The Nintendo Wii is selling like crazy and doesn't seem to be losing momentum. Will the Wii end up being like the NES? Everyone had an NES; even people that didn't play video games as a real hobby got on board back in the day. The original Nintendo Entertainment System sold over 60 Million units world wide(1) . The Wii seems to be carrying on the NES tradition. Will the Wii last or will the luster fade?

There are claims that the Wii is just a fad and sales will fade. It has been said that the motion-sensitive controls are too gimmicky and "hardcore gamers" will lose interest with this method of play. I have personally enjoyed playing the Wii, and love the creative stance that Nintendo has taken. I want new experiences and, so far, Nintendo has delivered.

Nintendo has something else in its arsenal that Sony and Microsoft don't: A massive library of old games. Nintendo boasts a library of 1,000, and many of them, possibly all, will eventually be available for download through the Wii Virtual console. There are also Super Nintendo, N64, Turbo Grafix, and Genesis titles that keep being added.

The library for the nostalgic gamer is in place, and the exclusive titles for the Wii are coming as well. But, for the sake of discussing the future of the Wii, we need to return to the past and compare some of the accessories of the NES and the Wii. The NES and the Wii have several things in common. The NES had a light gun called the Light Zapper, which was used for games like Gumshoe and Duckhunt. Now, the Wii has introduced the Zapper and the possibility of the Duck Hunt sequel. There was the NES Power Pad, which you ran on, that supported titles such as World Track Meet and Stadium Events, and, now, the Wii has a new peripheral called the Wii Balance Board that will roll out with the game Wii Fit. Just in case you forgot, there was the NES Max controller, which had a different x control design than the original NES game controller, and it worked wonderfully with R.C. Pro AM. The Wii has a ****c ****controller available for the Virtual Console Games called the Wii ****c Controller. There are a ton of other accessories for the NES and the Wii that I left out but these have striking resemblances.

Nintendo looks to become the leader of the Next Gen Console War. Whether or not the sales of the Wii are towards hardcore gamers or trendy folks that only want to buy what happens to be hot will be shown through time. I imagine Nintendo wants to make as much money as possible, since they are, after all, a business, so they are going to have to appeal to the masses. Sales of the Wii have passed the PS3 and they are right on Microsoft's tail. It's still early in the race, and no clear victor can be named, but if I we're going to bet, I would go Wii, Wii, Wii all the way to the Bank!

http://gamersblock.net/index.php?a=view&id=137

Bradley Trousdale

thedrexel@gmail.com

PS3. 360. Wii. Most will agree they are three very unique systems. In years past this would be looked upon as a plus for gamers everywhere. Since the days of the NES, we as gamers have had many options to burn free time. SNES vs Genesis. Game Boy vs Game Gear. PSX vs Saturn vs N64. PS2 vs Xbox vs Gamecube. Not to mention the countless other entrants into the framework (3DO anyone?) With this latest console war, we could be staring a golden age of gaming right in the face. And on behalf on myself and true gamers everywhere, we plan to embrace it fully.

However, the Nintendo/Sega rivalry spawned a new breed of gamer. A gamer who would not only pledge their allegiance to one specific console, but would also do everything in their god given power to convince any other gamer within reach to do the same. The name "fanboy" was the term of choice to describe such a gamer, but they were simply a nuisance in those days. My how things have changed. With the explosion of the internet, "fanboyism" has indeed reached a level of insane heights. I walked into Best Buy one afternoon and witnessed something I thought I would never see. A customer was interested in purchasing a PS3 and inquired about the availability. So he asks an employee if any are available and is rudely told, "you don't want one." After explaining to the employee that he has thought about the purchase for 2 months and decided it is the next gen system for him, he was then told, "PS3 is a system for spoiled rich kids and tech junkies who want something to show off at their next get-together."

Rich kids, this one's for you.

2 things struck me as odd about that comment. The first was that the employee was doing the opposite of what his job description says he should. The second was that I had either heard or read some variation of that comment about 7 times in the past 4 days. To choose choice over fanboyism is to invite ridicule into your life nowadays, especially on the internet. Dont believe? Log on to any gaming site and say that Gears Of War is the most overrated game of 06. Let me know how it goes. We as gamers should be well informed about the products we plan to purchase, but we should never be influenced. Seems some people didnt get the memo though. As for our friend at Best Buy? He left without the PS3 he so badly wanted and settled for 2 new PS2 games (Fight Night Round 3 and NBA 07 The Life.) I asked the guy if he knew those games were available for PS3 and he replied, "Yeah, but the guy at the counter says PS3 is a waste and he's the expert." No my friend, he is not the expert. He's the fanboy.

