HotChops

Now we're talking. I really love Morgan Spurlock's work. Who here saw "Where in the World is Osama Bin Laden?"

Yeah, pretty much. It doesn't really bother me that much, though. Even Half-Life 2 does that. Also, I mispronounced the title as "Deuce Ex" for the longest time A friend of mine actually still says it like that. fuck that. Like Dean said, it's Latin. The pronunciation is subjective. Likewise, I've been pronouncing it "deuce" long before the Deus Ex series came out.

Day 5 Tali'Zorah (nor Rayya, vas Neema, vas Normandy) On the surface, I have little in common with Tali. Where I feel empathy for her is in her constant struggles: forced to live in a suit, strict cultural expectations, challenging sex life. I especially feel like I relate to her bleak future. There doesn't seem to be plausible happy ending for Tali and the Quarians. In ME2, Tali frequently expresses a growing frustration stemming from her exposure to the rest of the universe. Her life seems to be getting worse every day. In a Sci-Fi future where technology provides comfort, ease and longevity, Tali's life is the total opposite. I believe that behind that mask is a person on the verge of collapse, violent rage, or both.

"Day-us" Ex? One of us is mispronouncing the name of this game.

Day 4 I don't think "guilty pleasure" means a game that you're hiding or ashamed of. In the more literal sense, it can be a game that you enjoy for guilty reasons. For example, sometimes when I'm really pissed off -- like when I get a costly traffic citation -- I'll play GTA IV and do things that would make hardened killers feel squeamish. I think the game I'd list as my guilty pleasure is Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3 for Xbox 360. The game is so delightfully silly. In fact, I really suck at it. In fact, I kinda suck at all RTS games, but I just like to watch the little people fight and build.

This video has consistently made me laugh for nearly a decade now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdnkRBOg74

Uh, perhaps there's some official announcement that I missed, but Gamefly is now listing Deus Ex's release date as 8/23/11. Last I checked, it was tentatively scheduled for early summer.

I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in that movie at all. Spielberg has tried to sell us "the E.T. experience" so many times over the last ten years, and it's really played out for me. I loved E.T. and I love Abrams' work too, but I remain very skeptical.

Day 3 Transformers: War for Cybertron Far too many people overlooked this title on account of it being a licensed game, released mid-year, and another Transformers game amidst two unrelated and crappy Transformers games. The game didn't just have a good single player and coop campaign, but I really feel like the competitive multiplayer was fun. I think a lot of people looked at it and figured it's just another competitive shooter, but the vehicle transformations, perks and special abilities really made it unique.

I wouldn't buy it unless you have a hard-on for John Milius, and even then, wait until the price drops, which should be very soon. The game's not good. It actually makes you realize how much we take Call of Duty for granted. CoD isn't technologically cutting-edge, but at least it's very solid. Homefront has subpar graphics and sound. There are glitches, hiccups and framerate drops. But the game at least has style. The world is almost post-apocalyptic. It reminds you of Half Life 2 mixed with Fallout 3. And even though I think it's a little cheap to pull on emotional heartstrings like they do, it does work. Having a shootout next to a crying baby and her hysterical mother was a new experience for me. I'm glad I played through it, but it doesn't warrant full price.

My initial response to Day 2's question was Link. Ultimately, I decided against it because I feel like Link is more of a foil to the setting and other characters around him. Really, what do we honestly know about Link's personality? The truth is that he doesn't really have one. One of the few times he had a voice and a personality, he was an obnoxious douche.

Seems like there's a gap in the reasoning there. Actually, it sounds a lot like what the government of Louisiana did after Hurricane Katrina. In that case, they did it because New Orleans had become so lawless that they decided to cut off the major access points. edit: I wonder if No Man's Land was written after Katrina... edit2: nope.

I think some of you are forgetting the practical limitations set on designing a game as opposed to a Batman movie. Batman AA takes place where it does because it creates an enclosed setting and it provides an excuse to include numerous bat-villains. I certainly recall thinking when AA first came out that my ideal Batman game involved the character operating within Gotham; silently monitoring the city from the ledge of a building and then dramatically dropping down from above on bad guys. Rocksteady apparently feels the same way, so they created a game that harnesses that quintessential Batman experience while still conforming to the boundaries of a game. So instead of exploring all of Gotham, you'll explore one old section of it. Note that this section will include a lot of historic sites, such as Crime Alley and the Monarch Theater. Contrary to what some are assuming, Rocksteady claims that this game still has a strong linear element to it. There are still plenty of indoor areas. I think this was basically their way of increasing the replay value. For example, one of my favorite things to do in AA was beat up thugs, but within the story, not the challenge mode. Arkham City will likely provide that for me. Unlike AA where there was a set number of enemies, AA will be filled with opportunities for me to drop in from ledges and take on large groups of enemies.

