One thing I've heard quite a few times is how the XBone having this "always on" feature may not affect gamers like us, gamers who have access to awesome internet speeds all the time, but gamers who don't. Gamers who either don't have internet all together or have really unrealiable internet for whatever reason. I've read many blogs and forum posts speaking up for these quote unquote unfortunate gamers, claiming that the XBone sucks and that what Microsoft is doing this time around is unfair. While I do tip my cap towards all these Gamespot users who are sticking up for this demographic, I also think they're taking this cause a little too far. And when I say a little too far I mean really, really too far.

Saying that the XBone affects gamers who don't have access to internet is like saying the television affects people who don't have access to cable. If you want to watch ESPN, not only do you need a television but you need cable. If you want to play the XBone, not only do you need the XBone but you need some internet to help it say hello to Microsoft servers once a day. In no way shape or form is Microsoft hurting anybody with this always-on feature.

Now. You may personally disagree with this feature on principle. You may think it's stupid. You may draw conclusions that Microsoft is up to more than just an always connected Xbox, for instance using an always on connection to make sure you're not playing used games for free, finding ways to sneak in DRM or spying on you in your underpants. And you may not buy an XBone because of all this. This is all cool.

But don't feel bad if you do decide to buy one some day and don't make other people feel bad for getting ready to buy one either. And certainly don't think it's robbing Jimmy and Stephanie, or the thousands of Jimmy's and Stephanie's, who live without adequate internet from a chance to play video games. This is not Microsoft's responsibility.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

The cool thing about a 10 point review rating system is that in theory it gives you a lot of numbers to work with.  Reviewers can easily space game scores apart appropriately, separting the crud from the average and the good from the must play titles.  In reality it doesn't work like this.  The biggest reason I think is how gamers view games that receive a score lower than 8.0 as being absolute junk.  As a result we get a lot of "good" games getting ratings of 8.5 and 9.0.  

The problem with this is, when an actual amazing game comes out, like The Last of Us, there's no way to adequetly separate it from the good games which got a high review score for the reason just mentioned.  Now, I know i'm not Mr. Perfect when it comes to giving out review scores either, but you don't need to be a professional to know that The Last of Us deserves a good chunk of separation from Bioshock Infinite.  With the way it looks now there's no way to do this.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

I played Infinite again last night to make sure I still felt the same way about it before ordering my roommate to send it back to GameFly's massive video game warehouse. It really is a shame to play a game you really want to like but can't. I still wonder whether it's my personality these days that keeps me from liking the game or is it that the game is just not as good as everyone says it is? I'm really not sure. Maybe Infinite is one of the better FPS we've seen in awhile.

But I can't escape the fact I got bored with it. And even as I replayed it again, I got bored again. For this reason I have to stick with my opinion.

I do have to say there is something I could change from my end. Changing how I play it. Meaning, play it on a PC when I get a gaming rig. Which I'll probably do. At that time I may have a change of mind.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

- At the beginning I feel like you play as a begger.  You search garbage cans for loot, you steal junk off tables, eat loose apples and everybody ignores you.  Yes.  You pretty much are a beggar.

-There's a story going on but I could really care less because the people in this sky town are absolute idiots.

-Combat is horrible.  I mean, i'm not really a fan of the FPS genre anymore.  I used to be.  But now it's sort of lame.  Every FPS feels the same with some exceptions.  Bioshock infinite is not one of those exceptions.  The A.I just stands there and takes bullets in the chest.  Cover for a few seconds, pop up and shoot.  

-The colors are great.  I think the graphics are really sweet.  Though you really cant interract with anything, the floating platforms all look gorgeous.  Bright, happy yet strange and intriguing.  I'll play more because of this point here.  I might even finish it

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

I really don't agree with this.  I think it's an easy claim to make and easy to agree with because so many people like so many different types of things.  Saying that fun is subjective would only make sense next to this point.  But just because we like something doesn't make it fun.  For instance, I think professional sports players like and LOVE the sports they play, but I also think most of them are actually not having fun playing them (except maybe when they win a big game, but this would get me on another tangent about winning vs. fun).  Another example is my dad:   He likes to renovate houses, he likes to fix everything, huge hobby of his, but I don't think he's having fun doing it. 

