Bio pic! (just with out the pic and a lot of the bio)

Ok so I was thinking. And thinking. And thinking. I was Infinitely Undiscovering myself (shout out to a terrible game and IW!). Anyway I thought, "Hey I like story! Characters are in stories! How about video game bio pics?!". That's right as of this post I am going to start working on character bio's for video game characters. Now I could never do this without you guys so I'm gonna let you choose who the first bio pic character will be. There'll be a poll on the side of this page. Find it? Good. Now vote on which of those four characters you would like to see a bio on. Which ever character wins the poll will have the most extensive bio I can find made of them on this site. These will take some time to make. Especially on characters that span series. But I think it'll be something that separates DGRO from other sites. At least I hope so. So vote on that poll! (I have a feeling a certain MANLY MAN will be winning...)

-Smith

Nostalgia...

Well the thing that brought this one up is that I have recently been playing through the first Mass Effect (thanks for the suggestion Jorge) and I was surprised at how well it holds up. I mean sure it isn't a super old game or anything, being released in 2007 and all, but the industry evolves fast, and I was surprised that I might actually like it more this time. Well that brought up the question of how powerful nostalgia really is. I mean, how many games that you absolutely love are really old? Do you think they would be anywhere near as fun if you played them today? I think of Kingdom Hearts (which is eight on my top ten games list) as an example of something that probably wouldn't hold up as well as I would like it too. I loved that game when I played it around four or five years ago, but would I enjoy it as much today? The combat was very simple but fun, and the magic system was great but would it hold up in the day of high res graphics and incredible physics technology? Or would the fun and nostalgia of the game overshadow all of that? It's a hard question to answer. I will say that I have proof that sometimes old games hold up without the nostalgia factor though, as I played through MGS3: Snake Eater last week (having never played it before) and boy was that game good; it is easily my favorite Metal Gear game (I'm not the biggest fan of number four). So go back and play one of your favorite games, one of those games you remember as being the thing that got you into gaming. Everyone has that game, and for me it was Goldeneye. See if it holds up, and if it doesn't...well then remember the memories instead.

-Smith

Sony

Well Sony actually did impress me. The beginning of their press conference started with Killzone 3, which I gotta say looked awesome...even though it looked exactly like Killzone 2. Then they started talking, and talking, and talking, these guys easily talked the most of any of the big three. But then, Kevin Butler came out, and that was the turning point. After delivering a rousing speech on gaming itself, the conference picked up, with Dead Space 2 and Medal of Honor getting shown, both of which have exclusive content for the PS3 version. They showed off Infamous 2 (dang I do not like that new design for Cole) LBP2, and unveiled Twisted Metal, which looked like a blast to play. They also, like I predicted, pushed Move to the fullest, and showed off the incredibly generic looking Sorcery. However, Socom 4 looked pretty good, but the Tiger Woods stuff just looked like the Wii version. As with Kinect, I love the technology behind these, but can they grasp it like Nintendo has and move it past being an HD Wii? I don't know, but I hope they can. They also pushed 3D to no end, with the words 3D being said at least a hundred times, and truth be told it did get annoying with them acting like they owned 3D, when both the 360 and 3DS can push 3D too. One of the biggest disappointments for me at least was that they showed nothing of The Last Guardian, it wasn't at the show at all. After playing Shadow of the Colossus, I really want to see Team Ico's next project. Overall, Sony had an average showing, and the exclusive content from EA and the announcement that Portal 2 was coming to the Ps3 didn't hurt.
Final Score=B+

-Smith

Nintendo (WOW!)

My gosh, what a shocker. That press conference was absolutely incredible. It was better than Nintendo's past three conference combined. They showed soooo many awesome games. They also announced so many amazing looking games. Donkey Kong Country Returns, a Goldeneye 007 reboot (Yes the 7 year old kid in me just lit up), Kirby's Epic Yarn, Epic Mickey, Metroid Other M, Kid Icarus for the 3DS. Speaking of the 3DS, I truly expected it to be some gimmicky machine with terrible 3D effects and stupid glasses. Turns out, NO GLASSES! I have no idea how they did it, but plenty of high profile developers attested that it worked. Hideo Kojima, Capcom with Resident Evil, Kingdom Hearts, and plenty of other developers have announced that they are developing games for the 3DS. It was absolutely ridiculous the amount of games they showed, and I haven't even talked about the biggest of them all, The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword. There were some control issues on stage, but all the gameplay they showed looked cool, and the one-to-one sword control, and nunchuck as shield are all great ideas. Overall Nintendo blew me away with everything they showed, and the 3DS seems to be one of the most innovative products to come out in awhile
Final Score=A+

