what truth's the companies are willing to announce.

Last minute F*** up

News Flash: The Ghostbusters Game is now a sony playstation exclusive. Why is this last minute change neccessary. What about all the people who pre-ordered for the 360. I know the exclusive is only timed but still, one month before release...Is it ethical to do this? I can understand if they needed to polish the game or finish the game to make it better for the gamers. One month before it ships a game should be finalized. If we let companies start doing this they will start making more  console exclusive games. Why do companies make games console exclusive or DLC?? It seems to me that the game developers are now deciding which consoles are selling the best. If ps3 had a lower price point I'm sure the sales would be better but there would still be more xbox360's sold because there are just games with a larger fanbase that are on the xbox360 and, with few exceptions, the DLC is only on xbox360. As I start to think about the last generation I wonder if the xbox would have sold at all if it wasn't for Halo or other exclusives. The last minute exclusive changes are uncalled for. Gaming companies are abusing of their power over gamers money and it needs to stop. This was more indirect than the Resident Evil DLC money making sceme but this is a direct screw you in the face of all gamers. 

Restricted content

The ESRB is a pre-teens worst enemy because of their age limits on buying games rated M. Why is it that games are seen as such a stem of violent behavior and un-suitible themes. Even on the back of the Halo novels there is a warning claiming "this novel is based off a mature rated video game." This is getting out of hand, if the book is so bad and graphic why don't they put an age restriction on it. Many books are worst and are accessible to anyone at any public library. One of the most objected to books in 2008 according to suite-101 was And Tango Makes Three. This book contains And Tango Makes Three by Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell. Reasons stated for challenging the book's suitability for schools and libraries: Anti-Ethnic, Sexism, Homosexuality, Anti-Family, Religious Viewpoint, Unsuited to Age GroupRead more: http://womens-literary-prizes.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_most_challenged_books_of_20072008#ixzz0EHLxzCQr&B. Even with the many objections to this book there is no age restriction or even a disclaimer on or in the book saying it contains content unsuitible for any age group. Why is it that violence in a book that is based off a video game is worst than a book with themes that contain content anyone will find offensive. Why claim that just because a book is based off a M rated game it is suddenly worst than sexism, racism, and religous claims? I could go to any book store and buy this novel among others with similar themes and could buy a book with more graphic descriptions of violence than the halo novel without knowing it, without a disclaimer but they feel compelled to let me know that a halo novel is based off a M rated game implying unsuitable content. Are graphic description suddenly better than a video game. WW2 or Vietnam novels are based on a war that actually happened and was more horrific than a video game could ever be simply because it was real blood and real lives that were taken and spilled.
Along with the books the ratings are skewed in a rediculous way. A pg-13 movie can have more graphic and mature content than a game you have to be 17 to buy, why is it that controlling the media becomes worst than watching someone else control it. I starting to wonder if games were rated like a movie if they would be rated R which is the equivilant of an M rating. Are video games being rated wrongly simply because they are games or is it the content?

Adding on...Is it really neccessary to block m rated demos when on a minors account? A parent can say it is ok for the child to download mature content and yet microsoft still blocks that content from that account. Same thing with retail games, an adult has to be there for every single purchase of an m rated game. At a store (gamecrazy for example) if you had an account the legal guardian used to be able to give permission for a minor to buy any m rated game without them being there. This is no longer true regardless if the parent would let the buy the game or not. Just next to gamecrazy is hollywood video, if a minor is on a guardians account the guardian can set the limit to which games and movies the kid can rent, including R rated and M games. Why is it that an M rated game cannot be previously approved by a parent when you buy it but it can when it is rented. This is rediculous a parent should be allowed to decide what their kid can get without having to be there everytime and wasting their own time. 

