For years, gamers have argued that DLC is no substitution for expansion packs of yore and that publishers and developers have been price gouging us completely innocent customers.  Then come along a good handful of games that make good use of DLC to provide standalone experiences that, while not providing the amount of gameplay in a full value game, add onto what made the original game fantastic and adding a theme thats more fun.  Ubisoft seems to have made this part of their mantra.  Its a good way to market the full game, while also providing a more eclectic view of the main product.

Rockstar unofficially started the trend for this generation with Grand Theft Auto IV and its episodic standalones.  They then did the same with Red Dead Redemption and its Halloween themed zombie add on.  Sony/ Sucker Punch followed suit and added a vampire element to the already powerful protagonist in Infamous 2.  Ubisoft recently released the downloadable George Washington tyrant series for Assassins Creed 3 and today Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon was released.

To be fair, we used to pay $20 - $30 for an expansion, and thats when games were cheaper.  The $10 - $15 of content we typically pay for now adds that much value of content to the game.  Borderlands 2 has a number of expansions that add between five and ten hours to the game, each.  The overall game is about 20 30 hours, depending on how much you complete.  For 1/6 of the price, Gearbox provides from a quarter to half the games length in content with each downloadable DLC. 

Common knowledge to those who pay attention, AAA games are getting more and more expensive to make.  Dragons Dogma Dark Arisen was just released, adding a second campaign for $40, but the original game is also included for that price.  Its possible to get the content as DLC as well.

DLC shouldnt be seen as the money hording scheme we make it out to be.  People crave more content, or they get bored with a game after finishing it, I know I mostly do.  I think its fair to charge a portion of the games value to get a few more hours of quality content out of a well known franchise.  Its fair to say that not all of this content is very good, but thats a different discussion. 

I loled.  I loled so much I had to share it with the world (or GameSpot).

Green Heart Games recently developed a little simulation game called Game Dev Tycoon.  It's similar in concept to Kairosoft's Game Dev Story on mobile platforms.  For those not in the know, Game Dev Story is one of the most addicting games available on the market right now, so seeing a knockoff of it at this stage for the PC platform is A-OK by me.

To sum up both games, you are in charge of a videogame company.  Awesome job, right?  You hire the programmers, coders, artists, composers and so on in order to create the best possible games you can.  You start out small at the start of the industry and keep growing.  But budgets rise and you need to meet high scores in order to get the attention of the media and public.  Your company attends gaming conventions, potentially competing with Game of the Year and maintaining your finances so that the company doesn't go under. All the cool kids know about this stuff, so nbd, but in case you didn't, consider yourself up to snuff now.

But what's truly lol-worthy is that Green Heart decided to conduct a little experiment with Game Dev Tycoon.  They uploaded their game on a major torrenting site and pulled a prank that's just too good to be true.  Similar to the immortal pink scorpion of death in Serious Sam 3, they uploaded a version of the game where completion would be impossible due to, wait for it... piracy.  So everyone who pirated the game gets a version of Game Dev Tycoon where their own created videogames are pirated.  And no matter how much money they put into their games they very slowly lose money as budgets rise.  They get in all the high scores imaginable, but those pesky pirates keep pirating the game until there's nothing left to do but go under.  What can I say, it's a hard knock life.

But it's the complaints from totally legit customers that really bring the chuckles.

Some say it's "not fair" that their games aren't selling.  Others ask if there's a way to "research DRM" for their games.  The answer is no.  No, there isn't.  You're going to lose the game every time.  And that's funny.  That's very, very funny.

Green Heart Games basically turned a mirror on some oblivious gamers/pirates parading around as customers with their little experiment.  From the charming little message that comes up once the sales drop to the hilarious lines of frustrated "customers" that read "Why are there so many people that pirate?" is the best way to tell people that use torrents one of my favorite lines of all time.  "Hey, f*ck you."
---

Thanks to usea of NeoGaf for sharing this and Green Heart Games for providing the lulz! (full report here, although now I'm having trouble viewing their webpage, but I'm sure it'll be fixed soon)

Remember to upvote Game Dev Tycoon for release on Steam via Greenlight and if you do have an interest in the game you can always buy it directly from Green Heart as well.

---

In non-piracy news, the ever excellent-looking Chasm is roughly 80% funded with 12 days left to go right now.  But tonight at 6PM Pacific Time the developers at Discord Games are going to be live-streaming a playthrough of Rondo of Blood (the predecessor to the greatest game of all time, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night.... tied with Chrono Trigger, obviously).  Get stoked, back Chasm (or download the new demo that still doesn't let you fight the boss :/) and let's hope we get a true Metroidvania style game that kicks as much ass as I think Chasm likely will once it releases!  Remember to upvote these guys on Steam Greenlight too!

