Epic Space Operas: Now on the PS3!


I remember when I first played Mass Effect 1 on the Xbox 360. My brother brought it home, and he was smitten with it. So I sat down, and booted it up. I toiled over character creation, what my background was, what sort of soldier I would be. And then I got into the gunplay and. . . it sucked. I didn't play it for another year. But when I finally did come back to it, I found out that the gunplay didn't suck, I just didn't have the patience for its intricacies. Once you become accustomed to the vast array of powers you have at your disposal and learn how to properly utilize your team, you can blow through gunfights with ease. And then Mass Effect 2 came out. The sequel took everything that was wrong or clunky and refined it. I've put nearly 200 hours into the Mass Effect series, and I've always thought it was a shame that it never found its way to the PS3. Nearly a year after release, Mass Effect 2 finds its way on to the PS3. But wait, why not Mass Effect 1?

I think the choice to bring over Mass Effect 2 and not the first was a good choice. Not only is Mass Effect 2 more accessible and much smoother, it uses a heavily improved game engine and many of the assets of the game received a total overhaul. With a save game generator in place of Mass Effect 1, newcomers to the series can experience the awe-inspiring opening of Mass Effect 2, the fast-paced intro stage and the smooth dialogue system without having to struggle through the steep learning curve and convoluted mechanics of the first.

While playing the demo, I couldn't help but feel happy for the PS3 owners. Often, ports to the PS3 are sloppy and bug-ridden, late and unresponsive when they do arrive. Mass Effect 2 on the PS3 uses the engine that is being used for Mass Effect 3, and the controls are responsive and smooth, and it seems occasional framerate have been dealt with in the port. I didn't experience any lag, only small drops in the framerate that are unnoticeable if you're not looking, and that was only during particularly explosive moments. Everything is intact and fully functional.

The demo opens with a cutscene with the Illusive Man explaining the backstory of the Mass Effect universe-Mass Relays, the Citadel, the Council and other important terms and characters-and the events of the previous game. From there, it launches you directly into the opening setpiece of Mass Effect 2, which is what I believe to be the best opening in any videogame. You play through the opening tutorial to get a grip, and then you can go farther in to recruit the Salarian scientist Mordin. The demo succeeds in giving you a really good sense of the action is about, but witholds certain elements such as leveling up and character interaction to bait you into wanting to further explore this world. It certainly leaves you wanting more of this wonderfully-crafted game.

Coming away from this demo, even as a Mass Effect veteran, I felt myself suddenly much more excited for the third installment in the series. Bioware, thank you for the effort. And everyone else, you have to get this game if you haven't experience it already.

But I Want Physical Media


Everyone knows Blockbuster, right? Big Blue ticket for a sign, you can keep movie releases for a week overdue without paying any extra, stuff like that. There's one reasonably close to everywhere. It's better than Rogers because, come on, Rogers has the worst selection ever. I go there once a week to take a peek at what they have in stock and now I hear that they're having financial trouble. I knew that, because their selection was a bit lacking. But they had a decent stock of good games, and I bought games and movies from there. But now this article basically points out that Blockbuster is dead.

This actually hurts. This is one less place to find physical media in an increasingly digital world. On top of that, Gamestop and its subsidiaries are having financial trouble as well, and game companies are discouraging the purchase of used games, which is basically a game store's only source of income. This worries me, it really does. Having a large selection of stores to buy games and movies from means more deals, more selection, a better chance of getting games that have fallen under. But with Blockbuster on its death bed and Gamestop having come down with whatever Blockbuster has, things aren't looking so good. Sure, there are places that aren't going down anytime soon, like Wal-Mart, but it's only a matter of time at this rate for other companies to decide, "Hey, this physical disc stuff isn't working out too well. Let's ditch it,". I don't know about you, but I take pride in my collection of games and movies.

If you can, help us all. Go out to a Blockbuster or Gamestop and buy your favourite old used show, buy a game that makes you nostalgic and buy it used. We all have our right to new games because the game companies need money too, but if you see a used game that you really, really want, buy it. Blockbuster, Gamestop, any other company dealing with this problem would love you. Help them help us help them.

An Addiction to Gaming


This is a topic that politicians, parents, lawyers, therapists and the media have pushed and pushed. Are games robbing our youth of their education? Of their friends? Is World of Warcraft turning your child into a blubbering social reject? YES, DAMMIT, YES. In fact, there was a case where I live about two years back. It concerned a boy named Brandon Crisp. He ran away from home, was missing for a very long time and, eventually, his dead body was found. Why do I mention this? This boy played Call of Duty to a point that his parents described it as religious. They compared it to him being in a cult, and they say he ran away because they took it away from him. But what they fail to realize is that taking away someone's favourite belonging is not a good way to handle things. On top of that, the fact that he ran away because of this shows that he had some temper issues. This issue here wasn't a boy whose life was robbed by that vile, vile Call of Duty series, it's one of parents being disconnected from the world that their children now live in.

Video games have long been blamed for what people say is a rise in violent behaviour amongst youth and young adults. People lose their scholarships, their education, their jobs over this. But do they really? No, of course not. Games are  form of entertainment. No, they're art (but that's a topic for another day), but either way, they're no different than television or movies or, hell, even reading. If someone stays home on a day off and turns on the computer to listen to some music and reads 4 books while listening to their favourite artist, are they addicted to reading and music? You just thought 'No, of course not, it's a book and music". But if I replaced books with video games, most people would say right away that the person in question needs help, or a life, or to join a sport's team. But what people fail to realize is that, time and time again, video games are proven to have no relation to violent behavior. If someone is addicted to videogames, or believes that stealing a car and running over seven hookers and taking their hooking money is acceptable, they had some problems to begin with.

