Ok, so the title was misleading, I'm actually going to address two distinct subjects. Now I know that Pirates and Space fans aren't the most popular demographic, especially these days, but I know that a multitude of players can empathize with me on this blog post. What I'm talking about here, is the fact that my fellow high-seas adventure and final frontier junkies and I have been waiting for over a decade for the game that will take excellent gameplay, boundless and intuitive features, and beautiful graphics and apply those virtues to a brand-spanking-new, multiplayer-enabled, traditional maritime adventure game and/or space adventure game. I will provide examples that don't quite fit the bill; one that just missed the mark, and one that is simply too outdated.

My first example is Pirates of the Burning Sea (hereby referred to as Pirates or PotBS). Anyone who plays a lot of games, both MMO's and high-seas adventure games, and got PotBS will almost certainly understand where I am coming from. The things that Pirates did great were many. You're placed in an enormous and historically accurate carribbean world. It takes over an hour to sail accross the whole thing, especially when the wind is against you. The maritime graphics are downright gorgeous, viewing the water and islands on the highest settings is almost distracting, it's so lovely. The ships are excellently and dutifully modeled. And releasing a thundering broadside of over twenty guns simply strikes a chord with any maritime fan. Also, the amount of diversity between player roles and player factions really sets each player apart quite nicely and rewards those who choose to really master a single roles rather than those who know the most about all the roles in general. Finally, the faction system meshes brilliantly with the political climate and creates an evironment that feels compellingly authentic, while very 'piratey'. That said, there are many areas that feel under-developed, un-explored, or simply un-loved. Quests are so poorly balanced, it is almost impossible to tell what quest will require a group and which one can be accomplished solo at the indicated level, even when they are clearly labelled 'group' or not. Some of the quests that force the player to take it on alone are almost impossible and provide a paltry reward. Some of them are possible, but will take an undeserving amount of time to complete, again for a disproportionately small reward, while not to mention, risking the survival of your precious ship and wasting valuable ordinance and supplies. The on-land experience in its entirety is under-whelming, repetitive, and usually boring to the nth degree. Only the capital cities actually have unique layouts and backdrops. The majority of ports typically look like other ports of that faction with no differentiating features, themes, or backdrops. The control-scheme and avatar combat are absolutely unacceptable for a subscription-required MMO. Laggy, bug-filled combat is hit or miss (pardon the pun) in any situation, and the character animations look utterly silly and sometimes, downright ugly. While the avatars themselves boast an impressive amount of asthetic customization, many of the available clothes, hats, and tattoos don't look all that impressive, and again, the avatar graphics often look ugly, and generally dated. Cooperative content, generally referred to as PvE content in MMO parlance, isn't worth the subscription price. There are exactly two group instances which exist in the game, and none of them require much strategy or creativity to finish and don't inspire that epic feeling of victory familiar to other MMOs. Finally, the I come to PvP. While port battles are epic in scale, again, the player has to risk their carefully customized and incredibly expensive ship on the actions of their fellow captains, as no one ship could hope to take on the entire enemy fleet by themselves and survive the day. And oftentimes, your faction simply cannot gather a force of captains with sufficient equipment and ship to take on the enemies champions. That reminds me of another issue with port battles, that they have a limited roster, and preference is given to more experienced and powerful captains, leaving casual players the option of unranked, unrewarded, quick match games. Also, said casual players face being griefed and ganked while even out on the open sea, minding their own business. And unlike in other MMO's, they potentially have a lot to lose if they are caught. Any of their cargo, their supplies, even their ship itself can be lost if accosted by a player of a rival faction. All that is required for any player to be eligible for PvP combat is that they enter a contested area, which commonly cover high-traffic choke points which would take hours of sailing to circumvent. The lowliest low level player trying to make their way in the Carribbean can be accosted, bullied and sunk by the most powerful captain of the enemy faction, as long as they happen upon a contested area (which I might add aren't accurately marked when comparing the game world to the minimap. I can tell you from months of experience that dumping on the little guy happens more times than I care mention in PotBS. In the sum of its parts, I would say PotBS is an ok game that restricts itself to the masochistic or the hardcore, and people in-between would definitely dislike the game.

Pirates has mountains of potential which the developer simply cannot envision and many issues which will likely never be addressed. Given a better graphics engine would cost millions of dollars which the company doesn't have (due to its small subscriber base), but of the other aforementioned issues could be addressed. I fervently wish for a game that would take PotBSs' potential to the next level, with avatar combat that is as compelling as the maritime action, a user-friendly UI (think WoW), lightweight, but artistic graphics, a PvE experience worth mentioning, and a PvP experience that welcomes all players, not just those who can devote twenty hours a week to something they pay for (and what the hell, why not throw in an epic, swashbuckling, high-seas adventure soundtrack to boot).

