Episodic content has become very popular in the gaming industry lately. Some of the more popular names that use it are of course Half Life 2 and Sam & Max. Episodic content sounds like a great idea when its on paper: Same old games in smaller chunks, cheaper to make, its like a tv show, and its supposed to be virtually the same game. But none of this happens. Episodic content is plainly put, annoying and is not effective in video games. It may cut down on costs for developers, but half the time it ends up taking way too long to make and gets delayed about a thousand times.

Think of this shining example of episodic content gone wrong: Half Life 2. Now I love Half Life and its one of the best games I'll ever play, but episodic content makes it feel so cut down. The original Half Life 2 was a full game and it felt very good. But Episode One? It feels like just a very short connector from Half Life 2 to Episode Two. Also, remember when Episode One was going to be called Half Life 2 Aftermath? I do. It just shows that episodic content does almost nothing to cut development time or costs. Episode One took so long to get to us that it should've just been a full sequel, not episodic content.

Another issue I want to address is confusing Expansion Packs with Episodic Content. I don't consider things like Shivering Isles to be episodic. Its a complete expansion and its not going to get any more stuff in it. It's done and its not going to have a Shivering Isles Part Two. I am actually intreged to see episodic content on real world games and see how it does. Microsoft has claimed that GTA IV will have some episodic content, and I think that if any game could use episodic content well, its GTA.

I alsodon't understand games being uncomplete just so the company can put out episodic or downloadable content to get more profit. That's just plain robbery. Maybe if the title would be a budget title I can understand, but if you have to pay 50-60 dollars for a game thats not finished, then thats ridiculous. All in all, Episodic Content was a good idea that just didn't work. The Sam & Max episodes would be much better in a full game and the same goes for HL2. I like to get a game that isn't going to make me wait for months and months to play it some more. That is not good gaming, and maybe developers will realize this.

As many of you gamespotters know, there are a TON of new games out here lately. A few of which are: COD4, Mass Effect, The Orange Box, Super Mario Galaxy, Rock Band, and Assassin's Creed. This is just a few of the games coming out this holiday season, and it feels overwhelming. This over-saturation of the market is making me think that this coming spring and summer are going to be full of nothingness. Especially the summer. Early 2008 is going to be good with titles like GTA IV, SSBB, and Metal Gear Solid 4. But summer? It's not looking very good.

I don't know if anyone else is feeling this way, but **** I just don't know what to do. There's so many games to choose from, and if I buy one, then i'm going to miss out on something else. It'd really be nice to have an even spread for the next few months instead of all these games that came out last month and this month. Now i'm going to play the devil's advocate and agree with the releasing of games during the holidays. It makes lots of sense for game developers and publishers to release their games in the prime buying season. But couldn't they just think of the consumer?

Another point: Wouldn't it be bad for a company to release a game at the same time as another? Wouldn't it take away from their profits? the answer is yes. Putting out two shooters like COD4 and UT3 isn't smart. Profits will be taken away from one and put to the other. The industry needs to get away from this trend. I can't remember a more crowded holiday season for games, and it's only going to get worse and worse from here. It's making gamers feel overwhelmed instead of feeling excited. It's just too **** much...

Gamespot's new review system is up as many people know, and i have to say that i don't like it. Mainly because its too absolute. It deals in absolutes and doesn't leave any room for subtleties. Now the Gamespot staff has defended this by saying that there is not enough difference in a 9.2 and a 9.3 score. Well there is a difference, and its that one is better than the other, but not by much. Now a game is either totally better than another game, or its the same, or its totally not better. Its ridiculous. Maybe i'm being a little nitpicky here, but i think that a review system with quarter values (1, 1.25, 1.50, 1.75, 2, etc etc) would be much much better. At least then you get a clear view on the broad message of the review, and the details of it.