-Smith

Microsoft

Well Microsoft's press conference just wrapped up, and I'm am completely...indifferent. Nothing shown shocked or wowed me in any way. I mean it just listed no response from me. The coolest thing they showed was the Gears 3 demo, and they also unveiled a new mode, called Beast, but gave no details on the mode at all. The Reach demo was cool but short, Metal Gear Rising had a cool engine, and we got a new Fable 3 trailer, but in the end, none of it wowed me. After (what seemed to me) rushing through their game line up and announcing an exclusive game coming from Crytek, they moved on to all their Kinect stuff. I love the technology and potential that that little camera has, and all the dashboard and interface stuff they showed was all really cool, but the games just look...meh. It just looked like family games. The Star Wars thing was cool, and the new Forza stuff really impressed me, but besides that the rest just looked like it was trying to appease the casual market. That is their goal I guess though, they want Xbox to be the biggest gaming brand in the world. At the end though, they brought out the 360 slim, and that is what saved them. They finally included Wi-fi support, it has a 250 gb hardrive, and is going to be completely Kinect compatible. It also looks a good bit cooler too. In the end Microsoft pushed Natal to no end, and while that conference started out cool with all their exclusive games, the end result was a conference about Kinect. I have no doubt that Sony is going to do the same thing with Move, and like I said I like the technology behind both of them, but I'm not a fan of how they are using it.
Final Grade=C+

-Smith

Kinect....what?

So it's official. Microsoft has finally named there fancy little camera, and they have named it Kinect. Pronounced connect. Personally, I think Natal sounds cooler, but that is just me. I also like Arc better than move and Revolution better than Wii so I guess companies just hate me. Among the games announced for Natal...I mean Kinect, only two have me interested because they don't sound like crappy Wii-style shovelware. Joyride, which is that racing game that was shown last year, and the announcement that both Disney and Star Wars properties have announced that they will be developing heavily for Natal...Kinect gosh that will take forever to get used too! Well, tell me what you think in the comments below, and be sure to watch for all the coming E3 coverage.

-Smith

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

This post probably should've gone up before E3, but I forgot after watching GTTV. Well, anyway once again the famed movie critic Roger Ebert once again decided to trash the gaming industry by saying that games are not, and never will, be art. In this month's issue of Gameinformer, Ken Levine (creator of Bioshock) sounded off on this, and if you haven't read what he wrote you need too, it is a great defense of the gaming industry. As for if games can be art, I completely disagree with Ebert, games can be art. In my opinion art is something in which the creator pours all of his effort, time, and heart into something that turns out to be great. Games are completely in. Some games are art in their graphics and style, such as Shadow of the Colossus. Some are art in their stories, such as Metal Gear Solid and Mass Effect. Others are art in their different approaches to gameplay and some change the way you see something. I mean, seriously Mr. Ebert, if you deny that a story as great as Metal Gear's or Mass Effect's isn't art, then I can't imagine that anything else in your view is art. Art isn't just paint on a canvas or words on a page. Art is the work of a talented creator. Games certainly fall into this category, and give up Mr. Ebert, games aren't just something kids play anymore. They are being recognized as art and as a serious medium. We have evolved, and we have shown that we are to be taken seriously. So drop your argument Mr. Ebert. We're tired of it.

-Smith

E3 Blowout

Ok guys, the biggest week in gaming is upon us now. E3 starts Monday with the Microsoft press conference and I gotta say I think it's gonna be a great show this year. At this (very late) time I'm watching the E3 blowout episode of GTTV, and man are there some good games we've got lined up. Dead Space 2, Gears of War 3, Halo Reach, LBP 2, Infamous 2, Killzone 3, Fable 3, Force Unleashed 2, Devil's Third. KOTOR online and even more unannounced games. If I'm forgetting anything (which I'm sure I am) please tell me in the comments below. I thought I'd let you know that after each press conference (Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony) that I'll be providing a recap of what was showed and what I thought was awesome and not so awesome. Before you read those let me warn you I am not the biggest fan of motion controls haha. Maybe it's because I am a lazy bum, but anyway, I'm gonna be working hard to keep everyone updated. Now, as for the predictions. Let's face it, Nintendo has the most to win or lose this year. With Sony's Sonymote and Nunchu....I mean sub controller they can essentially say "Hey Nintendo fans, upgrade to HD!". Fits in with their whole, it only does everything slogan. Now that isn't a bad thing at all, Nintendo is too lazy to announce a Wii HD and Sony was smart and essentially beat them to the punch. Nintendo neeeeds a reason for their fans to keep playing their Wii. Even if they do show the new Zelda game, it can't support them forever. They need to show something mindblowing that will show Microsoft and Sony that they deserve to lead in sales and that they can't be beat when it comes to motion control. However, if they do as crappy a job this year as they did last year then that doesn't bode well for them. Also as a closing note, I have to point out my dark horse game for this E3, Pirates of the Caribbean: Armada of the Damned. Just go look up Ign's article on this liscensed game that actually looks like an amazing action/RPG. Alright guys, sound off in the comments, and be sure to watch E3!