Mommy, morality is getting into my games

It seems like after Bioshock came out with their ground breaking game full of new ideas such as plasmids, fps with rpg elements (to my knowlege), and most of all morality. A choice is given to the player to kill or save a little sister which has an effect on the ending as well as what you are able to upgrade and buy using ADAM. The same year (and quarter) mass effect used a paragon or renegade scale to determine if you were a friend or foe of the alliance. Now, it seems this is becoming a component of many games (mostly rpg's). Although the options were there before and were experience in sandbox gaming where a player could do what he/she pleased, it was never this obvious. From what I have heard the upcoming Prototype will have some sort of morality incorperated with the gameplay. This seems to be working but I am worried it will be overused in games that really don't need it. The only reason I can see it being relevant is in games such as Fallout 3 where your actions effect the ending as well as how people act around you and what missions you can do. I beleive this and Bioshock to be games which actualy used the morality instead of just giving the gamer something else to put on the in-game menu. Mass effect used it well in that they didn't emphasize it in the game and your actions affected reactions of AI but in the end, (spoiler..from 2007...gasp) sheperd won and the universe was salvaged. This trend, I beleive, will become very overused by January 1st 2011. This gives time for developers to create games which use the morality system multiple times. At this point in time it is a very fun addition as long as it effects the ending but just as platforming was used too much and nearly died after the N64, I beleive this will follow the same path. 

Guides and Gamerscore

Many people have used a strategy guide to help themselves in a game but with youtube and ign have the strategy guides met their superior? Before these guides were started the most likely source of help is from your friend who can find new insight into that level you've been stuck on for weeks. Then the guide came to save the day and a game can be beaten without thinking. Now....there is no need, youtube has endless walkthroughs of almost any game and on sites such as ign you can find cheat codes, walkthroughs and more. I admit to using youtube and a strat guide from time to time but should people be given the answers to a game? In the end I admit it is the skill of the gamer that will beat the campaign but skill is no longer finding a route but learning to hit the buttons at the right time. Are the strat guides and walkthroughs killing the gaming experience, or enhancing it? 

Many people see achievement points as enhancing a game experience and for the most part they do a good job I must applaud bethesda on their use of achievements to draw the gamer into side quests that will create a longer and more fufilling game experience (in my opinion). At what point does enhancement become obsession. We have all heard the term gamerscore whore which can be summed up into the simple name Avatar. This game proves that people will stop at no lengths to gain some online fame but in the end I look down upon them for caring more about a virtual point than the game itself. The experience and story are why I play, not the gamerscore, I have looked online for collectable item locations in gears of war and fallout (not in assassins creed every acheivement there is completely legit). It is this type of achievement that can become rediculous or can enhance the experience. Gears of war and COD:4 I found pointless because it was looking for items that in the end didn't effect anything. Gears of war 2 got somewhat better with their 41 collectables which actually provided information about the story for those who are interested and gave a new perspective on the war in some cases. There have been few games which I find the collectables to be worth finding such as the ingots in fallout 3: the pitt because they got me a better gun and a cool experience talking to the slaver. While these were somewhat annoying it was nice that there was more benefit than just gamerscore. My point in all of this is that gamerscore can be used to enhance the experience or be points and not achievements. GH3 is an example of a game that offers true achievements. Most of the achievements in that game are very hard to get and truly take talent and effort. While it was probably frustrating to some because they have 150GS and no hope of going any further it gave me a goal to strive for no matter how seemingly impossible. So to avoid droning on more than I already have I leave you as always with a question. How much of gamerscore is achievements and how much is points? 

Year round gaming

It appears that fall is no longer the only time great games will come out this year. June will bring us games such as prototype, the wii motion plus add on, and batman arkham asylum. This new trend is great news for someone such as myself who has lots of time to play games over the summer but is it really a good thing? Yes the titles will be on their own and will have less competition which is the route EA should have taken with Mirrors Edge and Dead space so is this a new trend or just testing the waters. Will May and June become the time to release new game titles and October November be a time to release sequels to already proven games? This would be a great idea for me. Honestly I still haven't played some games from Q4 last year and am definetly not done playing a good number of them. I don't know why i bought so many at once but it was possibly for the multiplayer so that the game didn't get stale with others by the time I started playing. Anyway, back off of that tangent...Why shouldn't game companies use the early summer to bring out their newes game series and ideas. With E3 the first week of june it would be a perfect time to release. Gain hype and give a hands on experience of the completed game a few weeks before release. This strategy would be great marketing and most likely boost sales because teenagers will have summer jobs and pre-teens will be babysitting and mowing lawns. It is a well  known fact teens get most of their spending money in the summer so why not give them something to spend it on before it's gone. The summer looks great for gaming and all i can say is I wish i could take my tv outside and tan while gaming...without glare.