It just blows my mind that you would go radically from one system to another that isn't as good. I think that a quarter value system would be perfect. It would give you a clear message of if the game is great or not, and still let you distinguish whether its getting the appropriate score. I think that many games are going to get a score thats not correct. For an example, Say a game would normally get a 9.7 score. Now it has to either get a 10 or a 9.5. That to me is just not right. The game is going to have to either be "perfect" or get a score that isn't giving it justice. Its not being truthful in my opinion... not that i'm saying that Gamespot is full of liars or something, but i really think that its going to constrict them a lot.

Also whats up with the score 8.5? i don't like that score at all. Its like inbetween being just pretty good, and being awesome.... i feel sorry for it

I've been thinking. Mainly about achievement points and how i think they're really a good idea, but they just don't work. My main problem with points is the fact that having fun by playing games isn't good enough anymore. We need some sort of pat on the back to make us like games. Now most people aren't like that, but some of the "points whores" are just ridiculus. Buying games just for points is a travesty in my eyes. You shouldn't just buy a game for some stupid pat on the back. Games are for fun, recreation, and competition, but not for some achievement. It just blows my mind that people get so into points. For years games have just been about having fun, but now some people are missing that point. They just want some recognition or something. Well i'll tell you one thing: You're not going to get recognized because you have some points. Games should be something you do to relax, not something that you do for bragging rights

And bragging is a real problem sometimes. I don't know how many online games have been ruined because somebody was bragging about how good they were because they had over 10 thousand points. The whole match they just went on and on, and when they eventually lost they just cussed us out in a spectacular 8th grade fashion. Cussing is another point i want to talk about too. I'm not going to lie; i cuss during online matches alot. But it is never aimed at someone and it is never in a ridiculus fashion like most people. I swear to god that i will not play another match of Halo 2 because of the cussing. Little ten year olds calling me a d-bag is where i draw the line. I'm not going to take that any longer. I honestly don't see why everyone can just get over their own egos. I just can't take another idiot yell about how my headshot on him was lucky and cheap. I'm just not going to do it.

Games have transformed into something that i think its really bad. Friendly competition has turned into a cussing screamfest. Games that i once loved are turned into cussing ego fests where at least one person has to brag about their achievement points and has to call me a cheater. I just hope that new things like the "shut yo mouth button" in Halo 3 help silence the fools who are convinced that they're better than anyone on the planet. Does anyone think that will work besides me? i doubt it... for now i guess i'll just go and play some counter strike where there are no idiots like the ones playing Halo 2.

So i just read the on the site that some organization is trying to say that video games are addictive and can cause withdrawl. Now i may not be a doctor but i think i have the solution to this "problem" Its called walking away. Seriously if people can't just walk away then they have a serious problem. Its not like your favorite game is going to go away forever if you stop playing. I will admit that i've played a video game for over 10 hours for a few days straight and its an experience that i don't wish to ever go through again. But after those crazy three days i just walked away. I went outside and rested my eyes and didn't even think about video games for about 5 days. My point here is that people need to show better self control and learn to say no.

People also need to learn that there are other activities besides video games. Not that video games are bad (why would i have an account on this site if i hated video games), but outside activity and family time is very important too. Read a book, walk outside, or just hang out with friends and family. It just boggles my mind that people could get so into games that they have withdrawl when they're not playing. That is taking things too far. But i guess thats what humans are good at: taking things too far. We take everything from eating to drug use too far and we pay the price for it. But do video games really have to be a part of it too? I think not, but i'd like to hear some others comment about it because i want to hear some outside opinions.

Mr.Krinkle

I was sitting in my room playing Gears yesterday and I realized that I really hate games that have campaigns that last only 8-10 hours. Nothing against Gears (which has a great multiplayer mode in my opinion) but its single player could've use some more attention. And this make me think that multiplayer has become more important than single player. I think that single player options in games are equally important as multiplayer options, and nobody else seems to agree with me. Every time I get a game now days, it seems like there is just too much emphasis on the multiplayer. This is why i've been hunting down some good single player oriented games. Some of the more notable games that i've been playing through are Ninja Gaiden Black, EarthBound, and The Legend of Zelda Ocarina of Time. I have to say that these games have been some of my favorite games of all time because they embody the true spirit of great single player only games. Ninja Gaiden is the first game in a long time to make me feel like i'm playing an old NES game that has just gotten suddenly thrown into 3D. This feeling of rememberance ( i guess its rememberance) has made me feel the way i do about single player games: that they are dieing out.