Now wait a second buster...How do you know? How can you tell when someone is having fun or not?  While I'm not trying to write a new definition for the word "fun,"  I will say that the act of having fun can be observed.  It's something you can actually see.  So If I was having fun and you were sitting next to me, you could tell I was having fun by just looking at me.  This is why I feel professional sports players are not having fun.  The game is now a job and everybody takes it way too seriously because of it.  My favorite baseball player (and a lot of people my age) growing up was Ken Griffey Jr.  Not because of his skills (although those helped) but because he actually looked like he was having fun playing the game.

Many of the most lauded video games of all time, I feel, are not even close to the most fun games of all time.  I'm not saying one category is better or worse than the other.  But there is a clear difference.  World of Warcraft has already gone down in the record books as one of the greatest games ever made, for obvious reasons.  Now.  Have you ever seen somebody playing these game before?  I've seen plenty.  And there isn't much difference between the way they look and a someone who has a coma.

And it's not just WoW.  Many of the greatest games have your brain fully obsorsbed into the gaming experience and your bodied glued to the controller.  Exacerbating the situation is how serious games are taking themselves these days.  Even Yahtzee was talking about this in his latest zero punctuation review of that Far Cry DLC.  The more serious the game is the more serious we take them.  

The Wii sold so well because it was fun. Not because it had excellent hardware, or the best reviewed games of all time.  It sold because when you watched people playing it, you knew they were having fun.  What attracts people to MS and Sony was something different. And I have no problem saying that what attracted gamers to the Xbox 360 and PS3 were good games. 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

It's a numbers thing.  The number of kills just piles up and life gets boring.  Enemies behave like one another.  Sure they do a couple of different things but after an hour of gameplay you figure those moves out too.  Sure new enemies are introduced but then we figure them out and before we know it all those new enemies are as boring as the enemies from the beginning.  Linear or sandbox, it doesn't matter.  

There's a lot of talk now since these new consoles are on the horizon that we'd like to see more games with more characters on the screen.   Like, Imagine GTA6 with ten times more people on the screen!  While this sounds cool and everything, I can't help but think it's just going to be more of the same stupid creations multiplied by ten.  Just more aimless, retarded A.I civilians shleping around the streets looking for the brain that fell out of their head before the game started.

But forget about that, my main issue is with the combat.  Enemy A.I. is horse manure.  It's like someone gave them all three pints of whisky and nothing to eat all day before entering the arena.  This goes for pretty much any game I can think of that features human to human combat in a third-person or first person shooter, and any action game really where other humans are the main target.  

One enemy is not a challange, the challange lies in the amount of enemies.  Changing difficulty settings alters things like your health, how much damage you do, how much damage enemies can take, maybe it doubles the amount of enemies in the game world.  You say tomatoes I say it's no fun.  At the end of a single player campaign you'll made enough corpses to stack to the Mars.  

Instead of pouring all this energy into creating massive worlds with endless amounts of enemies who couldn't hurt you unless thirteen of their buddies were around and they had a tank, a gattling gun, that dinasour thing from Power Rangers, why not try making a game where there's just a few dudes.  And make them use the environment like anyone would to survive.  Make them act like they dont want to die because they have two kids at home and a wife that loves them.  

I would love to play a game where i'm on some mission and I get into some epic battle like from the end of the First Matrix or like one of the fights from the Bourne movies or from Kill Bill.  A fight that lasts for like 15 minutes and if you dont survive.  Well.  Time to do it again.  And I'm not talking about a battle with some large, mythic creature.  Just another person.  

Some really smart A.I. would go a long way in video games and right now we are very far from seeing it.  

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

I think if you talk to most gamers these days and ask them if they could design a game, or if they could try to picture in their mind the ideal game they want to play that doesn't exist yet, this game would probably not involve a way to play with 15 people sitting next to you like the original Halo did.

Sure there are divisions of Sony and Microsoft putting funds towards making below-average to average motion control games, games that typically wouldnt be fun without a few friends next to you (or a lot of beer), but the smartest and most creative designers in the industry are focusing their minds elsewhere.

Believe it or not, it's hard to talk about something you do all the time. Take gaming: When we game, we typically do it alone and we do it for long periods of time. We put ourselves in a room, get the headset on, glue our eyes to the monitor and zone out from reality.

I don't think Aristotle would have exactly claimed this as one of the better human habits of society in any era. But who cares right? I mean, reading Aristotle is like watching paint dry. Plus, this is just inextricable to the medium. Shadow of the Collosus is absolutely brilliant. And there's other way to play this game then by yourself, eyes glued to a big TV with the music blasted.