Anticipation...for a score

Many people try and argue the scores given to games by review companies based on their own experience or what they have heard about the game. How much does the anticipation for a game effect the scores? If someone has extremely high hopes for a game how are they supposed to review it when their original standard for the game was unreachable. If one expects perfection the game will be far less than they hoped for and this happens alot within the gaming community when people become infuriated at review scores. How many scores have been efffected by having a large amount of anticipation or being a new IP. A game such as army of two had terrible review scores so now with a sequel even if it's moderately good it will be a huge improvement over the first which could possibly effect the reviews by making the second game seem much better than the first. An example of the opposite situation is Gears of War 2. Gears of war (the original) had innovative gameplay and popular multiplayer. In 2009 Epic games released Gears of War 2 and it got very good review scores which are fine for the single player but the multiplayer was and arguably still is terrible. There was an uproar from the community but Gears of war 2 kept riding on the brand name and riding on an IGN score of 9.5 and a similar 93 on metacritic. Don't get me wrong i love playing gears of war 2 with the updates despite the chainsaws overpower in multiplayer. A game can sell great because of a review or because it's a sequel to a good game. Army of two was scored very low but the only problem is some movement issues that take some getting used to. It's no Orange Box or Mass Effect but it's definetly worth playing. GTA4 was given stellar reviews despite the absolutely horribly slow start to the game driving nicos cousin around and the obvious issues with car handling. Anticipation for a game can get a game a score it doesn't deserve as well as a big IP. So next time you see a review score take a look at the game for yourself before believing everything you hear. I would also like to bring up that 5.0 is a score for a game that has absolutely no merit any score below 5 or at 5 is not mediocre. A 1-10 scale is the same scale as a school grading scale  a 5 is technically the middle of the scale but really it's failing a 7 (like a c) could be considered average but is still written off. Anything below an 8 (or a B) is what people will want to buy and below an 8 has almost no sales because of the score. What is the point of having a 1-10 scale when it can be compared to a school scale? when will the middle of the scale truely be a middle (mediocre) game. 

Video games going down the tube...

E.T. is possibly the worst video game ever made and almost took down the whole industry, is Nintendo heading down the same path? With games such as cooking mama and petz I start to wonder whether nintendo will bring us down the same path as the atari 2600 did with their slew of horrible games meant to make a few quick bucks in a booming industry. The line was drawn at E.T. then so where will the line be drawn on the wii? At what point do we say that these games need to be made like a game should. I'm surprised developers are making such bad games considering the wii sales of games is not as great as their console sales. Most people buy the wii, play wii sports, and leave it alone until something mildly interesting rolls along around christmas and the game is gifted to some poor kid who is stuck playing wii music with no pay off or value. I'm not saying that metroid prime and super smash brothers aren't great AAA games but, so far, there are very few new IP's even worth playing not to mention buying. The nintendo seal of approval is no longer saying that a game is good, just that it works on the wii or DS. Why is it that making money is always more important than making a good game as shown by wii games and deadline games that turn out terrible?

Overpricing games neccesity??

Everybody knows that you can't have everything and money doesn't grow on trees but is $60 a fair price for a video game off the shelf? I do not know how much it costs to make a game or how much revenue the game developer gets of the money I spend on games but $60 a game seems very high. Along with the initial price for the game DLC, although expanding the game, seems almost a neccessity especially if one is to play online. So far, halo 3 has released 3 map packs priced at 800MS points, I spend $60 on the game and $30 on DLC this game is $90 so far. Fallout 3 is up to $80 with more DLC coming and I won't even imagine what the overall price of Rock Band 2 would be if someone downloaded every single peice of music. Rock band seems to have the right idea of making the music that will not change anything in the game and is in no way neccesary to play online or to get achievment points seeing as that's the only reason some people play certain games. The attemps to make games cost more than the initial price is overwhelming from the buying weapons plan of battlefield: Bad Company to the recent RE5 vs mode pricing instead of including it with the game (as mentioned in the abuse of DLC). Has pricing become out of control, or is it neccessary?

Onlive or online???

