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.

I bet you've heard this one. A gamer who argues that a good game simply can't be made on a phone containing only one button. For a "hardcore" game you need a controller with a dozen buttons, or for the PC crowd, a keyboard with dozens. Few would argue that I could make a deeper, more strategic, tactical, and overall better game using only one button than I could using ten or more. But the fact is such a game already exists and it has for centuries. Go is a board game that is played with one hand. The best way to play Go electronically is on a touchscreen. Simply touch where you want to place your piece and you have mastered every single mechanic in Go. In fact the game only contains four or five rules. Essentially, in Go two players take turns placing either white or black stones on a 19x19 grid with the goal of surrounding more areas of the board than your opponent. The only move you can make is to place a stone on the board. There is only one type of stone. There is only one type of square. The only rule is that you can't place a stone that would revert the game back to the way it was the turn before. It's a game so simple a five year old could learn it. It is also the most difficult game to master in the world. It requires more tactics and strategy than can be learned in a lifetime. It is perfectly balanced in almost every way. There is no luck involved. The more skilled player will always win. Don't believe me when I say how deep the game is? What if I told you there are more end game possibilities than atoms in the known universe? Or that there are more variations to a single game than there are named numbers in human science? There are in fact so many variables in play at any moment in Go that it would take the most powerful computer in the world longer than the remaining lifespan of the universe to calculate a single move. Even taking into account only four turns ahead would take such a computer almost a year and there are hundreds of turns in a game of Go. The 360 would not be able to calculate even a single turn in advance if they had started the day it came out and ended the day the next Xbox comes out.

So in essence you have a game that can be played by a five year old with one finger that makes all our so called hardcore games look like children's toys. A game so complex that a computer can't play it. A game so complex that no one has ever truly mastered it. In fact if you ask the top Go players in the world what their strategies are, they say they don't have any. They enter the "zone" in a way most people can only dream of, where they play entirely by feel. They can't tell you why they made a move because they are not consciously making decisions. They are so at one with the game that they have every sense tuned to the board. They see patterns everywhere and from decades of experience they recognize these patterns and simply know what to play. Because of that it literally takes a lifetime to become a master at Go. It requires you to dedicate decades worth of time to become one with the game so much so that your body and the board are one and the same.

Go is the best game ever made. It is incredibly easy to learn, but takes a lifetime to master. It is almost perfectly balanced and does not feature any aspect of luck. It is the most pure game ever to exist. And it doesn't require 20 buttons and hundreds of moves to do it. Point is, games don't need to be complex to be deep. The best games are those that anyone can pick up and play but only a select few will ever master. That really is the only requirement and that can be done with one button or 20 buttons or with your bare hands on a board. Never mistake complex mechanics for deep gameplay. Complex mechanics are not a good thing. A game should be easy to learn. The depth should come from the way those simple rules and mechanics can be combined to create numerous variations that are all fair for every player and fun to achieve.

Now before you ask, I have said several times that Go is almost perfectly balanced. And yes, that means that even the best game in the world isn't perfect. There is one minor flaw in the game, and of course that flaw is that black goes first meaning the black player always has the advantage. This advantage is miniscule and for two even players it should not make any difference, but generally if a more skilled player goes first the other player will be given a small handicap to make up for it. So, no, there is no such thing as a perfect game.

What say you guys? If Go can be so complex than what stops some iPhone designer from making a game that puts console and PC games to shame? A game of such incredible depth that no one will ever truly master it? We don't need massive controllers to do that. All it takes is one mechanic, one rule, and infinite possibilities.

So I just picked up XCOM last week and I'm fully aware that I am addicted to it. The gameplay is tight and balanced (the A.I. cheats, dammit!), the progression is addictive, and the atmosphere is wonderfully tense. I love the game and it deserved its 8.5 as well as its multiple GOTY nominations (did it win any awards? If you know, please comment!).

However, there are some qualms I have about the game, and there are a few ways that I think could greatly expand on its replayability. Luckily, Firaxis has strongly hinted through several post-release interviews that they are working on a sequel (HOORAY!) and are looking to improve upon the first game. These are my suggestions.

1) More Maps

One of the things that makes XCOM so great is the tense atmosphere that the game creates while slowly moving through a fog of war shrouded battlefield. The map design in this game is top-notch, but a huge problem I have with it is that they like to repeat. A lot.