So many people will go through their whole lives and not see the years of work it took to create masterpieces like Half-Life 2, Dark Souls, Silent Hill 2 and whatever else. But what they will see or hear about is people like you, people who sit in a room with all the lights off, with a gaming headset on, eyes glued to the monitor or TV showing no emotion except an occasional fart of frustration and anger. And again, you probably dont care. And why should you? Not everyone should understand and love each others hobbies, right?

Well. Whether you want to believe it or not, the act of gaming, especially when done alone like this for hours upon hours, is kind of a scary thing from an objective standpoint. It looks strange to people who don't play games. I remember when my parents saw me playing games as a kid they would always try to pull me away from it, not for the content of the game but the nature of the activity itself.

It brings up an interesting question: Why do we like playing video games so much? Ok. The answers are going to vary upon who you ask. I know this. But one reason that maybe shared is the opportunity to completely zone out and get lost into some new, completely exciting world. For me at least, there was something awesome about dimming the lights, strapping on my headset and getting lost in whatever game it was that I was playing at the time. The biggest budgeted games of today, the games of the year for the past I dont know how many years, have all catered to this type of experience.

Even when it comes to a lot of the analysts on gaming websites, it seems all their viewpoints of where gaming should go and what it takes to make an amazing game all flow in the same direction. And even if that claim is wrong, Ill at least say that none of them talk more multiplayer possibilities beyond online and 2-player co-op. I also think a lot of these analysts think that the Oculus Rift is taking the right step. Like if we could all zoom 20 or 30 years in the future, and see the gaming world has made a complete transition into a full-immersive virtual gaming; this would be like a dream-come true.

Ive heard Yahtzee over at Escapist magazine say he hates people and the whole experience of gaming side-by-side with a friend. I have friends who game more than you can imagine and are the most socially inept people Ive ever met in my life. Whatever. Im not trying to criticize anybody.

Games like anything else are products of the time. Right now most everybody thinks Nintendo sucks. They think they suck because theyre not making new IP. Theyre not releasing these massive games like The Last of Us, Gran Turismo, Metro Last Light, Grand Theft Auto, Far Cry, Diablo, Skyrim. Games that are considered the greatest of the times right now. Instead theyre releasing games that are trying to encourage you to stop shutting the door to your room and call over four other friends to game with you.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

I really believe there are a lot of people out there that want Nintendo to do the exact same thing as Sony and Microsoft do with their consoles.  Maybe you've never thought about it in this way before, but if you are one of those people that do want to see a big change from Nintendo just what exactly do you want them to do differently?

We think pretty linear.  Me included.  It really is hard to understand why Nintendo does the things the way they do, especially when we see those brothers, Microsoft and Sony, going about their next systems completely differently.   We want to make sense of Nintendo.  Why not release more games for the Wii U?  Why is there that outdated hardware?  What's with that controller?  And the way we try to make sense of them is to Westernize them.

Sony is already a Western company as far as I'm concerned.  And the way the PS4 looks already, it might as well come with an American flag stamped on the top and a free cheeseburger in the box.  Let's be honest, no American would have ever developed that Gamepad for the Wii U.  We think it's stupid and a gimmick.  State of the art graphics are something we drool over.  Demanding games every week is something that we've come to define as the standard for the gaming industry.  But in the end we are just trying to make a shape for something that has no shape.  We assume the best graphics available is the way to go because technology advances every six months.  We assume more games are better because we've come to believ a vast variety of something is always better.      

We complain about Nintendo being Nostalgic.  Yet we could have a debate how Mario Galaxy and Mario Sunshine have more differences between them than every single different titled first person shooter ever created.     

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

What the heck am I talking about?

Look at Sony. Why do many gamers think they are moving in the right direction? Indie developer support (an awesome scene that has been blowing up these last few years), heavy integration into social media and hardware wise is pretty much exactly a PC. We like the sound of this. Better graphics, cooler apps, bigger game library. Sony is truly bringing us into the next-generation.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

As soon as success happens I'll be back gaming and writing about gaming.  So look forward to a lot more stuff from me in the near future.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

And thats exactly where I'm at right now.  Job hunting.  I'm living with a buddy of mine from back East, my luggage is half-open and spilling out and wedged in the corner and I've been sleeping on the floor.  Don't think of this as any Down and Out in London situation, I got a few bucks.  Have enough to eat.  Have enough to drink. 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Me and a lot of other people are just really lucky I guess. We're lucky the sequels of movies, video games, books and everything else have all, for the most part, been made in a way that we don't need to have experienced the original to still enjoy it.  All while unknown to us newbies, still being self-aware that they are an inextricable part of their series.  

