If you’ve ever played a single round of any first-person shooter on the market, you will have no doubt noticed (or been killed by) individuals waiting for other players to cross their paths so they may kill them.

For those unfamiliar with the term, this is known simply as “camping.” You know, “he’s holding so close to that spot, he might as well set up camp”? It’s meant as a derogatory term for players who stay in the same spot on a map for extended periods of time, hoping to increase their kill count without having to put themselves in danger.

For the hardcore players out there, camping is an offensive act. It’s done by players who are otherwise incapable of maneuvering around the maps and who couldn’t get a kill if the player they were trying to shoot was standing still.

For the casual players, however, they are merely a minor nuisance, serving as that little speed bump in the road to the occasional MVP match.

Campers are usually an easy kill once you know where they will be. If it is a confined area, it’s usually easiest to flush them out with an explosive of some kind.

But it’s never really been about how easy it is to kill them or who has how much anger towards them. The question that I have always encountered is to whether or not this is an acceptable tactic.

On the one hand, it’s hard to say what play style that happens to suit someone is “incorrect,” as play styles are largely subjective (what’s good for one is not necessarily good for another). So to that end, camping is technically as valid as you want it to be, if it is indeed allowable to call it a play style. After all, much what it employs is using the particular map you are playing on to your advantage by way of hiding in concealing areas near or in high-traffic choke points.

However, on the other hand, some might argue that camping is a cowardly response to one’s own lack of understanding when it comes to the maps and – very likely – the weaponry being used in the multiplayer matches. If you know how to use your weapon and do it well, and you know the map like the back of your hand, there is no reason why you should be backed into a corner, waiting for someone to walk buy so you don’t have to put effort into aiming, right?

Personally, I think it can be considered both.

Tactically speaking, there are some times when holing-up for a couple of minutes will allow you to collect your thoughts and maybe even a kill or two, allowing you to get back into the game – both mentally and mathematically. Alternately, if you’re playing a game mode where defensive positions will benefit the team, staying in the same area might not only be a good idea, but also encouraged by teammates to ensure a decisive victory.

People may be upset with you for these reasons, but at least they are serving a purpose. The best examples are Domination mode Call of Duty or Conquest mode in Battlefield. If you have an objective that requires capture and containment, then once you capture said objective, setting a “perimeter” around it and staying within that perimeter might be considered camping, but it is also a tactical approach to keeping the game in your favor.

Conversely, I think if you’re outside of those situations (or outside of sniping, which isn’t camping if you’re in a hide trying to take out enemies around the the map), you’re a coward. I mean come on, with how the maps in Call of Duty are made, it’s difficult to be terrible at this game and NOT get at least five to 10 kills in a match. On top of that, camping immediately implies that you don’t know the map (at least to me) well enough to be dangerous – which is exactly why you should be moving around it; you need to learn the different paths to be a more effective player.

And, worse than hindering your own ability to benefit your team, you’re hindering the other players’ chances of enjoying the game by employing a cheap (and have I mentioned cowardly?) method of getting kills, usually against people who are better than you and are expecting you to face them head-on.

So what is there to be done about this? Simple: If you’re the camper and you’re not playing a defensive position on an objective, try growing a pair and moving around the map. You’ll die quite a bit, but that comes with the territory of learning the layout so you can *gasp* GET BETTER. You’re not only hindering yourself by sitting in a corner, you’re ruining the game for other people.

If you’re one of those players who plays the objective and goes for defensive points or likes to snipe: Mute everyone on the opposing team. Because if you end up destroying them, you’re going to hear about how much of a camper you are, even if what you’re doing isn’t really the camping that they think it is.

Lastly, if you’re in a game and you come across a camper, make it a point to target that one individual the rest of the game – preferably with explosives. Trust me.

When I was younger, gaming was something that was always present in my life.

From the days of the first Nintendo system to the day I bought my first console with my own money – a PlayStation 2 – I had always held a special place in my heart for the way turning on a new game made me feel.

Even now, there’s nothing quite like putting that new game into my PS3 and embarking on a journey all my own, complete with the feelings of the unknown and the excitement associated with the twists and turns of the storyline.

However, in between those stages in my life, there was a change. Not necessarily in how I feel about gaming, but in how I needed to approach it – for the benefit of myself as well as my family.

After all, it’s easy to play video games all night when you’re single and have very few responsibilities aside from a part-time job and some high school classes. But when you get to the point where I am – married, employed full-time, the father of a six-month old and busy most weekends – it’s easier to see the need for prioritization (but not necessarily easier to accept it).

That said, I’d like to share a few things that I have been trying to do to ensure that my gaming hobby doesn’t create problems with my real life (which can be tricky to do when your wife is not at all interested in gaming):

– Have a set gaming time —

This is something that I’ve only recently been doing more of. It’s setting aside a time in the day (or in my case, the evening) that you can enjoy your games. For me, it’s after my wife and son are in bed and after my responsibilities for the day and the evening are taken care of. After all is said and done at home, I can turn on my console and play until I’m tired, which requires me to include my own “STOP” button to ensure I don’t fall asleep at work. It has been an adjustment for my wife and I so far, but I believe in the long-run, it will be more beneficial than hurtful, allowing me to spend time with my family and take care of our home without trying to squeeze in some time on the games I’ve worked hard to pay for.

– Plan out your game purchases —

I knew very early in the year that this fall was going to be very difficult to obtain the games I wanted to play unless I took the time to determine which games I wanted the most. So, that’s what i did – I narrowed down my list to the top three of the many titles coming out (all within the same month, for some reason – come on game makers, what’s up with that?), determined how much I would need in total and went from there. Because the goal of this exercise is to spend as little out-of-pocket money as possible as a means of providing necessities for my family, I sold some of my own things to ensure I could afford the games I wanted. Besides, it’s not like I’m always wearing some of the authentic football jerseys I parted with, and my family comes first.

– Try before you buy —

This is sort of an extension of the previous thought, but one that I believe many people tend to overlook. With the economy the way it is and with the price of games sitting at around $30 for a decent, used title, it may suit you better to try out the games you want first. It used to be, console demos were reserved for discs with short, playable portions of games that were either coming out very soon or were already out. However, with the evolution of consoles to include downloadable demos of considerable quality, there’s no reason for people to buy games only to realize they hate them. Want an extended trial? Rent it from the local video store or get a one-day rental from your local Redbox (though I don’t recommend keeping for more than one day). This may seem like common sense to some, but for many, it’s an afterthought – especially (and surprisingly) now that money is usually best spent on other things.

– Don’t fight about it —

As I eluded to earlier, my wife is not a fan of my gaming hobby. Part of this is my fault, as I tend to be a vocal player when engaged in multiplayer contests and can get caught up in the moment when going through difficult moments in the game I’m playing. I honestly can’t blame her for being hesitant about me playing because of this, but fortunately for me, this does not define my typical playing experience. Still, that doesn’t mean my wife and I haven’t had our scrums about it in the past. Because of those instances, I have worked to minimize the instances that might lead to a disgruntled spouse. Part of this process has been cooling down my competitive nature – games are just games, after all – and focusing on why I enjoy the games, not why they sometimes get me frustrated. There is no reason for a game of any kind to come between spouses, so if it is, you need to consider taking steps to eliminate the problem.

