Let me explain, some companies, like Chrysler, Ford and so forth, are having difficulties this year with their revenues. I find it sad that the government needs to help them with money, because they are cutting on employess who have nothing to do with this. Why are these companies slacking personnel? Because last year they were making 1billion profit, and this year 500 millions? Why when once they make less money, the government need to inject money in them to "help them out".

Why dont they take money from the profits they did in the previous years? Its sad, because in the end, its a regular worker that gets it and pays for it in a way. First of all, with the car industry, they are producing vehicules 3times more then the rate we are growing. I am sorry if i didnt explain it good, but they are making 3 more times then the quantity of person. Always new cars, always new models, always options...Too many cars. For certain one day or another it would hit the industry.

They were making too many cars, and when you hit a recession..well. They are responsible in a way for what is happening to themselfs, and like im saying , its the innocent worker that pays for it. Why dont they figure out their losses amongs themselfs? The board wont probably enjoy it, so the government helps them, because the banks are screaming to get their money, and a crountry cant lose a company like that...

Can they, or should they?...

Ive heard from past Blizzcon that they are working on a new mmo. It wont be for this generation of console, but the next ones, next 360, ps3, wii and PC. After been so talented at making games, i am still wondering if it will be a brand new franchise or World of Starcraft.

#Imagine bringing all the players together, no matter what console you are playing, all playing together the same mmo. Blizzard as been known for breaking the rules and the quality standarts. But Blizzard likes to keep things secret, so i doubt we will hear anything new anytime soon on that project.

I remember hearing a few years back about World of Starcraft wich look credible by the images found on the net but was a joke with nicely done montages of pictures from the unreleased SC:Ghost. I know they scrapped the project, wich they changed team and had to start it from scratch, then changed graphical engine and so on. BUT, the team that was working on it, have been moved to a new project (unannounced game)..so it might be a possibilite.

Having to choose between 3 factions, moving from larva and changing zerg type with evolution or choosing with academy to go in with your terran..all of these seem interesting but til now based on some pure fiction. It might be possible, maybe in 2-3 years we will be looking back at all the rumors and saying to ourselfs " i should have known".

Even the PVP would have been like an RTS genre, being in queue depending on your faction and role, and being called upon when the barrack needsan extra marine on the front. With SC2 been released in the next year, i dont know what to expect anymore...are they really working on that?...

Something we know is that they are working on a mmo corss-platform and that people from the Ghost game have been put on that. Maybe they realised they had something bigger on their hands when they started working on SC GHost, just like when they started working on WC3...

Anyway, i cant wait for blizzard to put their stamp of quality on that one!

Hello there!

As much as i can remember, consoles always came with 2 and sometimes 4 controllers...and with the years i feel like games were less and less co-op. Some games i was playing, i had hopes of playing co-op or having a co-op mode.

Of course there was the mini-game coop games, the sport games or some fighters, but lacking some real co-op games.I always enjoyed timesplitter series on PS2, as well as Perfect Dark on 64. some great coop games are still on my mind, simple coop games with simply the add-on of a new character, much like Halo 3 had back in september of last year.

I was checking some games annouced a couple of years back, and i tried to keep track of the coop ones. Army of two wasent that bad, it was a brand new genre of coop game, making space for some intense shoot-outs. But what i want to say is that in the last weeks, a crap load...yes a CRAP load of games just came out with some coop modes...and guess what?...They are mostly sequels...

Fable 2

Mercenaries 2

GoW2

Resistance 2

Saints Row 2

CoD:WaW

L4D

I am mentionning them because in a short lapse of time they all came out. We see alot of games that their multiplayer concentrate on competitive modes, and for me, lacking in coop ones.

They all have very different coop feels to them, but am i wondering..does it take a sequel to realise that it should have had coop?

First off, yes i played WoW for several years, with my friends. It is a subject we can always talk about when we are together, because it is something we all have in common as players. We all have a preference in games genre, like FPS, RTS, sandbox games, sports and so on. But something we have in common, is our experience while playing that mmo.

With all the posts out there, all past players , present players, (majority) talk trash about WoW, but still plays it. They do complain about the grinding, the social status of the game, the graphics, the enormous hours you need to invest to actually progress in the game, but still everybody still plays it. I tihnk people dont want to give a chance to new mmo's out there. Because WoW installed a brand, a new trademark, people dont want to check whats new and refreshing out there...if you love mmo's..wich you should since you played/plays WoW.

