******** ATTENTION ********

The following comments are my own opinions, they may, or may not match yours.

**************************

So there I was last night, so excited for the Sony announcement. We all knew it was going to be about the PS4, but even knowing that, the gamer within MADE me stream the "meeting". Stream might be the wrong word, unsless the word "stream" means "watch a stop motion video where the audio just could never catch up", but that's a different story....

I will keep this short and to the point. Yes, I will be getting the PS4 when it comes out, not because I am a "fanboy", but because that's what I do, I buy new shiny fun things to play with, and that's where this story goes south.

In todays world where leaks about new products are common place, or maybe even part of a greater marketing tool, we already had loads of information about the PS4. If you looked hard enough, you could find info about streaming games, social sharing and even "letting your friends play your game". So last nights "meeting" (for me) was not so much about what this new toy could do, but what was it going to look like, how much is it going to be, and maybe most important, when will it be available.

Three things I really wanted to know, am I the only one that is disappointed waking up today knowing those questions went unanswered? Ya, ya, "Holiday Season 2013" thanks again for the breaking news...

The best way I can describe my feelings are "I went to a car show, expecting to see the new models, when I entered the showroom I was presented with a steering wheel and information about what type of mechanics it will take to work on the cars", No tires to kick. It can't be good when the day after Sony is already apologizing for not having something more to show.

I tured off my stuttering stream last night with one feeling, "there go 2 hrs of my life I will never get back" 

Back to the rumor mills for me.

/semi rant

As many of you who read this blog might know, I have a bit of an issue, buying older games, not getting to newer games, having a gaming queue that is far larger than it should be. This isn't unusual for most gamers, but when I was a kid, I always envied one friend in particular who had tons and tons of games, enough to fill an entire shelf, much like I have now. I realise that being materialistic isn't a good thing, and as I get older, I am more interested in attending things than playing games, like, going to see a hockey game over playing a new release, which I'll be doing next week. When I do find free time, I play some of my older games. This year, my goal is to actually play game from 2013 and finish them. Sounds stupid, I know, but that's a legitimate goal for me, and probably some of you.

What struck me this past week, as I slogged through a few games that are several years old is, as I wrote the reviews, I realised that newer games were colouring my thinking, making me short-change a game because someone years later improved upon something that had been previously done. It isn't the gaming companies' fault that there are just too many games out there and not enough time to play them. Really, it is a blessing to have so many stellar titles out there. I know some of us dreaded long stretches of last year just for the lack of amazing titles, but this year will not have the same weight upon it.

My question, however belaboured it may be is this: do you rate a game on its own merit, or in comparison to all the others that you've played up to that point? I find myself doing the latter, comparing a game to all the others, sometimes even clones of games I've not yet played. For example, I recently played Uncharted and was astounded by how much it played like Castlevania (in the climbing aspects!!  not the fighting mechanis!). When I looked at the dates of release, Uncharted came out in 2007, Castlevanie in 2010. Is that a fair comparison to make? Uncharted did these things before Castlevania came out, but in my mind, as I played the games in the chronological order of purchase, it didn't play, perhaps, as well as it should have. Should there be a moratorium on old games? I mean, how many blogs do you read about people playing older games and loving them?

I find myself conflicted as I score games, wondering if I'm being fair, wondering what fair really is. I give the game time to convince me, for good or for ill, to wow me, if it does, it does, if not, then the score will reflect that. At what point can I distance myself from previous games and play a game, enjoying it for its own merits? I read other reviews on this site and see the comparisons in force everywhere. It isn't just me, I'm certain of that. But the question remains, how do you fairly assess a game, truthfully?

Just a quick announcement to let you all know that there has been an announcement that there will be an announcement on 20 February from Sony about ... something. Announcement, announcement, announcement. The word has lost all meaning to me as I have read it so many times but I do know one thing, that all these announcement, announcement, announcements are an effort by Sony to get us gamers slavering like tigers at the zoo when the fat camp kids trot by. All aboard the hype train everyone. Toot, toot.