– Don’t have time? Don’t play —

Finally, like all hobbies, sometimes time is just not on your side. There will be days (even weeks/months) when you won’t have time to enjoy a multiplayer session or beat a mission (or even goof off in a dungeon or two if you’re an RPG player like myself) – and that will have to be okay. While I experienced this a little bit after getting married, it was the birth of my son that made this regular occurrence. Instead of those before-work gaming sessions, I have to make sure that I am ready to go and that he is ready to go to the babysitter. When I get home? I have to make sure he is either taken care of or take care of housework that needs to be done. But you know what? That’s ok. Because by putting him and my wife first, I will be showing him what it means to prioritize with my actions – even if he doesn’t understand it until he’s older.

Some people may read this and laugh at the notion that gaming would require prioritization at all. But those of us who are adults and who have lives know better. And for those of you who have had trouble with it in the past? Maybe some of the things I’ve said will help.

Since this topic has more to it, I’m splitting it into two separate discussions, the next of which will discuss ways to keep things fun for you despite growing up (or at least attempting to).

As always, happy gaming!

With the release of Modern Warfare 3 just days away, I wanted to engage in a topic that has been bothering me about the current state of FPS games – specifically the Call of Duty and Battlefield franchises.
For some reason, there seems to be a need to “draw a line in the sand,” in terms of which faction you support and why. There is this conjured necessity to pledge and allegiance to one side while condemning the other as being an inferior product.

However, I don’t see this as something that should be happening, especially with two of the most prominent – and fun – games available on the market. After all, we’re supposed to be gamers! We bow to no specific series or game – we enjoy them as they are meant to be or we don’t enjoy them because of their shortcomings, not because it is the “enemy.”

I mean really, how stupid is the notion that Call of Duty is better than Battlefield and vice versa? The truth of the matter is they are such entirely different games that comparing them side by side is pointless. You know what you get by doing that? You see that they are both FPS games, both have campaigns, both have multiplayer and both feature a military-based premise. That’s it.
After that, you have to very different experiences – both graphically and in terms of gameplay – that set them definitively apart.

To be clear, when talking about these two games, the majority of comparison and basis for loyalty comes on the merits of each game’s multiplayer component, which garners most (if not all) of the attention gamers give each title.

That said, on the one hand, you have the recently-released Battlefield 3, which is the direct sequel to the PC-exclusive Battlefield 2 that so many have been clamoring for over the past several years. While it is a military shooter like Call of Duty, the feel is much more gritty and real – a success by EA and Dice to make it feel like a tactical experience infused with squad-based play and specific roles that you might find on the actual battlefield (medic, engineer, support, recon).

The game modes lend themselves to the idea of tactical gameplay, with the favorite modes being Conquest and Rush – objective modes focused on specific objectives that need to be captured and held to obtain victory. Even in this instance, the realism comes into play as such game modes could correlate to real life as war games played by troops as a means of training. There is the traditional team deathmatch, but that isn’t where Battlefield made its name. If you partake in the Conquest or Rush modes, you’ll be forced to work as a team to achieve the goal, which is what the entire Battlefield experience is about: Putting the team before yourself and obtaining the kill as a means of achieving the objective.

Conversely and on the other hand, you have the upcoming Modern Warfare 3, which is the latest (and final?) installment of the popular series that began with the genre-defining Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare. Unlike its counterpart, Modern Warfare 3 is a largely exaggerated military shooter, utilizing the storytelling the series has thrived on to set the stage for battles that literally span the globe. In Modern Warfare, the lone wolf is the king – even in objective modes such as Domination or Search and Destroy. While team cohesion is encouraged, it is not required to win, which many players really enjoy. After all, there’s nothing quite like being the rouge sniper who makes his way around the map destroying the dreams of the enemy team.

More traditionally, Call of Duty is a predominately “run and gun”-style shooter that provides maps that encourage a fast-paced approach of moving between buildings and through enemy territory as fast as you can, all the while taking out enemy players by any means necessary (riot shield, anyone?). The maps themselves are a lot more closed than those in Battlefield and offer less detail as well, but that is because they are meant to be more arena-like than simulations of a real-world location.

One thing that may set the games apart this release cycle is the Spec. Ops (Special Operations) mode in Modern Warfare 3, which is a wave-based co-op experience with its own rewards and leveling system. While Battlefield 3 has its own co-op mode, this is more an extension of the campaign, offering missions to complete instead of enduring wave after wave of enemies (again, lending itself to the idea that Battlefield is tactical to Call of Duty’s run and gun).

Now, with all the aforementioned ideas understood, I have a hard time seeing how just one of these games should be considered over the other. Sure, you could make a case for such a thing if you’re a strictly tactical player or a strictly run and gun player, but to confine ourselves to one experience is to cheat ourselves out of the fun found in being a gamer in the first place.

The truth of the matter is, there should be no allegiance. Instead, there should be gamers enjoying the different aspects of both games and joining together while doing so. This whole idea that one game is superior (whether it is done via marketing tactics or stated plainly in an interview) shows me one thing: Desperation. But needless desperation.

Unfortunately, that desperation reaches players in a way that creates a rift within the gaming community and suggests they should or should not buy a specific title, which only hurts us – the gamers – in the end.

I’m not trying to stump for one game or the other (in fact, I’ve already preordered and paid for both); I’m simply encouraging those of you who feel like you’re on the fence about this issue to get off and be your own person. Buy the game you want to play, not the game you’re being led to believe is superior. After all, if you enjoy playing both – for whatever reason – then they are both superior games for their own unique reasons.

Seldom do I encounter games that boast a great deal of potential for success and timing that might allow them to overtake a genre.

Usually, the games I buy are either leaders of the genre – already established through previous and successful entries – or good examples of them, utilizing features that players enjoy, but not necessarily possessing the ability to overtake the top dog.

In the case of Battlefield 3 (BF3), the potential existed for the latter of the aforementioned two to become the former. Unfortunately, I say “existed,” just as it suggests – in the past tense of the discussion.

Leading the charge of features that put BF3 in position to take the First-Person Shooter crown is the new Frostbite 2 engine, which right away shows how capable it is of delivering top-tier graphics and impressive realism. If you’re like me and my friends, you get a great look at this by entering the multiplayer first.

The best maps to judge the graphic capabilities are the outdoor maps in modes such as Conquest or Rush, with my personal favorites being the maps set in urban environments (Seine Crossing, Operation Metro, etc). The detail and clarity of the architecture in conjunction with the way things like smoke, sunlight and even wind affect the overall environment is nothing short of exquisite, and despite the decreased frame rate of 30 frames per second (FPS) (by comparison, Modern Warfare 3 will be 60 FPS). Add to that the destructive environments and Battlefield 3 boasts one of the most authentic looking experiences of any multiplayer I have ever played.

The campaign sees no drop-off in ability from the Frostbite 2 engine and shows little-to-no screen tearing. The animations throughout the missions have a great look to them as you’re making your way across the different terrains – all of which are visually stunning. The one thing people are commenting on regarding the graphics is that the console versions (I played this on PS3) don’t look as good as the PC iteration. To be completely honest, I don’t think this is something that should take away from the game at all. Given the other game options out there and the way they look, you’ll be hard-pressed to find something much better.