So obviously in the video game industry developers must not only create a sequel that builds off of what came before it but also have the difficult task of creating an experience that can be enjoyed by those who are playing it for the first time.  What we forget to figure in sometimes is that the same trickles down to those few who are given the professional responsibility to review those sequels.

A review of the new God of War for instance, wouldn't be complete without (a) ranking it up against the previous one--show how the story ties in, gameplay tweaks and additions, graphics improvements, etc--and (b) also reviewing it as a general stand-alone gaming experience--essentially, the point of view of someone who has never played a God of War.

If it were only that easy...

Since I'm not a professional game reviewer (and to be honest a very bad amateur one), I guess the rest is just speculation.  And forgive me if the rest sounds a little too much like thinking out loud.  For that is essentially what I'm doing.

I feel that sequel review scores are often inevitably flawed, so there's no point to bicker about what it should or shouldn't have been.  And it's no fault of the reviewer. The reason I feel lies within the nature of the sequel itself. Specifically how it's impossible to deliver a fair review to the gamer who knows the series like the back of his hand, and at the same time to the person who has just come across the series for the first time.  This shouldn't come as a big shock to anyone.  Gamers who know the Gears of War series have a expectation for the upcoming GOW:Judgement--things that it needs to live up to and areas where they'd like to see it improve--while new players go in without any.  

And just for kicks, let's say the God of War series was to continue to...I don't know. God of War 15. This whole idea of how to tackle reviewing the 15th game fairly would be ridiculous. I mean, some games are already that deep into their franchises, and if not will be getting their soon. In these cases it's pretty safe to say their stories have been dragged to out the extent that major continuity issues, holes and forgotten moments are everywhere, the plots themselves are hard to take seriously anymore.  It seems the further a sequel gets from the original 1st game of the series, the more pressed a reviewer is to treat that sequel like the other ones didn't exist (obviously not going that far).

And let's not foget how many games there will be by the time God of War 15 is released.  Can we really expect reviewers to know all of these titles, all of the influences and all of the allusions?  Maybe, I guess it depends on what your standards are.

Now what about the other side? If the story breaks down and instead it's the gameplay that is actually what's bringing those longtime fans back for more and more, then on what level does gameplay in the sequels need continuity?  Should reviewers dock points away from sequels that don't resemble their formers? 

Sure no one has any problem with adding things to the gameplay, like Torchlight 2--skill trees got bigger and more complex--but what about a case like Dead Space 3? A lot of gamers suggest it's gameplay does a complete 180 from its original--abandoning its roots in horror and turning it into full-on-action.  But what if the gameplay, regardless of straying from its roots, was good?  Say a person who plays Dead Space 3 without having played 1 or 2 loves 3, what then?  What does he/she know about Dead Space and it's horror roots?

Which leads me back to the people reviewing the game. How the heck do you give a sequel a fair review score?

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

It seems that the developers changed the gameplay and the image of Lara enough from the old games that they should have just kept on going and made an entirely new female character and titled the game something else. 

I guess the more you think the less sense your thoughts make...Because I'm pretty sure the original plan was to make a Tomb Raider reboot and then build from there.  So regardless of what they came up with, no matter how far it strayed from the previous titles, the name Tomb Raider wasn't going anywhere.  

However my brain just can't stop seeing this whole thing as a weird topic.  As cool as I think the new Tomb Raider looks, I just feel like something odd has occured.  It's made me think about how far a reboot can actually go before we should call it something different?  Especially when the developers who make the reboot have nothing to do with, or need any approval from, the development team(s) that made the originals.  I don't know.  I'm not a genius on the subject of reboots.

And maybe that's not what makes it the most weird.  Maybe what makes it wierd in this case is that now we're left with two completely different images of Lara Croft.  Maybe I'm thinking too far into this, but I'm wondering about what this says about the Tomb Raider series as a whole.