Well I am not having any of it because what we are going to be told on 20 February is that Sony have been developing a PS4 with a tenuous release date of Q4 2013, after which the suit in charge of the bleeding obvious at Sony is going to inform us that night follows day, the Pope is indeed a Catholic and that bears enjoy their poops 'al fresco'. Of course there might be a few shocks as well. New Little Big Planet. No way! A Naughty Dog exclusive. Stone the flaming crows! New Gran Turismo at launch! OK thats stretching things a bit.

You know that last episode of The Apprentice where the finalists have to present a new kind of shoe or something and its all a bit uncomfortable, well imagine that but with a bigger budget to spend on indoor fireworks and professional dancers. The only surprise will be which slightly confused celebrity will be led on stage. You know that Sony wont be cutting corners with a Kardashian but when Jay-Z (or whoever) comes bounding into the spotlight there will be plenty of navel-gazing after the inevitable awkward banter where Kaz Hirai asks Jay-Z 'Does Beyonce let you play games in the front room?' (Oh Kaz you card) and Jay-Z replies 'I played Street Fighter when I was a kid but don't bother much anymore can I have my cheque please?'

But fear not this will all be washed down by the thick, dry wheatgrass smoothie of a powerpoint presentation where lots of specs will fill up the screen and people like me who have to put up with this kind of brain laxative for a living will glaze over and start wishing they could go back to a time when our dreams of a wild new electronic frontier were alive and well. To think that I labelled all that pointless speculation and flimsy conjecture as a waste of time. Such ignorant guesswork seems like paradise now although on second thoughts this announcement, announcement, announcement probably won't hinder it by much, in fact it might crank it to 11. Will we never learn?

Then when all the dust has settled on Wednesday and caretakers are sweeping up all those drunken journos, throats sore from all that hooting and hollering, we will all feel a little bit hollow, desperate to fill the void within us that Sony have failed to. In our terrible sorrow we will have no choice but to start thinking about the next earth-shattering announcement, announcement, announcement when (and you'll never believe this) Microsoft will tell us that they have been developing a new console (shut uuuuuup) with (are you sitting down) a new (get ready for it). Halo! Its like stepping out the Matrix people.

The tagline for the Aliens films is "in space, no one can hear you scream."  I wonder if that holds true for the video game industry and the development teams that churn its gears.

My friend picked up the collector's edition of Aliens Colonial Marines yesterday and I was watching him play it for several minutes.  This was before I realized how horrible a critical reception it received right off the gate.  4.0 from GameSpot.  Major website publications calling it a "disappointment" and a blight on a storied legacy of a beloved film franchise.  Personally,  I expected the game to be a lot better than a 4.0, seeing how it's Aliens and all, but it looks as if Gearbox once again unintentionally committed a second offense after Duke Nukem Forever -- taking the reins of a game that languished in development hell and turning up a less-than-stellar effort. 

The question remains -- what happened?  The overall lurid reception of Colonial Marines can be blamed on a variety of things.  First, it's been reported that Gearbox had been inundiated with Borderlands 2 development around the same time Colonial Marines was being made and, because of the obvious strain, were collectively forced to hand over duties to another team known as TimeGate.  Second, the team that handled Colonial Marines in Gearbox's temporary absence (sans Borderlands 2) supposedly butchered what Gearbox had started, resulting in a game that languished in a horrid state.  Third, there were signs of tension between Sega and Gearbox in regards to the lengthy time period of Colonial Marines' development.  Sega was reportedly ready to pursue legal action against Gearbox, and that Gearbox themselves requested several extensions to polish the game while they were simultaneously working on Borderlands 2.  All in all, either Borderlands 2 stalled the potential of Colonial Marines, or there was some nastiness going on behind the scenes between Sega and Gearbox.

Even though the game is disappointing, the fault does not necessarily lie with Gearbox.  I'm lead to believe they might have done everything in their known power to ensure a quality product with Colonial Marines, but were met with various obstacles.  I'm left to wonder -- could Colonial Marines have been a better game if they did not have Borderlands 2 to contend with?  Would it have been possible if Gearbox had not taken on two different projects at once?

They could have gotten away with simply outsourcing the rest of the game to another developer and relegating themselves to advisory status, but it isn't immediately clear whether or not Sega would have been entirely happy with them abandoning ship at a crucial point in Colonial Marine's development cycle.  After all, they did threaten legal action. Conversely, Gearbox could have delayed Borderlands 2 instead and diverted their focus in getting Colonial Marines done and polishing all the rough edges, but it isn't clear whether or not 2K Games would have been happy with Borderlands 2 being pushed back either.  As you can see, Gearbox found themselves in a bit of a pickle.