In my experience, there are 3 different types of fanboys. First, you have the in your face type. These gamers will attempt to verbally destroy anyone who doesnt share their opinion on anything gaming related. Their profanity laced tirades have ran many a gamer away from countless internet boards. They will defend their system of choice to the death and use the slightest misstep to expose the competition. The second type is the subtle fanboy. They pick and choose their battles wisely, only stating their opinion when it will either put their favorite system in a good light or show the competition in a negative way. They tend to not go overboard with their arguments though, and will occasionally admit that the competition isnt as bad as they say. The final type is the fanboy in denial. This fanboy will claim no allegiances, but their opinions will say otherwise. This is the type of person who would call Halo overrated, but still admit it is better than Resistance. They will occasionally claim to like a game made for the competition, but it's usually a game everyone likes anyway. Close examination of their comments will reveal where their heart lies, but they aren't troublesome for the most part. The latter two types aren't hard to deal with in most cases, but the first is a problem all its own.

Ever wanted to see life through a fanboy's eyes? Here you go.

A week after the Best Buy trip, I found myself back at the very same Best Buy ready to purchase my own PS3. Like the other gentleman, I too had put a lot of time and research into my decision. I wanted to confront the employee from my last visit and see how he would handle someone who wouldnt back down. So after a couple of minutes of searching, I found him in the Xbox 360 section. The PS3's were lined up on the floor this time, so there was no need to ask if any were available. So I politely asked him what games he would recommend I purchase with the system. As I predicted, he started one of his rants describing the inferiority of the PS3. Here is a slimmed down version of the conversation that took place between him and I.

Jerzee: Excuse me, could you recommend a couple of games I could buy along with my PS3?
Employee: You sure you want a PS3?
J: Yes, I'm sure I want a PS3. I just wanted your opinion on the games.
E: Well honestly there aren't any games worth your money. You would be better off with a 360.
J: And why is that?
E: Because it has Gears Of War.
J: I dont want to play Gears Of War.
E: Well you must be a Sony fanboy, no offense. Only a Sony fanboy wouldn't want to play Gears.

No offense taken buddy. Only a 360 fanboy would make a statement like that. The truth is I love Gears, and I have played all the Gears I could ever want at my brother's house. So I have no need to buy a 360 and play it some more. Notice he never mentioned ANY of the other great games 360 has for purchase. Not to mention the online service which is top notch. If the conversation didn't last so long I would have posted the whole thing. But let's just say I proved how much of a true gamer I was by the time I left the store with my PS3. I ended up buying Madden 07, Resistance, and NBA2K7 that day as well. I couldnt help but think about my last visit as I walked out with my new system. Maybe I should have talked him into it. Or maybe it was best I left him alone. One thing is for sure though, a real gamer will always have a choice. Fanboys be damned. Until next time, game hard and live easy!


Jerzee
Email - jerzeeballa@gamersblock.net
Forum Name - JerzeeBalla

How many times have we had this argument? When Roger Ebert, famed film critic, said that games were an inferior form of Art, compared to film and literature, the Internet exploded. On every forum there was a flame war defending or damning Ebert. The subject has very nearly been beaten to death. Recently, Clive Barker (writer-director of Hellraiser, designer of Jericho) gave a speech at the Hollywood and Games Summit about how games need to be accepted as Art, mentioning Ebert throughout. His speech was posted on GameIndustry.biz, and when Ebert read it, he chose to write a response of his own.

Ebert starts his response by saying that he was mistaken; "Anything can be art," but quickly adds "What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it." Irony is wrapped around his response like shrink-wrap. If Ebert traveled back in time 100 years, he would find himself on the flipside of his argument. He would find himself in a time where film was considered to be a cheap substitute for those who couldn't afford real theatre. The upper-****theatre critics would be looking down their nose at films, saying that they could never be high art. Of course, in the present movies are much more popular than theatre, and no believes that they're inferior. No one denies film's potential to be considered high art. Defined in the most concise terms, High Art is great art, something intellectually, emotionally and culturally meaningful. This is not a textbook definition, but a fair definition.

Ebert doesn't pretend to be a gamer, but says that he understands game by definition. Based on "the vast majority of games", Ebert defines games as "involving (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in 'Myst', and (3) player control of the outcome". Fair enough; to varying degrees he is right. However, he said these attributes make games more comparable to sports than Art, though personally I've yet to see a sport with a plotline. He believes that these attributes "don't have much to do with art", but that's not really fair. Not all art forms share the same attributes; music is vastly different than writing, which is vastly different from filming, and acting is vastly different from all of them. Acting is not so different from gaming, however. Gaming is more than a visual experience; it is also a performance. Actors may choose how to perform a play however they want, but they must progress the plot to reach the end. Players may have some choices when they play a game, but in most games they must adhere to the author's intent to progress. Then again, not all Art intends to tell a story, or represent something. Think how many paintings and sculptures that we appreciate for their realism? Many games seek no further than to simulate reality, though they retain the elements of performance.