I'm in my first playthrough and I have played on the same map on three different occasions (actually, on two of those occasions it was the same mission, too. Just with different enemy spawns). I plan to play the game at least 2 more times (one on Classic and one on Impossible difficulty), and the game loses some of its tension when you know the map before walking into it.

But...how...? I shot this UFO down last night! It's back!

Another reason why I want more maps is because...well, they're so damn good. I would not mind waiting an extra month or three for the game if it meant I would (truly) not see the same map twice in two playthroughs. That would be awesome. It would be even better if we could get a random map generator that creates these great maps when a mission starts, but it seems that the crafting of the maps must be done by humans. And that's fine; I just want more so that I can keep the feeling of suspense on my second and third playthroughs.

2) More Enemy Types

OK, this one is also aimed at the vein of replayability (excuse me, but this game just screams at you to play it more than twice). To be clear; the amount of variations in the enemies here is great, but there's potential to make it better for subsequent playthroughs if, say...we didn't see them all.

I'll give an example. The very first alien you come in contact with in XCOM: Enemy Unknown is the Sectoid. For those of you who don't know, here's a picture:

Him? He comes in one piece, but then I turn him into pieces.

This little guy is the grunt of the game, and quickly becomes the least of your worries as you encounter enemies such as Chryssalids and the terrifying Ethereals.

Okay, so let's say that, in the sequel, on my first playthrough this "grunt" creature is a Sectoid. Good. But what if that only happened by chance? What if there were, say, 3 different "grunt" creatures I could have been given for my playthrough, and I only got to fight the Sectoids by chance? You would get the Sectoids for the entirety of the playthrough for continuity's sake, but let's say you play again. This time, instead of Sectoids you find a creature called a Lurker in your mission, and then Lurkers are the "grunt" creatures for your playthrough?

I feel that adding and then randomizing enemy types would be greatly beneficial to the replay factor of the game, possibly with a feature to start a game where you can select which creatures that you have already discovered that you want to show up in your campaign. I would want to play again and again just to see what else Firaxis created for me to kill (or be brutally murdered by, for that matter).  

3) Flexible Weapon Upgrades

One of the most satisfying moments of the game is when you finally research a new gun to fire at the aliens. The only issue with that feeling is that, once you create the gun, you're done. There's no more for you to do with it. Sure, you can upgrade ammo capacity and such in the Foundry, but there's no way to modify each gun's stats for individual soldiers.

I feel like it's a missed opportunity. My favorite example of this element is in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance where you could craft a custom weapon for one of your soldiers to equip. You could customize its stats and colors, and could even give it a cool name (or a stupid one). Of course, in that game you could just pay for the best stats on any given weapon type, so XCOM would have to do it differently for game balance, but I feel like it could be done.

4) A Story...Maybe?

This suggestion is out there, I know. XCOM isn't a game that's particularly built for a story: aliens are coming to do something bad to humans, and we have to stop them before said bad things happen. The skeleton of a narrative works for the game's structure. But what including a campaign that focuses on the experiences of a squad of soldiers? Their families, their past, their weaknesses and vices, etc. There's potential for a good character-driven narrative here, especially when you throw in that they could still be permanently killed. You'll care about them on the battlefield more, not just because they have really high hit-percentages and psionic abilities, but because you know their story and want to see it end.

---
I know it's a lot I'm asking for, but with the first game out and the formula created, I feel like a good sequel to the series would try to significantly expand upon the first. This all being said, I'm on board with whatever Firaxis wants to do with the next (unnanounced-but-it's-so-happening) title.

What do you think? Am I completely off my rocker here, or do you agree with anything I said? What do YOU want in a sequel to XCOM? 

For the video game industry, 2013 hasn't been off to a particularly great start thus far. The issue of video game violence is once again being examined and scrutinized after the horrendous events of Sandy Hook last year, and a recognizable name in the industry, THQ (Toy Head Quarters for anyone who wondered what it stood for) has been dissolved. Nearly all of its intellectual properties have been sold off to other third-party publishers in an effort to help consolidate THQ's bankruptcy. Whatever your opinions may be of THQ, it is generally agreed that they did possess a number of promising franchises. Among them Saint's Row, the WWE games, Metro and Homefront. As of this writing, many of THQ's backlog have established new homes within the likes of Electronic Arts, Sega, Ubisoft, and Take-Two (to name a few). Yet, as of now, only one franchise failed to find a home. And it's one that I have a deep fondness of; a little known apocalyptic adventure known as Darksiders.