I'm also worried if the heavy expectations of gamers might also have played some part in straining the cycle of development.  Not just this game in particular, but many more like it.  For anticipated titles like Colonial Marines, gamers expect nothing less than a solid game that hits on nearly every note, and rightfully so given the fact that they're paying $60 of their hard-earned money.  They are known to express their disdain and frustrations against developers in company message boards, and I'm fairly certain the same holds true with the Sega/Colonial Marines message boards right now. 

Whatever the case may be, what you see is what you get.  Colonial Marines has become a tragic catalyst of the unfortunate behind-the-scenes squabbling, industry shoe-horning, and heavy struggles that developers endure to make games for us to enjoy.  And I fear there will be many more like it in the future as the game industry continues to change -- for better or for worse.

My friend, however, did tell me the next day he enjoyed the game and was looking forward to playing more.  For Gearbox and Sega, who probably aren't even friends anymore, that should be some bit of consolation.

Turns out I was completely wrong at the end of my last blog. Didn't enjoy Battlefield 3 at all! Thankfully the game was only 6 or so hours long as I meant I could blitz through it extremely quickly. The story was dull and almost non-existent so I just let the cut scenes play out and then got back to the action. This was the kind of story I expect from a military shooter. MW3 just excelled in the story department, especially compared to this.

As is now expected from a Battlefield game the graphics are amazing. Along with Rage this is up there with the very best the 360 has to offer. In some respects the game was overly realistic. I can't really put my finger on what I mean by that but I think I prefer my games a tad rougher round the edges. Sounds stupid I guess but I prefer more colourful games and at times it was hard to distinguish where the enemies were. It does spell out how good looking games on console can be and can only assume they'll get even better for next gen. From what I've read and heard it's way better on PC and I'd quite like to check that out if I had a PC capable of maxing it out!

I was pretty impressed with the locations in the game which beat out MW3 hands down so it's a shame I mostly didn't enjoy what I was doing in them. There were a couple of decent levels where it was an enjoyable experience such as the pool house/villa towards the end but mostly it just felt really generic. The vehicle missions were even worse than normal as they dragged for at least twice as long as I'd have liked. The jet fighter mission was one of the dullest missions I've ever played in a game.

For an online shooter game I wasn't all that impressed with the shooting mechanics. A few times it felt a bit hit and miss if you hit the target or not. Maybe I just didn't spend enough time honing my skills but it didn't feel anywhere near as good as on MW3. There's a decent array of weapons on offer but the default mission weapons weren't really worth switching out for anything else.

I can imagine the multiplayer is a great experience but as ever I skipped over the multiplayer. The way the scenery can be destroyed must make for some great games as cover is gone in seconds if fired upon. Not sure how it plays but I assume it's a slightly slower, more tactical game than COD is which I think I'd prefer.

I ended up with an average Gamerscore for this type of game with around half being online/co-op achievements. I decided on a rather generous 7.5 for this game. The graphics bumped it up a bit but having not tried it online, it definitely didn't deserve anything higher. I really enjoyed the previous game so felt a bit let down by its sequel.

Left 4 Dead 2 was next up and after a positive first game I thought I was in for a treat. The game was released very soon after the original so I expected more of the same which was no bad thing. I played them a couple of years apart so was a bit fresher for me when I came to play it.

I quickly came to realise how aimed towards co-op it is with the single player being a bit of a disappointment. The locations were amazing and although they don't stray far from the norm for this type of game I never get bored of them. I wasn't keen on the swamp level but I always love a carnival level in a horror/survival game so that more than made up for it. The campaigns were all pretty short though and were easily possible to sprint from one end to the other on anything but the hardest difficulty setting. I completed the last couple in about 45 minutes each and I didn't feel I was rushing. If I had other people to play with I think there'd be more excitement in exploration but when you're playing on your own I didn't feel it was worth it.