It is like everybody complaining about the price of petrol...but still doing nothing about it and continue to put gaz at redicous prices without changing nothing, nor their habits or the way thy think about it. Or you do something about it, or shut up. Complaining , and talking trash is the easiest thing to do, while making the real step, cuts more then half the people away.

Lots of people continue to play WoW, and "give a shot" at a new mmo..while still playing WoW..wich is fine. But too easily turned down, with the lack of will to invest in a new game. It isnt hard, and shouldn be a chore, to try out a new mmo, get into the story, learn new mechanics, spells, meet new people and locations. People wait for patches to add new material, and the same for expansions, while there are other mmos out there giving exaclty that.

People want something that could stand against WoW, but they are not giving a darn chance to any devellopper. (sarcasm alert) They expect the game to cost 29.99, free each month, easier lvling, more gear, more zones, more quests etc..more for less...something is wrong in that way of thinking.

Some people are fans of new mmo's, based on its background or its univers( Warhammer, SE, LOTR), some are just waiting for a change. Some other players simply want really bad that a new mmo could stand against WoW, so more people could give it a chance. People dont even want to download a trial, or buy it for 50$ (wich isnt bad for a 30days play), some games people pay 50-60 and last 10hours without replayability.

I think that some people should give a chance in other mmo's. But since all this MMO thing is more about social..it would be like leaving the big nice car to hop on a skateboard for some. It is more "in" to be playing WoW in terms of popularity..and yes all this is about Stature...the gear, the mounts, the gold, the guilds..the achivements..

Everytime a new mmo comes out...it is chekced like people were inspectors trying to find a small thing to break it down. People expect alot of perfection, or good quality (wich took 4 years for Blizzard) to achieve that..we are not giving a chance for other publishers to sell or finance new mmo's because we are the reason behind it. Alot of mmo's with small community are still running, other new games wich are good merit more credit, while tired players should look for something fresh and new on the market.. it is not the good games that are missing.

GTA4....a big game people were looking foward, and for me, is just everything i could expect of a GTA game : great quality and value for 60$, something we cant find in alot of games.

With SR2 almost here, it is simple for them to push the project further, and to put in it everything people were expecting, or wanted in the last GTA. Planes, gizmos and goofy stuff to do, it is what people would have wanted in GTA...well some of the people. The same people say that graphics arent that important, its better quality then visuals.

But lets say if GTA would have done that, the same people would have said that they wanted an improvment in the series, and not the same as GTA:SA, been there, done that. For some folks, it seems that a GTA game need to always have a bigger map, but that dosent mean having more to do in it. We want a longer game, more stuff to do in it, more vehicules, more missions, more characters, more weapons...but same price...

Just a simple example, people were asking for GTA to be online. Then came the pc versions, that people modded fast so they could play improvised multiplayer games. Now that GTA DOES have an online section...with real matches, different types of them, all the weapons, all the locations and so on..people complain because there is nothing to do in multiplayer...Wow....

Its always the same people complaining about everything and anything, where are my gloves....where are my cheats...where is my DLC.....where is my DLC info!!! I want it, and i want it NOW!!!...Some people need to stay way from their tv after playing 50hours non stop and do something else out of their time. By finishing the game in a hurry, and playing online everyday, you get tired of it..and fast....and this is for anything.

On the other hand, not everybody is complaining. I remember in gametrailers interview , if im not mistaken....a journalist said a couple of days before the game come out that :' If you are not happy with GTA4's graphics, then you wont be happy about anything else.'

I enjoy it, and still enjoy it now. In the end when i check games i bought for full price 60$, this is THE, or one of the games that had so much to do for its price. Like anything else, critcism is good. If it wasent from criticism we wouldn have what we have now...but sometimes you just gonna enjoy the ride.

SR2 will be great, i enjoyed the first one. It is not GTA, and GTA is not SR2. Open world games, but different in many aspects. I am looking foward that game, and simply cant wait.

I was born in 83, mostly born with a new wave of videogame entertainment. For along time videogames, were for "nerds" or young kids. When the internet came around, some games had multiplayer aspects, some were based on it. With more and more people on the internet, some games got based on an online community, and created virtual "societies".