It's obvious the image of Lara Croft was reimagined for the 21st century.  I mean, come on.  You don't need glasses to notice she's not as top-heavy as before.  But even more then that, I feel the developers really wanted to make sure their new image of Lara was going to be accepted by women, and not just written off as some eye-candy for young male gamers.   It's even possible to suggest the developers hoped their new Lara would serve as inspiration and encouragment to other developers to create other action games that also have a female protoganist.  

Which brings me to one point I'm trying to get at.  In retrospect, what does the new Lara say about the old Lara?  What does this say about all the people who created the original Lara?  Maybe nothing.  Maybe you can write it off as, "Those were just the times, man."  Well, probably.  But then does this reboot suggest that a new Tomb Raider game, with Lara created in the likeness of the previous Lara, wouldn't sell?  And moreso, also criticized by women and the "grown-up" gaming industry for perpetuating the old Lara?  

Keeping reboots in mind, who's to even say we've finally found the "final" version of Lara?  Maybe ten to fifteen years to now, long after 3 new Tomb Raiders have been released and the series has gone stale once again, some new developers will come along and want to reboot the series again.  And when they do they decide to change the image of Lara to better suit the "times."  

But isn't this just silly?  This just goes back to what I was originally thinking about.  Why not just make a new character? Borrow some ideas from the old Tomb Raider series, borrow ideas from Uncharted, and just make a new female character and just make an ENTIRE new game.  Then you don't have to worry about  continuity (for example explaining why Lara eventually decided on getting implants) and breaking the hearts of Tomb Raider fans that feel the new version tarnishes the Tomb Raider legacy.  Heck, You'll be lauded for creating a sweet new female protagonist and some new IP at the same time.  

Instead we have Lara again.  Maybe she's changed for the better.  But maybe, just maybe this will have the opposite effect of encouraging more game developers to create more action games with women as the lead.  The game industry will just be like, "Well, sure they'll be more action games with a lead female character. Just wait for the new Tomb Raider 2 and 3...duuuuh."

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Ok.  So where does all this hubbub come from? Especially when I'm aware that Nintendo's latest console is moving at the rate of a semi-truck in a traffic jam.  I've even joked a few times about how Nintendo forgot that they needed to release video games along side their new console.  Forget about jokes, the hardware powering the Wii U is the joke of the internet party.  Can't tell you how many times I've heard something along these lines, "This is the console Nintendo should have released 7 years ago."  And how about that controller?  A lot of us are still baffled why Nintendo released that big thing as the main controller, instead of as some optional accessory.  So why in the heck do I think these plumbers got a shot at taking it all?

I'll begin with my bread and butter.  I feel that because the Wii U's hardware is so underpowered in comparison, there's no other way for Nintendo to effeciently compete in the market than by figuring out a way to release a better gaming library than its competition.  Now, if Nintendo can't do it by impressing the market with graphics, they will have to find a way to do it through innovative gameplay, creativity and by taking major risks with their famous titles and with new IP.  It wouldn't suprise me if we were to see some of the whackiest and wildly interesting games come out for this beast. Sure, I know right now we haven't seen anything of the likes (let alone games in general) thus far, but theres a lot of time. The last time I checked the competition hasn't even stepped foot onto the playing field.

Next I'll serve you a decent hamburger: Price.  I know the official prices of the PS4 and the new Xbox haven't been released, but I'm willing to bet, however you slice it, that upfront the Wii U will be the cheapest console.  However we all know dropping money on a console doesn't get you everything you need.  Right now the PS4 is screaming additional costs.  Just exactly what they are I'm not sure.  But my guess is we'll need to pay for online gaming, cloud gaming, and possibly even just general subscription fees (which would give us free updates and access to the PSplus store and stuff like that). 

Then I'll end on a half burnt pop tart:  When all is said and done and we can finally all go to to our favorite toy store and buy any one of these new consoles (and a power ranger action figure...and some roller skates....and like a spaceship Lego thing) I think the Wii U will resemble a "gaming console" the most...What the hell am I talking about?  Well, I guess I mean on the inside (sounds sexy).  Sony made it pretty clear that the "way we play" is changing.  They are taking the steps to change the concept of their gaming console as a prodominently one function device by giving us more than just games.  Now where that original function (the act of playing a video game) is regarded in Sony's grand scheme is beyond me.  For all gamers sake, I obviously hope it's still their number one priority, but with Nintendo I know it still is.  While we may have many reasons to turn on a PS4, with Nintendo we have pretty much just one. 