Despite the focus of most modern FPS games being on multiplayer, I’ve always been a fan of a decent (even if it’s short) campaign. Right away you can tell the Battlefield 3 tries to offer what many other FPS campaigns before it – specifically Call of Duty (surprise, surprise) – have done and offered a “playable movie” in the campaign. Unfortunately, unlike those preceding it, Battlefield 3 carries forth a very forgettable story. The plotline – which I won’t divulge for those of you who still haven’t played it – struck me as typical and unsurprising. It had the basic missions (Tank/Sniper/Capture/etc), a couple of somewhat shocking, but not unsurprising twists and an ending that… well… left me asking “that’s it?” Don’t get me wrong – by the end of the campaign, I had enjoyed it enough, but it wasn’t quite the breathtaking experience that I (and I think many) players anticipated it would be.

My biggest gripe about the campaign isn’t in the difficulty – which is easily above Call of Duty on the normal setting – but the way my character is directed to perform tasks and is usually killed while performing them as directed. For example, early in the game, you’re tasked to an overpass where you’re supposed to man a light machine gun (LMG). However, upon obtaining the LMG and laying down suppressive fire, your elevated location combined with the lack of cover usually results in your death. I did this three times before finally moving away from the designated area and completing the task from another location. This one instance of annoyance would have been tolerable, but there are many more like it throughout the game.

When you look past the lack of innovation in the story and the annoyingly poor AI direction, the campaign gets the job done with a story that will at least keep your interest, but won’t likely have you raving about how great it was. The one thing I appreciated the most about this game (at least through most of it), is the realism portrayed in verbal commands and communication, weaponry and scenarios. Outlandishness takes a backseat to the sobering, true nature of warfare.

Of course, it’s not truly about the single-player campaign with Battlefield 3, is it? Of course not. And fortunately for those of us who understand this, the multiplayer doesn’t disappoint. For the most part, anyway – but I’ll talk about the shortcomings in a minute.

To put it as best as I can, the multiplayer experience and gameplay of Battlefield 3 is something I haven’t experienced for a long time. With Call of Duty, it’s less tactical maneuvering and more run n’ gun intensity. With Socom, it’s less intensity and more luck of the draw (provided you can move past the fact that there hasn’t been a good Socom since Socom 2). Battlefield 3 gives you a well-rounded experience that offers something for everyone and doesn’t confine itself to a specific designation.

One moment, I’m lone-wolfing it through Tehran Highway with my sniper rifle in hand, moving around the map as cleanly as possible during a Team Deathmatch, the next minute, I’m in between the shipping containers of Operation Firestorm with my shotgun or LMG, moving with my squadmates to secure an area in Rush. Or, if I’m looking for something that is literally bigger than just my squadmates and I, I’ll head to Conquest mode for a trip through the Grand Bazaar and an epic battle involving ground forces, tank and jeep supports and airstrikes moving overhead.

In addition to the stellar gameplay, the environments are, as I mentioned earlier, the best I’ve seen. The maps themselves seem particularly well put together, allowing for a great deal of freedom when approaching an objective or attempting to flank/sneak up on an enemy. I appreciate this in particular due to the usually-confining locations in most multiplayer games. While there are areas you cannot venture past in Team Deathmatch, the freedom you are allowed still far exceeds anything currently offered in a multiplayer experience.

Unfortunately, there are a few problematic items that have persisted since the launch of Battlefield 3 that may keep it from reaching above and beyond the “Call of Duty Crown,” which is honestly disappointing for me to write. The biggest issues:

— The party system: While it is understood that Battlefield employs squads, which allow for only four people at a time, there seems to be a big problem with joining a match and keeping your squad intact at the same time. In the multiple instances (at least 10) that I have tried to do this with various friends, not once have I ended up on the same team. Now, when I get a game invite, I usually decline it because it’s very unlikely that I will end up in the same squad or even on the same team.

— Hit Detection: I talked about this in the Things I love/Things I hate piece I wrote not long ago, but hit detection in this game is something to be desired. The biggest sign of this for me is when using a sniper rifle. More often than not in games that utilize sniping, a headshot – if well placed – will give you a one-hit kill. That is only the case some of the time in Battlefield 3. I can honestly say, I have fired upon multiple enemies several times with my SVD or MK11 and hit what appeared to be their heads, only to receive hitmarkers that gave away my intentions and usually cost me the kill. This problem also persists with shotguns at close range (but less often than the sniper rifles).

— Spawn locations: This is a big one for me, as I HATE when I don’t have the opportunity to move before dying. However, that is precisely the problem I am facing in nearly all of my matches in Battlefield 3. Just last night I spawned in front of the enemy time three times in a row and had them spawn behind me another four, resulting in seven VERY frustrating deaths. I understand determining a way to work out random spawns for players is difficult, but this is something that should have been a priority from the beginning instead of a problem now.

— Weapon Progression: There is nothing more rewarding than knowing you’re within reach of that next weapon unlock and getting into a match you are confident will yield the fruits of your labor. The thing is, that labor seems to take a REALLY long time, especially with the escalation in point requirements with each unlock. I know this lends itself to the player ranking system, but come on – it shouldn’t take three days of playing eight to 10 matches per night to get an unlock of a weapon or for a weapon.

— Servers: I was so giddy about having dedicated servers for games I almost wet myself. And then I got online to find the majority of the servers empty, with just a select few having actual gameplay on them. Then I discovered that these functioning servers usually had a wait list attached to them because they were the only ones available in the region. Yikes.

Scarily, these are just a few of the issues that persist in the multiplayer. While these things may not seem terribly game-breaking to many players, they might be deterrents to players who are unfamiliar with Battlefield and are used to the “plug and play” features of other multiplayer experiences. Hopefully EA can get things under control and fixed before there is a mass exodus due to the MW3 release next week (which you will be able to find a review of right here).

Still, I don’t think there should be a large decline in interest, given the functioning aspects of the game. Battlefield 3 offers a great multiplayer experience complemented with an intuitive menu system, which allows you to filter the games you want based on their server, core/hardcore nature, region and game mode. It gives you a nice level of customization that you can even track online thanks to Origin and the Battlelog.

But most of all, it gives you a multiplayer that currently (and for the foreseeable future) has no rival. Though the problems are a nuisance and should have been dealt with before launch, this may be the quintessential FPS multiplayer of the year – especially if it receives the patches it so desperately needs. So if you have any kind of interest in online multiplayer, I definitely recommend picking this up (just make sure you buy it new as it requires an online pass).

It used to be, when I wanted to play the latest game, I would go to the video store or to my local electronics outlet and pick up a copy for what used to be a steep price (approx. $3 to rent for a few days or $40 to buy).

However, as time has passed, so has the need for store-front video game rentals. In their place we have the likes of digital downloads, pre-orders, GameFly (a Netflix-like subscription service) and now – Redbox game rentals. Redbox in particular, I am sad to say, has left a sour taste in my mouth.

Don’t get me wrong – the premise of Redbox game rentals is an underrated idea: Instead of requiring a subscription to something like GameFly or having a membership of a local video store, all you need for a Redbox game is your cash card and an idea of what game you want. Easy, right? Exactly.

With most locations opting to carry a Redbox dispensary either out front or inside their store, finding one with the game you want is as easy as visiting the store for some groceries and picking up a game while you’re there.

The problem, however, comes in with the price per rental. Ten years ago, I was able to rent the latest games from my local video store for $3 and get it for approximately three days. The cost of a one (1) day rental from Redbox? $2.

Now, to the very casual gamer, this is no problem. Two dollars gets you time to play the game and see if you like it, get a few achievement points/trophies and then take it back. But for someone such as myself who is interested in playing the game for longer than a couple of hours (some of us have responsibilities), it’s a ridiculous price at best.