The recent announcement of Onlive has brought forth such comments as the console killer and I am not the first to say this is not true. For those who don't know, Onlive is a new video game system where the games will be in a huge server room and all someone needs to play is the little box and a computer or tv. This is a great concept in theory but in practice...not so much. What about the people who have a terrible connection and lag on even the simplest game? Beaming an entire game in real time is a task that no technology is up to the standard of at this point in time. It takes about 7 hours for me to download a game demo or xbox original, how do they expect for the computer to download the live information for the game, then send the desired action to the server, send it back to the screen telling it what to do, then send the signal over the internet for an online game, in the under a millisecond? I can see the video game industry moving towards all digital distibution which is fine, asseuming they provide the amount of memory required for such a task as to hold 30+ games as well as the save game in the case of a hardcore gamer. Downloading these games would take a long time with a bad connection and good connections can be very pricey and hard to get. Now it is not only about buying the console and the games but a good connection will create an overall better experience. This should be a concept and not a reality at this point in time. With the advances in technology we don't know where the industry will go next. Nvidea (i suck at spelling) has even created a 3-D card to be used with pc games, is this the future or a gimik only time will tell on the card as well as onlive. 

MORPG?

MMO's on consoles have been wanted for a while but who says that you always have to be online? Why can't an RPG just have online elements and options. Fable 2 was possibly the first RPG to include online play but including online play hardly enhanced the experience. I say that an RPG doesn't have to be MMO or not, why not just include the option for online play? Instead of trying to do the whole game online just do a mission or objective with friends. Using a certain mission would rid the problem of making it an mmo but still include enough online play to make it possible to play with a friend.

The death of rythm games

Guitar hero is a game that has been sweeping the nation from people bragging about beating the fire and flames on expert to just being a fun party game, but has this time passed? With the release of guitar hero world tour the question was raised on how many good songs are left to create on guitar hero or rock band. As I played through every song in the game I started to notice how few songs there were included on the disk and how easy they were in comparison to the last few games. Mind you, I have beatin guitar hero 3 and 1 on expert as well as rock band, rock band 2 and now guitar hero world tour but what i loved about guitar hero 3 was the challenge. I only failed one song on guitar hero world tour and haven't played the game since. I found that when the songs are easy, it's boring to play them over and over. The newest addition to the family, Guitar Hero Metallica, has promise briging the challenge back to guitar hero but is still no guitar hero 2 or 3. It seems to me that with the addition of the new instruments there came a drop in difficulty and a rise in variation of song type. Spanish songs are abundent in GHWT and the incoming country pack brings more variety to the song list but niether category delivers the difficulty for which i lust. Why is it that trying to make the game more user friendly such as adding a begginer mode means that the challenge on expert has to be watered down so that new users will buy the game. I refuse to buy any guitar hero game new until the difficulty returns and I beleive that the community should follow. It's great that they want to get more people playing their game, but taking away the finger numbing songs that appeared in previous installments to make room for this new market is rediculous. If i buy guitar hero metallica, it will be used and for well under $50. Frankly, I'm content playing fallout 3 or mass effect again instead of playing a fake guitar game that I will beat in a week. 

The problem with online play...

Online play is great. If you are sitting at home alone in the middle of a blizzard, you can still meet your friends online and play halo or gears of war with them at any time of day or night. Finding peoeple to play with on other games however...might be more difficult. Wich brings up the question, do the scores given by critics affect the number of people who get the game and completely ruin the online experience for others, and is it really worth it to get a game that is more than a year old.

Army of two is a game that was given very low scores from almost every magazine and site but when you get right down to it, playing with a friend is really fun despite the movement issues. However, if your friends will not play this game with you (such as mine) how can you expect to find anyone to play with when no one else got the game? The main focus of the game is meant to be playing online either in co-op or versus mode. If anyone can get online and find one game of versus, they are incredibly lucky. No one is ever on this game, not to mention if anyone paid for the DLC and is online to play that. Games such as Army of Two are completely ruined by the lack of people online. This is not the only case. As well as the orange box sold it is now a game overlooked by many because they have already beaten portal and half life. Others  have moved on but what about the people that still want to play team fortress 2? They are left in the cold because others have moved on. Why should the ones that bought a sub-par game or got it late suffer? Online gaming is great, but how long before you try to get on left 4 dead and have to play with bots who can't tell left from right not to mention talk to you.