The gameplay is very strange to get used to as you expect zombies to be slow which is completely reversed in this game. I suppose they aren't technically zombies but infected humans (I think anyway!) so you just have to think of them like that. I would've preferred more adventuring to 'find' zombies rather than just standing in one place whilst you get hit by wave after wave. The one good thing you can say about the AI is that they are actually very useful at dispatching enemies. You never really have to worry that you're playing on your own as they more than make up for it. The flipside of this is that they can often be too helpful and you never actually get to do anything. Unless you run ahead they can often clear an area of enemies before you even have time to react. That was my own downside is that you often feel like a passenger your own game and you don't really get to do anything.

The weapons are very run of the mill with nothing that really provides any real thrills. I generally prefer standard weaponry so I was happy enough with this but a lot of the weapons felt the same and didn't provide enough variety. The melee weapons are brilliant though and match anything I used in Dead Rising for thrills. I do think I prefer Dead Rising as a game but this has its benefits. It's also one of the few games I've played lately where it doesn't have regenerative health. It seems strange to say that it was actually quite refreshing to play this way. Having health regenerate by staying out of the action isn't overly exciting. This way you have to manage your health and you actively have to hold back or push on ahead of team-mates depending on how much health you have and how much they do.

I really wish I'd given it a go online as I think you'd get a totally different experience to what I've had offline. Some games are just made for multiplayer which I think is great. I can imagine having 3 friends to play this with would be an amazing experience. Cranking it up to expert and putting realism on and then taking it to the enemies is an experience you probably can't match in many games.

I've given the game an 8.0 as I don't think it's an awful game by any stretch of the imagination and with the multiple games modes and co-op on offer I think it's a great package all round.

Next up for me are The Darkness II and then Dead Space 2 so am pretty hopeful about both of them. The Darkness was a surprise hit when I first played it and Dead Space is still one of my favourite games of this generation, I'm not sure what else has been better apart from maybe Bioshock.

Found a copy at my local Wallyworld, which was no small matter, as the game is out of stock on pretty much every online site and most retailers. I just finished Chapter 6 this morning -- had to play as soon as I woke up. It's one of those games -- you know, the kind that keep you up at night thinking about it; the kind you wake up thinking about how you want to build your characters up when you start playing again.

That's Donnel up there. He's a villager you meet early on in the game. I hear he gets pretty beefy as you level him up, so I'm throwing him into the fray as often as possible.

The game is really great so far...and hard as hell, at least in terms of keeping everyone alive. I'm playing on Hard difficulty in Classic mode, so if a unit dies, they stay dead like they would in previous FE games.

And I have to say, the criticisms regarding grinding for levels and re-classing for endless stat boosts have been grossly exaggerated. Perhaps in Normal mode things are much easier, but you don't get free access to Second Seals (to re-class) 'til much later in the game, and it's hard to grind even the "easiest" sidequests, as the enemies can still send your units to the hereafter. Gameplay-wise, Fire Emblem is still very much intact. It just has a ton more to offer now.

Unfortunately, the story is very..."Tales of." Don't get me wrong, Tales of Symphonia is one of my all-time favorite games, but that series generally has a lot of silliness and plot devices that are a complete departure from realistic social situations. Awakening has a lot of that too. However, the actual plot is quite compelling. Chapter 6 was a good set-up to get you wanting more, in spite of the ridiculous premise.

But the game does have a good sense of humor, I'll give it that. This is a Support scene. When you battle together, you raise the bond of relationship between characters. I'm trying to hook up Sumia and Chrom so they'll marry and have a kid. Sumia is really into Chrom, so it seems like a natural pairing.

The game has a lot of other, really cool features. The WiFi stuff comes with a boatload of downloadable fan service. The DLC maps should really satisfy anyone who's been into the series for a while. It's like a "greatest hits" of Fire Emblem. Great stuff.

Haven't really played on my 3DS or touched it much at all for months -- pretty much since Resident Evil Revelations -- so it's nice to have another really good reason to pick the system up.

Omg next E3 is gonna have Versus info, I can sense it!!

Can you imagine waiting 10 years for something to come, only for it to never come? Well can you?