Consider, for a moment, that with movies rented from Redbox, you’re likely to watch it in a span of one and a half to three hours, completing it in one fell swoop. This is why the cost of $1 (or $1.50 for a Blu-ray) is more than appealing and – frankly – why my family has opted to use Redbox for movies over Netflix.

In the same amount of time that it takes you to watch that movie, you might experience only a small portion of a video game that you’ve rented for twice the price of a typical movie rental.

While I’m sure the price increase is tied to the kind of media being rented, conventional wisdom suggests that something requiring additional time to complete would run at a lower cost, which would make your service that much more popular and drive the demand for more games. This would also suggest a probably increase in revenue due to multiple rentals. But hey, that’s just me thinking crazy, right?

I honestly like the idea of being able to “one-stop-shop,” so to speak – getting my groceries and a video game for an after-dinner romp through whatever world seems to be the most appealing at the time. However, if the cost of a single game is going to run me upwards of $20 by the time I’ve completed it (that’s 10 days of playing time at around two to four hours of play time per day, give or take)? No thank you. At that price, I’d just assume buy the game and play it whenever I want, which defeats the whole point of renting it in the first place.

Redbox has a good thing on their hands with the game rentals, but they need to figure out how to price it correctly so it can make a lasting impression – not a fleeting one that leaves a sour taste in our mouths.

The latest Call of Duty: Black Ops DLC – “Rezurrection” – was exclusive to the Xbox 360, just like
previous Call of Duty DLC packs – dating back to Modern Warfare 2.

Over the past several years of my gaming life, I’ve been noticing a trend in the Downloadable Content (DLC) marketplace that has created a burning question in me: “Exclusive” rights to new DLC.

Much of this has shown its face in the form of map packs for Call of Duty games or DLC for games like Fallout: New Vegas. What’s more, when it comes to who gets the DLC first, it is ALWAYS (unless the game is exclusive to a console), The Xbox 360 that gets it first.

Now, understand first that I have nothing against the Xbox 360. The only reason I sold my 360 in favor of PS3 was for the free online gameplay, which the 360 did (and still doesn’t) have – a fact that my wife reminded me of each time I spent money on my LIVE gold membership. I enjoyed my time on my 360, just as I’ve enjoyed my time on my PS3 – with the exception of DLC.

My curiosity lies within the the message that is sent when Microsoft pays however much it is they pay to have DLC for games come out a month early on their console. For many 360 faithful, there is no problem. For many PS3 faithful, it’s a vicious injustice. For me, as a gaming fan in general, it’s a divisive tool that suggests there is inequality between the consoles and suggests that there is a “better” console to own.

I’m sure some of you just read that and are now thinking “of course there’s a better console! It’s [insert console of choice]!” But hold on a second and let me continue before you click away.

What I mean is, I’m tired of the incredibly pointless arguments that surround which console is better and I’m especially tired of how DLC exclusivity perpetuates that idea that there IS a better console.

In its current state, the 360 v. PS3 debate is incredibly stupid when you consider that each console have their own share of great exclusives and share most of the big-name titles that have come/are coming out. Both consoles have great graphics (depending on the game you’re playing; lets face it – some of the games that are billed as high profile before they release can end up laying an egg with the bulk of gamers. See: Homefront). That’s not to say the games themselves are terrible, but unfortunately, some people put graphics further ahead of story than they should. Another area that people might argue is price. With the base-model 360 costing roughly $50 less than base-model PS3, people forget that the PS3 has a Blu-ray player which provides incentive to raise the price by at LEAST $50. Take away the Blu-ray and it’s very likely the price points are the same.

My point is, the best console on the market is the console that allows you to enjoy the games you want to buy. Unfortunately, exclusive DLC releases for games on both consoles suggest otherwise (at least in my view). Microsoft seems to feel the need to buy the loyalty of their console owners by puffing their chest with exclusive DLC when – in all likelihood – if they released DLC at the same time as the PS3, it probably wouldn’t do ANY worse.

Now, if you’re thinking at this very moment that I’m simply an envious PS3 owner, please save your breathe – this is not the case. It doesn’t hurt me personally that I have to wait an extra 30 days for DLC – I certainly don’t hate waiting to spend my money these days (my wife doesn’t either). What I think what it DOES hurt is the camaraderie that there should be within the gaming world across all platforms. Instead, we have owners of one console or the other trying to argue that their choice is better and we have exclusive DLC adding more ammunition to a pointless argument.

Do I think the DLC-exclusivity is subject to change anytime soon? No. Do I hope it does? Absolutely. I think the less contrived reasons for us to argue over which console is better we have, the better. And, in the same regard, I think the more positive dialogue we have between the owners of different consoles, the better.

We’re gamers because we enjoy the experience. How we enjoy that experience should be secondary to the experience itself (unless it is a console-exclusive title, which creates another opportunity for positive dialogue). If we’re too busy arguing over who has the better console (and why DLC is a reason for that), we’re missing an incredibly important aspect of the gaming experience and hurting the upward momentum of a unified gaming community.

Now, let me know what YOU think. Get at me.

For many people, finishing a game to 100 percent completion is the entire point of buying a video game. For others, it’s a way to challenge themselves based on the particular title they’re playing. Whatever the case may be, it’s always a satisfying feeling to know that you’ve not only completed a game, but that you’ve finished all the tasks available in it.

However, with the advent of motion gaming (Playstation Move, Microsoft Kinect), and the goal for game makers to integrate motion gaming technology into the latest games, we may be moving to a new era in gaming that requires players to utilize said peripherals to complete a game to that 100 percent mark.

According to a recent article from Game Informer, one game – Forza 4 – is already stepping into that arena, requiring Kinect to complete the game in full.

However, what kind of precedent does this set for the gaming marketplace? On one hand, you have a new way to enjoy the games that are coming out for the system(s) you own. You have a new way to get involved – a way to “broaden your gaming horizon.” This might prove to be especially fun for you if, until now, you’ve only been using the motion gaming items as way to enjoy games that involve dancing or children’s games.

If anything, this strengthens the desire for people who were on the fence about getting motion peripherals to actually go out and pull the trigger on a Kinect or Move, which is great for sales on something that I – to be completely honest – expected to be more integrated than this in gaming by now.

Another benefit to this is the possibility of greater challenges extended to gamers. As if many of the current challenges weren’t tough enough, integrating the need for motion controls to complete the necessary actions is another notch on that proverbial belt when you finally do complete the challenge.

But what about the possible drawbacks? Is requiring gamers to have a motion gaming controller really the way we want things to progress or was it inevitable from the beginning?

Unfortunately, my fear is that this is just the tip of the iceberg for gaming requirements. In the case of Forza 4, the achievement is not overly significant as it only nets the player five (5) gamer points or the equivalent of a bronze trophy on the PlayStation 3. But that’s not the point. The point is, once it is determined how effective – if at all – this attempt to increase motion gaming use is, more manufacturers are likely to follow suit in including it in their games.

What does that mean? It means that you, the gamer that is interested in reaching that triumphant 100 percent mark, will be all but required to purchase a motion gaming setup in order to attain your prize. It also means those of us who aren’t interested in the 100 mark, but at the very least attaining some trophies/achievements, will have less of them to work with if we don’t want to shell out the coin for a motion gaming system. Basically, it limits our options and puts us in a position of “if you don’t like it, don’t play it,” even with games that we may have otherwise been looking forward to – all because of motion gaming.

