HotChops

*sigh*

I don't know about that. Everyone I've talked to (some were similar to the CoD gamers) knew that Guitar Hero wasn't being made by the same people anymore, and that those Guitar Hero people moved on to make Band Hero. Also, I hear plenty of Joe Schmoes name-dropping Treyarch and Infinity Ward. Before IW left, a friend's father asked me who was making the new Call of Duty game (it was World at War at the time). I told him it was Treyarch, and he expressed disappointment that "the good one won't be coming out this year". Well that is certainly the first time I've ever heard that. I've talked to dozens of casual gamers who didn't know the difference between Treyarch and IW. Christ, don't even go there. Crecente has no objectivity towards his opinions of games. Having your own tastes is one thing, but you need to be aware of your personal tastes.

I know that Zero Punctuation's signature approach is to be negative, but his best reviews are the ones that fairly mention the strengths of the game too. Unfortunately, he sometimes completely neglects those positive aspects. Such as when he didn't even mention the multiplayer of Battlefield: Bad Company 2. I know he doesn't get into multiplayer FPSs, but for fucks sake that's the best part of BC2! Likewise, he doesn't even mention the dynamic action sequences of Dead Space 2, or the some of the incredible scenes that you witness in the game. For example, that satellite array sequence at the end of Chapter 7 is fucking awesome. I hope Mass Effect 3 finds ways to incorporate some stuff like that.

It's kind of hard to predict these things because I seem to be detached from the majority of the gaming public when it comes to CoD. I got Modern Warfare and MW2, and even then I never liked them that much. On the flipside, my friends (like most people) have bought five Call of Dutys in five years. I was slightly surprised to hear them unanimously claim after Black Ops: "I'm sick of Call of Duty. I'm sick of [insert complaint here] and I don't think I'll get it ever again." Likewise, Activision seems to know that they're burning gamers out on the franchise. It's what they do: they find a popular franchise, then milk the shit out of it until consumers finally realize that they've blown $200 or more on the same re-hashed game, and then they kill it off (see Guitar Hero.) I don't think the internal troubles at IW really make a significant difference. Again, most of the gaming public doesn't even know that Call of Duty is made by two different developers, nor are they aware of the Zampella/West controversy. Most of those same ignorant consumers will buy Call of Duty no matter how good or bad it is. I think it's simply a matter of consumer burnout. I think Activision has observed the recent, growing distaste for the franchise and they're taking the necessary steps (likely under-funding the next CoD).

The very concept itself has had me interested since the early videos were released. The games industry badly needs more games like this. The big question that everyone had was about the gameplay, and I'll be honest, that video went ahead of my expectations. I especially like the idea of working your way up from patrol to detective.

Maybe it's my age, my conservative upbringing, or the possibility that those all released on Genesis, but I don't remember any of those except Primal Rage. Eternal Champions looks okay. This reminds me of that Simpsons X-mas episode with Bonestorm. They show the gameplay during a commercial and remember thinking at the time, "Oh come on, that game is crap. Mortal Kombat isn't that bad!" But years later when I watch it, I think their depiction was pretty accurate. And I don't mean that in a bad way, more like in a lovingly satirical way. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHpwVeL1xXk (I couldn't find it in English.)

I don't think it's really necessary. In terms of story, settings and characters, each game is pretty much a stand-alone installment. I love Oblivion, but I haven't ever felt any inclination to purchase and play Morrowind. Though out of curiosity, I have watched a lot of videos of Morrowind on Youtube.

I hate the way that stupid, bullshit marketing actually works. Call of Duty sells a bagillion copies simply because it's called "Call of Duty." The new Goldeneye sells well and gets everyone excited simply because it's called "Goldeneye" and it's on a Nintendo console. I also hate it when a game deserves to sell well, but when it does, it usually sells well for the wrong reasons. Mass Effect was an epic sci-fi opera with an incredibly dynamic dialogue system, but it doesn't really get noticed until it puts combat in the spotlight and puts angry Shepard on the box cover. Grand Theft Auto IV recreated New York in awesome detail, but most people bought it so they could fuck virtual hookers and then run them over. Battlefield: Bad Company 2 features great vehicle-based combat and environment destructibility, but 3 out of my 4 friends bought it because they mistakenly thought it was going to be like Modern Warfare 2. I know some of those are generalizations, but it's basically the reality.