When the first mmos came out, it was pretty much "underground". People tought it was played by role-players, or by people who liked to dres-up like trolls, elfs and gnomes during their free time. They were wrong. As with more online games become accesible, and Mmos, getting more and more attention....on the other side blizzard was getting an extraordinary reputation. Getting more and more attention, Blizzard stepped in the MMo genre.

Something with Blizzard, is that having their reputation, they almost have unlimited budget for their games, and unlimited time to make them; something most of their concurrence dont have. By taking what was good from other mmos (some call it rip-off), and twaeking some features and getting rid of previous problems, Blizzard was making a step in the right direction. Warcraft was at its peek, a game that made its proofs, a game worth playing for any videogamer.

Blizzard made something with their game, they made it accessible, most people of all ages, sex and nationalities were playing it. A game easy to get into, fun, and that could fit into any computer.

I will pass all the details of the game, its patches, and its expansion..

Yes i played it, i played it for 3 years if im not mistaken. I had a blast, when when it got too hardcore as pvp or pve, i wouldn bare it. Having to farm materials for so many items, or not farming but GRINDING for the money to buy them..was getting me sick on the long run. Since it is a game, with a really big , and involved community, isnt its goal to be better then all the rest?...Best guild, best gear, best stats in pvp etc..those were not my goals, and was not having fun the more i played so i stopped.

I saw many mmos pass, from beta to retail, and too many people bashing other mmos comparing it to WoW, a game already etablished from a few years back. Give it some time...this is what some people are not doing, and this, the end of some good mmos...but dont get me wrong, some bad mmos came out also...

But the big question...what will be the end of it?...with so many games, it is still living, with so many new computers, this game is still in every computer and on every gamer mouth. You played it, or your friend did, or you read about it...you simply KNOW about it. So what will it be?...

Here is my guess...not only one factor, but some of them...

Other mmo's...with so many other games coming out, people loving WoW will stay on it, but people simply waiting for another train to hop in , are on the lookout for some other game with potential. With every new mmo, a portion of its community is leaving to give it a try, or staying in this new game, and even sometimes play both games.

Time is another thing to consider...even with older games like Ultima Online, these are still running with an active community in it. But time will eventually do its damage...But even if time damages its players, it will never kill it. Great games are still out there, or are remade so that a new generation may enjoy it. Time wont be its death...but will surely be a factor in it.

Third...World of Warcraft 2..yes i said it...i think one day or another, Blizzard will come with a new mmo....or a new engine for its medieval franchise, or an new one. They know how to do it, and they will do it again..ou dont take all this time to make a new game, invest all that money to let it die..But having two mmo's from Blizzard, might be a risk having their players jumping from one game to another.

Fourth...tastes...might be the weirdest of my arguments, but i tihnk like fashion, there are some trends that comes and go. It might not be "in" to play mmos, but it surely isnt "out". People now are more at home with all their entertainment, home cinema, internet, games, consoles and so on...people are more in their things ..in general of course. Maybe with time, people will let their electronics a little bit more and go outside..

But with all the drug dealers outside, killers, rapists, pollution, terrosits, bomb threats..gaz's price, risk of getting cancer's, needles in the park and so on...maybe its waayyyy safer to stay insidie in front of a screen...isnt? Your call...

I have never been a fanboy or hater, on any console whatsoever. Each as its flaws and its ups. The thing is that you cant buy them all...you need to make choices, save up money and buy one, or two, but still cant get them all, unless you are rich, or have nothing else to pay. Like many my choice was made on the 360...

A year back, most of the people had a 360 and no Ps3...360 had the games, Ps3 had the same as 360, CoD, Assassin's Creed ...and not alot of exclusives. Beside the great hardware, unless you really digg into the Blue-ray and you cant justify the 450$ price tag on it onnly for that, then you would have gotten a 360. On 8 friends with a next-gen console, only one of them got a Ps3...only for blue-ray utilities until Metal gear came out a couple of months ago.

The rest went 360...all getting along, online, same games, perfect...well seemed perfect. Calling one of them this past friday, he told me is 360 as died...RRoD, but can only play Arcade games..weird...and he told me another friend of mine, that is 360 simply wont open..it is finished...

That started to scare me a little bit ...went out with some other friends sunday...and yes...another RRoD...he was surprised when i told him he was the third within a week...Can all of this be bad luck?....tell me....if 8 your friends buy a Honda Accord, and 3 of them broke for the same reason, in the same week....how are you gonna feel?....