What? When did this happen?

I know there have been rumors that Iwata is on his way out (despite just recently being promoted), and the Wii U being the absolute wrong thing to have been made in the upcoming next-generaiton (despite both the PS4 and the rumored Xbox having touch controllers), but maybe it's time to face the music.

After all, for this week's Chalk Talk, we got three suggestions for topics: 

All three of those topics assume as part of their underlying basis that Nintendo is in huge trouble. Are they in trouble? Of course they are. Are Synthia's suggestions valid? Well....

1. Relying on Nostalgia 

This has interested me in that it is something many say Nintendo is doing; exploiting people's memories of the past so that they would buy the same stuff over and over again. It's an interesting idea....except that's not what's happening.

Let's take a look at the New Super Mario Bros. series, a series that people commonly refer to when talking about Nintendo exploiting nostalgia. It's a valid assesment; after all, the games always bring back a lot of stuff from the older games, from power-ups to themes to sound effects. 

And yet, the series is one of the most popular of the previous generation; the Wii one alone selling over 26 million copies. You don't get to numbers that high by "exploiting the nostalgia" of people that played the original Super Mario Bros. in 1985. These games aren't big because they are selling to the "old gamers" (in fact, theya re the ones that complain about them), but because they are selling to kids.

Kids! These people don't have any kind of nostalgia for 1985, 1995, or even 2005. These kids are playing these games on their childhood, the NSMB games will become nostalgia for them. The truth of the matter seems to be that Nintendo is creating nostlagia, not exploiting it.

After all, how can you rely on something that doesn't exist, especially when those that would have nostalgia for the stuff aren't going to like it?

But what about new IP's? "Nintendo certainly doesn't seem to create new IP's anymore. It's always Mairo, Zelda, Yoshi, Kirby, whatever." Well, that's a cool idea, one that shows how little they care about Nintendo's new IP's in the first place.

This game obviously doesn't exist.

Neither does this one (or it's sequel).

What the heck is this supposed to be anyway? (or it's sequel)

Is this some Sony game?

Well, those games up there don't have Mario or Donkey Kong, or Wario in them; so how can they be new Nintendo IP's (other than being Nintendo IP's, of course)? 

Some people are willing to rely on their nostalgia to make sure in their mind that Nintendo doesn't change at all from the way they saw them decades ago, I guess.  

2. Nintendo giving up at E3 2013

Certainly an interesting opinion, mostly because there is no way you would have come up with that opinion unless you already had a pre-existing idea that Nintendo can't compete with Sony or Microsoft. 

I mean seriously!

Nintendo can't compete with the PS4 or Xbox Infinity, despite Nintendo being the one making dozens of Nintendo Directs outside of E3, each containing subtantial new game announcements?

Despite still having two (2) planned private meetings with the press to show off their games at E3 2013, as well as repeatedly mentioning in past Nintendo Directs about the games they will show off on the show floor?

Despite Nintendo most likely bombarding the entire week of E3 with Nintendo Directs, which serves the exact same purpose of an E3 conference, except with Iwata being in front of a white background instead of some big LCD displays?

You had to be convinced Nintendo can't do anything right that they would cancel their E3 conference just because "they have nothing to show and are therefore giving up".

As for Nintendo's actual decision, I don't know if it's a smart play yet. It obviously didn't go well with the massive misinformaiton and pre-existing image of the company (which is comically incapable of explaining itself for anything, seriously!).

How Nintendo's plan goes ahead on E3 2013 will be an interesting experiment to see; with SpikeTV certainly giving live primetime coverage of the PS4 and Xbox shows, I doubt they will do the same for any Nintendo Direct show Nintendo does.

3. Will the Wii U become profitable?

No.

Not in it's current form, at least.

Nintendo will have to redesign the console so that it doesn't cost so much to produce and finally be able to give it a price drop (similar to what Sony did with the PS3 slim), they will also have to rebrand it completely to get rid of the confusion about it being a Wii add-on or not (in a similar way to how the PS3 was rebranded to be more appealing), and of course, Nintendo of America will have to reach across third parties to give the system some more games (in a similar way to how Nintendo of Japan got the 3DS to have such a killer Japanese library).

I don't know what Nintendo plans to do, but if it's not one of those things; then it's not going to improve. 