The first two are free now and I HIGHLY recommend them. They're crazy fun in a totally different way. And I would so be down for some multiplayer if we could get some people together. http://www.rockstargames.com/classics/ GTA is probably my most favourite series of all time. One of the few that I take off work for on release; I just can't put them down until they're done. As far as favourites go; my list would be something like... 1. Vice City 2. The Lost and the Damned 3. GTA 1 4. GTA 4 5. Ballad of Gay Tony 6. GTA 3 7. GTA 2 8. London: 1969 9. San Andreas While I have a lot of respect for a person who has played all the GTA games, I think Vice City belongs at the bottom of the list with London 69 and GTA 2. Vice City was a mess of a game. It was thrown together in only one year and it was done so primarily to capitalize on the success of GTA III while experimenting with new concepts for San Andreas. My reasoning: - The layout of the city was restrictive. It appears that they purposely made it that way to make the player go the long way to their objective and thus artificially increase the length of the game. - The protagonist was horrible. Ray Liotta did an excellent job, but I hated Tommy Vercetti. He was a heartless asshole; a thug in every sense of the word. I understand that Tommy was based on the protagonists from films like Scarface, and that malevolence comes with that character. But when it comes to interactive entertainment, I prefer to like my character and to sympathize with his situation. For similar reasons, I hated CJ in San Andreas and love the direction that Rockstar has taken with its protagonists since those games. - The updated law enforcement abilities were unbalanced. Once you got up to three or four stars, cops with tire spikes would spawn right in front of you again and again. - Too many tools and guns. Variety is one thing, but it was just cumbersome and occasionally confusing in VC. - Helicopter and motorcycles: good ideas that were poorly implemented. Helicopters were difficult to find and would spawn inconsistently. How many times did I drive all the way to my mansion, and run all the way up the stairs to find that the helicopter wasn't there? The apache was also a cool idea, but you had to go through a bunch of crap to get it (unless you managed to push/pull it into your condo garage like I did B) ) Motorcycles were fun, but it was too easy to fall off or wipe out. - Water everywhere, yet no ability to swim.... or even survive if you go more than knee-deep. In GTA III, I got it. "Mobsters don't swim" blah blah blah. But Vice City is 50% water. They introduced boats in VC... you think you could've allowed the guy to at least survive in water for a few seconds? - Glitchy physics. If Tommy stumbled three feet sometimes he died. I'll finish by pointing out that I'm not the only person who must have noticed these things because Rockstar eventually fixed or removed almost all of those problems in subsequent games. If I had to pick, I'd choose GTA III as my favorite. I felt like games were stagnating around 1999-2001, and GTA III really broke a lot of boundaries. I thought GTA III was so remarkable, I called together all of my friends from around the state to see it. They were skeptical, but I told them that it was "just like the original, but in 3D... and it's good, damn good." Two of those friends loved it so much, that on their way back to college on Monday they stopped at a store to get a PS2 and a copy of the game. Every time we saw each other for the next two years, we immediately put in GTA III and took turns seeing who could last the longest while causing the most chaos and destruction.

I died at least 8 times in a row during the...