No i didnt get the RRoD.....but how can that even be possible, that each time you go play your games, you hope it wont "break" or "die" on you....that fear never was on any other consoles....Other consoles had their flaws...but being as big as this one...i think not. I still love my 360, thats why i bought it...but i guess ill live in fear...until it dies on me...

Call it whatever you want, i simply cant call that bad luck.....things like these dont rely on luck!....

Petrol is the black gold. We all need it, it comes in every aspect of our lifes. If its not by the car you take, its the bus you use, the food you order, the plane you flight to travel, name it..but still...how can all this be used as an excuse?...

We are waiting for a new "fuel" to be used in cars, electricity and even water...Water is more expensive then Petrol as this time. I cant complain, and i am not saying it is fine that it gets more and more expensive....I am against it, but i feel people still continue consumming that because they can or they want to, until the point where it wont be affordable anymore.

We complain that gaz gets more and more expensive, at the end, it gets a couple bucks more expensive when you go at your local station. I am not talking about big 18-wheelers and planes, or big Hummers, and this example is like saying paying 20 000$ for insurrance a year for a Ferrari is too expensive...If you can buy the vehicule , example a Hummer, i am pretty sure you can pay the insurrance for the vehicule as the gaz for it.

What i want to say is that we complain about gaz being expensive, but lets forget that. Socially, we still find it correct to pay 10$ to enter a Club during week-ends, and to pay 5-6$ for a drink. THAT is fine we hear, but for the gaz we complain. It is a "service" you use, it costs money to be the owner of a club etc...so its normal to pay that price, its the same in every club in general. I am giving the example of Clubs because the gaz problem is affecting mostly the younger of us, 18-50. The older people barely have a general use for their vehicules, again i am talking in general. Again, the prices in the clubs is fine, 100$ a bottle, 10$ to enter, it is like if socially, it is fine that it is that price. And the movies?...10$ for a movie....everything is becoming more and more of a rip-off.

I am not saying they are not making money and that is why their prices are higher, why the "/$% do every trimester i hear all those petrol companies making record profits...always and always.....year after year.

There is something wrong in this big buisness circle, and it is US, the consummer...because we keep asking for it. Another example, look at the companies who sell you the water in bottle. The same companies behind Coke and Pepsi, the biggest drink empires, one Sprite, the other 7Up , one MUG, one Rootbeer, anyways you get the point... But now for the water, they charge you more for the same amount of water..the same water they put in your soft drink. Except the soft drink is gazified and as sugar in it. They tell you buy this soft drink for 1$, or else buy water, OUR water, because water is better, and OURS is better, so buy it for 2$...

And yes, the same water that comes from the same place as your houses. Nice bottle, nice design, great marketing...all this sold to you for 2$....for the same free water...

I am simply giving the exmaple of water compared to petrol, because water is even more expensive. I think at one point, we need to say to ourselves :" Damn, screw this, this is really too expensive, i am simply not getting it". It is hard i know, it is all a big Social effect or status.

Afterall, the choice comes to us...dosent it?...

When the original Nintendo console was around, it was the king, with no real competition. Then came the Sega Genesis, so there was two trains, people had to hop in one of them. Nintendo was the beginning of a generation, with its own generation getting older, people were looking foward for more "adult" and less "childish" games. Genesis had its bunch of it, so people were saying Genesis was for more older people and Nintendo for a younger audience.

They both had quality games, but it was a question of marketing, since it was simply just "games", they had to find a way to tear the players apart. Rivality has been around for ages, can i say almost form the beginning of everything!?! Some people ismply dont care about these "console wars", but it is here, present, and even if we dont like it we all have an opinion on it, putting aside the extremist fanboys.

There is a couple of forms of rivalities in the videogames genre.

-360 VS PS3

-360+PS3 VS Wii

-Then Consoles VS PC

I dont get why people have to defend their console, to act like they are its spokesman, but i know it comes in pack of two. One provokes and one awnsers, then the dance is open. I can say it is "entertaining", it is a way of argueing, and giving your opinions. In our history, with opinions, everybody need to take sides one day or another.

I still cant believe people bashing on the 360's problems with the Red Ring, and with the PS3's problems as well. It is what it is, some game are exclusives, some arent. Overall, i think it is just a form of entertainment, with this "war". But like always, some people are extremists, and always break the party and goes too far.