Now, that last bit may sound like an extreme, but realistically, how extreme is it to suggest that progress won’t take the motion gaming movement that far?

If either of the points I’ve discussed above happen, I can’t say I would be surprised. But if it comes down to me having to choose between buying a motion gaming system to enjoy a game that I would have otherwise been able to enjoy with just my controller? I don’t know that I will be able to hold a continued interest in gaming.

We should allow gamers the opportunity to choose their level of involvement. A little integration isn’t necessarily bad. I simply hope manufacturers recognize a limit and try not to push it too far.

So, you might have heard that Homefront sucked. You might have heard that from very reputable sources with lots of fancy advertising or even from the CEO of THQ himself. You may have been told that sales of the game sucked so bad, they shut down the development studio. While the last one may be true – I don’t know, I don’t know the math – I would strongly caution you against believing everything you hear about this game.

To be honest, I wasn’t sure what to expect. So, I rented this game with an open mind, and boy am I glad I gave it a chance. While this game is every bit a linear shooter, it puts together two of my favorite game themes: apocalyptic stories and revolutionary tactics. The intro to the story is in the form of a lead-in cutscene. It starts with a press release with Hillary Clinton from May of 2010, and then progresses through a fictional but somewhat believable account of how Kim Jong-un re-unified Korea under a single banner. Then Kim Jong-un goes on to launch an ostensibly benign communications satellite which turns out to be a weaponized satellite which emits an EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) and destroys all electronics in the United States. Following the EMP, Kim Jong-un’s forces invade Hawaii, then California, then the midwest. Somehow the midwest – including the home of yours truly – becomes a nuclear wasteland from the Mississippi all the way through the western-most third of Indiana, from the top to the bottom of the country. Freaky, no?

So, as the cutscene fades, you wake up in a small room with not much around you. As you’re kind of getting the hang of the controls, you hear a knock on the door, and your objectives tell you that you need to open the door. as you’re trying to open the door, you discover how much it sucks to be you: the KPA (Korean Peoples’ Army) busts through the door and arrests you. They stick you on a bus and you drive through town. You’re riding, chained up on a bus, down the streets of Montrose, Colorado and you bear witness to some pretty horrifying scenes – even for a video game. There was one scene which particularly weighed on me, a couple with a small child is pleading with their young child to look away, not to think about it, and right as you’re wondering what will happen….

This is where I’ll stop on the walk-through as I think you should see it for yourself.

There is something else that I found interesting in this game: product placement. In just the first 15 minutes of the game I have seen a lot of ads. First, there’s one for TigerDirect on the menu screen, it’s a sign on a store (I don’t think TigerDirect actually has a physical storefront). The second product placement I noticed was White Castle, which was shortly followed by an awful lot of FullThrottle energy drink ads on two vending machines and a park bench. It seems that THQ decided to make some extra coin here by sticking products into the game, but they did it WELL. These ads fit right in, and while I think most folks will notice that these are real-world brands, they make sense in the place and time where they live. Now only if folks like THQ were willing to drop the price on games they load with ads!

I strongly recommend that you check this game out, I think that if you like linear shooters that you will like this game as well.

For those of you who didn’t follow the E3 Convention very closely, we have a special treat for you thanks to the folks at Irrational Games and SpikeTV.

The hotly anticipated BioShock Inifinite, which garnered a great deal of accolades at and after E3, has only been seen in a few carefully released gameplay videos. However, last night Ken Levine shared a 14-minute demo that had only been seen by a few select media members at E3 before now.

Needless to say, I’m pretty excited to be able to share this with you.

My initial thoughts are that this game looks fantastic. And why wouldn’t it? After playing through the majestic and sinister city of Rapture in the first to BioShock games, expecting anything less would be incredibly disappointing.

However, Levine and Irrational do not disappoint in any way. The dialogue between the characters in the demo above is one of the first things I noticed, simply because the storyline of the last BioShocks was relayed through audio recordings and radio contact. Now that we have person-to-person interaction, I am excited to see where things go. It certainly keeps me excited knowing that the interaction thus far seems natural.

The visuals themselves are stunning, just as I’m sure we all hoped they would be. A city in the sky could have been done very poorly and with a great deal of cliche, but I believe Irrational met that challenge very well. What’s more is the skylines are a very cool dynamic mixed in with the rest of the gameplay that open the world of Columbia up to more than just walking from place to place. After seeing some of the ability to use them (and what looks like a clean guidance method for mounting/dismounting), I am eager to try it myself and really explore Columbia.

Another aspect that hasn’t been very largely touched on until in this demo is how the tears that can be manipulated by Elizabeth will affect the gameplay. Judging by the scene with the horse, I’d say it will likely lead to some fantastic scenes in the game and some interesting combat situations (since,you know, she could have made a barrel of guns or areas of cover appear).

It was really good to see more of one of the warring factions – the Vox Populi – than had been seen in previous demos. I felt that it gave them a true hardness that they didn’t quite have until now in my mind. With the first game demo released, it seemed that they weren’t quite the “good guys,” but perhaps the more rational of the factions. This is no longer my opinion of them as they show themselves as a ruthless group teetering on the edge of sanity and rationality.

As with the last BioShock installments, it will be interesting to see the historic and social undertones carried throughout the story. With the first game having a very “Ayn Rand-centric” vibe, I really can’t wait to see the full scope of this game.

The gunplay looks very clean and reminds me of the previous games as well. The heads-up displays are also themed well to the era of the game, which makes me smile with glee with how awesome it all looked together.

That said, if you couldn’t tell, I’m pretty excited to see this come out. Here’s to hoping it’s in the early part of 2012.

As always, let us know what you think!

We’ve all been here before. You’ve just spent 10 minutes battling a boss on “crazy” mode, only to have an
underling character sneak up behind you and kill you, rendering your efforts useless.

It used to be, hard games or game modes were viewed as the “black sheep” of the gaming experience (at least for me). It seemed almost masochistic to submit oneself to such difficult gameplay for the simple fact of doing so, knowing full well that frustration and anger may result. Sure, some people used this as a way to see just how good they were, but others saw the hardest difficulties as having no real value when they could just as easily play the easy/normal settings and have more fun.

However, as gaming has evolved over the years and achievements/trophies were introduced, there was a new draw to completing a game on the toughest difficulty it had to offer. It meant not only did you best the biggest challenge a game maker had to offer, but you earned the trophy to prove it.

Recently, I took it upon myself to engage in my first effort of playing the hardest difficulty a game had to offer: The “Survivor” Difficulty in BioShock. The first thing that compelled me to try this is the fact that I consider BioShock to be one of the best games available. The story is great, the vibe and visual spectacle of Rapture is incredibly well done and the overall narrative is unlike many other games I have played. Until taking on Survivor Mode, I had only ever played BioShock on the normal difficulty setting, which was challenging, but not overly-so.

Now, I found myself in the odd position of re-discovering a game I had already played twice before. Only this time, it was less about charging in with a full head of steam and more about rounding each corner with a watchful eye. The most fascinating part of the experience for me was how much more cautious I became knowing that my character could die with the greatest of ease from just a few hits from what were simple enemies before. I genuinely feared for my character each time I came upon an enemy, not knowing if my shotgun or machine gun would do the trick before I ran out of health.