When I first bought Darksiders on my 360, I was drawn to how it indirectly references the Zelda games. Such a claim has been stated on numerous occasions and, when you play the game for yourself, you'll come to understand why. Puzzle solving, exploration, complex dungeons that require specific tools and items to navigate and intense combat round out the package. I wouldn't go so far as call it a Zelda-clone because while it shares many similarities, it possesses a identity all its own in a blood-soaked, apocalyptic, extraordinarily-violent atmosphere. Following up on Darksiders, Darksiders 2 expanded on the original with a bigger world, a protagonist that swelled of pure awesomeness on every level, an addictive loot system, side questing and more depth. It also took an interesting story approach by taking place during the original game when War was going through his struggles -- through the perspective of Death and how he fought to clear his brother's name. Yes, the story was quite outlandish, but damned if it doesn't make for a good excuse to kick some serious ass.

Darksiders was one of those games that did things a little differently with a formula that has already been done (more or less), and showed a great deal of promise in becoming its own successful franchise for THQ. Unfortunately, as THQ teetered on the brink of collapse, the future of Vigil Games and the Darksiders series fell into uncertainty. When THQ was finally dissolved earlier this month, no other third-party publisher expressed enough interest in giving it a new home, snapping up Saint's Row and the WWE franchise as they were proven money makers. Darksiders enjoyed moderate success, but it ultimately did not convince potential takers. As a result, Vigil Games was disbanded---many of its team going on to other development houses (like Crytek). This is truly a shame, because the Vigil team possessed more than enough potential to be a valuable asset for any company outside of THQ, and it wouldn't have mattered if they made a Darksiders game or not.

Interestingly enough, there is some hope on the horizon for Darksiders, and it's from a surprising source. Platinum Games, developers of Bayonetta, Metal Gear Rising and the upcoming Wonderful 101, has gone on record inquiring about obtaining the IP and using their own development team to possibly craft a third project. Whether or not Darksiders under a Japanese development team would be as good as its Vigil-produced forebearers would depend solely on how much they really care about and respect the source material to please long-time fans and possibly draw in newcomers. Of course, God forbid if they consider rebooting it.

Although nothing's been confirmed yet, at least there may be a second chance----a second coming if you will---of a franchise that, for the time being and like the dilemma War faced with Earth in the original Darksiders, has died way before its time.

Last week, Gamespot posted an article about the Last of Us, the latest entry from the creators of Uncharted, Naughty Dog. In the article, the game is receiving yet more LE versions, these are now character specific. I have blogged about this before, it would seem, but I found myself frustrated this past Saturday when I adventured into my favourite Gamestop and found that it, and all other locations nearby, had sold out of the Post-Pandemic version, the $160 version of the game.

• 12 inch premium statue by Project Triforce
• Steelbook edition of the game
• The Last of Us - American Dreams #1 Comic (Variant Cover)
• Survival DLC Pack (Voucher Download):
• Multiplayer bonuses:
• Bonus XP
• Melee Booster
• In game currency
• Customizable Character items
• Bonus Joel and Ellie skins available once play through of single player game is completed
• Sights and Sounds DLC pack (Voucher Download):
• Official Game Soundtrack
• PS3 Dynamic Theme
• PSN Avatars: Winter Joel and Ellie
• Naughty Dog Sticker sheet

On our way home, I was out with my cousin who was visiting from FL, she checked site after site on her phone, Amazon, Best Buy, Newegg, Toys R Us, the list goes on and the only version available was the Survivial version, had the same stuff, just no statue. So why, pray tell, did I go on Gamestop's website today, see the Post-Pandemic version and pre-order it? I know the easy answer is that I have a problem, and to be fair, I haven't bought a new game since Hitman, but still, the question remains. I, like many others, are lulled into picking up the more expensive version of a game, enthralled by the limited nature of the package, no doubt.