Next-gen consoles bash on the wii for what it is, 360 on Ps3 for its lack of games, Ps3 for 360 inferior capacities and so on.

They should just do a online game with all the consoles and Pc together. A form of FPS or something, mix all this together, online on a freaking virtual war, then we could see......is that possible

See ya!

I have been waiting for so long....maybe not waiting, but expecting this game. Not alot of people played this game since the beginning of the franchise. I see alot of people saying it is taking forever, it will never come out, in store in 2100 etc...most of these people dont know what they are talking around and are simply getting into the "trash-talk train".

Ok lets get this straight, this game was announced 10 years ago, after the famous Duke Nukem 3d and some expansions. The game havent been in developpment for all that time. There was a team behind the project, when they were working on this project, they had to scrap it for a new Graphical engine (wich happens to some games, example Ghost from Blizzard, but thats another story). Game was not trashed, but had to be made from ground up. Meanwhile they had another project in the works, wich was called Prey. If you havent played Prey go rent it, at least, some great fun and story, makes me remember Duke Nukem for the violence, fun and overall atmosphere. Since they couldn do these two projects at the same time, another team, from another studio if i am not mistaken, were given the project.

The game wasent become what they expected, so they left Duke Nukem to help finish Prey. With Prey finished, it was time to get back to Duke. 3drealms during that time, were working "behind the curtains" for some companies , check out some recent games, and you will see 3drealms worked on them, so no they warent doing anything.

There were discussion about DNForever, wondering if it was worth all the efforts putting and finishing that game. Then for a year or so, there was no offical or leaked info on the web and no announcement. Then it came....pictures (wich in my case cant really see them, they are so small and without details), and a few trailers. The game was shown behind closed doors, and i am sure it is coming really soon.

I am confidant that the game will turn out good, 3drealms might be smaller, or more in the "shadow" of bigger game makers like Blizzard, and Valve, but they have the same quality games.

I am really looking foward that game, of course its been long, but hell, i didnt get stuck on it, good games had to be played!

I cant really judge by what i have seen, because little has been showed, but i simply cant wait. This game will have big shoes to fill in, and will have to stand up to all the "taking forever" jokes around it.

I just had to make a small comment on the seport from Ubisoft. It says the game has sold 40 000 copies in the US through June. And that the pirated version was downloaded more then 700 000 times costing them millions of dollars.

I understand piracy hurts the industry...BUT to make an association with the times it was downloaded and by the millions they "lost" is not correct. They need to know out of these 700 000 persons that downloaded it, how many of them already had it on 360 or ps3? Some people might have already gotten it, but downloaded it by curiosity. Almost everybody have a computer now, and if you are into videogames, you have already a console, or two + an average PC( in average). Im not sure all those downloads were directly a loss of a retail version of it. I already own it and wouldn buy it on PC even with a longer story.

By comparing sales of 40 000 to losses of 700 000 seems a big number, but they should compare equaly. They should compare the total sales with the total number of downloads.

I am not defending the piracy, at all, i just was hooked by the way the news was said.

But like Ubisoft said, They wanted to make someone pay.

Mature games, for mature gamers. How can i define mature? What would immature be?..kids screaming in their mic online (both consoles and pc), dont get me wrong but not only kids do that. Would it be people constantly harrassing you online? Kids enjoy it as much as adult players do. Immaturity comes in all ages, nationalities, both male and female.

How about mature then...

Adult (18+) websites, movies, games, entertainment, hell...even clubs and drinking..is considerated 18+. Lets try to talk about mature games. Having les then 18 years old gamers, play mature games, is presuming, (for their age) incorrect to play the game , due to the violence, language and so on. But still, i am not sure how to define this "maturity", because even being mature, some people go ahead and mimic GTA's avatars by killing and beating people, and by stealing cars. This is not the games violence, its the people doing it. If you check deep enough these people , most of them, already have legal issues.

Saying it is because of a game, is a shame, as shameful as the people believing it. Having these people do such free criminal acts dosent make good publicity for these games. but im pretty sure, one day or another these same people would have done something like that. Its the same type of people who beat up people during console or games launch, or stabbed kids for their pokemon cards. They would have been influenced by a game or a movie anyway...