The Abuse of DLC

RE5 has created much controversy from the assumption of racism to unfair price gouging but why this game? why has this never been brought up before? With the recent outcry of hatred towards the impeding RE5 DLC which adds multiplayer to the game which hasn't even been out for a month, I started to wonder if any other developer has been holding out on us. The first blatent case of (attempted) misuse was whem EA and DICE announced the use of microsoft points to purchase multiplayer weapons in Battlefield:Bad Company. This, of course, was nitched due to the outcry from the community and the impending boycott of the game but now with RE5 making the whole multiplayer experience downloadable, the issue arises and along with it so do questions. Like whether or not other developers have disguised DLC as something they should have included in the game but just neglected to in order to gain more money. Gears of war 2 was released and with a new copy came the flashback map pack which seemed to bother people enough that used copy gamers would have to buy it off of marketplace but I have never once heard any outcry or talk in general about the combustible map pack. This map pack was released barely over a month after the retail game launched and many opted for the download and with it new achievement points. Was this just a matter of timing, achievement points, or just making a few extra bucks? It seems like with the timing the maps should have been done before the game was released. Now with 1250 gamerscore under its belt, Epic games is releasing another map pack, again including achievement points with the pack. The snowblind map pack as it's being called seems like it should have been the first DLC for the game as it seems more random and less in theme with the rest of the maps on gears of war 2, yet there is no fight against this and for the limited edition holders of the game $90 will be spent to get on a game with mediocre servers. This is only the begining, the game hasn't even been out a year and the DLC is already pouring in but unlike (the DLC in) Rock Band, downloading these maps is almost necessary to keep up with the gears community. The only reason this is such an issue in my mind is there are many more issues to be worked on than new maps such as an ending that doesn't suck and servers and matchmaking that works. No, I'm not calling Gears of War 2 a bad game, in fact I believe it to be incredibly fun but DLC should not be a focus at all at this point in the games career. Another Q4 2008 game releasing tons of DLC is Fallout 3. This game definetly delivers enough gameplay from the retail and seems like the DLC so far is just adding to the experience but is not neccessary. However the Pitt and Operation Anchorage seem very short in comparison to Broken Steel which is the last of the new missions to be downloaded sometime next month. Is selling these two seperately really necessary? or is it another case of hidden profit by a company. Bungie is also following suite in this divide and conquer tactic towards DLC. Yes the limited edition of Halo wars got the Mythic Map pack first, but that's understandable and a good marketing strategy. What really seems to be the profit margin is splitting up the mythic map pack into two seperate downloads. I don't care if it's 6 maps, release it all at the same time, or at least charge less for the individual downloads, DLC started out as a way to expand the game experience but it is quickly becoming a way for companies to earn extra profit. All this DLC is making me wonder how long until updates become something to buy?

Can the used game industry make peace with game developers?

There has been lots of opposition from game developers towards used game sales and trading such as playswitch, gamestop, gamecrazy, and renting games by service like gamefly or blockbuster. Game developers are going to lenghs to stop this by doing such things as including DLC codes in new games that a used game customer would have to buy. Others are wanting to start %100 online distribution of their games which would completely halt the used game sales as data cannot be re-sold. I say that developers should be trying to work with used game sales and trading instead of butting heads. I know I have done my fair share of buying, selling and trading used games at gamecrazy but that does not mean I don't want to support the companies that make the games. Why can't these companies start tacking on charges that would be pure profit towards the developer? It wouldn't be as much as they would get from a new game, but it would help to end this conflict while still supporting the companies that make gaming possible. I do like the 20 or 30 bucks I save buying used but i always feel bad not supporting the industry and only supporting gamecrazy (I am completely against gamestop and believe them to be ignorant about games). I would love to pay an extra $5 or so of money to go directly to the publisher and developer. granted, I'm not sure how much profit per new game a developer makes but I would absolutely love to get a discount on the used copy as well as give money to the developer that worked for months or years to design and code the game. I see no problem to this, I already pay $3 for gameguard (if i break, even snap, my disk I get a new one), so why not pay an extra 5? In times such as this where money is tight people are looking for bargains, but if a bargain does not support anyone but the store it does absolutely no good to anyone. Send the word that used game sales should support developers, not that developers should despise used game sales.