Ebert does a tremendous job of sounding witty in response to Barkers' comments, even suggests that Clive has "Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old" at one point, but does manage to poke holes in some of the horror novelist's logic, though just as often doesn't flesh out his own logic or make a strong point. In his post on the Chicago-Sun Times website, Ebert broke up Barker's comments into chunks and replied to them individually. I've extended the dialogue with my own responses to his responses.

Barker: "It's evident that Ebert had a prejudiced vision of what the medium is, or more importantly what it can be."

Ebert: The word "prejudiced" often translates as "disagrees with me." I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be. Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will.

Me: Speaking of articulate four year olds, this "Well you're prejudiced too!" reply doesn't address the real point at hand: We shouldn't be prejudice at all. All critics and reviewers have an opinion, that is their role, but we have the obligation to be fair and without prejudice. That's what gives our opinions value.

Barker: "It used to worry me that the New York Times never reviewed my books. But the point is that people like the books. Books aren't about reviewers. Games aren't about reviewers. They are about players."

Ebert: "A reviewer is a reader, a viewer or a player with an opinion about what he or she has viewed, read or played. Whether that opinion is valid is up to his audience, books, games and all forms of created experience are about themselves; the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless. A bowel movement, for example."

Me: I get the impression that Ebert thinks that we cannot "become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, [or] philosophical" from video games, which is of course untrue. These attributes have nothing to do with the artistic form; they're all related to the artistic content. Some video games lack these attributes, while others serve as shining examples. How many games has Ebert played, and which ones? Can we even accept Ebert as "gaming literate"? After all, someone who has only seen Uwe Boll movies in his life might say that all movies are terrible; but we don't value their opinion because they don't have the breadth to speak objectively about all movies.

Barker: "We should be stretching the imaginations of our players and ourselves. Let's invent a world where the player gets to go through every emotional journey available. That is art. Offering that to people is art."
Ebert: "If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?"

Me: I can see why he might think that going through the whole gamut of emotional journeys might devalue them all, but I don't agree. Perhaps in a two or three hours movie it would be hard to fully develop each emotional journey, but most games go well beyond 2 to 3 hours. Some go well beyond thirty hours, and very little offer a "smorgasbord" of choices. Some games are open-ended, allowing the player a dynamic experience, but more games are linear, with the only power you have on the plot is whether or not you progress through the game. Half-life 2, for example, gives you very little choice besides which gun to use. There is one direction to go (forward). The conclusion is just as inevitable as (spoiler alert) Romeo and Juliet's death.

These quotations that I've responded to are simply the choice pickings; there are more on his original post. There are a lot of snarky lines that seem to contradict Barker, but completely absent from his article is a compelling reason that games cannot be high art.

Games are art, and even Ebert will admit that now. I fail to see how the form of the art would limit the value of it. All forms of art have the potential of being great; as a rule some pieces of art in any given form will be bad, while other pieces will be great. Any good film critic would admit that not ALL movies deserve to be called high art. Likewise, there not might be many games that deserve their status as high art, but that doesn't rob them the potential of doing so. If Ebert truly does think this, well, let's just say that a prejudice critic is of no value at all.

We all have some sort of addiction in our lives. Addictions are extremely hard to defeat and, as a result, many of us are unable to overcome them. Will power, friends and determination are some of the things that can help end addictions. There are some vices, however, that still boggle my mind to this day. For the past few days, I have been struggling to find a suitable topic to discuss, and have failed time and time again. That is, until I remembered the night of Friday, November 17, 2006. What I witnessed seemed comically outrageous but also frighteningly destructive. It was not a report about the war nor was it a natural disaster warning. It was the most important day to some, and the least important to others. It was, in fact, the commencement of an explosive and supposedly fun-filled weekend. What was this monumental occasion you ask? Well, it was not the launching of a rocket or a missile but, rather, a video game console. That's right, the Sony Playstation 3 was released, and the feeling of excitement was in the air. That is, until the desperation seeped into the veins of the ones unlucky enough to have arrived too late to retrieve one. What ensued was an addiction more troublesome than many I have ever witnessed.

I enjoy video games. They are great time wasters, and can aid parents in keeping children preoccupied, but, also, in my mind, can be deemed extremely useful in areas of life. Games help people practice problem-solving techniques; hand and motor control are improved and mental awareness is increased. Video games can be great fun and can create an evening full of excitement. Granted, some video games are very violent, but, overall, they are usually found in most households that contain children or young adults.

As I said, I do enjoy video games but I'm not willing to throw down 750 dollars for the console that plays them. To me, that is outrageous. I am getting older, now, and understand that I have priorities and limited time for game play. I remember when I was young and the original Nintendo arrived on the scene, and it went for 100 dollars. I feel old when I say this but that was a lot of money back then.