But does Nintendo deserve all the doom and gloom? No, the Wii U could fail and they can just try again with something different; it's not like they are Sega who had no money by the time the Dreamcast launched. It would be nice for major gaming sites to stop promoting such poor views, but hey, I understand. Nintendo is supposed to be dead, can't blame ya'll for trying to fix the narrative. 

Reviewed on April 27th, 2013
Hopscotch presents a film directed by Ben Nott and Morgan O'Neill
Screenplay by Morgan O'Neill
Starring: Xavier Samuel, Robyn Malcolm, Myles Pollard, Sam Worthington and Lesley-Ann Brandt
Running Time: 113 minutes
Rating: M
Released: May 2nd, 2013

Drift is a breezy Australian surfing film that doesn't break any new ground or take too many chances but the surfing scenes are spectacularly photographed and the performances are as colourful as the scenery. Like many local films, it is extremely well made and acted with professionalism, even when the story isn't revolutionary. The opening scenes in the Sixties are filmed in black and white. This is a fine visual touch, recalling Oz the Great and Powerful, because when the film forwards past the childhood of its central characters Andy and Jimmy and enters the 1970s, the film explodes with vivid colours being cast over a giant wave.

Riding this enormous wave is Jimmy (Xavier Samuel). Jimmy and his brother Andy (Myles Pollard) moved from Sydney to Margaret River in Western Australia with their mother Kat (Robyn Malcolm) to start a new life together. Andy works long hours in a timber mill, while his brother rides hard in professional surfing competitions. Seeing the lousy treatment of the older folks of the mill, Andy decides to quit his job and help start a surf shop with his brother, selling surfing gear like boards and wetsuits. This is at a time just prior to when surfing competitions started awarding serious prize money.

Andy is angered to discover that Jimmy has done a small time job for some local bikie crims and urges him to return any stolen material. Yet these bikie thugs refuse to leave their friends alone and one of them becomes involved in drugs. Sam Worthington (Avatar, Clash of the Titans) plays a hippie surfer named JB, who befriends both the boys. JD's Hawaiian hippie friend Lani (Lesley-Ann Brandt) also takes a romantic shine to Andy. Beneath its sunny exterior, the film is about the relationship of these two brothers and poses the question of whether a hobby makes for a satisfying and financially sustainable living.

The film has more than sand between its ears, realising that a compromise has to be made when it comes to approaching sport as an occupation. This is reflected by JB, who has the film's funniest and smartest line: "Its Darwinian man. We adapt, we survive." It would be impolite to say that the story by Morgan O'Neill exists merely to showcase the surfing because there is more narrative than just sun. It's more of a question of the familiarity of many individual story elements.

This is very much a rerun of the underdog story: the little business that could, faced against impossible odds like evil bikies and a stuffy bank manager. The bikies are a blessing and a curse for the film. They're total caricatures but also helpful in providing some danger to the script through some flat spots, where it feels as though there could be more risk involved. The bikies handout a few thuggish beatings and there is a drug subplot, which gives the film a grittier shade in contrast to lightweight, jovial tone and relaxed, pleasant performances.   

The film even retreats to that plotline where a contest is handily giving out a large monetary prize so that the little people can save the farm. Are these contests deliberately organised around places of low socioeconomics and general lucklessness? The organisers must have prior knowledge of people's banking woes, such is their convenience. I also couldn't see the necessity of the romance between the Lani and Andy. Lani serves to ties the global relations between Australian and the US neatly (in a perfectly square ending) but any potential conflict between the brothers never eventuates over her.

What many people will see the film for are the stunning, exciting and beautiful surfing sequences, which are filmed by Ruck Rifici and Rick Jakovich: two highly experienced and talented water cinematographers. Filmed with great width, there are some gorgeous and hair-raising waves showcased here. The actors in the film performed some of the surfing, while real surfers were employed as stunt doubles too. An interesting fact is that despite how vivid and colourful the film is, it was actually filmed in winter so that the waves would be bigger and therefore more dramatic. They're a huge part of a great looking movie so that even when the pacing slumps or the story seems corny, it's never been so easy to dive into the surf. 

By now, everyone's heard Nintendo won't be holding a major E3 press conference.  

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-25-nintendo-ditches-e3-press-conference-in-favour-of-behind-closed-doors-events

But that won't mean they won't be at E3 at all.  They will still hold two events on the morning of E3's first day of Tuesday, June 11th.  These meetings will be closed-door, meaning we the general public won't get to see what Nintendo will be showing off the moment they're unveiling it.  We'll need to wait for press attendees to publish their videos and articles so that we can learn what was shown.  