It is not an excuse, it is just to say that it is hard to seperate the people able to play these games for the pure entertainment of it, from those who are already mentally ill and violent from these games. I highly doubt a normal person playing is console or pc game, and really saying to himself:" you know what...this carnage really looks fun, lets get my gun (by the way why did he have a gun) and go outside shooting random people...." and never thinking of their consequences.

Saying a game is 18+, is assuming the person playing it, is "mature" enough to understand that.

So how can youngsters get their hands on these games?....

Some parents in fact buy them those gamess..how can this be right? Might as well buy them porn and let them watch, extremist you might say, but still in GTA4 you can go out and take a hooker for a "ride" , and hell, even kill her after! Not worst, not better, but still incorrect for that age. I am not putting all those players in the same basket, but thats the parents job to judge that, to judge of the degree of maturity of their kids. Same judgement about wich movies they should see, and basically learning about their kids behaviours, or THAT may lead to another kids, still too influenced by violence and that lets himself loose on others...

I have witnessed a kid going to a videogame store, asking for GTA, the cashier tells him that he is not old enough and that he cant buy it. Kid goes back to the mall to get is mother, then is mother asks :" Hes gonna take that game he just asked...."(wich shes not even aware at that point what it was)..cashier says its a 18+ game and that they shouldn play. The mother still buys it...this is just an example...and i bet its the same people wondering where their kids learned all those bad words, and scared that their kids try drugs and get into gangs...oh boy...

I do have good memories of games i used to play at 12-13-14 (im 25 now). None of them could be gory of much violent. Even the first game would have been Mortal Kombat if im not mistaken, with pixelated blood...But young gamers are growing up with more adult oriented games and entertainment. But parents have some type of supervision, or morality to teach their childrens. Parents are supposed to know their kids best. Parents are supposed to wish the best for their kids, and if it is what they think its right, then go ahead, its your decision.

This is not to try to define maturity, but for the law 17 isnt mature...but 18 is. Fine by me...but if you can join the army at that age...wich isnt this the REAL violence?...well there is something wrong that somebody is doing. Mature enough to go to war, but not to play, or even to drink in some states...

In the end, it all comes down to Morals.

I think at this time, almost everybody saw the movie and have opinion about the new Joker, and the movie by itself.

I call this a phenomenon because it is something huge that happened, a new Batman movie, a new actor behind the new Joker, and is death even before the movie's release. We have all heard about it, or read about it. The first Batman , Batman Begins, was a wave of fresh air for the Batman series. When the sequel was announced, closing many rumors about who would be the playing the parts in the sequel, people would finally know when, where, and who would play in it.

All Batman fans, or fans of the new installment of the series, Batman Begins, were "hyped" or craving to get a look at this movie. Knowing the villain would be Joker, people were wondering who would play it, who could overpass Jack Nicholson's performance (even if you don't like is Joker, is performance was great in it). Heath Ledger, at big boots to fill in, even before seeing some footage, or trailers, people wouldn argue in wich Joker was the better, for most people Jack Nicholson IS the Joker. I am not here to say wich i prefer, i love them both. Both reflect perfectly the Joker's insane side. They both are good, because they both fit in the movies they were in, try flipping them , and you will see thet Jack's brightly colors wouldn fit in a dark movie like that one.

With that said, the hype surrounding a sequel, the villain that would be in it, the plot, and then Heath Ledger's death. this brought even more attention to the movie that , at that point, nobody had seen. People were already thinking that wether they like the new Joker or not, it would be impossible to make a sequel with him, and with every critics's reviews coming in the weeks before, people were even more hyped, and wondering about that fact.

Having an actor die before the release of a movie brings two things, alot attention and buzz around the movie, but too much attention towards him, not leaving is family in peace for is death. Don't get me wrong, the movie by itself is great, the action , the story, and the actors playing these famous characters. Watching the movie, i felt weird knowing the actor was dead, and the more i watched the movie, the more i wanted to see him in a sequel, but i guess this is impossible. If Heath Ledger wouldn have passed away, and wouldn have given a great performance as the Joker, the movie wouldn be on so many people's m****outh.