As I noted earlier, it was a big weekend for the video game companies, and it ended on that Sunday with the arrival of the Nintendo Wii. A much cheaper console but still quite capable enough of causing distress and insecurity in the mindsets of the public. You see, these companies only release a limited amount of consoles to stores. Thus, the obsession to obtain one becomes even greater. I understand that people desire these things, but when it leads to violence, one must stop to ponder and reflect on the society that we exist in.

While doing research on this topic, I came across a CNN Web site detailing the violence that erupted as a result of these releases. People were held at gun point while waiting in line while others were jumped when they exited the store with the console. One person in Connecticut was shot while another in Indiana was stabbed. Two people approached two others with a chain and a tire iron demanding their console. A fight ensued. A man's nose was broken and another was stabbed. In another city, employees at a store were held up, their Playstations stolen. There was a video on the Web site depicting numerous males in a race to the store. Some were trampled and one was pushed into a pole. It was utterly horrifying. Are these the actions of a civilized society? Are people so addicted to the idea of the new and improved video game console that they would go as far as harming another human being in order to obtain it? By only releasing a limited amount, these companies are as guilty as anyone. I understand that they have times when to release more and that they must receive feedback on any malfunctioning devices but they create an unhealthy hunger in human beings. They advertise and advertise these devices for months in hopes of creating a hunger within people. Then they say that they are only releasing a certain amount of them. Thus, people develop an insatiable lust for them but it can only be quenched if they are able to obtain it. Money is nothing. For the people who cannot get one, they will merely bludgeon and rob the lucky souls that were able to obtain one. These companies profit beyond rational thought. They are puppet masters, in a sense, no different than other corporations willing to sacrifice the lives of people for the sake of profit.

Though the corporations are guilty of many things, it is still the acts of the earths' inhabitants that appall me. Yes, an urge has been created but people need to come to the understanding that they have a problem. When someone goes to these lengths to retrieve a video game system that will be cheaper and more accessible in a year, then one comes to the realization that these people have serious addictions. They need to be the first to have one so they can gloat to their friends of how they overpaid for a system that, soon, many other people will have for a much cheaper price. Does it go back to our days as cavemen? This primitive instinct of brutality and empowerment?

I'm not saying that it is wrong to want one. I want one too, but I'm not willing to sleep outside for a few days to get one. It is the people willing to hurt that have the problem. Maybe someday, we will learn not to fight over miniscule things (and realize that there are far greater problems in this world) and come to the understanding that wanting something is a whole lot different than needing something.

Mike Peters
Forum Name- mpeters
Email- mpeters799@hotmail.com

Oh long delayed games, why do you taunt me so?

I've grown so weary of games having sweet trailers and gameplay videos a year or so before the actual game finally comes out. The new Fractured video shows the beauty of spike-riding and terrain deformation. It's expected in summer 2008. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. had plenty of media in December 2004; the game just took until March 2007 to be released. 2.4 years! In May 2005, there was a trailer for a game that is still unreleased. Huxley is scheduled for release in the 3rd quarter of this year, 2.4 years after the trailer, just like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Another trailer came out in May 2005 whose cinematic quality is unrivaled to this day. This trailer was for Hellgate: London. Two years later, it's still not released. It's currently scheduled for a November release, 2.5 years after its sick trailer. Waiting this long for a game to come out is nothing short of ridiculous. Six months is bad enough but 30!? Half Life 2 stood up to the hype because it is the sequel to one of the greatest games of all time. Starting out a new IP two years late hurts its sales. I was interested in all three of the games mentioned above when I first saw their trailers. As time marches on, however, the excitement fades. New trailers are released, reigniting interest, which then fades. Gameplay and developer interviews come and go as other games are announced, promoted and released.

It's hard to stay interested in a game that's been in your consciousness for so long with no actual experience. It's like the boy who cried wolf. Eventually you just stop caring.

A: "S.T.A.L.K.E.R. came out."

B: What's that?

A: Remember the shooter that was delayed forever?

B: Oh, that? I thought that was vaporware.

Only firmly established IPs can get away with such blatant disregard for deadlines. Halo, Starcraft, even Duke Nukem Forever (if ever released) would have a bigger splash than a game you were interested in two years ago because it's desire is in your mind. There is brand name recognition, and you know what you are getting. I was jazzed when S.T.A.L.K.E.R. was debuted, but after about 12 months, my patience evaporated and I no longer desired it. Hellgate: London and Huxley find the same ambivalent fate. Those games would have to be extremely spectacular to live up to the amount of hype that has accumulated over the years.

