VGA's.....wow

And that wow is not for a good reason folks, overall the VGA's this year was a fail. Between Neil Patrick Harris' game porn titles and the most akward appearance from "online dude who has been playing for 20 hours straight" (if you watched it you know) it was full of random things that had nothing to do with games. A few redeemable moments popped up with the announcement of Mass Effect 3 (HECK YEAH!) and the fact that something other than Black Ops won GOTY (it was Red Dead Redemption btw). The biggest fail comes in the form of the-stereotype-known-as-Frank-Woods winning character of the year over Ezio Auditore, John Marston, and Kratos. To be honest I didn't know his first name was Frank for the whole game. They completely screwed up some awards like that, or left them out completely (Best 360, PS3 and Wii game were nowhere to be found). Mass Effect 2 won Best RPG (announced IN A COMMERCIAL) and Bioware won Best Studio, which I agree with. And while the trailer for Batman Arkhum City was cool, it can't make up for the fact that the VGA's were one big fat bust. Oh and Neil, most of your porn names sucked.
-Smith

Ok so two quick things.........

Ok so one of them is quick and the other is long. The quick one is that Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception (ooooo scawy twitle) was announced with a short teaser and five screenshots that look freaking insane. The second is the fact that EA Games President came out and send that single player only games are dead. With all due respect to this....man I would like to tell him to Shut THE HECK UP. What is it with people (gamers and reviewers alike) who cannot accept a good single player experience for what it is?! Take one of my favorite games of all time, Fallout 3. That game is insane, with atmosphere of isolation and a destroyed D.C that is the most realistic game world I've ever played in. NO MULTIPLAYER WHATSOEVER. Do I care? Not at all. That game is amazing as a single player only experience that give you more actually fun content than any online multiplayer mode can. Or take the Mass Effect series, one of the most affecting and emotional stories in the games industry. Would it be as effective with a co-op mode, not at all. It is your choices that matter in that game, and there's not a second player that you talk to in the mic that takes you out of that world. Or take ANY horror game (besides RE5). If you are with another person, the scare factor goes out the window. Alan Wake, Heavy Rain, Mass Effect 2, all amazing games this year, and none of them have any kind of multiplayer. Why can't people accept that you can get just as much content (and probably more fun) from a single player only game rather than one that has a shoehorned multiplayer mode? Now don't take this the wrong way, I love some games with multiplayer. Reach, Black Ops, Left 4 Dead, those are games where the multiplayer adds value (and in the case of L4D) essentially makes it worth playing. In some games the multiplayer is totally worth it and adds immense value, but let's not go shoehorning a crappy multiplayer mode into a game that doesn't want it, simply because it "needs it".
-Smith

THE Double Standard

Hello people, this article is about the thing that makes me angry. THE thing. It makes me angrier than most things, and it is the double standard between games and other forms of media. Let's face it, games are still viewed as for kids by most of the world. Even though the average gamer is an 18-35 year old male, the mainstream media ignores this; unable to believe games are more complex than Pac-Man nowadays. Because of this, anytime a game does anything out of the norm and anything seen as "adult", the media is completely shellshocked, jumping all over the games industry and ripping to shreds the hard working people who create games. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the INFAMOUS Fox News segment on the coverage of the incredible RPG Mass Effect's sex scene. You can see this scene on Youtube (just type in "Mass Effect sex scene"). You should watch the scene to know what I'm talking about, trust me, it isn't anything bad or disgusting, and there's no frontal nudity at all, and only about a two second camera shot of a woman's back if you haven't seen it. I've played the game and seen the scene. It's the result of an over thirty hour game, during which you have the choice of falling in love with one of two characters on your crew. Trust me, this isn't a stupid insulting one night stand. And if you aren't the type for commitment, you can choose to not pursue the romances and never even have to see the scene at all. Now the scene would easily be allowed in a PG-13 movie. According to the MPAA guidelines, nothing in this scene would push it to an R rating. Yet naturally, because it's a video game, the media goes bananas. Fox News ran a segment on it with the caption of "seXbox?" which is just insulting. The caption stated the game showed full frontal digital nudity, which is a complete and utter lie. Both Geoff Keighley (host of Gametrailers T.V) and Cooper Lawrence, a psychology expert that no one has ever heard of, were brought on to discuss the scene. You can find this segment on Youtube (just type in "Mass Effect Fox News), and you should watch it before reading on because it would take too long to describe the whole thing. After watching it, you see what makes me so mad, especially if you've played the game. Cooper Lawrence admits to not even playing the game, yet goes on to say it is about a man deciding about how many women he wants to be with. It's just insulting, and none of what she said was true at all. I will say Geoff Keighley's voice annoys the heck out of me, and this segment is the only reason I have any respect for him. When will the mainstream media stop babying us and holding us to the strictest of standards, when most movies are allowed to do anything they want without any reaction, just look at Saw for pete's sake! Mass Effect got an M rating, and you cannot buy M games without I.D, or if you don't have one without parental consent. Same with R movies, yet of course, games get the short end of the stick. It's time for the media to recognize games as entertainment for all ages, and time for them to stop treating the industry like a seven year old kid that they can punish when they do something "bad".

-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

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

Is Survival Horror Dead?