-Smith

The "Final" Fantasy? Yeah, right.

Most gamers believe that Duke Nukem: Forever is the most ironically named game ever. Considering the game was announced in 1996 and still hasn't come out, I agree it is very ironic. However, I think that the most ironically named is ever single Final Fantasy game that wasn't the first. I mean seriously, it is called FINAL fantasy, yet we have had thirteen (soon to be fourteen) games! I mean, isn't there a point where a franchise needs to quit? Not necessarily die, but quit, take a break, stop making games, etc. I mean we are getting to the point where there is no new I.P. COD is moving on too its seventh game, and Activision (evil jerks) have announced they want a new COD game every year. Halo is about to be on its fifth game, Metal Gear Solid is on five, and I don't even need to mention sports games. I mean heck, look at Nintendo! They survive off of not coming up with new I.P! They recycle Zelda, Mario, Metroid, Star Fox (although that franchise hasn't seen a release in a long time), and other franchises on a rotating schedule to survive. Now I don't begrudge Nintendo for this, as its games are usually phenomenal, but seriously when was the last time Nintendo game up with an original I.P? Pikmin or something? Now if a franchise can innovate with still retaining the core of itself with each new release than this isn't a problem, but I mean all thirteen final fantasy games (except eleven and twelve) have followed the same blueprint, with angst filled emoish characters who must save their world by engaging in turn based combat. I mean, I realize franchises are necessary for most companies, they make money off of established things that they know will sell. But it doesn't hurt to take a risk once and awhile. There becomes a point where the games industry will literally stagnate because of this. New ideas keep an industry evolving, and even if it isn't a new I.P, franchises can, like I said before, change things up a little bit every game while still preserving its core, instead of hitting that dreaded 1.5 that keeps us from moving forward.

-Smith

Game to movie: The cursed adaptation

Well, considering that Prince of Persia, the highest budgeted game-to-movie adaptation ever, just came out I figured it's a good time to talk about why game to movie adaptations are usually so freaking terrible. Now I have seen Prince of Persia, and in my opinion, it isn't half bad. I got exactly what I expected out of it, which was a very popcorny summer action flick, and not a bad one either. They kept in elements from the game, like the time mechanic and the free running, which was nice. I think in essence that is where most of these adaptations go bad. They either stick incredibly close to the game (Resident Evil) or go completely away from it (Doom). Both of these are usually bad ways to go. As when you stick incredibly close to the game, you get long segments of no story that was just gameplay in the game, and going really far away alienates fans and is usually bad for the story. I think Prince of Persia finally got it right. It kept some elements from the games, yet took its own path with its story. Sadly, it seems it will be the biggest flop in the genre, as its 200 Million dollar budget is a lot to make up. Granted, these movies hardly ever get that much, but they also don't have that big of budgets either. Currently, one of the Tomb Raider movies holds the record for highest grossing video game movie, and it isn't very high. Before I close this post though, I have to touch on something, or rather, someone. The man that is singularly responsible for the bad reputation that most video game movies get, UWE BOLL. Seriously, this man directed Alone in the Dark, House of the Dead, and Bloodrayne, all beloved franchises (well maybe besides Alone in the Dark). None of them have over ten percent approval on rotten tomatoes, in fact Bloodrayne is the highest with an 8% approval rating. It is said that he makes a fortune if his movies sucked, so if that was the idea than mission freaking accomplished. In the end though, video game movies need that one thing, that one masterpiece of a movie, to pull them out of the hole they are in now. A hole dug, by one Mr. Uwe Boll.

-Smith

My System

Well, I have put up three reviews so far so I figured all my readers were wondering how I come to my final score. If you weren't then I'll tell you anyway so you will never have to. The way I see it, there are three main parts to 90% of games. Gameplay, story, and graphics/presentation. The presentation includes things like music, menus, how many loading screens there are, etc. The other three speak for themselves. The thing I place the most emphasis on in my reviews is gameplay. Gameplay is what makes a game a game, and separates games from other forms of entertainment. This hobby at its core is interactive entertainment after all. Right below gameplay for me is story. The story is (usually) the thing that keeps you playing, puts reason behind the gameplay. Unless the game is just designed around being fun, in which case a bad story won't overshadow how fun the gameplay is. I think all Mario games fall into the "fun and simple" category. Last and (in my opinion) least is the graphics/presentation. Now while graphics do add to the initial shock of how good a game is, you eventually get used to them, and even if a game looked like Halo 1 but played like Halo 3, I would play it over the other way around. Now presentation is important, as technical issues can really ruin a game, sloppy frame rate, screen tearing, and bad aliasing can really ruin your enjoyment of a game. Well, that's my system, give me yours in the comments below.

-Smith