It's like a line. People will wait in a long line for something they really want. But if some mediocre game takes two years to come out, you aren't going to have the same interest as if the line to obtain the product was a quarter the length. Non-established franchises suffer for the delays, but games with a legendary tradition can get away with unnecessarily long waits. Despite this advantage, games like GTA 4 were announced less than 18 months before release, and a trailer wasn't available until 6 months before its release. This is a reasonable timeline. Waiting over two years from trailer to game like Hellgate: London, however, is inexcusable.

Name - Tim Madsen

Forum name - Hitman

E-mail - Tim_x12@yahoo.com

Manhunt 2 was canned because it was a "murder simulation", and it was a deplorable game. The main difference between Manhunt 2 and a movie like Hostel 2 was that you participated in the acts in Manhunt, whereas you merely watched in Hostel.

Does practice make you WANT to do something? By practicing at a shooting range, do people want to go out and shoot a person? People will try to make that connection. They tend to use the Michael Moore School of Justification. Ignoring facts just to prove your own point is the way most politicians work to get people on there side.

Shooting at a range to get better is part of the reason people practice. For others, it is a way to enjoy firing a gun in a setting that will not kill someone. Most people can also easily grasp the differences between right and wrong. Yet, we still think that, because people play a game that simulates murder, gamers will go out killing people after playing Manhunt 2.

What are we saying about this game? What power does it hold over us? Will the Wii Zapper cause us to want to go out and shoot more people? Will we all start humping corpses at funerals? Are we all depraved psychopaths just waiting for a game to practice our skills up enough to go on murderous rampages? Did Jim Jones practice the Kool Aid episode on his Atari before giving it out? Lets be reasonable here, people.

Everyone is really excited about the realism that the Nintendo Wii has added. You swing the bat playing baseball and cast your line while fishing. They have announced the new Wii Zapper and the possible release of a Wii Shotgun (the shotgun is the same idea as the Zapper, just a plastic housing that makes it look like a shotgun).

If Manhunt 2 is a game that we cannot handle, as a society, because of its realism, then do these guns not fall in the same category as this game? People would say that the soldiers in Medal of Honor are evil and it?s not murder. Well known fact: Not every soldier in the German army was a Nazi Most were forced to fight for their country. So, does this still make them evil? It certainly makes it easier for people to distance themselves from the issue.

In reality, these are one in the same. The tone or feeling shouldn?t affect the end result. You are shooting a person. Just because you can find a way to justify shooting the person doesn?t mean it was right. You shot him because he was eye ball?in your woman? Still counts as a crime.

I still believe Manhunt 2 got the right rating for the game, and that children should not play it because there is content that they will not understand. But, how do we know that they will understand that shooting the zapper at the screen and not take it to mean you should go out and shoot people in real life?

The parents will decide if it is right for their children to be playing, and make sure they understand right from wrong? Mind boggling! Guess they couldn?t be bothered to do that for Manhunt 2.

Matt
aggrowhoregaming@gmail.com
www.gamersblock.net

It is unquestionable that Mario is to video games what Bugs Bunny is to animation. He was a character that had enough appeal to draw everybody into his medium. He's become an iconic character due to his role in a groundbreaking series of platformers. Aside from having his face on over 60 games in just two decades, he's also appeared in movies, animated shows, comic books, and all types of other merchandising. You ask any person under 45 who Mario is and they'll know. So what happens when Super Mario is no longer so super?

The truth is, like any other series, the Mario series was bound to hit its low points. Let's ignore off-shoots like Mario is Missing or Super Paper Mario and take a look at the main series. We've had two versions of Super Mario 64 in the past 10 years: three if you realize just how much Mario Sunshine is Mario 64 with an added gimmick. The Mario series used to move forward, at one time, and show you all the possibilities of 2D gaming. However, when it made the shift into 3D gaming, it seemed like the possibilities now had limits.

I'm a person who has been playing Mario games since 1988 so, to me, it's actually kind of sad that the first Mario game I have enjoyed since the mid-90's was last year's New Super Mario Bros. That game is, of course, for the portable Nintendo DS and not a home console. When it comes to home consoles, the series that once took pride in breaking the mold now seems to be content with selling off name alone. It's not that older gamers have outgrown the Mario series; it's that the Mario series has, in certain ways, stopped trying to challenge the gamers who helped make it a major contender in the first place. Even NSMB, for all its pros, is just essentially another 2D Mario adventure like the ones millions of us grew up playing.

As I mentioned before( On Gamersblock.com), Super Mario Sunshine, while a well designed game, did not adhere to the tradition of a Mario game pushing the envelope; instead, we got recycled Mario 64 controls with the inclusion of a water pack. After a certain point, this fails to grab the interests of some because it becomes so repetitive that it doesn't encourage you to keep playing and learn new moves. Being that there is a new Nintendo console on shelves, there is a new Mario game on its tails. The game is called Super Mario Galaxy and promises to be one of the defining games of the next 10 years. My only concern is that it will not be progressive enough to gain the interests of the older gamer - the one's who helped the Nintendo empire become so vast in the first place.