I will be honest, this feels very weird.  I've always watched what I called the Big 5: Microsoft, Sony, Ubisoft, Electronic Arts, and of course Nintendo.  Not seeing them on the big stage seems like a gaping hole.  As much as I've grown tired of Iwata and Reggie, I'll still miss them.  E3 had a lot of historic moments for Nintendo.  They announced the Revolution as the Wii.  They made every single preson jealous of envy of the attendees when girls passed through the audience with playable 3DSs.  They confused everyone with the Wii U, while at the same time garnering applause for trying something different yet again.

Then of course, there are the game announcements.  With the Wii U in a death stall, everyone was relying on this year's E3 to really get the ball rolling again for Nintendo.  We'll still get the game announcements, if Nintendo still has any surprises up their sleeves.  We just won't be getting them in the same fashion that we usually have.  

Nintendo began doing their Nintendo Directs back on October 21st, 2011 in Japan and North America.  These mini conferences broadcasted directly to consumers via their PCs or Nintendo devices ran just about every month.  They announced news games, featured gameplay footage of previous announcements and talked about software enhancements.  They've been giving information to consumers on a year round basis instead of keeping every single  secret for major shows such as E3.  It's because of this that having a major conference at E3 doesn't feel as important to Nintendo anymore.  

And well, it's not just Nintendo that doesn't want to wait until E3 to start sharing information.  On Feburary 20th, Sony announced the PS4.  They spent hours unveiling features and announcing games.  They didn't show the system itself, and they did withhold dates and SKU pricing, obviously saving the official announcements for E3.  It was smart of Sony to do that, because it made gamers salivate even more for E3.  Also, Microsoft plans to do the same, announcing their follow up system on May 21st, just three weeks before their own E3 conference on June 11th.  Will they confirm or deny the rumors on May 21st, or will we have to wait for E3?  Regardless, we just have to wait. 

This is yet another way that Nintendo's changing.  Is it for the better?  Some say it's a smart move because it's promoting better communication among the actual audience they're marketing their products to, as they're less interested in all the business and investor talk.  Others view it as a weakness, saying that Nintendo's lack of stage presence is an admittance of succumbing the continual poundings they've received in the industry thus far.  Whether it's for better or for worse, I will miss seeing that Nintendo tab under GameStop's E3 conference page this year.  

In the wake of more DRM-related controversy and the last of the new console reveals being due next month, it's become clear that the game industry has come to a significant crossroad. The time is drawing near for consumers to finally confront a number of pending next-gen transitions, and the decisions that must inevitably be made involving these proposed changes cannot be put off much longer without consequence. The belligerent manner in which these looming industry shifts are being pushed forth has become a cause for apprehension, though, which has led me to question whether or not gaming is heading anywhere gamers might actually want to go.

If the last year or so of drama involving the likes of Diablo 3, SimCity, and ex-Microsoft creative directors is any indicator, quite a few following the industry have also come to share this concern.

A growing number of gamers are not particularly happy with the current course being taken by major game publishers, and it's easy to understand why, their arrogance and delusion have hurt the industry more than any used or pirated game ever could. It's not really a mentality that is conducive to a glowing future for an inexperienced and largely unproven entertainment industry.

At this stage of its development, the balance of the game industry is way off where it needs to be for the type of service it provides and to whom it is being provided to. This imbalance has led to a growing number of poor business practices that will only continue to undermine its future if left unchecked. How these practices are (or aren't) addressed will play a large role in defining the medium in the years ahead.

But what exactly has led to the business side of gaming to become so brazen in their aggression? What role has the other groups of gaming played to allow the medium's culture to devolve to the point where it is even viable? And what contributions to the industry's imbalance could the answers to those two questions possibly have? I explored a few possibilities.

My first focus was obvious: the short-sighted greed of bumbling game publishers and it's toleration by a number of passive gamers, which has led to eroding consumer rights and confidence over the last generation.

As a few of the Gamespotters I've had the opportunity to discuss the industry's troubling anti-consumerist trends with over the years might attest to, this particular set of discussions have become quite frustrating. It's the same cycle time and again. 'Outrage' that leaves as quickly as it came over the latest example of the industry attempting to overstep its bounds, with most participants either becoming distracted by the next trend to prattle on about or just losing interest altogether. This of course is followed by complete surprise when the next instance arises and they find that doing nothing of substance and still throwing money at a problem somehow hasn't changed the results.