I'm having a hard time with this. I have different favorite characters for different reasons rather than just one top pick. For example, HK-47 of Knights of the Old Republic is the funniest character, but not exactly my favorite. I'm reticent to do so because he's still a recent addition, but I think I'll go with Ezio Auditore di Firenze from Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood. It's funny, because I didn't like Ezio very much when I started ACII. He was a good-looking, over-privileged teenager; much like the guys who walked all over me in high school. But his life is quickly turned upside down. His entire future is altered in a moment. During the first act of ACII we watch as Ezio goes from being a spoiled teen to a vengeful, novice assassin. When he kills Vieri Pazzi, he doesn't do so for the welfare of his family so much as he does it to satisfy his own bloodlust. As the game progresses, Ezio becomes less selfish and more mature. He forgets about his own personal desires and becomes focused on protecting his family and rebuilding his uncle's estate. He no longer kills out of spite, but rather for justice. By the end of the game, he doesn't fight his place in life, but embraces it.

I was barely four, so I can't be 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure it was Super Mario Bros for the NES. My neighbor had it, and I remember my older brother and about six or more other boys all went there to see it/play it. However, being the youngest, my turn to play would come last. And as you might expect, that turn rarely presented itself. This had a profound impact on my love of gaming. Getting to finally play only after everyone else had a turn made me really appreciate it. I quickly learned to study the tricks and mistakes of the other guys so that when it was my turn, I could do better and not have to relinquish the controller too soon. Being the youngest and the most prone to criticism, I also felt further compelled to be better than the rest. Yep. I certainly showed those older boys. Today, I can kick their ass at any game, any time. Meanwhile, all they have to enjoy are their wives and children.

...aaand five hours later it's beaten. To summarize it's fundamentals, most of the game has been done before: Calling in air strikes and controlling unmanned vehicles, gunning down large numbers with a mounted weapon, a bridge mission, and a fight through the suburbs. What's definitely going to make people talk are the major human rights violations: John Milius' story is spotty. Most of the politics are scattered in the form of collectible newspaper clippings. The game takes place in 2027 and a lot happens between now and the events of the game, so it's hard to point to one underlying ideological theme at work. The world of Homefront isn't just grappling with with hostile Korean forces, but also economic breakdown, diseases and shortages of resources. I'll also add that the game doesn't villainize the North Koreans as much as humanity in general: The game is very much a combination of scenes from Red Dawn and Apocalypse Now. It's nice that the game dares to push a few buttons, but I feel like most of it is misplaced. Why can't civilians come under fire in one of the half-dozen military FPSs that take place in the Middle East? Why can't the horrors of war and human nature be shown in any other game?

I just finished the opening level, which had some pretty powerful imagery. I find it twisted that a game like Medal of Honor can be censored before it's even released, but this game gets by comparatively better... ...except in Japan. By the way, I now see why Japanese authorities didn't like the story. oh yeah, and the "skip" message pops up again later. The cutscenes also double as load screens, so I figure they want people to know that the level's loaded and ready to go. It's still annoying though.

I just got Homefront via Gamefly and I'm only through the game's opening cinematic. Now I didn't rent this game because I'm hungry for another shooter. I didn't rent it for the multiplayer. I got this game because I love John Milius and I wanted to see what kind of crazy story he had cooked up this time. That said, you can imagine how insulted and annoyed I was to have "PRESS A TO SKIP" plastered across the middle of the screen during the entire cutscene. It's there almost the entire time, and I can't find a way to turn it off. It happens regardless of whether or not you push any buttons. They almost seem to assume you don't give a flying fuck about the events that lead up to the game.

Maybe it's just the way that certain bloggers have reported their comments, but people from DICE are starting to sound a bit arrogant and rude. It's not really Treyarch's decision to keep milking the same technology and catering to a more "Hollywood" single player experience. These are budgetary and marketing decisions handed down to them. When Josh Olin says, "we can update it to do those things.” I think it would be better for Daniel Matros to simply suggest: "So the next Call of Duty will have destructible environments, realistic physics and dynamic effects?" Yes, what Olin said is total bullshit, but the man also just complimented your technology. How about a little grace and politeness among developers? Instead they're just inflaming this cock contest between two games that imo have very little in common and cater to very different audiences.

Oh come on, that is one of the lamest complaints that I've had the misfortune of repeatedly hearing. Just turn the damn thing off!

I could've sworn we had a Batman thread already, but I couldn't find it. Thanks to WTF for posting this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlET0kb5pmw It's a great trailer, but there's bound to be complaints about the "gamification" of Batman. Apparently, he can now almost "fly" in a combination of gliding and Spiderman-esqe slingshotting.

Yeah, I was about to say that it would be easier for me to list endings that don't suck. We also need to clarify what constitutes the "ending" of a game. Does that include the gameplay of the final hour or so, the end boss (if one exists,) or is it simply the cutscenes after the final boss?

Aftershock? Anything over 4.0 I'd simply call another earthquake. Lol, yeah. It's not like they're Haiti.