In less than an hour, the biggest gaming event this year, opens its doors for the last time till next year. The strange thing is, I'm noticing myself not really caring as much anymore. E3 use to be this show full of surprises and mystery, but the conferences really sum it all up. I watched maybe 2 hours of E3 coverage that wasn't a conference. It's all gameplay footage of stuff I already know about.

Aside from that, I feel that there was a huge problem this year. That was simply motion control. When did we as a gaming community clamour for a different way to play games? When did we say, "this controller really takes me out of the immersion." If anything, I've always felt less immersed in a game without a controller. When I play the Wii, I feel like a raving lunatic, swinging my arms around as if I was some blind man who lost his cane. I like playing games on a controller, because it works. None of the guaranteed bugs of collision detection, not properly picking up motions, or just not being as good as they promised. I've never been against motion control either but, I'm against this contest all the Big 3 are having.

For instance, Xbox 360 showed us Milo. Why? It's not a game, I can only see it implemented in choice games, and I really have no interest talking to a little Brit. My friends say, "It's showing us how far we've come!" But I say to that, "no!" A good example of how far we come is live streaming TV on your console, or watching movies with your friends regardless of where they are. That is a testament to how far we've come. That along with our graphics, hell even our game content is a good example. But this does not show me we have come that far. It's a trivial thing, that is going to waste our money and never be used again, like another Xbox live camera I know of.

Like I said, if Milo was in a game, I may be more excited for it, but I'm not. That was something more appropriate for CES or something. This motion control contest is about as trivial and useless as putting, oh I don't know, trains in Zelda... wait.

I was doing a bit of searching this evening trying to find myself some more information on "I Am Alive". Thanks to Gamespot however, I found myself searching through a list of games that were announced, had trailers and followings, and just kind of, forgotten.

One game was called "Dead Island". It was kind of a silly idea, pinning you against an island full of zombies, but it was that simplistic fun that made Left 4 Dead fun. I just couldn't help what wonder what happened to it.

Along with that, the game, Metronome City was a sort of action adventure game,where you run around a cleverly stylized city, using sound to defeat your enemies. It was a novel idea and the graphics looked quite impressive and cartoonish.

Next is a game called, "The Outsider". This game is kind of like, Jason Bourne, meets, James Bond, meets Sam Fisher. It had a sort of cause and effect system where your actions judge, blah blah blah, it's been said and done before, but I still would've liked to seen it come to life.

Then there are two games that I think have turned into other games. "Hydrophobia" looks a lot like "Wet". All the screenshots presented were the main character, in watery places, looking at the camera via "Myspace Angles".

Then the game, "Shcwarzenburg", or as I like to call it, "Saboteur", was listed. Sadly all that was there was a description, saying basically that your a spy in WWII, but your a scientist. Sounds awfully similar to me.

But not all these games were gold mines, there are some I am glad will not live. One game being called, ridiculously, "Rainy Woods"....Yeah, I'll give you a second to absorb that. This game had a trailer that looked horrible along with just plain stupid. I couldn't find a plot in that mess, and the closing "tagline", was, and I quote!, "So I finally got to see the Rainy Woods". HOLY HELL, CAN YOU FEEL THE SUSPENSE?! Seriously, if there is a god, he will let this game die.

Then there is the vampire hunting, "Harker". The game looks like "The Bourne Conspiracy, but in a medieval setting. The main character is shown in a trailer doing burly man things, like ripping vampire arms off, punching them in the throat, running stakes through their hearts and biting their faces off. Well, maybe not the last one. But this game looks downright, stupid.

Next, I want to point out a game called, Voodoo Nights. It is Army of Two, but you control both people. Now remember those fond experiences you had with AoT? Neither do I. And this game is a knockoff of it. But in this one you can slow time, and control them at the same time. Wow, thats worth 60 dollars.

Lastly, my personal favorite. "Possession" is a game where you control a guy, who isn't a guy anymore, but more like a demon with dreadlock looking tubes coming out of his head. You control a horde of zombies for no real point, and wear camo pants. This game is supposed to be for the 360 and Ps3 and such, but the graphics look awful. Like, not normal awful, but like, the PS1 would laugh at it. The game looks stupid in every way.

Finally some food for thought. I kind of want to play "This Is Vegas", along with "2 Days To Vegas". Aside from that, I wonder if "Hei$t" will be worth playing. Also, I'm glad Kevin Pereria is the character model for "This Is Vegas", I like him.

After the bombardment of gaming glory that was 2008, 2009 has a big pair of shoes to fill. But this year is a bit different. There are some new IP's coming out and I can't wait. This is also the year where I buy a PS3, they've got an impressive lineup and I wanna be a part of it.