Truthfully, I think the trouble, for me, started a long time ago, when I realised I enjoyed collecting things. At an early age, I had baseball/football card collections, then as I got older, comic books and entertainment trading cards. Is collecting versions of a game really any different? I fully admit I have more CE versions than I can count, not one of which is being displayed in my room. Like all my Sideshow Collectibles statues, these too are safely stowed in a closet with my impressive baseball/basketball/hockey bobble head sets. There is nothing wrong with collecting, I think, as long as you know how to stop.

The larger question for me, comes back to the original point of this belaboured topic, why do the gaming companies produce these collectables, is it just another way to pull money from foolish gamers, such as myself?

In the above edition, the gamer gets tangible and intangible items, a statue, a steel book as well as a wealth of DLC. To Naughty Dog, this is worth $160, but will it be worth that to me in May? In November I picked up my AC3 LE and while the game itself was lacklustre, the extras from paying more were decent. Though I may have hated Connor, the statue was quite well made, the belt buckle impressive. The PS3 version came with DLC, as did the pre-order. Unfortunately for me, I never did figure out how to get the saw-tooth sword to be equipped, and at some point during the game play I just didnt care anymore. In advance of release, I think, collectors editions are perfect for the impulse shopper in all of us. In retrospect, I think I need a professional buyer to tell me 'no' when I even dare to pick one up. By that same token, if this is one of my only vices, then it isn't all that bad. At the end of the day, perhaps these will be worth something, even if they aren't mint in box. Games should be enjoyed when played, I know, but the statues and display pieces perfect for bookshelves are hard to ignore. Most statues of the calibre I see with game sets are actually quite pricey, averaging at least upwards of $100 apiece. But does that mean I should get it? I mean, I bought the CE of Ninja Gaiden 3, and I still have egg on my face, as they saying goes.

I know Ive asked this question of my faithful readers, but at what point do you stop yourself, realising that you're spending bad money after good? I think I might need an intervention.

Augmented Reality is an interesting thing. The potential for amazing things is almost unchecked, offering a world where every day life can be seen in a whole new way, allowing access to data you didn't even know you needed, and of course, a brand new way to play games.

Ingress is one such game, using AR to present a fairly unique experience. I have to say the interface does look very cool, NianticLabs@Google presenting a way to make a GPS interface look slick and futuristic, while also adhering to the world and fiction they have created. Said fiction, is that Higgs-Boson research has created a strange side effect, a substance called Xotic Matter that is both energy and matter. This is seeping into our world via portals, and two factions are vieing for control of those portals, so that they may have control over the minds of people.

Ok, so its a bit hoaky, but it works in the context of the game. The interface presents a GPS view of your current position, and a blue circle surrounds your arrow. Floating dots are scattered around you, and any thay enter this circle are sucked to your arrow. This is XM, and powers a lot of your abilities in game. You must then find 'Portals' that can be hacked, attacked and linked to gain items and other goodies.

To find these portals, you must walk. A lot. In a noble effort, however, portals are generally located on either art projects or post offices scattered around various towns and cities around you. This is all well and good, but at present, at least in the UK, there simply isn't enough of them. I don't live in out in the sticks, my town, Birstall, is pretty central to no less than 3 large cities, all in easy communting distance, but I can only collect XP locally. There is a large statue of Joesph Priestly in Birstall (he discovered oxygen), but that doesnt count as a portal. Neither does the post office or anything in a 3 mile radius.

I understand that the point is get you to seek out art in your local area, but first starting out with the game can be confusing and with little do if you don't live in a major city the game becomes boring. This is a shame, because despite some GPS lag that means your arrow never, ever, appears to be on a road, the game is very cool.

All of these things can be addressed as the beta progresses, and I personally think the look of the game is awesome and so doesn't really need much improvement. The problem is the lack of things to do if you don't live in major metropolitain areas, and Ingress unfortunatly falls down here, with even the cities I do go to not having enough to do within the game to warrent the battery drain.

I you live in a major city, give the beta a go, its free and can be fun. If you live anywhere else though, give it a miss, you just won't make any real progress at present, try it again later in the year.

'I became insane, with long intervals of horrible sanity.' In 99% of the cases, female protagonists in videogames are men in exaggerated female bodies. By men, for men.

This is all I have to say for now.