Yes, you read that right, is the Survival Horror genre dead? I've wondered that ever since Resident Evil 5, which don't get me wrong, was an incredible game. However, the main problem I had with it was, it was not scary in the slightest. The franchise that began the franchise of horror, was now no longer a horror game. Next came Silent Hill: Shattered Memories that, while providing some scares during chase sequences, was largely an adventure game. The two franchises that began the genre are now moving away from what they did so well back in the day. I think it reflects how that genre is moving at large. When was the last game that truly truly scared you, and did not offer just the shock or thrill of being overwhelmed by enemies. When was the last game that used creepy little girls, dogs jumping through windows, and ambient music to create an experience that truly scared you. I mean even Alan Wake, which was one of the few games lately that creeps me out, was more a thriller than a horror game. Heck the box says "A psychological action thriller". The last game that was truly horror for me was the original Dead Space, which truly scared me and even though I dreaded every new corner, I never wanted to stop playing. It used atmosphere, music, and horrifying enemies to truly provide a terrifying experience. Even this franchise is supposed to have "Modern Warfare levels of action" in its second installment, according to the project director himself. So where has the horror game gone? More importantly, will we ever find it again?

-Smith

The Virus of Space Marines

I have been playing through Red Dead Redemption lately (review to come later) and the character of John Marston got me thinking that there just aren't that many truly interesting characters in games these days. John Marston is the antithesis of uninteresting. He is complex and his motives are sound, and his views on certain issues and ideas come out through the dialogue Rockstar wrote so well. But for the majority of games these days, how many can truly claim to have a truly interesting character who isn't simply a hardened marine or the cliched "everyman" who gets caught up in something bigger than him? With such games as Gears of War, Prince of Persia (the 2008 release) and Killzone 2, you get either the wise cracking everyman or the marine who wants to kill a whole lot of aliens or people or whatever. Call it lazy on the developers part. Personally, I think that the whole thing behind the space marine epidemic is that developers don't want you to care about the characters sometimes, instead wanting you to focus on the situation the characters are in or on how much crap they can blow up. With the everyman, I see it as a way for developers to make a character relatable to the audience. But sometimes we don't need to relate to a character, sometimes we want to see what THEY think, what THEY want, and how THEY are different from us. The characters of Mass Effect or Heavy Rain really show us how character progression is done right. Those to games had me caring about those characters too the point of thinking about them even when I wasn't playing the game. That's the sign of a good game and, the sign of a good character. I'm having a top ten list of my favorite characters go up soon and be sure to comment on the issue in the comments below. (Speaking of comments, thanks Jessepe)

-Smith

Why is the biggest always the most evil?

Yes it seems that, as Abe Lincoln said so long ago "If you want to test a man, give him power". Well the "man" I'm talking about is Activision, and they have most certainly failed that test. I can't say we didn't see there eventually corruption coming. From charging a 120 bucks for a piece of crap Tony Hawk game, to CEO Bobby Kotick saying that the he might quit developing for the ps3, they have been in the headlines a lot lately. Then comes the firing of Jason West and Vince Zampella, the leaders of Infinity Ward and the two brains behind the great Modern Warfare games and four of the six COD games out so far. From what I understand West and Zampella didn't want to develop Modern Warfare 3, instead wanting to create a brand new I.P. That is fine, as a developer you are always getting new ideas and coming up with different games. However, Activision, being the biggest third-party publisher in the world, only cares about money, and I'm sure they didn't want to take the risk of publishing a non-established brand. Apparently West and Zampella went to other publishers to see if they could negotiate something, and they ended up getting fired for it. Sucks for Activision. Soon after, West and Zampella filed a class action lawsuit, claiming they had sole rights to develop any Call of Duty game set after The Vietnam War. I've seen the agreement, technically they do have creative control. I guess that explains the setting of Black Ops huh? Until this whole thing is sorted out Activision can't make a COD game after Vietnam in risk of violating that contract. It seems these issues aren't stopping West and Zampella though, as they formed Respawn Entertainment and soon basically everyone from Infinity Ward had joined them. They have even signed with Activision's biggest competitor, EA, to help work on the new Medal of Honor, a franchise they also created. More power to them. I'm fed up with Activision trying to "Maddenize" all of their franchises and firing two of their best developers because of their inability to take a risk on a new franchise. I am currently boycotting Activision and their ridiculously priced Stimulus Package. Here's hoping Respawn really shows up Activision this year

-Smith

Games can't look as good as Avatar

So while I was surfing Gametrailers.com today (yes on the first day of my blog) I saw a post that announced Killzone 3 and said it was going to be in 3-D. The way it was said made it sound as if the 3-D is gonna be the big game changer for the ps3 now. They failed to mention however, that for the price of the 3-D t.v that would be needed to play it you could by a F-150 truck and have about 500 bucks left over. Now when you go to see Avatar, its 15 bucks for the ticket and glasses. I'm sure everyone saw Avatar and thought "dang that there is the future of movies". Even Avatar the game had 3-D effects (It's obviously James Cameron's way of saying "Look what I can do!"). However, I'm guessing less than 1% of Americans even own a 3-D tv. So when everyone's salavating over the effects at E3, the fact that practically no one will get to experience it themselves is cleverly hidden. 3-D may be the future of movies, but until prices go down, it is not the future of games. (P.S Hi Rachel)

-Smith