The only aspect that seemed to separate the controversy surrounding the Orth tweets from the usual cycle was how closely it hit home for a number of gamers who were content with ignoring the festering DRM problem because it usually just affected 'other people's games'. The potential of seeing those same problems (with 'that' type of attitude no less) being laid at their own doorstep through a possible infection of a console they saw themselves buying appeared to burst a few bubbles.

But as much as I'd like to discuss that issue further, it's a secondary topic. The more I examined recent anti-consumerist trends, the more I realized that it wasn't the main cause. Consumers condoning this type of business is a symptom of deeper rooted issues.

What I explored next is another aspect of modern gaming I've held quite a few debates around: the dysfunctional relationship between the three corners of the game industry.

Brendan Sinclair actually put out a pretty interesting article last month, Entitled Gamers, Corrupt Press, and Greedy Publishers, that covered the bizarre dynamic between the respective groups, a recommended read for those who haven't sat down with it yet. It covered a few valid reasons why each corner carries a measure of resentment for the others and why the hostility is still lingering.

While I did agree with many of the points brought up in the article, the closing paragraphs is where the piece started to lose me a bit. Dealing with the dysfunction will need to be much more than a 'just wait things out and hope for the best' mentality, or simply asking for one of the corners to take a chance at offering respect to the others as equal participants in the business. The latter sounds great in theory, but part of the problem (the true dysfunction as far as I see it) is the two corners putting their hands out for payment seeing themselves at an equal, or higher, level of the corner that is expected to open their wallets.

I realize that the need for respect is a given if anything is going to improve, but respect in and of itself is not enough in a 'service' industry, it must be observed from the appropriate perspective. Much like how respect between a boss and employee is important to a functional workplace, but proper work is really only possible when accepting their role in relation to one another.

Everyone working within the industry deserves to be treated with civility, but they knew what they were signing up for when entering their professions. Instead of railing for the consumer to drop their expectations, any journalist or developer that can't accept the reality that they do continually owe the consumers (whose attention and money is the reason their positions even exist) need to do themselves a favor and find another day job. I do not have much patience for anyone in the industry resenting their fanbases for supposedly being a "bottom-less well of wanting", mostly due to the fact that gamers routinely tolerate nonsense that you'd be hard pressed to keep a straight face hearing about other entertainment industries trying to pull, all while swallowing a higher cost of entry.

But again, gamers finding themselves falling into this type of dysfunctional relationship with those colluding to part them from their money seems to be an unfortunate result, not the cause of the imbalance.

The Consumerist's response to EA CEO Peter Moore's comments leading up to and after their repeat winning of the 'Golden Poo' for the Worst Company in America is what caught my attention next, and in the end struck closest to what I feel is the core issue of many of the industry's problems.

Moore resorted to every diversionary tactic in the book to distract away from the fact that, despite it obviously being a silly little poll, a major presence in an entertainment industry that is still relatively new to the mainstream getting this kind press coverage does not reflect well on the culture of their industry at all.

Response to Moore's pre-emptive press release:

"Gaming might be a multibillion-dollar industry that attracts the worlds biggest names in entertainment, music, and sports, but it is nonetheless treated by both the media and the business world with a reductionist shrug. Companies like EA are happy to foster the misinformed perception of your average gamer as a whiny, nitpicky loner who will complain about anything, as that image only helps to discredit those who have a valid complaint about a relatively pricey consumer product.

Heres our question to Peter Moore: If your entire industry is engaged in the production of something so trivial as to not warrant inclusion in a contest that features a poop trophy, why do you even work in it?"

Following EA's repeat status being announced:

"Moores note also marked the second time EA has tried to deflect criticism by pointing to previous winners of the Worst Company tournament, as if to mock consumers who dared to express their discontent with a mere video game publisher.

Make no mistake: Video games are big business. A company like EA and Activision, Ubisoft, Nintendo, and Sony, etc. merits just as much scrutiny as any other business that plays a leading role in a multibillion-dollar industry. Its only a fractured, antiquated public perception that video games are somehow frivolous holdovers from childhood that allows gamers to be abused and taken advantage of by the very people who supply them the games they play."

This.

I feel the lingering insecurities still held by many gamers have had the most impact on the medium this generation, it's presence within many of gaming's self-destructive trends I examined was hard to ignore.  

The vulnerabilities that have resulted from these insecurities and the manner in which they've been exploited have been primarily responsible for throwing the balance of the industry off-center over the last few years. The residual effects have helped pave the way for all the issues mentioned above to a host of others. They have led to everything from the attack on used gaming, to the increasing level of heavy handed DRM, to even the likes of there still needing to be a debate over game being considered 'art'. All avoidable problems that have occurred simply because gamers have allowed it to. 