But that’s where the beauty of Survivor Mode comes into play. If you’re playing the game on easy, you’re breezing through the hallways of Rapture, killing everything in sight like they weren’t even there. It’s less about the surroundings and more about getting to your goal with ease while dealing with some minor headaches along the way. However, as soon as you start Survivor Mode and your only weapon for a good while is a wrench that takes 10 whacks to kill an enemy that can kill you in four? You start to slow down a little. And when you start to slow down, the atmosphere starts to creep in and you start to notice where you are. You start to notice the sinister vibes and the lingering chaos of a Utopian city gone mad. Additionally – in my case anyway – you begin to yearn for more about what could cause such a terrible descent into darkness.

As I progressed through the levels, the way I approached every enemy changed drastically. Thug splicers, which were the easiest of the enemies to kill, now took strategy to bring down. Determining how I could get a few hits in before they hit me back was normal and unnerving if I’m trying to complete the game without any Vita-Chambers (respawn points). The difficulty escalated from there, leaving me hesitant to engage enemies until I knew how I could leave the victor. The harder the enemies became, the more sure I had to be before engaging them. The tonics I collected became vital to my survival throughout the game, which meant some of them were never replaced (natural camouflage, anyone?).

Plasmids also became more important. While the easier modes left plasmids as situation-specific tools (melting ice, zapping faulty doors, etc.), Survivor Mode made me wish I had more plasmids at my disposal and more Eve (the catalyst for using plasmids, for those of you who have never played BioShock) on top of that (because Eve is a scarce commodity in Rapture when battling through the highest difficulty). The fire plasmid I once used only to light things that needed to be melted now helped save my ammunition against lesser enemies. The electricity plasmid I once used only to open shorted-out doors or stall turrets now served as a way to shock enemies so I could get a couple of quick swings of the wrench in before they came after me. Even the telekinesis plasmid, which I used for grabbing out of reach items was used to hurl everything from barrels to bodies at pursuing enemies. And it wasn’t because I had to – it was because I NEEDED to.

Even the most difficult enemies of them all – the Big Daddies – required a specific finesse that was hard to perfect. Before, I simply unloaded round after round of machine gun bullets into the Big Daddies. Now, I had to find a room that put a safe distance between him and myself before engaging him – or I would simply bypass him altogether. Two-minute battles now became 10-minute battles that I wasn’t sure I would win in the end. THAT was an experience. It took the Big Daddy – which is a menacing character to begin with – and made him the most feared character in the game, short of the final boss himself.

Were there times when I wanted to throw my controller through my TV screen? Absolutely. Were there times when I had to turn the game off entirely? More than a few. But was stress associated with Survivor Mode worth it in the end? Without a doubt. The hardest difficulty BioShock had to offer gave me an entirely different gameplay experience than I had encountered with the normal game mode. It took me into Rapture and made me feel like I WAS fighting for my life. If that in itself isn’t worth the hardships of a higher difficulty, then I’m not sure what is in video gaming.

—————————————————————————————————————————————-
What games have you played – and completed – on the hardest difficulties? Was it worth it for you?

Let’s just start by saying that conflict does happen online. We here at anyConsole.com do hereby validate that feelings get hurt, and that real conflict does happen while gaming and online. Those hurt feelings take shape in many different forms and for many different causes. Here is my take on the major “hurt-feelings” situations:

• You’re playing a multiplayer game, and you get repeatedly killed. You’re not having much fun in the game – though others may be – and you’re frustrated.
• You’re playing online and someone engages in some unfair name-calling. You’re naturally offended, it takes away from the fun of the game.
• You’re reading someone’s opinion online, and you disagree with it. You may even strongly disagree with it, it takes away from the fun of reading about video games on a website.

There are many different ways that conflict starts online and in console gaming. At the point of offense though – the very moment you find yourself upset, frustrated, or offended – you choose how to respond. I think most ways of response could be boiled down to four categories:

1. Assertive - disagreeing calmly using logic and reason
2. Passive - walk away, ignore
3. Passive/Aggressive - talk smack about someone when they’re not around, anonymously attack them, submit a player complaint, call for a kick vote
4. Aggressive - name-calling, use of racial, sexist, or homophobic slurs, threats

Recently in my online gaming, and even in activities here on this blog, item #4 really seems to be the dominant force among young people (guessing under 17). More mature gamers tend to choose the first two, maybe the third.

Why is this important? Because conflict resolution matters in gaming. If we can’t all “play nice,” (as all of our mothers taught us to do) then nobody gets to have any fun. It’s no fun to listen to some jerk call someone the “N” word on Xbox Live, though that is routine. It is all too common to be in the middle of Modern Warfare (or any version of Call of Duty, really) and hear some young child hurling some of the most vile and repugnant slurs at his fellow gamers. I don’t know how parents can allow this to go on, but it does.

At anyConsole.com, we want to promote a healthy game culture, one in which everybody is welcome and everybody is having fun. The “N” word has no place in a healthy gaming culture, nor does the “R” word. We hope the community will stand up for less hostile gaming. It’s time to make games about fun and culture, not anger, bigotry and slurs.

As a side-note, we block those who post such nonsense on this blog. Thanks.

According to GamePolitics.com, illegal streaming may soon be a felony carrying a penalty of up to five years in jail. The bill, S. 978, a.k.a. “Commercial Felony Streaming Act,” has made its way through the Senate Judiciary Committee, and brings illegal streaming to the same level as illegal downloading, where it is a felony.

All of this law is based on the supposition that an illegal download is the same as a lost sale, which I think has some big holes. The largest hole in this fuzzy logic is that nobody has bothered to quantify how many people would have purchased the media had the illegal download not been available, and that is a hole large enough to drive a Warthog through.

Another hole in this thinking is that neither the business people nor the legislators involved have gone through the trouble of trying to understand what they’re seeking to limit. Want proof? Currently it is illegal to download content, and it’s a felony if done commercially. This bill would bring streaming into line with downloading. What’s ignorant here is that streaming and downloading are the same thing. Streaming is downloading. Were they to have bothered to understand the technologies they were regulating, they would have figured this out and gotten this together years ago.

At this site we do not endorse any form of illegal copying, sharing, or streaming. We love our friends who make games, we love them as much as we love Mr. Toots. We wish them the very best, and we hope that they return it all back to us in the form of lovely video games which make us smile and waste our time.

We, however, don’t believe that companies should get to call all the shots within government, and that’s really what this is. Violating copyright is already illegal, it has been for a very long time. The game corporations are looking to find more ways to criminalize something that’s already a crime, and I’m not sure why. This bill doesn’t really change any of that, except now, if your blog gets hacked and you get 11 illegal streaming links on your blog in a 180 day period, you will now face the possibility of felony charges.

Maybe they have paranoid shareholders who are demanding they do something about this unquantified problem. Who knows? We remain unconvinced that illegal downloading is as much of a problem as what the industry says it is, and we would be delighted to be proven wrong if anybody has the real numbers to back up their claims. The music industry said they would lose their shirts over piracy if iTunes ever stopped putting DRM into their downloads, and they’ve since been proven wrong.

Source: GamePolitics.com

Jaffe, the director of such gaming hits as the God of War series and the upcoming Twisted Metal (the originator of which he was also a part), took to twitter today to remind members of the media that if you’re going to report it, it might as well be accurate.