Is it because Mario is perceived as kiddie? No, not quite, as there have been plenty of platformers with "kiddie" characters during the past seven years that have caught the attention of older gamers based on bringing new ideas and mechanics to the genre. A lot of these platformers, I might add, were directly inspired by Mario 64 in their own ways. No, the reason this title could alienate long-time fans is simply because the formula of the games isn't really changing and they begin to feel like too much of an old thing; redundancy is never helpful to anything.

From what I've seen, thus far, of Super Mario Galaxy, you are given the option of controlling Mario, who does spin attacks, hops from world to world, flies around, butt-stomps and collects coins for extra rewards. Now, the presentation might be different since it's in space, but how is this any different from any of the past two 3D Mario adventures? How could this possibly be taken as an evolution of the series when so much familiarity is present?

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of ways to change the formula up but not so drastically that it no longer feels like Mario. In which ways could that be accomplished? How about giving us the option of alternate paths throughout the game that could lead to different results, which expands the adventure and mythology? What about going for subtle change and taking a new art direction that doesn't abandon the .......of the series but doesn't alienate those of us who want a more "grown up" aesthetic for the series? Perhaps more freedom in terms of customizing Mario to meet our own personal gaming needs as individual gamers? Or maybe these are all horrible ideas that should never be explored within this franchise in the first place.

One thing is for sure, though: we need to see something fresh from a new Mario platformer soon because the series seems to have hit its stride already and that seems to have caused more damage to it than anything else. I would hate for the Mario series to become as big a joke as the Sonic series has. Even though Nintendo is known for high quality delivery, there is no way that Mario sinking into mediocrity is impossible either. It's not as if they haven't failed to appeal to long-time fans with Mario and other franchises before.

I know it's all about the fun factor, but how fun can the same formula remain after a point? Perhaps I'm just overreacting, but considering how much I have anticipated each Mario iteration in the past up to this point, when the new one fails to spark a single flame within me, as fan, I have to express a little concern. Here's hoping that Nintendo proves me wrong with Super Mario Galaxy and that it is, for once, the proper evolution that the franchise so rightfully deserves.

Broddie

Co-op games are among the most enjoyable games that can be played. They are a very good way to get someone (re: GIRLS) interested in gaming as well. People seldom want to play a game were one person will dominate the play. Co-op games allow people of different skill levels to compete together at a solid level.

A definition of co-op games needs to be established before we go any further. Many people consider co-op games to be any games that you play with another person, regardless or whether or not you are helping each other. The helping aspect, the achievement of common goals, is what separates games in this column from your run-of-the-mill games. Games such as the Battlefield series or MMO's can use teamwork to achieve a common goal, but I will only cover them briefly because they can require many online users to accomplish most tasks. Co-op games that will be covered in this article can be completed solo, but enable you to share the game with a friend at the same time.

MMO Gaming

This genre has hit the wall in recent years. World of Warcraft set the gold standard in this arena and most other games that released within a similar time frame ended up failing in one way or another. These games offer the longest, most robust Co-op experience currently available. The down side to these games comes from the lack of a concrete ending. While eight million people play and enjoy this game, there are even more that like to have definitive endings to the games they are playing. If you are interested in the MMO style of game, here are a few you should check out:

World of Warcraft: It is #1 because of its easy system requirements, addictive game play and tasks to accomplish with anywhere from 2 to 40 people.

Guild Wars: It has managed to get over two million players in game. It is a more Player Versus Player focused game but its major benefit lies in the lack of a monthly subscription fee.

Lord of the Rings Online: LOTRO has been gaining steam as one of the more successful games, post-WOW, in the fantasy genre. Players can gain titles and live in the land of Hobbitsies and the Riders of Rohan.

Sports Gaming

Sports is a obvious location for co-op gaming. They are easy to get into and quick to play. The trick comes from learning which sports lend themselves better to co-op gaming. The ones that work include hockey, soccer, tennis, basketball and racing. Football is very tricky because it's hard to control two different players; each person has to accomplish very specific and individual tasks. Baseball also has this problem, although, if you wanted to, you can swap who pitches and who hits. Given that you might want to play these games online, that just does not work.

Sports games can give you a bigger pay-off if you play them as a co-op. I have seen some wicked goals scored in hockey games because you are playing with someone who has way more intelligence than the A.I., and stands in the right place when you are trying to pass to them.

Some sports games you should check out include:

NHL2K7: There is big debate as to whether this game or EA's NHL07 is better. What I do know is there are controls in 2K7 that let you do things, such as tip a shot with your stick, that add an extra element to Co-op play.