*******Spoiler alert stop reading this if you havent seen the movie, wich would be surprising******

By having Heath Ledger dead, but not killing the Joker, and by having Two-Face dead, is he?lol...i am wondering whats gonna happen to Batman in the next installment, Batman is gonna be pursuied by the Cops ans so on?....maybe Two-Face wont be dead or maybe the Joker will be replaced by another actor. honestly, i tought Two-Face would only be presented in the movie by the end, leaving up the suspense for him in the next movie. But i was surprised that there was actually action with him, and that he died, and more surprised that there wasent a "RIP", or "In memory of Heath Ledger". Maybe i didnt stay long enough at the end, sorry if there was one, even if you dont like the actor, or not a fan of him, you still just watched a movie in wich one of the main characters died.

********Spoilers finished!!!! Continue to read!!!!!************

With that aside, it is a great movie overall, lots of recent movies are some sort of "quick entertainment" or a "fix" of action, suspense, drama etc.. But i was surprised, it was ...real good. The previous Batmans, Batman, and Batman returns, the action was more oriented around Ghotam City : a city that dosent exist. Let me explain, there was no clue or hint, in where this city was, or name of famous buildings, or streets etc..It was fantastic, with colored villains, more cartoony, simple action, there wasent big shots of the city, or locations. With the next two movies, it felt more Saturday morning cartoons, jokes, one liners and too funny/friendly/colored/ villains, still performed by good actors, but in poor roles for the movie.

But with a darker Batman, they wanted to make Batman more "plausible", more "possible", showing mor elocations, more real spots, making it feel more real, that it could be happening as we speak, with darker ennemies and incounters. Overall, what happened to the actor was a shame, whether it is a suicide, or accidental death (none of our buisness), but he was promising, made a great performance in the movie, leaving us with a good memory of him. I didnt knew much about him, besides some movies he made, but learned more about him since is death.

So there is piracy in the music industry...isnt that fantastic, when the same artists who had violence issues, police problems, drug addiction etc, tell you to stop downloading music? THE MUSIC INDUSTRY IS FALLING!!!!...no. The music in cd format is, but the overall sales are even bigger.

Shouting the sales are lower then never out loud to everybody, is kinda sad. They are forgetting other forms of getting the music, through internet, legal downlodable website, singles, and such games like Guitar hero and Rockband. Less CD sales, because getting the songs by the internet cant be easier now. Now most people have Mp3 players and have internet. with these tools, you log online, choose the songs you want from your favorite artist, buy the ones you like, get then in your Mp3 player, and go jog, tan outside, take a walk, or plug it in your car.

Most cars support Mp3 players, most radios support the mp3 format, and it is one of the greatest freedom to listen to music.

With this said, it makes me think of the movie industry. I read somewhere that some companys said less people went to the movies to check the new releases ot bought the dvds. Again with so many ways of seeing the new movie imagine...

-At the movies

-A couple of months after on Dvd

-Then on pay-per-view

-Movie rentals

-Downlodable rentals

With all these ways to distribute or see a movie, nobody is gonna purchase them all. But still overall, they are still making more profit while having all these different ways to show a movie.

Imagine a movie that came out a few years ago, i will take for example the new Indiana Jones. Movies came out, and they were on VHS. Then a new version of them, then Dvds, then special edition Dvds, then the trilogy with a bonus dvd with the making of....then the new movies comes out : Crystal Skull. And to celebrate that, a new edition of the movie trilogy with a special disk that talks/shows the new Dark Crystal, and im pretty sure when the new one comes to Dvd, there will be a "Super complete collector's edition of Indiana Jones trilogy" set..

God oh god...Isnt this like the 3 versions they made of each LOTR movies....longer version, then super edition with 3 hours of additionnal footage and so on...god they do a great job to make me want to buy them all...

I am wondering why there arent alot of Co-op games, i was about to say good co-op games, but there is even less in that category...

Back in the days, alot of games were coop, without having to make a new story for the second character, or a different skin, etc..Think about Doom, simple as that, why not? It was simple, grab a controller, play the single player experience but with friends. Think about Duke Nukem 3D, simply great, different color Duke Nukem and that is all no hassles.

Now , more recent games try to make co-op a whole new experience, like in Army of two, where you have different "team moves". Back to back, cover, transport him, healthpacks, help him get to higher ground etc..Don't get me wrong, it was a good time playing with a friend, but not a very good game by its own. But this is whats great with coop, you and your friends make your own experience.