If we are to expect the gaming industry to grow up and begin carrying itself in a more appropriate manner, gamers must begin to grow up in the way they handle their business. Being a gamer does not mean being a lesser consumer, which is important for more gamers to realize because a stronger consumer forces an added effort by companies to focus on more agreeable market strategies. Increased consumerism will go a long way towards preventing publishers from further deluding themselves into believing they are in a position to 'dictate' the course of an entertainment market, especially one dealing pricey luxury items that customers can easily find replacements for.

At the end of the day, there are no right and wrong answers, and there are certainly no simple answers, but I still feel it's still a discussion that all serious gamers owe to themselves to have at some point. The importance of constructive contributions from gamers of all view points on the matter should not be understated.

The past couple of weeks I've played a couple of really short games so it doesn't seem 5 minutes since I did my last blog.

Hot off the back of F.E.A.R. 2 I went straight into F.E.A.R. 3 which was more of the same with a less interesting storyline. Having not played the original I felt like I'd missed out on part of the story which I didn't get with the second game. The story of this instalment didn't really kick into any sort of gear until the final third of the game. The first few missions seemed to be there for the sake of being there.

Most of the things I said about F.E.A.R. 2 in my last blog are still relevant here as nothing much has changed. The graphics are pretty average but serve their purpose. Everything does seem a bit blocky but there aren't any obvious glitches. Everything in the game is just solid and dependable which is fine although won't ever win a game of the year award.

The shooting again is pretty good with the weapons feeling different from each other and satisfying to use. Bullets hit with decent impact and explosions are ok but not overly impressive. Again though the weapons are pretty generic and serve their purpose but it's not the kind of game where you're excited to see a new weapon as none are overly exciting to use.

The one great thing I noticed whilst playing is the way the enemies move and flank you. Even on the easier difficulty settings they never stay in the same place long and you can soon feel surrounded before you realise. It makes you react quickly to a new fire fight to make sure you keep on top of the enemies. They also talk to each other pretty realistically. They are audibly scared and let each other know the current status of their squad. If nothing else that's the one thing I'll take away from the game.

I didn't really experiment with playing the game as Fettel. It looks like it's a different way to play but I didn't fancy playing through it again. Once was more than enough! Although the game was no worse than the last one, I did mark it down from F.E.A.R. 2 just because it doesn't build on it. A sequel that's not visibly and technically better than its predecessor isn't good enough in my eyes. It's a steady enough game though so it still gets a 7.0.

After F.E.A.R. 3 I decided that I needed a slight break from shooters so I went for something completely different and played Family Guy: Back to the Multiverse.

Although being completely different as hoped, it still turned out to be a shooter at heart. I'd expected it to be more of a platformer but that wasn't to be. Thankfully the shooting was surprisingly satisfying.  Head shots with Brian's pistol were really enjoyable and the way the enemies died from them really felt good! The weapons whilst being pretty varied were nothing out of the ordinary for the most part. Stewie's weapons were just sci-fi versions of normal weapons and apart from using him to get the achievement for 500 kills I used Brian for most of the game. There are a lot of weapons to choose from but I found a lot of them to be inefficient at taking down enemies so I resorted to just using the shotgun for the majority of the levels. The power ups ranged from funny to practical but for the most part they weren't necessary more like interesting distractions. Seeing the giant chicken do his thing was ace!

The game isn't very long and I think I completed it in less than 5 hours. I'm not a big fan of collectables but that would've added a couple of additional hours to its length. I probably should've made the effort to collect them as I don't think it would've been a difficult task. Nothing in the game is very hard apart from one or two annoying sections. I didn't die very often and if I did it was mostly my own fault due to a mistimed jumped or not being very tactical and just running out of cover to take down an overwhelming number of enemies. The game deals with death like it's no biggie as each area of a level isn't very big so you don't have to redo very much. Enemy health stays as it was before you died and all you lose is a bit of cash. After I'd bought all the attribute upgrades I didn't really have a need for cash so death was inconsequential after that.

The graphics were almost spot on in matching the TV show as it is now. It's bright and colourful and the range of environments provided a good mix of level types to keeps the game from getting stale. The story was exactly what the game needed to keep things interesting and it was actually pretty funny. Not since The Simpsons have I played something that's attempted to be funny and achieved its aim. Some games are unintentionally funny and some games fall flat so I'm glad Family Guy managed it. Like most games of this type that throw out one liners during game play they were often reused so you'd hear the same things multiple times over the course of a level. It's not a major problem but does make you remember you're playing a game. The levels aren't that long so I'd have thought they could've put a couple of other one liners in there to stop them recycling some of them. Luckily there are many times when other familiar characters make an appearance and mix up the humour.