The gaming icon had strong words for LazyGamer.net following a piece released by them titled “David Jaffe Doesn’t Think Sony Likes His Game“, which refers to a recent interview with Eurogamer that discussed how some of the folks at Sony just don’t “get it” when it comes to the new Twisted Metal, an icon in its own right on the Playstation platform.

In response, Jaffe indicated the context of his comment was lost, which is why many developers are tight-lipped with the media (Editor’s note: The following comments have been edited for profane content):

“Note to certain friends in the gaming press: the REASON more folks don’t open up and tell you more than the PR folks suggest is becausesome of you twist and take [expletive] SO out of context that we in the game making biz are just better off not giving you ANY [expletive] opportunity to twist what we say,” he said via his twitter on Wednesday evening.

He continued by defending Sony’s role in presenting and supporting Twisted Metal at the recent E3 convention in Los Angeles.

“We got PRIME booth space, tons of time and support and love from all divisions of Sony. Try reading the [expletive] article from which you are ‘reporting’ on next time before you go and start putting your own, totally unfounded spin on the things I say.”

From a media standpoint, Jaffe makes a valid point. This is a prime example of why checking your sources is vital to not just your own outlet’s ability to get scoops, but the rest of the gaming media’s ability as well. Many times, what hurts one of us, hurts all of us. If developers become wary of news outlets, it hurts all our abilities to get gamers the information they need about the entertainment they (and we) love.

So, to all the journalists out there in the gaming industry: Lets make sure we don’t bite the proverbial hands that feed. There’s a difference between keeping them honest and interpreting their honesty to fit our stories.

To developers like Jaffe? Keep keeping us honest and doing it in front of the readers who depend on us. Otherwise, what would we learn?

Game Informer has awarded its E3 winners, and it looks like the PlayStation Vita took the Best Tech award. I couldn’t agree with this choice more. It has been a long time since I was as excited about a handheld platform as I am about the Playstation Vita.

Other categories that I thought were interesting and agreeable are:

Best of Show: BioShock Infinite

Best of PS3: Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception

Best of Xbox 360: Gears of War 3

Best of Wii: The Ledgend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

Best Adventure: Batman: Arkham City

Best RPG: The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim

Best Shooter: Battlefield 3

Best Racer: Forza Motorsport 4

Best Sports: FIFA 12 (I personally love FIFA games)

I strongly recommend you check out Game Informer’s E3 awards piece here.

According to Gematsu.com, an analyst for Sterne Agee is reporting that Nintendo’s new Wii U console will be 50 percent more powerful than Sony’s PlayStation 3.

“Some of the developers we spoke to indicated to us that the console will have 50 percent more processing power compared to the PlayStation 3 or Xbox 360,” said Arvind Bhatia. However, Bhatia continued that “This is yet to be confirmed by Nintendo.”

I’m more than a little skeptical, to say the least. In fact, I don’t think Nintendo has even finalized the load-out for this console, which is why I think they haven’t disclosed specifications yet. Were Nintendo’s device in line to take the PS3′s place as the most technically powerful platform available, they would have said so by now. At the very least, they would have told us the system specs to whet our appetites for more news on the still-secretive Wii U.

This is nothing more than a marketing firm trying to make some noise and attract some business. Nothing more, nothing less.

See our first impressions of the Wii U here.

(Source: Gematsu)

This afternoon marked my first opportunity to play Red Faction: Armageddon, and I must say,  so far I’m impressed.  Still,  I have barely even scratched the surface of this game.  So, here is just a taste of what I’ve seen to this point.

First up is Ruin Mode.  I’d like to start out by saying that I’m disappointed in THQ for deciding to have a core feature of the game require a disposable keycode. Games that have diminished features because the they were not purchased new – effectively holding the gamer hostage for the sake of a few dollars more, DOES harm gaming culture.  But that is for another day.

That said, Ruin Mode is a whole lot of really repetitive fun. The key thing about the modern Red Faction franchise that I love is the destructive engine they use. Volition, Inc. is very proud of the fact that they develop the engines for their games in-house – and they should be. Red Faction: Armageddon’s Ruin Mode is nothing short of a fully-functional demonstration of their destructive engine. You are presented with a world wherein your only task is to blow stuff up, and boy is it going to be fun!

The levels are unevenly difficult, so they don’t appear to be more difficult in a linear fashion – as one may expect. I think the lighting may be off a little bit, too, as sometimes it is hard to see exactly what is supporting that road up on the top of the hill that you’re trying to take down.  Other than that, I can’t really complain.

The tools of destruction at your disposal (fancy way of saying “guns”):

• Plasma ray – This gun shoots a basic, yet powerful plasma ray, but overheats quickly
• Plasma cannon – This gun fires a large plasma burst with a large blast/damage radius
• Nano gun – Shoots out nano bots, which eat whatever you shoot
• Remote Charges – Explosives triggered by a remote control
• Singularity Gun – Fires a temporary gravitational singularity which sucks in all surrounding matter for a brief period of time
• Magnet gun – Fire one shot at what you want to move, and the next shot at what you want it to move towards
• Rocket Launcher – Fires rockets, blows stuff upI have found that a combination is necessary in some maps: first fire a rocket to expose the under-belly of the bridge, then fire the singularity cannon at the supports, taking the whole thing down.

While this game mode does repeat itself quite a bit, and though it can be a little frustrating, it is a lot of fun and provides a perfect way to unwind when all you want to do is blow something up.

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 showcases the events that immediately follow 2008's Modern Warfare 2

Ever since the first Modern Warfare hit shelves in November of 2007, Activision has seen its most popular franchise set record after record, releasing games annually with imaginative story lines and of course, the online multiplayer that set the series apart from its competition in the first place.

This year, Activision looks to continue riding the wave created by its first Modern Warfare title with the release of its third (and last?) installment under the name.  If E3 popularity is any indication of future success, then Modern Warfare 3 (MW3) is looking to be another hit, with it being the most watched game trailer of the convention.

However, the gameplay demo conducted at this year’s E3 left me with several questions about the direction the series has taken and what it means for possible future installments of the Call of Duty franchise.

Before I continue, please take a moment to view the gameplay for yourself below:

Robert Bowling plays Modern Warfare 3 Demo at E3

The first thoughts I had after the first 4 minutes of this gameplay were “what’s new about this?” and “why does this feel the same?”

Since it has been two years since the release of the last Modern Warfare entry, my expectations for this game – which I hope is the concluding entry – were set pretty high.  Despite the fallout at Infinity Ward following the Zampella/West debacle, one would think two years is enough time to inject something new into the Modern Warfare series.  However, that does not seem to be the case here.

There is no new engine powering this game, which is something frustrated fans on message boards everywhere have been asking for since Modern Warfare 2.  There are no graphical improvements over any other entry save for last year’s Black Ops, which wasn’t even done by Infinity Ward.  Even in the entire eight minutes or so of gameplay, I didn’t see a single new feature in the progression that suggests “we’re making this the biggest game so far.”  Amphibious assault?  Seen it.  Commandeering a vessel?  Been there, done that.  Speeding across the water while avoiding obstacles?  A regular feature by now.

While the setting may be different and the mood has slightly more urgency/intensity, the overall tone and theme remains the same:  Follow this path, shoot those guys, repeat.  To be completely honest, it looked as though they put the same flow from the past two games into this one and set it in New York (or wherever around the world this game is going to take you).