XBOX 360

Skate 2

Skate was one of my favorite games ever, I thought the graphics were impressive, the gameplay was fantastic and the concept was astounding. The problem is, it was repetitive and missed out on some simple features. Skate 2 looks to improve all that was wrong with the first and occupy a lot of my time

GTA Lost and Dammed

This one is easy, no explanation needed

Resident Evil 5

I am a huge RE fan, and this one looksphenomenal. The co-op is what is selling me aside from the fact that it is the successor to RE4. This is a must buy for me

Batman Arkham Asylum

I love Batman, I love the comics, the movies and the tv series. I love all of it. And this game looks amazing, I am anxious to see batman in a new game and am weary to see how the game will only take place in an asylum. I trust this will be a great game though

Prototype

This game looks amazing, it's like crackdown, on crack. The combat looks fun and vicious, and the story has piqued my interest. I wanna see this game in action.

Splinter Cell Conviction

I love the splinter cell series, I hate how Sam Fisher is a rogue agent, but I love the gameplay, and will play this as I please.

I Am Alive

I remember sitting in my high school classes, dreaming of games like this. I like the idea of not having anything to think about but survival. I hope it stays that way, but it looks amazing. The concept is blowing my mind and I just pray it doesn't shift into this whole, alien attack thing or, mutant zombie thing, rather, I hope it stays with the idea that, you are surviving in a destroyed city, against other people who are looking out for themselves only.

Aside from that, I want a PS3, infamous, Heavy Rain, MGS4, and Little Big Planet. I wanna see how Home turns out as well.

Why is it that everything fro the past is put on such a highpedestal? Why do we treat anything new and original in the most hostile of ways? Why has the line between nostalgia and ignorance blurred so much.

In almost every situation, there seems to be this stigma that everything old, was better. We do it with cars, movies, music and even games. Why does the 65 GTO get tagged as an amazing vehicle? When in reality, it was a gas guzzling, steel death trap. If it had been created in our time, it would be condemned and probably not even make it to the streets. Music does the same thing too. Why is it The Beatles are so accepted and loved for being original and new in their time, but when music does something new and unique, we categorize it and toss it aside in hate? Why can't bands like My Chemical Romance and Fall Out Boy be considered acceptable music? Because they sound the same as each other? Because of their image? Why do we call them gay and insult them for wearing skinny jeans, when every hair metal band in the 80's was wearing leather pants and makeup? But I digress.

Games have come under this stigma too. I recently had a heated debate with a friend of mine as to telling him why I thought The Zelda Games were horrible. Now before you yell at me, I understand that the gameplay and graphics have always been great for whatever system they were on. My issue is the fact that they get away with making the same game over and over, and no one seems to care. Yet if a sports game did that, my god would you hear it for the next few decades. Why does Zelda get away with having the same plot, landscape, and characters in it all the time? Furthermore, why do we accept it? Games like Sonic Unleashed then come out, and people rant and rave about how horrible it is. Well at least it was trying something different. At least in a Sonic game I will always encounter new stages, characters and gimmicks. Not that those are all good things, but at least they try. Yes the game was horrible, but what if they just threw a graphically upgraded version of Sonic Adventure at you, and flipped the landscape around? How would you feel after beating it and realizing you've wasted 60 dollars on a game you'll never touch again. But at least it didn't do anything against the norm.

I really hate to rant, but why is it that games are so idolized? In fact, everything from the past is idolized. Nothing they did back then was wrong, we just got these crazy ideas to be different. My friend complains and complains about how unoriginal Mario games have gotten, but he shys away from the idea of anything new in the series. He jokingly suggested Mario running around in WWII with a machine gun and blasting away nazi goombas. I said, "why not?". He then freaks out screaming that that is a horrible idea. But what if it was good, what if it was executed perfectly? Like a mixture of Halo, COD4, Gears and whatever other "perfect" shooter you can find? WOuld you still condemn it for its wacky premise? Or could you look past that and accept that it was a great game. "BUT THAT IS CROSSING THE LINE!!!", no it isn't. Because a blue hedgehog running at supersonic speeds was much more reasonable right? But look at his success.

No one seems to want to accept that all the games they've come to accept, started off as a crazy idea. The idea of the first automobile, or the television. The idea of the iPod or even Pong. Why are we so quick to cast off new ideas and not try anything out of the norm. This is why sports games and sequels have dominated so many of the recent release years. The facts are that, with past inspirations, the newer stuff can be just as good or even better. No matter what the category it is, we have to accept that the past innovations are there for us to learn from and expand on. New bands will use the inspiration from their influences and craft a style all their own, new cars will learn from the mistakes and defects of their old counterparts, and videogames will incorporate new ideas with the things we've come to expect into something genuine and unique. Just because it gets a low rating, doesn't mean that the developers didn't try at all.

I support indie games, and I will buy as many new IP's as I can next year. Such as Tim Schaffer's new and amazing looking game, Brutal Legend. GIVE ORIGINALITY A CHANCE.