Family Guy has been a nice detour from the onslaught on 'normal' shooters I've played recently and was genuinely funny so for that I'm glad I played it. I've only given it a 7.0 as it's not long enough and the gameplay isn't strong enough to warrant anything more. For achievement hunters I'd definitely recommend it as it's an easy 1000G. I got 695G for no effort whatsoever. I'd also say fans of the show should give it a go as it's a pretty true game adaptation of the series.

I'm going to get round to some better games I think for the next few games. Next up is Dishonored and then either Dead Space 3 or Batman Arkham City. I've also got Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer which has super easy achievements which I'll fit it when I want something simple. 

Or do we... 

At the end of Wednesday's Nintendo Direct, they dropped a huge bombshell on the Nintendo community with the announcement of a direct sequel to The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past.  The video footage shown contained a similiar art style, but beefed up with 3D graphics.  Considering A Link to the Past is heralded as one of the best games in the series, every fan should have been ecstatic.  Yet, the announcement drew negative comments in response to GS's news article.  It even prompted GS to make a video on the subject, not just the Zelda sequel, but in response to the Direct in general. 

Let me pluck out a line from the video. 

This isn't the first time McShea has talked about Nintendo staying Nintendo, as he wrote a pretty good piece here.  This is pretty much how I feel, and I've already wrote a piece on that, although it's more centered on adult rated games.  I also like what was said about it being hard to be critical of the same Nintendo games when they're still high quality.  Why say negative things about games you love?  It's not that we don't want to play more Mario and Zelda; it's that we want games that have that same level of quality, but entirely different experiences.  This is something Nintendo themselves are rarely capable of doing.   Instead, they take things that we're familiar with and repackage them.  

I'd like to focus on the Link to the Past sequel for a second.  I saw a worrisome picture posted in a thread in Primary Games Discussion.

This is worrisome, because it asks the question just how much of the original Link to the Past is going to be reused?  Even the boss fight at the end of the dungeon shows that very same worm that you fought in the original, with the exact same tactic.  True, it takes place in the same Hyrule, so obviously you're going to notice a few similar things, but why can't it just take place in an entirely different land of Hyrule?  Why bother revisiting anything at all, when I'm sure there's more Hyrule on the other side of the game's planet.  This is why I was bothered with Skyward Sword, because under that vast ocean of clouds, you only were able to visit three different regions.  

So, enough about Nintendo, because I want to be fair here.  Nintendo does get a lot of flack for milking their franchises, but let's remember they aren't the only ones who do that.  Some troubling news visits both MS and Sony, as their respective first party franchises Gears of War and God of War are experiencing lower than expected sales.  These aren't just lower than expected sales, these are abysmally lower sales.  Gears of War: Judgement sold 425,000 units compared to Gears of War 3's sales of over 2 million in its first month.  God of War: Ascenion sold 360,000 compared to God of War 3's 1.1 million. 

Those are major league franchises, and if AAA sequels is what the industry thinks we want, what happened?  Are gamers growing tired of those games that quickly?  Are they being put out too frequently?  Well, they aren't being released annualy like Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed, so maybe it's the fact that neither franchise really changes much in the way of gameplay.  Then again, that same argument could be said about Call of Duty and Assassin's Creed.  We also see them released every year because they sell.  Developers have to keep making them for publishers to sell them, because they think that's what gamers want.

It does make sense, though.  If gamers love great games, make more of them.  If they keep buying them, continue to keep making them.  Yet, it's a double edged sword, because it culls creativity.  How do you manage to be able to break free from the annual franchise release grind when the publisher won't let you?  If you don't want to, you'll be let go and the publisher will find other people to keep making it.  *ahem* Activision/Call of Duty.

I've been doing some thinking about this lately, and I've noticed something among entertainment mediums.  Authors of books, producers, screen writers and directors of movies will always have something along the lines of "The author who wrote" or "From the producer of".  Those promotional lines above those book and movie titles establish a pedigree and invite the audience to try out something new, because they know who it's coming from.  They have grown to like what those creators do, and they want to read and watch more.  Where on earth are those promotional lines on our video games?