I just realized I haven't been saying much about Microsoft.  Well, I don't know much about what's going on with their new system.  Who knows really.  But my guess is they're still hammering as many gadgets and features onto that thing that could make it power a small NASA spacecraft.  

I also didn't really define what I mean by the Wii U becoming the "Big Cheese."  Sorry about that.  I'm still on the fence whether the Wii U will sell the most consoles. Sony (and maybe Microsoft) may be onto something with their whole social thing.  They may end up with a more customers than ever before because of that.  I guess it just depends on how they market it.  But the "Big Cheese" for me refers to the console with the best value for the gamers.  Meaning, it's going to have the best game library (with an exception to small indie games), the best price, and treat gamers the fairest--meaning no crazy subscription fees, solid backwards compatability and no funny business with used games.  

This is my theory and I'm stickin' to it.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Nameaprice mentioned that the route Sony was taking by bringing gaming everywhere--the idea of playing the PS4 anywhere and being connected to the PS4 universe on any mobile device---wasn't exactly a good thing for gamers.  Mostly because we shouldn't be spending a huge chunck of entire life around a console or a PC.  Even the worse culprits of game addiction must have a little something that whispers in their ear, "It's time to call it quits."  Sometimes we just gotta' leave the house and "actually" remove ourself from the world of video games (and I'm not just talking about those inevitable times when work, sleep, school or other obligations come breathing down our neck).

Now, I don't want this to turn into a "how much time gamers should and shoudn't be playing video games before it fries their brains" discussion.  More I just want to discuss what Sony's (and Microsoft's if they do go down the same path) motivations for building a system that can and will exist outside the walls of the living room.  I'm a bit lacking upstairs on the subject (and also maybe too old timerish) to fully grasp the benefits of all the mobile features of the PS4.  

It seems that Sony wants us to log more time on their system then ever before, a goal that before  could only be reached by delivering cosumers more and more games.  However now that time doesn't neccessarily need to be used playing a video game, Sony plans to drive usage up by improving things like social networking, exclusive Apps, a better PSplus and most importanly, allowing users to access their PS4 from places that are not within 30 feet of the console.

So where am I going with this?  Well, I'm not really sure.  It more just makes me asks questions like:  Is Sony going to be squeezing more money out of us than ever?  Will all this emphasis on branching the PS4 out into a piece of technology that is not just a one function device effect games in a negative way?  Should gamers be cautious of bringing "gaming" everywhere?  Will Microsoft go down the same path?

 And I'll end this blog the same way I ended my last one...What about Nintendo?  With all this talk about Sony wanting to make their new system simple and easy to use, it seems the WiiU is shaping out to be the simplest of them all. 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

Now, I still hope that delivering a high-quality video game experience is the number one priority of the boys and girls working at Sony.  They did go out of their way to stress the point that they're making a console that is easy to develop for, whether you're big time like EA or small time like Number Non inc.  But there is no doubt in my mind that Sony is trying to capture a lot of new customers.  No, not necessarliy the fans of Xbox or the next generation of gamers, but the millions of millions of people that have never even considered buying a gaming console.  

It's possible that people bought the PS3 for the blue-ray player alone, but I doubt it.  The addition of the Blu-ray player was a really sweet bonus for gamers.  But what about the PS4?  Are all the new features of the PS4 really sweet new gadgets just for gamers to fool around with or is the whole concept of a "gaming console" starting to turn on its head?  Is it possible that the day has come where people are going to buy a "gaming console" with no intention of playing a video game at all? Or maybe they will just see the act of playing a video game as a cool extra feature like gamers once saw the blu-ray feature in the PS3?

Another question to speculate on is, how will Microsoft react?  Will they pitch their new console like Sony did, beating around the topic of single player gaming like the elephant in the room?  And where does Nintendo fit in to all this?  When all is said and done, is it possible that the Wii U will remain as the purest gaming console of them all? 

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

The first thing I noticed was the lack of enthusiasm.  Beyond videos being full of color and sound, I saw little life in that room.  The audience barely appluaded.  Which is something completely puzzling because this was the announcement of the PS4 for Gods sake.  How hard could it be to spark some jazz?  Just show off the console and your jobs done.Oh wait, right...It wasnt there.