Reading through the newspaper, or online articles, you'll often see videogames or consoles in the headlines, usually followed by some bad news. Stuff like "Man kills mother over Xbox", "Assault caused by Grand Theft Auto" and news along those lines. What they fail to mention, though, is that these people are simply casual players of videogames. Just because someone owns a console, or a certain videogame, doesn't mean that videogames are behind the crime. People need to understand that videogames are just a form of entertainment, same as a movie or a song, not murder simulators.

Spike VGA: I am Disappointed (Though Not Surprised)


What makes a good game show? Ask anyone who is even mildly interested in games for an answer and you'll hear the same thing. Hosts who know what they're talking about, good jokes and a lot of people from the industry. There's nothing like relishing in the past year of video gaming with a group of people who genuinely care and want to congratulate those who won, and console those who didn't. We want groups of awards filled with games that deserve it and delivered in a way that makes us care. Where does Spike go wrong? Everywhere.

They get one thing right. There are categories, so that's good. But they're delivered by an uninterested computer lady, not even in real time. Clips of the games are played over a voice lacking life and care, and announced by someone mustering out, "And the winner is". There are no fireworks. There are no light shows. No big cheers. It's a room full of people who don't care about the medium but know it will get their station views. It's a disgusting grab for attention, and it sickens me to my core, watching this shit.

I've grown up on videogames. I've defended them in arguments, and I've spent hundreds of hours playing them. Say what you will, but I'm a perfectly adjusted and social individual and I get good grades. I see games as an art, and to see them treated so poorly and whored out for views is something I can't stand for, and it's not something I'm going to sit down and let slide. To see people who don't care gather around to watch someone who doesn't seem to care is something I can't see. And as funny as Neil Patrick Harris is, I don't think he should have won over Rob Wiethoff.

I can't even put into words how repulsed and angered I am by this abomination. If games are to be taken seriously, we have to start by treating them seriously ourselves. Are we, as gamers, going to let them be treated like a joke?

Call of Duty is the Mostest Bestest at Everything


Call of Duty, from day one, has always been a hit. Right when it came out, it was hailed for its revolutionary AI, its huge and complicated set pieces and, most of all, its multiplayer. It used to be a game about the big battles of World War II, and not always the battles that looked best for the US or for Russia. It was a game about defending strategic points from wave after wave of oncoming enemies, a game about getting knocked over by explosions and having to get helped up. As the series evolved, so did all of these things. But is bigger really better? And what have original developers, Infinity Ward, left behind?

The release of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare marked the explosion of the series. Everyone was either playing it or hating on it, and both had good reason. It was a game with a short-but-sweet campaign fueled by unbelievable moments and a complicated story delivered by between-mission exposition. The multiplayer, as always, hit the right spot, having weapons upon weapons and perks to beef up your character and play to your own style (after having unlocked these perks and weapons, of course). The reason to hate were the exact same as why it was good. Some people couldn't handle the over-the-top situations that everyone looked at with a straight face. This was a game with almost no levity. Everyone took everything seriously, and that affected the immersion of the player. As for multiplayer, those who weren't good at first-person-shooters were left in the dust. There was no beginner mode, there were no crutches for the less-talented, and nothing good was unlocked. Modern Warfare 2 didn't do a lot to fix these problems. One level, the controversial No Russian, saw you gunning down an airport, a level which personally affected me and left me feeling dirty and guilty. Within an hour of No Russian, though, the game sees you clear a 150-foot chasm on a snowmobile with the help of little more than a speed bump. Modern Warfare's biggest problem was that it was so unaware of just how ridiculous it was.

Now, Black Ops has risen out of the legal dust between Activision and Infinity Ward. Black Ops has broken first-day sales records, broken pre-order records that Modern Warfare 2 set, and broken the sales records that Modern Warfare 2 set.  Black Ops is, critically and commercially, more successful than it predecessor. This is coming from the developers of Call of Duty: World at War, which was bashed for feeling too similar to Modern Warfare 2. It seems that consumers don't care where the next game comes from as long as it has explosions and Call of Duty on the box. While Infinity Ward was developing Modern Warfare 2, they wanted to remove the 'Call of Duty' title and make it its own series, but research showed that consumer recognition of the brand, and therefore interest in buying it, was way down. It seems that consumers will buy anything with Call of Duty stuck on the box. The masses aren't supporting Activision's mistreatment of Infinity Ward. In fact, they're telling Activision that they can fuck over whoever they want. All Infinity Ward did was lay a good framework for the next Call of Duty game. Take 3 parts big explosions, one part disjointed narrative and two parts baddass character, and a dollop of perk-based multiplayer. Bring to a boil. Simmer. Release annually.

Seems unfair for Infinity Ward. Or rather, Respawn Entertainment.

Testing, Testing, One Two Three.


This is a blog. I'm sure you have managed to discover that, what with the site being called Blogger and whatnot. And probably because I've told you to come here and told you what it is. Now hey, don't look so down, I'll try my best to make it a decent blog. Yes, you have to read it all. No, you don't have to lie and say it was amazing. But I do ask that you tell everyone to come read this and follow me, I'd really appreciate that.

I won't lie about what this is. This is where I'm going to bitch and complain about stupid shit you don't care about but can sympathize with. I'll make entire posts about how I hate when it's early and the toaster scares the shit out of me, or when I walk outside and I get shot and mugged. This isn't going to be a complicated affair that requires you to sit down twice and day for 45 minutes to read the amazing short stories I manage to churn out (though I might make you do that a couple times).

And video games. It'll be about video games.