I understand it though.  When you’ve got a winning formula, you don’t want to change the ingredients, right?  From that perspective, it’s hard to fault Activision.  There’s no reason to mess with success.  But from a gamer’s perspective, there are only so many times you can change the cover of the same book and get me to believe it’s different.  And that’s exactly what this looks like:  The same book with a different title.

The only thing that has me wanting to play it currently (since no multiplayer details have been released) is my interest in continuing the storyline from the previous entries.  If there is one thing that Modern Warfare 1 and 2 had going for them, it was an interesting – albeit a tiny bit predictible – plot.  I only hope this game is a stopping point, otherwise I fear even the story will be viewed as “been there, done that.”

Speaking of the multiplayer aspect, I’m sure even now, fans – and even extreme critics – of the franchise are concocting message board entries and blog posts about what they believe the new multiplayer should have.  Well, we too will have a piece on this facet of the game.  However, due to the overwhelming amount of information there is to discuss about the multiplayer – especially now that the new Call of Duty: ELITE service has been announced – I am going to share that as a separate piece, so be sure to check back over the weekend for the online side of this discussion.

Overall, the game looks clean.  But it looks like it has looked since 2007.  Some people will appreciate this fact.  They will take comfort in knowing that the product they are buying is the product they have played and enjoyed.  However, I think more players – myself included – will be reluctant buyers (at least until otherwise swayed).  We see a product that has a great deal of potential that is being wasted for the sake of making a safe profit.  And while we will still play the game (because I know I will, however reluctant), there will be that nagging voice in the back of our heads continuously saying “I wish this,” and “I wish that,” about our gameplay experience.

I can only hope that Activision hears our collective desires long before Call of Duty becomes a “used to be” franchise.  As in, “Call of Duty used to be good… until they started giving gamers the same game experience every year.”

L.A. Noire takes players on a new - though sometimes repetitive - gaming experience.

When I first heard about Rockstar Games‘ and Team Bondi’s newest IP, L.A. Noire, all I could think was that it would be another iteration of Rockstar’s popular Grand Theft Auto series with a different skin (a la Red Dead Redemption).  However, the more I read about the game – a crime drama set in late 1947 Los Angeles – the more intrigued I became, especially with the idea that gunplay was not a primary aspect of the game.  So, I took the bait.

The opening scene begins as you would want any noir-style film to begin – dark and somewhat brooding with an intangible but ever-present tension.  You assume the role of Cole Phelps, a WWII hero and up-and-comer in the Los Angeles police force.  Though the first mission is no indication, you quickly learn that Phelps is a by-the-book type of cop with a nose for details but a man with demons he can’t seem to outrun.  Each conversation between Phelps and other Non-Playable Characters (NPCs) paint him as a man out to prove nothing to anyone but himself as he ascends through the detective ranks and desks of the LAPD.

The progression of Phelps’ career and cases works well in showing the rise to stardom – and fall from grace – that shape the overall narrative tone of the game.  Among the stops you’ll make after you put in your time during the Patrol desk (which is mostly arbitrary to the actual story, save for a few tidbits revealed in cutscenes, walkthrough sequences and necessary character development) is the traffic desk, where you’ll get a taste of the seedy underworld that is Los Angeles, complete with jilted lovers and the darker side of the film industry.  From there, you’ll make your way through the Homicide desk with a multi-part jaunt through the real-life Black Dahlia murders, onto the Vice squad where the line between justice and corruption becomes questionable at best, before finishing at the Arson desk – a progression move that becomes apparent with time.  The story stays compelling up until the final scene that will likely leave you – as it did me – feeling conflicted but satisfied.

As far as gameplay is concerned, I enjoy the “words-not-bullets” approach taken in the game, headlined by interrogation and interviewing that rests how much – or how little – evidence you collect for a case or against a witness, squarely on your shoulders.  Aiding you in this venture is an intuitive “notebook” feature that catalogs all the details of each case – from a blood stained stocking or known-address, to the dying – but implicit – words of a shooter in a robbery-gone-wrong.   Unfortunately, the investigation process – though thrilling at first – seems to become formulaic as the game marches on.  By the end of your time on the Traffic desk, you know the drill of “Arrive at scene, collect clues, initiate small-talk, conduct interviews, case closed, repeat.”  Scouring scenes for clues becomes very tiresome very quickly.  Were it not for the fact that I didn’t want to miss out on any dialog, I could have just as easily skipped entire rooms during searches and still completed my cases. While there are foot and car chase sequences to break up the procedural feel of the game, even these aspects become predictable by game’s end.  Once you’ve experienced one car chase, you may as well have experienced them all.  This doesn’t mean they aren’t enjoyable, but you won’t find many varying details from one chase to the next (as is true with the foot chases).

The real substance of the game comes through in the interrogations themselves, which pit you against the potential suspect in a game of playing on emotions.  All accusations must be backed up by proof and the difference between that next lead and empty hands may be the difference between believing someone or doubting them.  This can be frustrating at times due to the very fine lines between suspecting doubt and the truth and the ability to incorrectly utilize evidence that otherwise seems to fit perfectly. Still, despite the ability to lose leads and information, how you decide to conduct interviews and interrogations has no actual impact on the main storyline, which I found to be a bit of a letdown.

Mechanically, the game moves well.  The facial features – which are most evident in the interviews and interrogations – blow away anything I’ve ever seen in a video game and give you the feel of watching an interactive movie.  Character movement is very fluid, highlighted by great details such as changing shadows and clothing that moves when your character does.    My only real complaint is the driving ability in this game.  Driving to and from locations can be very frustrating at first due to the car control setup.  This is amplified by the inability to select any other control methods or even an adequate alternate camera view.  Fortunately, you can forgo driving yourself to locations by having  your partner do so, a feature I love, since driving became very stale after only a few cases.  If it weren’t for how amazingly put together the city of Los Angeles is, I would say have your partner drive to every crime scene.

Despite the lack of impactful decision making and some control gaffs (looking at you, cover system), compelling plot-lines help drive an overall enjoyable experience.  Being as this is a new venture by Rockstar and Team Bondi, I feel inclined to overlook the flaws for the sake of an experience that you would be hard-pressed to find elsewhere.

However, if this is indeed the next great franchise, a lot of changes – both minor and major – need to be made before greatness is truly realized.  If Rockstar and Bondi can learn from their mistakes in L.A. Noire and prove it, I would have no problem throwing down money on a Chicago or New York Noire.

So, many of you may have heard of the Katamari series before, but never before have I been so enamored with it. The Xbox 360 demo for Beautiful Katamari really seems to have done me in, and so starts my love of the game. While in my local GameCrazy, my friendly neighborhood GC-buddy, Dusten, showed me “Me & My Katamari” on the PSP. Wow, can we say gorgeous? The cartoon-like graphics just look so crisp and clear on that high-resolution PSP display, and the music is kookie and strange… how wonderful.

If you’re not familiar with Katamari, while the story lines seem to be strange, I mostly ignore them. Instead, I just focus on the gameplay… which is awesome. You roll this little ball around–a Katamari ball–and stuff sticks to it… and then stuff sticks to the stuff that stuck to the ball, and then stuff sticks to that stuff, and so on. Eventually you’re sticking people and houses, and who knows what else to your ball which is now becoming quite large (measured in meters). When you’re done, the King of All Cosmos tells you what your ball comprises of, and scores your ball.

After I’ve put some more play time into Me & My Katamari I’ll give you all a full review. Until then, I strongly recommend that you give it a look-see.