The Presenters  (Please forgive me on not including the presenters names) 

When the first presenter said the words PS4 for the first time ever, officially beginning the dawn of a new generation, there was no pause nor was there an applause.  Now, Im not here to suggest that confetti should have fallen from the ceiling and strippers run up on stage passing out free bubble gum to the crowd (while that may have been nice), a simple pause for some cheers and a few in-house fist pumps could have done the moment justice.

I feel if most of the presenters had shown a little more of themselves on stage, and less of that professional muppet pitching a product that they came off as,  we would have seen some more enthusiastic and genuine presentations that the audience could have got behind.  But instead we got monotone voices and drabness.  I mean seriously, I dare you to go back and watch the Fantastic Bungie 4 again. 

Then there was the part when the creator of Braid got up on stage and threw a jab at the previous presentations.  He said something along the line of, Hard to follow all those explosions.  This remark sort of mocked the general brainless action genre that dominates so much of the gaming market and in turn brings Sony the cash money money.  I know Sony is trying to send a message that its all Indie now (Ya...right) but wedging the guy behind Braid between Killzone: Bloodfest 4 and Final Fantasy 27 felt a bit out of place.

No Core

No, Im not talking about the CPU.  Im talking about the glue that holds all the magic pieces of a presentation together.  In previous years the main core was rock solid because it was so bloody obvious:  Games and a side helping of Hardware.  That was the only way to win fans over.  This time around, as Sony laid out, the gaming industry is changing.  Technology is changing.  So likewise they are looking to set the standard for this changing industry by incorporating features never before seen in a gaming console.  Features like better socialibilty, easier graphical interfaces, developer friendly software, cloud gaming, innterconectivy with mobile devices, and whatever else I'm omitting.  Maybe 8 years later the PS5 will, on top of all that, also cook your dinner, drive you to school, pay your taxes, mow the lawn and marry you if you find yourself still single later in life.  

            And guess what?  Whether Sony wants to believe it or not, this generation's (and every generation of Sony console that follows) central core is still the games.  Yet Sony certainly didnt send that message when the meeting began with a display of hundreds of faces beamed around the room.  The social network.    At points that initial message was so heavy that I felt Sony was treating game demos like they were the elephant in the room or something.  This is what I like to call, getting off on the wrong foot.  This is what I like to call, not knowing your fanbase.  This is what I like to call, stupid.

            As the meeting dragged on it became blatantly obvious that Sony was just pulling mediocore tricks out of a brown paper bag in no particular order.  Tricks that would impress your grandma but would make your buddies yawn.  There was no trick to give Sony a strong lead in or a strong exit.  Nor was there any rabbit or woman getting sawed in half in that bag.  There was no climax or rock bottom.   Everything was just randomly average, without any sense of excitement being built. 

No Hardware

            Im willing to suggest that if Sony had actually brought the PS4 and showed it running and what the OS looks like, I probably wouldnt even be writing this blog.  There is so much latent excitement in gamers ready to splooge all over the place just at the sight of a new piece of hardware.  No matter how boring the presentations might have been that followed, at least we could just stare at the mighty fine and shiny piece of craftsmanship sitting on the stage. 

            Where the hell was Japan?

                I wanted to see more Japanese software and hardware developers there.  From them we got nothing.  Just some CGI and the message, There will be a new Final Fantasy.  Wow.  Seriously? If theres one major advantage the Sony has over Microsoft, its having a monopoly on the brightest minds in Japans gaming industry.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

It seems the majority of movies and video game plots have a similar theme going on.  The beginning usually reflects a birth or awakening of something, while the end usually reflects a death or putting to rest of something.  I know there are reasons for this.  It certainly helps present a new experience in a way that the majority can latch onto and hang with, and to end that same experience with some closure. 

But rarely do movies or games dare to end (or begin) in the middle of something (If they have, you can bet your college fund there's a sequel or it's on the way), which would reflect more on what we experience all the time.  In my life there are so many question marks about the future.  Then when I think about my past, the further back I go the fuzzier it seems to get.  I guess that means there is no clear beginning either.  The only force that can possibly put an end to it all is far more powerful than what the ending of a movie, book or video game can string together. 

Ive been thinking about this subject today because I heard someone mention a theory that the main character of The Last of Us dies at the end. They also followed this by mentioning that in the sequel you would play as the girl.  For me there are a few reasons that come to mind why killing off the main character at the end of the game is an idea that should have been stomped out the second it was mentioned.