Or what i hate about some games with "coop", is when you have on one side, a single player experience, and on another side "coop levels"....wich are usualy not that good. I cant say i hate that, but i hate the fact that its never written behind the box of the videogame, and when you dont have internet near you, and you wanna rent a game to play with one of your friends....thats what i hate, getting one of those...lol...

The reason why i am writing this, is that i see so many old games being 2 players, and rarely new games on next-gen consoles. I know the people who make those games, tend to deliver a whole coop experience, so it can be one of their marketing points, and must be a different way to program a two player game wich i know that being two players can scrap the game's balance. I am checking games i loved by the past years hoping they could be played coop...

Mercenaries: i was hoping a friend could tag along with that great sand-boxed world, and finally it is coming in august!

Oblivion : With a world as big, as detailed, as immersive, i feel it is a Sin not having a friend with me to explore this whole world.

Socom series : Great to see one of the lastest sequels had coop campaign, about time so this great game could shine even more

I am forgetting some games at this time...but some games actually did sell a great coop experience, think about the Timesplitter series, might be the best example out there. Perfect dark on N64?....coop as well, and even introducing a two player mode (wich i never saw in any other videogames after that) in wich one is the single player doing the campaign, and the second player is all the henchman in that mission, one at a time, with a very limited health bar, giving more trouble to your friend, and when you die you take the role of the next henchman in the map..

Some other games got destroyed by next-gen like the Conflict series, not so great games, but was a real fun to play 4 players on screen, Conflict Desert storm 1 &2 were good, the one in Vietnam also, as well as another one (wich i dont remember the name) that was more modern, but still the sniper, officer, demolisher and heavy gunner, great fun...BUT what the hech happened to the recent version?...no comment.

Half-life even had a version on Ps2 in wich could be played Coop with a friend wich took the role of a bot. Yes there is he contra series, the gauntlet series, but this is not where i wanna get to. Darkwatch on ps2 was also a good game wich fallowed the idea of Timesplitter, simple coop, hop in, get a character with a different skin then the main one, and its done enjoy the story.

With now games with confirmed Coop such as Mercenaries 2 and Saints Row 2 (amongs others), time to get some beer, call a friend and have some fun.

Since Oblivion wasent coop/2 player, i have hope that Fallout 3 will have at least some sort of multiplayer elements to it....my personnal opinion, but i am still hoping...

Alright, Summer is almost finished..one month away only and videogames are gonna be back on the road as soon as end of August. As of this date, there are a couple of games that caught my attention with their schedule before 2009. They are not really in the order that i prefer them or that i have a hype for, simply a top 10 of them.

1- Fable 2 -Never played the first one, but people said it was good but way too short.

2-Mercenaries 2 - I am a big fan of the first one, hoping the sequel is more of the same, at least..

3-Left 4 Dead - Even after a couple of pushed back release dates, i am still waiting for this interesting and promising fps.

4-Saints Row 2 - Even if some call it a "clone" of GTA, it is still a great game, and at least the first one had something alot of other sandbox games didnt get ..attention. With this SR2 looks like the other Half GTA4 was missing.

5-Fallout3 - How can i say, while playing Oblivion, i was wondering how it could turn out in a apocalyptic world, with cars, and guns...and here it is, what a surprise i had when i first heard it was coming out.

6-Farcry2 - Sublime graphics, and i loved the first one, original concept and gameplay.

-This is where my hopes/feelings/hype are mixed-

Some of these look promising, but i am just not sure, at this point, that i will like them, or that they are gonna be on my list. Original, different, more of the same, i just dont know how to call them. Maybe the fact that these games still need to convince me , so that i can get them a place in my Top 10 list !

-Spore - Original, intuitive, but sill not sure how it still gonna work out, and if its gonna work out well.

-LOTR:Conquest - I love the Battlefield franchise, the Battlefront franchise and now the LOTR?...still not convinced but i trust them. Every time they made a step in a different direction i was sceptic but knew they would come out with something amazing, but sceptic on how they would...

-STALKER:Clear sky - Amazing game, lots of people didnt see it coming, and i tihnk it didnt get the attention it deserved. Critics were too hard on it, for the lack of good AI, the graphics, and the time it took to create that game. But for me, it was a very good experience for the buck.

-Warhammer:Online - Mmos..mmos...god they never end up being what they promised it would have been. The thing is how much of what they promise will be in at launch, usualy its a big surprise until you buy it. But this is a mmo i am looking foward too as well...