More gamers should do themselves good and begin to educate themselves on who makes what.  This why the gamers in the know are following Destiny, because it's from Bungie, "the makers of Halo."  Bungie has established themselves by making Halo games for more than TEN years.  Look at how long it took for them to break away from MS to make something new.  Look at Naughty Dog.  They made three Uncharted games in succession, and now everyone is following The Last of Us because of Naughty Dog.  

I understand that Activision is reluctant to make a new game that isn't Call of Duty, or Ubisoft doesn't want to start a new franchise that doesn't involve a hooded assassin (well, there's Watch Dogs).  But every publisher, Activision, Ubisoft, Nintendo, etc., need to realize that the IPs that brought them so much success over the years... *waits for dramatic effect* started out as new IPs.  Hell, you can't have a Mega Man 10 without first making Mega Man 1.  When Keiji Inafune makes his new games, we're aware of it, because we follow him, but the average consumer doesn't.  The average consumer knows of Mega Man, so when Inafune's new game comes out, why not just have "From the creator of Mega Man" on the box?  I guarantee you it will help sell a few more. 

Back on Nintendo and to Nintendo's credit, when they release a new Super Mario or a new Zelda, they at least try new things from a gameplay standpoint.  The New Super Mario line isn't a very good example, because it's hard to really tell the four titles apart, but Zelda's always doing something new, regardless of how formulaic each iteration is.  Yet, they're also dipping extremely heavily into the nostalgia bucket this generation, and it's becoming alarming.  The 3DS was a remake factory with Ocarina of Time, Star Fox, and now Donkey Kong Country Returns.  The Wii U is getting a Wind Waker remake.  A Link to the Past 2 looks entirely too similar.  Granted they are all quality games, but they are all far too familiar.  We love them, but Nintendo needs to continue to create new franchises so that 10 years down the road, they have more nostalgia buckets to dip into.

More risks need to be taken, not just Nintendo, but everyone.  And, they need to be executed smartly.  They need to be promoted.  They need to be marketed.  They need to be put on pedastals to consumers with a giant sign hung around their neck saying, "I AM THE NEXT BIG THING!" We love sequels, yes, but we also love playing new games that manage to amaze us so much that after the credits roll, we put the controller down, point to the TV with both hands and say, "YES!  NOW GIVE ME A SEQUEL!"  

I think I just hit the nine-hour mark -- not too far in but far enough to offer some impressions of this classic Shin Megami Tensei entry.

First thing I bet most folks wanna know is, does it feel old? Surprisingly, no. But a little, yeah. Okay...it definitely has a kind of PS1/N64-era feel to it, and of course, Shin Megami Tensei Devil Summoner: Soul Hackers was originally a Japanese exclusive released on the Sega Saturn and later ported to PS1. But ooh, do I dig that feel. Oddly enough, that is one of my favorite eras in gaming, as in many ways, gaming was reinventing itself to fit the polygonal era.

But visually, Soul Hackers doesn't actually show its age all that badly. It just looks kinda barebones. Visually, it almost presents itself like a Phoenix Wright game, with character portraits and such and very little in the way of actual animation. Everything still looks really tight, really clean, though, and the artwork looks contemporary to me.

The music, to me at least -- I know others feel differently about it -- is fantastic. I listen to the opening theme every single time I load the game up, and it's a joy to visit the headquarters. There's tons of variety, and the voice work really makes the characters that much more endearing.

The gameplay feels like Shin Megami Tensei. There really are no outdated mechanics. If anything, this game was kind of ahead of its time. One example is a cool, little app you acquire that allows you to save anywhere. Now, I'm not sure if that was a part of the original version of the game, but it sure is appreciated when playing it on 3DS.

I think perhaps the biggest difference folks will feel is the reliance on fusing demons. In many other SMT games (Devil Survivor in particular), your demons leveled up like you did. However, in Soul Hackers, they only gain loyalty, which does improve their skills, but it's very limited. Instead, you'll have to continue to fuse demons in order to create new, more powerful demons to fight alongside you. It's not something you really have to worry about, though, as it all happens pretty organically.

All in all, I'm having a really good time with Soul Hackers (3DS). It's still quite hip, asthetically pleasing, and fun to play. There's lots of depth, but it's handled wonderfully. I'll probably throw up a reader review after my first playthrough (there is a new-game-plus option, which I will definitely be taking advantage of), but for now, the game has my blessing. Comes with an OST too if you buy a physical copy, and if you are gonna buy the game, I definitely recommend going that route. Not only is the game fun, but I have a feeling it will only increase in value down the road.

(Disclaimer: This game is not Persona 5. Buyer beware.)