Now don't get me wrong here, I love a good multiplayer match if its done right. Counter Strike has some of the greatest multiplayer i've ever played and its an example of multiplayer done right. An example of multiplayer done horribly wrong is Halo 2. I liked Halo 2, I really did. Its multiplayer was good at first, but then it just left me feeling cold at the end of the day, AND its single player is no good at all (this is just my opinion). I digress though, I miss the days of awesome lenghty single player games. Games like the Super Mario Bros. series, Super Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie, Final Fantasy, and many others. These games had such good multiplayer that they didn't need a multiplayer at all. I guess games now days just need a multiplayer to be good. This really puzzles me a lot. I mean if a game has really good single player but no multiplay, it gets critized. I will admit however some games are a lot better with both a great single player and a great multiplayer. Many people now days however, wont pick up a game if it doesn't have a multiplay mode.

Another thing that annoys me is the ever growing trend of making a single player game that has anywhere between 6 to 11 hours of gameplay in it. What is with this trend? Are game companies just too lazy to make more of a game or are they just making games for casual gamers? I think that its just casual gamers honestly. I mean, will a casual gamer ever complete a 45 hour game? not likely. Will a regular gamer finish a 45 hour game? yes they will. No offense, but I think that game developers need to think about everyone and not just the casual audience. But now as I think about it, maybe this is JUST a trend. I really hope that it is because it seems like every time I pick up a new game, its just not long enough to make me care about it and it has a bad multiplayer to boot. What i guess i'm trying to say here is that single player needs to lengthen and multiplay needs to bet better. Will this happen? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

As many people know, the Xbox 360 Elite is coming out and with it is the 120 GB hard drive that will be sold separately. I think that its going to retail for around $179.99 and i really wish that it wasn't that much. When you think about it also, it shouldn't be. Hard drives are extremely cheap for PCs now days. I've seen 100 GB hard drives for as cheap as $80. So my real question is this: why the hell is the Xbox 360 120 GB hard drive $179.99? If it was even $129.99 i'd probably buy one, but for 180 bucks i think i'll pass on it. I'd rather spend that money on games for my 360.

My other question is why is microsoft not just giving us more for less or at least the same price? I mean couldn't they just come out with a 50 or 60 GB hard drive for nearly 100 dollars? That in my mind would make customers feel much more satisfyed in they're purchases. And last time i checked customer satisfaction is really important. If i did buy the 120GB hard drive i'd feel a little cheated. Mainly because of this: Nearly nobody is gonna need 120 GBs of space. Maybe you would need 50 or 60 but not 120. Because of this though, i really don't care about it at all. I wish Microsoft would just understand that more for equal or less is the way to go, not more for more....

im gonna review some new stuff over the course of the next few weeks, so yeah... thats whats goin down.

Well as probably everyone interested in games knows, the Grand Theft Auto IV trailer came out today and is really created alot of buzz. My thoughts are that it looks really really great. First off, the environments look amazing. The land marks and huge buildings of the city(Liberty City?) look great. Also lighting effects and character models look great. The main character is presumably Russian and is voiced nicely in the trailer. The only thing that disapointed me about the trailer was the lack of any real gameplay. I want to see how the game performs and how it looks in real time. This probably wont happen till at least July though. I would expect more info on GTA IV to be leaked out systematically by Rockstar over the next few months. One thing is for certain: this looks like a really great GTA game and i can't wait for it to hit stores in October.

Man im excited about this expansion. I really like Oblivion and SI looks like it has alot of stuff that i wanted in Oblivion in the first place. At $29.99 its a little steep, but with at least 30-60 hours of new gameplay it seems to be really cool.