I sure can't. But you know, it sounds to me like that's what a certain special brand of Final Fantasy fans have been doing. Yeah you know who you are. The ones who constantly like to remind us that "The last great Final Fantasy was ten!" Or they might say that the last great one was nine. Others say that no Final fantasy will ever surpass seven. They're the ones that follow Square Enix religiously despite the fact that they've been disappointed time and time again. They're the ones who endlessly trash all the newer final fantasies in favor of the older ones. The ones who tell anyone who dared to enjoy any final fantasy after nine or ten (it depends) that they are what is wrong with the gaming industry. The ones who say there is no need for new final fantasies, only HD remakes of the old ones. The ones that think that JRPGs are all dead and that good ones dont even exist, because Final fantasy is the be all end all of JRPGs. And if Final Fantasy sucks then that must mean all JRPGs suck right!? And my reaction is something like this:

The so called last great Final Fantasy came out at the end of 2001. It is now February 2013. Have you honestly been waiting 11, almost 12 years, for some godly game that you think will magically renew your undying love for Square Enix? I could understand having this mindset back in 2003 or even as late as 2005. But 11 years!?  12 years if you think the last great Final Fantasy was 9. 13 years if you thought the last great one was 8. A whopping 15 years if you thought the last great one was 7. Lord, do you know how long ago that is? Could you remember what was going on in the world 15 years ago? 15 years ago, Bill Clinton was president of the United States!

Now I know some people are going to stop reading in order to scroll down and bash the hell out of me in the comment section. But before you do that please hear me out. Has there really been some people waiting over a decade for ONE video game company to get their act together and impress them? Don't you think that maybe, just maybe its time to move on?

I've read several accounts of fans getting hyped for a new Final Fantasy, hoping that it's going to be the next seven, or eight, or whatever their favorite was. And lo and behold, it's not! You know why? Because times change thats why! So does the staff at Square Enix. Also, Final Fantasy is a series that historically changes with every installment. I can't count how many times I heard people say "The last great FF was X, but I'm going to buy this new game anyway, in the hopes that Square will get their act together!" Or " ____ (insert final fantasy that has yet to come out) is going to save Square, and itll be way better than that piece of crap _______ (insert final fantasy that already came out here)."

You guys know that old saying? Fool me once (FF XI) shame on you, fool me twice (FF XII) shame on me, fool me three times (compilation of FF VII) what am I doing, fool me four times (FF XIII) no seriously what the hell am I doing, fool me five, six, seven, eight times (Versus, no Type 0 localization, FF all the bravest, shift to mobile gaming) why am even still here? Ok yeah that's not how the saying goes but you get my point right? It baffles me as to why someone who has been disappointed with a company's decisions over the course of a decade would even bother with them anymore.

Now to clarify, I don't think there is anything wrong with preferring the old final fantasies over the new ones. But it is getting tiring seeing over and over on every topic having to do with FF and SE:

"FF 7 REMAKE!" or " Square is crap now. This next game they're putting out better be good though because I'm buying it anyway, its totally going to be the next ff 7!" or "Anybody who enjoys the new FF games has horrible taste!"  or "Square Enix sucks now so all gaming and JRPGs must suck too!"

Why cant you just move on? Serious question, why? Does Atlus not exist in your world where JRPGs all suck? Or Monolith Soft? Level 5, Mistwalker, Nippon Ichi Software, or Namco Bandai? Anyone?

-crickets chirp-

And I'll admit, I was once waiting and waiting on SE for Versus and other great games akin to the Final Fantasies that I loved. I waited and waited, missing out on many other JRPGs. Then one day I just said "Forget them." I just didn't see any point to waiting on them anymore. When I picked up other great JRPGs by other companies, this only reinforced my belief. And hey, I still make passing, backhanded comments about how Square can't get anything done in a reasonable amount of time. I'm human too. But I just don't see any point in sticking with them after Ive been disappointed for way too long over their bizarre business decisions. Thats just masochistic. The games I want may possibly never come from SE anymore, so I've accepted it and moved on to other games and gaming companies.

I'll also admit that quality JRPGs are nowhere near as abundant as they were in the PS2 and PS1 era. But they are out there, hidden in the mist. And you sure aren't going to find them by getting hung up on one company and/or one series. And that goes for any genre of gaming. What I just said about Square Enix could go for any company. Series can change or end abruptly. Companies will sell out. The head honchos and leaders leave, which can be good or bad. No matter what, things are going to change over time. Whether you choose to accept it or sit there and suffer through these unwanted changes is up to you.