Jumping right in:2008 Q4 overlooked games??

Q4 of any given year is always a time for video game developers to bombard the gaming community with video games of all types. 2008 was no different with fallout 3, left 4 dead, and gears of war 2 being some of the AAA titles 2008 had to offer. But, with all the buzz and hype surrounding these games and funds running low, many games were not bought and are diamonds in the rough as some may say. Games such as the EA releases of Mirrors Edge and Dead Space saw poor sales. Well, I beleive these two games to be very inticing and at least worth a rent if not a buy. Dice truly brought gamers a new experience that can be described as Assasins Creed or Prince of Persia (another Q4 title) in a first person perspective. While Mirrors Edge has a much more distinct appearence of a brightly colored city rather than taking advantage of natural beauty this style works very well for the first person perspective. I say this because it provides a beautiful view but most beauty lies in front of the player. Yes to the sides there is a city that can be viewed in times of leisure but when the running is "intense" the faith still offers the player spectacular scenes in front of the player. The controls take some getting used to but as you play they become as natural as using the right trigger to shoot in any fps. While there is no multiplayer the leaderboards for time trials and speed runs offer a close to multiplayer experience. The game allows you to download ghosts of other users time trials. While this is not direct multiplayer you can race any ghost, including your friends, and try to beat them or get some ideas for a better route to improve your time. Mirrors Edge is a must play, whether its a rent or a buy is up to your specific tastes. If you are expecting lots of combat this is not your game. There is limited combat and most of the fun is avoiding combat and finding a way around it. The story mode has limited replayability except to find the runners bags and increase the difficulty level. I will say that the time trials has lots of replayablity and contains hours of entertainment.  Any person who owns a gaming console (not the wii) must play this whether it is rented or bought is up to the particular person but it is a must play game for everyone, hardcore or not. 

The second title I beleive has been overlooked is Dead Space. I rented this game and want to play it again. Again there is no online play and is purely a single player game. The lack of a HUD seems like the experience would be different from any other game and it is, but it makes the experience so much better. The weapons are very inventive and all have a second attack. The first weapon received can be shot with a vertical bullet line or horizontal bullet line. While this seems like a useless tool the main (and basically only way) to kill an enemy is to shoot off the limps of all enemies. This mechanic makes the game somewhat harder but can also be easier in some scenarios. The third person camera rarely gets caught on object but it can and when your view is blocked it's problematic. As portrayed by the "lullaby trailer" the game is supposed to be scary. The main scare is the mood and music rather than shock value. Yes there are some jump out of your seat moments but the horror is mostely in the suspense and the sheer look and difficulty of ememies. The ending is truely scary and the story is very interesting. This game has lots of replayability and is required to get most achievements. This game is very original and entertaining. Dead Space and Mirrors Edge are among many games overlooked in 2008 and I'm sure there are many more to come in 2009.

Welcome to lagged loading screen:personal info and podcast galor

Hello fellow gamers and such. This is a video game blog and nothing else. I will do my best to keep up but with school and other commitments I may not stay entirely up to date. My goal is to update once a week and to at least keep you informed via twitter. So a little information about myself. I am a 16 year old male in colorado. I currently subscribe to many podcasts devoted to gaming, notably OXM podcast, Sarcastic Gamer red(orange), blue and, pink, the video game show, every ign podcast such as game scoop and three red lights, geekboxx and invisible walls are the ones i listen to (or watch) every week. So in the spirit of podcasts I would like to say that if you are reading this and own an xbox the OXM podcast is a must. Sarcastic gamer red and orange show are among my favorites. I do not own a ps3 but still listen to the blue show and would recommend it to anyone who owns a playstation product. Invisible walls is a video podcast and can be found on i-tunes or gametrailers.com. As well as listening to podcasts I (of course) play video games, mainly xbox 360 but the occassional wii game at a friends house or computer rts is not out of the question. My xbox gamertag is trueShortDude to whom it may concern so send me a friend request if the mood may strike you.