First: For what I was going on about at the start of this post.  The death of a character at the end of a plot is so incredibly clich  and convenient from a creators standpoint that as a viewer/gamer its almost impossible to take the moment seriously.  Therefore, taking any emotional investment accrued during the course of the game and flushing it down the urinal.    

Second: For what I was going on about in my last blog post.  You've probably (definetly) already died.  So if the game finally does decide to officially whack you, it would just seem comical.  Its like, "Ya, thanks, I did that like a thousand times already."

It also seems to go against the logic of playing a video game in the first place.  Why go throw the effort to survive, if the game is going to suddenly toss you an unavoidable death?

This is all speculation.  Heck, who knows what the game is going to be like.  If the ending is far from what I just mentioned then this whole blog post will also be seen as wasted effort (A skill which I've come to master in my 26 years on this planet). 

So how could The Last of Us end in a way that both is what I call "In the middle of something" and not be forced into a corner where Naughty Dog must release a sequel? 

First of all, sequels are always options, no matter what sort of cliffhanger is left.  But with the whole Zombie/Apocolypse setting, it really aint hard to end in the middle of something. We can all presume the world in The Last of Us is long past the point of fixing. Both characters just want to survive. Honestly, the developers can just call it whenever they feel like it.  For instance, call it when the characters realize the situation in front of them is just too overpowering, leaving the gamers to speculate on what happens to them.    

And Im not totally against the whole idea of the father figure dying.  Actually, him dying at some random point might work out.  It still would go against my second and third points, but it would leapfrog the first one.  Then, of course, you would have to play the following parts of the game as the girl.  Which is maybe a reason why shes on the forefront of the cover.       

***The title of my post came from Ernest Hemingway's short story with the same name: The End of Something

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot

But books, movies and everything else that beams chunky plots down your ears, eyes and undies are fixed.  They can't change.  This is why I feel serious story-driven video games have an inherent flaw, a flaw which leaves me numb to feeling emotions for the main character, the other characters and the entire plot in general.    

In one sense its the obvious driver-seat/puppeteer problem.  The medium by default sticks you in the perfect position to mess with a story and create your own. But that doesnt happen.  Fight it all you want, youll still find what everyone else is going to find. Sure alternate endings have started to pop up more often than gerbils in the sunshine, but those arent an endless resource.  Play through enough times and youll see them all. 

I guess a solution is playing the game exactly how it was meant to be played, an attempt at adding +5 to the realism skill tree.  Play it rationally, that is.  Based on what you know of your character, make the decisions you feel your character would.  For example when a character addresses you in a non-cut scene moment, you stand there and listen.  Not run around them in circles. 

From the gamers perspective, this sort of goes against the natural.  You want to do more than just sit there, than just puppet, than just sit there taking orders from some higher power.  So instead, when characters speak, I like checking out the surroundings, trying to punch allies in the face, jumping in place and trying to do the moonwalk.  All of which should make the other speakers stop what they're doing and say, WTF? 

Another problem I have is with the inevitable death thing.  Unless youre some Jack in the Godstalk who never fails in games, some tosspot who uses cheats, or some rug-burn who only plays games on super easy mode while piloting their character like a grandma behind the wheel of a Volvo,  Im guessing we all die a few (hundred) times along the way. I dont know about you, but I cant help but remembering all those deaths.  This alone removes me from any serious business thats going on plotwise. 

I want a good story like anybody else.  And Im not saying the stories of many video games are not excellent.  But the set-up of the medium itself degrades their emotional quality.  Ive been reading up a lot on The Last of Us recently.  Looks fantastic.  I read The Road awhile back too.  A book I was emotionally engulfed in.  But then again the son didnt suddenly decide to do sprints along the wasteland while his father was delivering sagely advice.  Nor did the father die, only to be re-spawned at the nearest checkpoint, ten pages in.

When I heard about what the people behind the ZombieU did with their plot, I kind of liked it.  One character dies and a different one is born.  Sort of makes sense.  I also like the idea of Hardcore mode, which is featured on Diablo and Torchlight.  If you die, game-over.  Its ruthless, but it makes you interact with the game in an entire different way.  Should all heavy story-driven video games have this option?  Yes.

Read and Post Comments | Get the full article at GameSpot