Others are more eloquent though, so:

1. read an article called 'Critics Ruin Video Games Good!' by the developer Anjin Anhut. It does a much better job of explaining sexism in games (and the backlash against criticism) than my previous blog post, explaining why is it not only OK but also necessary to criticize it.

2. think about this interesting quote from a Gamespot article:

Speaking to Games Industry International, Warren Spector said he believes such violence in games could have negative implications. He went on to note that he left Eidos Montreal (where he was instrumental in the production of the original Deus Ex) in 2004 because of the violence he witnessed from the publisher's lineup, specifically games like Hitman, 25 to Life, and Crash & Burn.

"We have to stop loving it," he said. "I just don't believe in the effects argument at all, but I do believe that we are feti5hising violence, and now in some cases actually combining it with an adolescent approach to sexuality. I just think it's in bad taste. Ultimately, I think it will cause us trouble."

"We've gone too far. The slow-motion blood spurts, the impalement by deadly assassins, the knives, shoulders, elbows to the throat. You know, Deus Ex had its moments of violence, but they were designed--whether they succeeded or not I can't say --but they were designed to make you uncomfortable, and I don't see that happening now. I think we're just appealing to an adolescent mindset and calling it mature. It's time to stop. I'm just glad I work for a company like Disney, where not only is that not something that's encouraged, you can't even do it, and I'm fine with it."

3. Check out a great Gamespot article by Laura Parker, in case you missed it: It's hard to believe in the new Lara Croft.

4. Here's a webcomic.

5. And...don't forget THIS.

In other news:

A) Superb article about fantasy literature.

B) What it's like to work in Valve?
'...hierarchical management had been invented for military purposes, where it was perfectly suited to getting 1,000 men to march over a hill to get shot at.'

I know this is a bit late, I meant to post it earlier but got caught up in other things (sorry). So what is this anyway? Well it's not quite what it looks like, these are not my game of the year awards but the awards of the Critical Path Podcast. Of course I was part of said podcast, but what I am stressing is that these do not just reflect my opinion but reflect a lengthy argumentative process full of compromise and personal defeats. The knock on effect being, I don't wholly agree with them all, but I stand by the choices and think we did a decent job. I welcome you all to critique our picks, but before you do so I would recommend you to listen to the podcast which I have linked to below. I know it's long people, but this kind of process takes quite a while and we wanted to be thorough. If you have any questions about why so and so game won or why your favourite game is nowhere to be seen, refer to the podcast for a full explanation. There are plenty of games we loved that couldn't make it on because of a lack of consensus. Also if some of the categories don't make sense, there are almost adequate explanations for them all on the podcast. I also think it's a decent listen, but then again I would.

If you like what you hear, then check back every Sunday for new episodes of the Critical Path Podcast (you can even subscribe on itunes).

Game of the Year Podcast

(Spoiler Warning: We talk about the games of 2012 in explicit spoilerific detail, we also spoil tangential things with no regard to others. If you are yet to see the Matrix or haven't played a game that has been released before this very point, you have been warned!)

So now all that is out of the way, here are the awards!

Best Use of On Screen Money:

Winner- Assassins Creed 3

Runner Up- Max Payne 3

Masochistic Game of the Year:

Winner- Tokyo Jungle

Runner Up- FTL: Faster Than Light

Best Use of Baldness:

Winner- Max Payne 3

Runner- Hitman Absolution

Best Assassin Game:

Winner- Dishonored

Runner Up- Mark of the Ninja

Worst Ending:

Winner- Far Cry 3

Runner Up- Assassins Creed 3

Best Stealth:

Winner- Dishonored

Runner Up- Mark of Ninja

Best Use of Player Choice:

Winner- The Walking Dead

Runner Up- Call of Duty: Black Ops 2

Best Story:

Winner- Spec Ops: The Line

Second- The Walking Dead

Third- Dear Esther

Best Shooter:

Winner- Max Payne 3

Second- Halo 4

Third- Borderlands 2

Best Download Only Game:

Winner- Journey

Second- Fez

Third- Hotline Miami

Best Loot:

Winner- Torchlight 2

Best Co-op:

Winner- Journey

Runner Up- Borderlands 2

Best Competitive Multiplayer:

Winner- Halo 4

Runner Up- Guild Wars 2

Best Looking Game:

Winner- Journey

Second- Assassins Creed 3

Third- Max Payne 3

Best Music:

Winner- Hotline Miami

Runner Up- Halo 4

Best RPG:

Winner- Guild Wars 2

Runner Up- Borderlands 2

Best Walking Dead Episode:

Winner- 5

Runner Up- 2

Best Reboot:

Winner- XCOM: Enemy Unknown

Most Disappointing Game:

Winner- Hitman Absolution

Most Surprising Game:

Winner- Call of Duty: Black Ops 2

Best Open World:

Winner- Rook Islands (Far Cry 3)

Runner Up- Tyria (Guild Wars 2)

Best New Character:

Winner- Kenny (Walking Dead)

Runner Up- Handsome Jack (Borderlands 2)

2011 Game of 2012:

Winner- Portal 2

Runner Up- The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings

Game of the Year:
1. XCOM: Enemy Unknown
2. Max Payne 3
3. Halo 4
4. The Walking Dead
5. Journey

PAX East is right around the corner, which means another fun weekend for myself and the thousands of people who attend the Boston Convention Center from March 22nd to March 24th. If you plan on going I hope you already got your passes. I just went to buy a three day badge, and they're already sold out. I'm not worried about it. Craigslist usually has 3 day passes for sale the week of the convention as does ebay. Just gotta look out for fake badges, but anyways I'm excited for PAX East 2013. There's some seriously cool videogames coming in the near future that would be perfect for this years PAX East. Here's some of the things that I think would make PAX East 2013 the best PAX ever.

GrandTheft Auto 5

A playable demo of Grand Theft Auto 5 would be AWESOME. With a Spring 2013 release window, I think it's very likely GTA V will be at this years PAX East. Rockstar was present at last years PAX East with a booth showcasing Max Payne 3. I can't see why they wouldn't come back for Grand Theft Auto V. The rumored May release date makes GTA V a strong possibility for being at PAX East..I'm definitely keeping my fingers crossed for this. If GTA V is there expect long lines and cool free stuff. I really hope this game is there.

The Last Of Us

Another big title with a Spring 2013 release date. I'd say it's 50/50 we'll see a playable demo of The Last of Us at PAX East. Naughty Dog has been present at previous PAX East's but have only done panels in the past. I've never seen a Naughty Dog booth at PAX East before. Maybe Sony could showcase The Last of Us, but Sony has been absent from PAX East since 2010. With a May release date, The Last of Us would fit perfectly in the PAX East lineup.

Xbox 720 Anybody?

Wouldn't it be cool if Microsoft or Sony announced their next console at PAX East? I know it's a stretch, but why not? Everybody is expecting these big announcements from Sony & Microsoft at E3. Why not stay ahead of the curve and announce you're new console at PAX East? PAX East is supposed to be the conference for gamers which would make an announcement there cooler than E3. Chances of that happening are slim to none tho. I doubt we'll see that happen.

More Celebrities

I'm not saying we need Eminem & Jay-Z performing at one of the concerts (that would be awesome), but wouldn't it be nice to see more famous people in the gaming industry roaming the Expo Hall? Last year I met Suda 51, and it was awesome. I couldn't understand a word he said, but I was honored to take a picture with the guy, I heard Cliff Blizinski is going to be there this year. It'd be nice to see him at the Expo Hall. Imagine if there was a panel with Shigeru Miyamoto & Hideo Kojima? That would be dope.

Wii U

Another thing that was absent from last years PAX East was the Nintendo Wii U. It was still unreleased at that time, but that didn't stop Nintendo from letting gamers play the unreleased Nintendo 3DS the year before. I kind of just wanted to see a Wii U last year Now that Wii U is available, I hope to play it at PAX East. I don't own a Wii U, and don't intend on buying one, but a cool demo at PAX East could help change my mind about that.

I'll be tuning in to see what's announced for the show as we get closer to March 22nd. If you're going to this years PAX East what would you like to see? I'm hoping this years PAX East is better than last years.I think PAX falling on Easter weekend last year kind of killed some of the fun out of PAX, but I still had a good time. Maybe some of my wishes in this post will be granted. If they are I think this years PAX East will be one to remember. See you there.