FIFA 2007: Soccer is the beautiful game of the world and it lends itself to the same similar style of play that hockey does. Making brilliant passes and scoring spectacular goals is easier with a partner.

NBA 07: Basketball is a game that cries out for fancy passing. Playing Co-op also lets you rebound better and defend better. It can take a game you normally struggle at and make it much more enjoyable. I would say that this basketball can benefit the most from having people play the game with you.

First-Person Shooters

This category can get muddy fast. While I could write about many of the shooter games that require you to play online (Battlefields, Counter-Strike, Unreal Tournaments), I am going to stick to FPS games that contain a story that two people can enjoy together.

FPS games is one of the most popular and most competitive genre in video gaming today. The best of these games offer the chance to work together in a team with up to four players. However, this would admittedly be a harder genre to get a girl interested in given the level of violence involved compared to other games. Going to war with a buddy is definitely more enjoyable than going to war alone.

Some good games in this genre:

Gears of War: This may be the pinnacle in this category right now. The game plays so well as a two play co-op. There are parts that seem crafted for a two player experience when you split up from each other and accomplish tasks. If you want to play a real co-op, this is the game to play.

Ghost Recon(s): A very tactical shooter, this game puts you on an elite team trying to accomplish missions around the world. It may be unforgiving in terms of how many times you can get shot, but the feeling of completing each level is a very rewarding experience.

Contra(s): How can you not love Contra! It is still the classic 2-D side-scrolling game that everyone loves. The last version was released on PS2 and holds true to the style and game play that everyone loves.

Action Games

These games offer the best chance to get a non-gamer hooked into gaming. They have a good pace of action for hardcore and new players while offering a fair amount of challenge to all participates. It is true that you could play any game and just switch off the controller after each level. This doesn't work so well if the players are of different skill levels. If one person is way better than the other, the progression will move mostly by the hand of the strong person. The weaker person doesn't really feel like they are involved because they are constantly failing during there turn.

Some games in this genre:

Lego Star Wars 1 & 2: These might be the best games in the genre in terms of getting people hooked. The characters are very cute (little Lego representations of all the characters, none of whom talk) and the game play is very easy to grasp. They are working on a Lego Batman game as well.

Double Dragon 2: It may be old-school Nintendo, but side-scrolling action using karate to defeat your enemies is stellar. You could work together to control both sides of the screen to make sure you were not overwhelmed by enemies. One knee to the head and someone is dead!

LOTR: Two Towers/Return of the King: These games used the LOTR license in a very solid way. Playing as one of the main characters from the movie, you fight through all the major and important battles. Each character also gained skills from a small leveling system in the game as well.

Role Playing Games

These games involve a more complex gaming experience. They are generally much longer than the average co-op game and include an in-depth leveling system. I am going to include Action/RPGs such as Diablo in this section because they fit more as a role playing game than as a distinct action game. I will note both Action/RPG and standard RPG games so they are clear. RPGs allow you to customize the experience you receive more than any other game genre, which might appeal to many players.

Diablo 1&2 (Action/RPG): Diablo might be the pinnacle of the Action/RPG genre. The addictive game play combined with the quest for better loot has led people to play through all three skill levels. Diablo is a game that you can easily get into for an hour and leave just as quickly.

Dungeon Siege 1 &2 (Action/RPG): Dungeon Siege falls somewhat closer to the RPG side than the action side, and the lines can be blurred, but I'm going to shuffle it into the Action side because of the non-stop action it provides. It has adopted the level-up as you use the skill approach (seen in games like Elder Scrolls: Oblivion) to differentiate it from that of a game like Diablo.

Baldur's Gate 2 (RPG): One of the best PC RPGs that brought back the RPG genre onto the PC platform. It has a deep and well-crafted story using Dungeons and Dragons Forgotten Realms as its backdrop. This game was one of the best games to play D&D, electronically, with friends.

Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles: This game was a much better multiplayer game than single player game. It did take a little effort to get the game going for multiplayer (you needed to have a GBA and cable to connect to the Game Cube) but once this was set up, it was one of the more unique and enjoyable multiplayer experiences.

Matt
Aggrowhore

http://gamersblock.com/index.php?a=view&id=100

Written by: Joseph Hooper and Anette Thomas for Gamersblock.com

Movie tie-in games have been common ever since the Atari 2600 with E.T. Now games based on movies are a common merchandising tool to promote mass-appeal movies. We are accustomed to this practice and accept it as a way of life. However, in cases like the current Transformers game/movie and Harry Potter game/movie, the game is preceding the movie they are based upon. How long has this been happening and when did this seem like a good idea?