Look, I know that I'm just a lame-ass newb because I never played Morrowind, but myself and millions of others think Fallout 3 and Oblivion are fantastic games. Perfect? Of course not. But those games should increase one's confidence in Bethesda, not detract from it. I'm sorry, but just because millions of others liked Oblivion and Fallout 3 doesn't mean I'll magically not get bored of either of those games when playing them. It's not that I despise either of those games. Oblivion had some good stuff like the feeling of throwing fireballs at opponents and Fallout 3 had one of the best openings right there with Bioshock. But I got bored of Oblivion and while I did make it to the end of Fallout 3, the ending (vanilla one which I played) was the worst case of railroading nutkicking I have ever witnessed in a game (next to Throne of Darkness). I bloody hell want Skyrim to not be awful and boring, but after those two games, I'm really not getting my hopes up. It's the same reason I'm extremely wary of RAGE because id's recent track record (Doom 3 and Quake 4) hasn't been reassuring. Also, I didn't call you a lame-ass newb or judge you for getting hyped for Skyrim, so relax. I'm just saying Todd Howard and Bethesda in general aren't worth my faith or trust. Oh, and trust me, I've played Morrowind 1.0. "Not perfect" is the least of my complaints about Oblivion. And didn't have 50 copies of 5 dungeon layouts. See? I have no clue where you can get this from. I never get bored while playing Oblivion or Fallout 3. I do get tired of it's relaxed pace after about five or six hours of non-stop playing, but I consider that appropriate and healthy. I don't see any problems with Oblivion (or Cyrodil's) size. It still takes me upward of half an hour or more to walk to places, and that's plenty big for me. I also don't see the repetitive dungeons or caverns. I specifically looked for this as I went back to replay Oblivion for the dozenth time. There are some fundamental design similarities for practical reasons (a fork at the beginning -- one way in, one way out) but nothing dramatically similar. In fact, I often marvel at how different the various underground places are. I would expect them to be the same-- dark, damp, full of trolls... but no, some are flooded, some have ancient ruins inside, some are haunted and full of coffins, some are surprisingly cozy and full of furnishings. Final notes -- I think Bioshock has an incredible opening, but Fallout 3 didn't share any of those successful characteristics. How you make a comparison between those two is beyond me. And why even bring up Id and RAGE in this conversation? Doom 3 and Quake 4 sucked. Those are different companies with different franchises. They may all be under the ZeniMax now, but I feel like Id and Bethesda are very different developers.

Look, I know that I'm just a lame-ass newb because I never played Morrowind, but myself and millions of others think Fallout 3 and Oblivion are fantastic games. Perfect? Of course not. But those games should increase one's confidence in Bethesda, not detract from it.

I dunno I liked him better as a soulless husk. I generally prefer silent protagonists when the alternative is a dipshit-asshole. Fortunately, that's not the case with Dead Space 2. I think Stranglove embellishes Isaac's character development a bit, but he definitely has personality and character. Generally, I just like that Isaac thinks and acts as I would in most of DS2's situations. For example, when he arrives at the Unitology church, his reaction is spot-on with my own. "No Daina, this is NOT where we want to be." BTW, I just found an article on Kotaku quoting DS2's creator as saying that the game is not a criticism of Scientology specifically. Being the atheist/humanist person that I am, I do believe that any criticism of a cult ultimately applies to any religion or superstition. But come on. Unitology is soooo a criticism of Scientology: The name, the novelty of the religion that allows people to actually know factually who the church's founder was, the recruitment center in the mall, the posters along the walls, the documents lying around that show how the recruiters individually test and monitor their prospective members.

I feel like a fucking PR rep for Bethesda because I'm the only one to say it, but most of you need to have a little faith. Todd Howard and his team knows what they're doing. If they felt the need to adjust timing based on the perspective, then it likely was the right thing to do. Which takes me to the trailer thing. It's been my experience that the big players in the industry don't show gameplay until six months or less before the game's release. Likewise, Bethesda games have always struggled to make good trailers. IMO, their games have to be experienced, and they're not appropriately conveyed in brief trailers. For example, I thought Fallout 3 looked like crap when I saw it prior to release. But actually playing the game -- getting out of that vault after an hour, having my character's eyes adjust to the sunlight and then seeing the ruins of DC in the distance -- I don't think a trailer can capture that.

Yeah I know, I just wasn't expecting that dude to return I kind of forgot about him too. My thought process was a little funny: "Fuck! He's reforming." "Okay... this guy isn't going to die. Wasn't he in the first Dead Space?" "... so how did I handle this the first time around...?" "...uh, I think I ran away." "Run away? So then I should-" "-RUN GODDAMNIT!!!!"

minor Dead Space 1/2 spoiler I enjoyed the intensity of the ending.

I love it. It reminds me of the old days, and I like to imagine the game before I actually see it. Like Bioshock. Game Informer broke the story on that game and it turned out even crazier than I had imagined.