Not only that, but when I game, I always keep an amusing little adage in mind. Its called Sturgeon's Law, otherwise known as "90% of everything is crap!" Well, it'd be a stretch to say 90% of games are complete trash. It'd be more accurate to say 90% of games are average to crap. Always. And that goes for any form of entertainment.

You'll always have those money hungry corporations looking to nickel and dime their customers. Youll always have guys who have the artistic integrity of a potato and will just copy what the next guy is doing. Great companies will be bought out by bigger companies who will force them to churn out uninspired, dumbed down, rehashed sequels. Great companies may go out of business as well. Some companies will give the finger to their long standing fanbases in favor of a market that will make them more money.

That's just how things are sometimes. The only thing we as gamers can really do is vote with our wallet. We can only sort amongst the steaming piles of human excrement in hopes that we'll find a jewel hidden in there somewhere. Also something else: I think some people get so hung up on review scores, hype, critics, controversies, and what's past, that they forget to have fun. Not every game is going to be a 10/10. Not every game is going to make you shed manly gamer tears of joy and scream "BRAVO!" at the end. That doesn't mean you can't still have fun with them.

I've played several "crappy" games and enjoyed them. I put crappy in quotes because they weren't deemed crappy by me and other fans of the game, but by critics and naysayers. It doesn't matter to me, because I'm still having fun with the game. I don't get hung up on review scores. Sure I'll read them. But I'll be damned if Im going to let a few bad scores stop me from getting a game I think I'll enjoy. And even if I pick up a bad game, or a series ends, or a company begins to suck, I know there's always something else out there. One door closes, but another opens, provided that I open that door and don't just sit there crying.

Gaming is supposed to be fun, first and foremost. And if gaming really causes you enough rage to curse out random teenagers on a net forum, type in all caps about how much you hate it nowadays, or maliciously attack gaming companies, games, or reviewers from behind the comfort of your computer screen, then you've got three options.

You can rejoice over the fact that digital downloading now allows us to download classics from the previous eras of gaming and enjoy them on our modern systems. You can also forget all about the sucky companies that wronged you and go on a hunt for different genres, games, and companies to support. Or you can go find another hobby that doesnt cause you so much pain. Because honestly, I can't help but shake my head when I see people get REALLY mad about gaming. Its good to have passion, sure. But I think some people get a little too heated over pieces of plastic and discs.

In conclusion, there is always something else out there. There's an entire ocean of games out there. But how can you enjoy the ocean if you're standing on the beach, arms crossed, cheeks poked out, complaining about how there's sand in your shorts and the beach is just too darn hot?

I'd encourage anyone who's going through a gaming rut to keep trying! Gaming is a great hobby, and I know sometimes we all go through times where we think "You know, it's just not doing it for me anymore." But don't give up! Gaming has so much variety, and there will always be new uncharted seas out there!

I've recently had an epiphany: I like short games. Let me clarify that a bit: I enjoy shorter games. That's not to say I'm an advocate of developers releasing four hour single-player campaigns, but more to say that if a game fails to clock in at 20+ hours, I'm OK with that.

Now obviously game length is a sort of "hot" topic when it comes to gamers with some saying how today's games are "way too short." But I believe it all depends on the genre. Certainly there is a level of expectation when it comes to specific genres; RPGs traditionally have much longer campaigns than FPS games do.

So when I hear gamers complain about how "X game was too short" and "Y game wasn't long enough," it makes me wonder exactly how much longer they would want those games to last. For easy math sake, let's say the "average" length of a FPS is six hours. At $60, you spent $10 per hour to play that game. Considering how much DLC costs upwards of $15 for maybe a couple of hours of content, $10 per hour is not bad.

But there's the other consideration: How much longer do you really want to play a single-player campaign? I think six to ten hours is a decent time sink if we're talking about the FPS genre. It also depends on player skill level since it may take some gamers longer to play a shorter game and more skilled gamers less time. So where's the happy medium?

As I get older and free time is more of a luxury less than it is a certainty, I find that I don't have the time I used to when I was younger to just sit around all day and play games. Which is why I appreciate those games that I can spend some time with but not have them overstay their welcome so I can move on to the next one.