From what I was able to research, I can ascertain that this has happened at least since the Lego Star Wars game came out. If I remember correctly, it came out months before Star Wars III: The Revenge of the Sith and it revealed some very big plot points that were supposed to be a draw to the movie. In these cases, what is the appeal for the player to then watch the movie this is based on? Wouldn?t this then render the movie itself pointless before it even reaches the theatres? Now, in this case, people were familiar with the characters from the rest of the franchise, but this still seems like a big problem if this catches on.

In Harry Potter and The Order of the Phoenix, the game follows the plot points of the book but does it in a way that the player can easily tell that they will be the parts that become the movie. For a lot of fans, they know how the movie will turn out and that is never the draw of the movie based on the book. The draw is to see which plot points actually make it into the movie and how they are visualized. The game answers these questions for the book reader, almost a month before they have a chance to see the movie. However, this would most likely be the reason that it comes with a free child or adult matinee ticket to watch the movie in theatres.

In Transformers, this is not an issue as the game followed few of the plot points of the movie and completely rewrote a lot of the context in which they happened. When we went to see the movie, we were surprised and could actually only notice limited similarities between the plot of the game and the movie. This made it still quite enjoyable and we didn?t feel the game ruined anything in this case.

Once again, we realize that these movies aren?t the best examples because the viewer will already have an idea what the movie will have going into it. However, our concern is what happens when this becomes a common practice. Games that are loosely based on a movie or franchise are exempt from this issue because they can serve as a primer for the movie. The problem is when you take into account games that strictly follow the plot of the movies. There may be instances when the player will lose interest in the movie before it comes out or just be satisfied with the game, which will then hurt the movie?s ticket sales.

When all is considered, movie games don?t have to be like this and they don?t need to rigidly follow the plot. When it comes down to it; our problems would be alleviated with a little innovation on the game developer side. However, with movie franchises, this makes it a choice between innovation and an easy cash in. Considering the quality of the movie games in general, we don?t have much faith in game makers choosing the former over the later.

http://gamersblock.com/columns.php?id=107

I don't think any ad campaign has ticked me off more in recent memory than those condescending "I'm a Mac" series. Never mind the fact that it paints the ideal Mac user as an unwashed Hipster type who clearly forgot how to use a razor properly, but it also paints all PC users as wheedly little execu-troids with about as much sense of fun as a cheese sandwich. Not only that, but it makes the assumption that all PCs run some flavour of Windows. They feed stupidity and ignorance down the gullet of an uneducated public, which I guess is basically the job description of most marketing weasels.

I'm no Mac hater, and I'm certainly no Windows lover, but it cannot be denied that for sheer "fun" factor, the PC market has walked all over the Mac market. Gaming on a home computer has meant PCs running Windows, and that's it. It's been a purely financial choice -- to get the game out to the OS with the biggest distribution you spread the seeds on the largest tract of fertile ground.

The problem is, other markets exist and are woefully underdeveloped. Case in point: two of the biggest games in history are cross-platform, namely Neverwinter Nights and World of Warcraft. Neverwinter is a total aberration with versions that run natively under both Mac and Linux platforms, while WoW shipped with both a Mac and PC client and thanks to a lightweight graphics engine, is quite simple to get running under Linux. Both of these games allow cross-platform multiplayer, which means it doesn't matter what OS your friend is running, you can meet in the common ground of the game. It's a multicultural approach, and works exceptionally well.

The problem now is the market is shifting at user-level, but not at developer-level. Macs are gaining ground thanks to the Cult of iPod, and Linux is capturing more of a market than ever before thanks to new slick distros like Ubuntu. Is the gaming market responding to these growing sectors? Nope. What is the market leaning towards?

The painted whore known as DirectX 10.

Let's understand something: Yes, Dx10 makes things pretty. And that's it. It won't make better games. Your surface shaders will take your breath away, but you'll still have the mechanics of Generic Shooter #236 under the hood. What price do we pay for this monolith of an engine? You'll need either an Xbox360 or a PC running Vista. And there's the rub. Dx10 is Microsoft's way of force-feeding the most unwanted OS since WindowsME down the gaming public's gullet.

In the meantime the growing markets of Mac and Linux gaming will go largely ignored, which is insanity from any financial point of view. What needs to happen is some small upstart rebel game company should start making cross-platform games in OpenGL with native clients out of the box. All they'll need is one major hit, and the big boys will be forced to sit up and take notice. Let's hope some studio has the courage to do it.

Multiple platform gaming is just one of the factors that contributed to the success of Neverwinter and WoW, but it cannot be denied that it had an impact. Surely some marketing board somewhere is looking at the numbers and seeing this emerging market and has the wherewithal to start feeding that beast so it grows up nice & strong.

Remember developers: Mac and Linux users have money too.

http://gamersblock.com/columns.php?id=103