My second example is Freelancer. Now I know the hardcore space-SIM guys aren't and were never all that hot for it, but anyone who plays various genres has to appreciate how MS Games took the space sim and made it a genre for anybody to have fun playing. For its time, Freelancer was an exceptional game. It featured a great multiplayer experience, with a persistent character who purchases weapons, shield, and puts them all on a star-ship to make their way in the Sirius System in whatever way they choose. You can make it as a privateer, a pirate, a lawman, smuggler, or honest trader. Admittedly, traders with a good trade route make their way much faster than any of the paths, but in the end, money simply serves to buy better ships and weapons which lends itself more to combat-oriented roles. The best part of Freelancer is how open it was to modification. With some elbow grease, a full-spectrum dedicated-server interface was created by the community which allowed any server to control any multitude of factors in the player experience with user-friendly tool. This amount of modability allowed Freelancer to continue to entertain fans well beyond its support life-cycle by Microsoft. Unofficial patches are readily available which cure virtually every bug in the game, leaving a spic-and-span title which is reliable to a fault. The only real issues with Freelancer are as follows...OS's newer than XP are not supported. Period. Anyone with modest computer know-how could create a dual-boot with XP, but that still leaves the problem of relying on a 32-bit OS, which still costs money albiet at bargain prices. The other issue is that Freelancer is thoroughly aged, being almost eleven years old now. While the graphics-engine can still put forth some eye-appealing diplays, it cannot hide it's age. The 3D models are basic, the animation, both that of the characters and in space looks quite-dated. The worst part is that it is almost one-hundred percent sure that Microsoft will never revisit that intellectual product. And even though Microsoft might be convinced to sell it, no one will likely ever try to buy it. And finally, despite being very open to modification, the fact that most of the best tweaks of the game come from the community shows that the game itself is a bit too reliant on user-modification to continue being entertaining.

Although it is much too much to ask for another game like Freelancer, which was so friendly to modders and the community, there is a faint spark of hope coming in September 2011. Warpgate: Evolution promises to deviler an MMO space adventure game which has been a long time in coming. That said, it appears on the surface to be forever in coming, as the game has been redone so many times in development that the initial launch date has been pushed back years by now. At least once, the game has been entirely overhauled from the ground up. Many members of the community firmly believe the game is vaporware, that is, a game that will never fully develop, doomed to be abandoned, a la Starcraft: Ghost. I myself have not given up, but the fact that all developers can only continue developing as long as the money is flowing makes the situation most alarming. No release means no product and no product means no money. Ergo, the game's odds of ever making it out of Alpha look decidedly long. And even if it does release, will it be doomed to follow in the footsteps of PotBS, a game that had so much potential, but had to release an arguably unfinished product after several launch delays? Again I pray fervently that Warpgate will succeed and bring even more gamers into the nigh-forgotten fold of space adventure.

Until next time, remember: Don't cross the streams and make sure to bring enough plutonium to make it back to the future.

It may be that I have just too much time on my hands, but I feel compelled to expound my opinion at this time to no one in particular (and surely not many will ever read it).

There is one subject which shall be targeted by said expoundation: Money. Isn't money wonderful? You are carelessly complacent when you have it and painfully distraught when it is no longer streaming in. When it comes to video games, the materialistic element of gamers in general rears its ugly head when their favorite hobby threatens to make a serious dent in their wallet, more so than it already does. And l specific case of late has been the target of much controversy and shall hitherto be addressed.

Let's have a chat about Starcraft 2. And by chat, I mean a one-sided monologue written by me, which no one is ever likely to read. I digress...STARCRAFT, yes Starcraft. There are many who think it silly that Blizzard has made the decision to span their epic three-part campaign, each part presented from the point-of-view of a faction of one of the three playable races, the Terran, Zerg, and Protoss, into entirely separate games. There are many of them who believe for some reason that each of the three titles will be priced exactly the same. While it isn't unbelievable that they would come to such a conclusion, it really does make me sad. I quote:

Are these three separate games? How much will all of these games cost?
The StarCraft II Trilogy will consist of the base StarCraft II game and two expansion sets. Pricing on these games hasn't been determined at this early stage; however, we've always charged an appropriate price for the content the player receives, and we will continue to release high-quality games that offer great value.
-Starcraft 2 FAQ "http://us.starcraft2.com/faq.xml"
To assume that each title would each cost $59.99 US would be to assume that Blizzard believes that an expansion set delivers the same value as a base title. While this may be partially true in an MMO (see World of Warcraft: The Burning Crusade/World of Warcraft: Wrath of the Lich King), keep in mind that unless Blizzard were to add a staggering amount of content, expansion sets to Starcraft 2 would never come close to the added content of World of Warcraft's expansion sets. This outcome seems unlikely, seeing as how Blizzard has taken a quality > quantity stance with their seasoned strategy prodigy. Some people have even taken the reference to 'two expansion sets' to mean that there will be two of these plus the additional campaigns. Really? Perhaps you need to focus a bit while trolling comment threads and realize that by 'expansion sets' they really are referring to the continuation of the campaign and not to some mysterious two titles that are floating out in the void which they have failed to announce yet. Get real you fools, do you really think that Blizzard would sell their flagship short by tacking on mere campaigns with a lack of additional multiplayer content?
If anyone has anything to add, please feel free to message me.

If anyone has actually been reading these blogs, I would be both amazed that someone even noticed and I would also be humbled and willing to write in a less editorial manner. I see that I was recently awarded the Connoisseur of Games emblem. I suppose it is nice to know that someone thinks I have good taste in video games and that I am not a complete wanker. Anyway, let's talk about up and coming.

Modern Warfare 2. The very name brings to mind many different things for many different people. Console gamers are of course, unanimously overjoyed at the news that has been coming out of Infinity Ward's secret rebel base. For us PC zealots however, IW may not be as cool and good-willed as we thought. For anyone who has been living under a rock for the past month, you should probably know the following: Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 for the PC was rocked by the news in early October that the game would not support user-generated servers (and thus user-generated content), not even dedicated servers. Most console gamers just shrugged and went back to their sticks or sneered arrogantly at their PC counterparts who, for the most part stared at their screens in disbelief. Could it be, that Infinity Ward, the company that was built on the PC community and if not for them, Call of Duty would not even exist, had finally sold us out? Robert Bowling AKA "FourZeroTwo", one the foremost spokespersons for Infinity Ward attempted to assuage PC gamers' fears with a rundown of the new PC plan on his blog. Instead of dedicated server/Server List setup, IW had gone way out of their way and made a whole infrastructure called IWnet. This IWnet is very similar to what console gamers know as, ummm, the only way they can play multiplayer: A matchmaking interface. It does have one saving grace, and that is the private match option. Working closely with Steam, Valve's brainchild of a fully-intergrated gaming/social networking/online store of a program, CoD:MDWF2 would allow players to create a private match, complete with their customer tailored match options, game mode, player limit, rules-set, etc., and only people who are invited directly or who are currently in that player's party can join. In case you were wondering, this would mean that MDWF2 would require Steam to function and now you would be able to easily make and track friends unlike in CoD 4 where you would have to keep track of your buddies through your own means or just hope to see them on their favorite servers. But what it all comes down to is that, why fix something that ain't broke? IW claims that this change would cut down on "cheating" and "rule breakers" who go unpunished. Most CoD 4 vets would tell you that on any dedicated server worth its salt, there are active admins who vigorously enforce their server's rules and PB (Punkbuster) is almost always enough to catch 99% of hackers without any admin input whatsoever. This means to most people and, I will admit myself included, believe that IW had an ulterior motive that Mr. Bowling would be too ashamed to admit: That IW is being instructed by Activision-Blizzard to build IWnet, expressly for the purpose of cutting out user-generated content. If they are able to do so, the only content anyone can get comes directly from the source, Infinity Ward. This means that Activision could then charge WHATEVER THEY WANT for extra content such as map packs and new content and no one can do anything about it. I am all for capitalism, after all, we would not live in the gaming society we do now without it. But there are some things that are just seriously ****ed up and cutting out a custom-content community that has thrived by the good-will of a developer for almost a decade in the spirit of making a few bucks is surely one of them. If this game is but the first of such occurences, the game corporation climate may come full circle, with Activision-Blizzard being the new EA Games and EA/DICE promising a more community-friendly approach to how they do business.

Well, that is quite enough of the heavy stuff, let us move on to better and brighter news.

It seems that despite all the hemming and hawing, Mass Effect 2 is slated to be all it's cracked up to be, although I am sad to say it has been delayed (let's hope they're just taking more time to refine their product). Honestly, self-proclaimed RPG aficionados need to open their eyes and realize that having an improved, more elegant combat system than Mass Effect 1 can only be, well...an improvement. A vast majority of Mass Effect fans will tell you that the only thing that seemed lacking or unrefined in the first game was the COMBAT SYSTEM. These people who think that streamlining the combat aspect of Mass Effect will magically warp it into some twisted version of Bioshock need to step back from their monitors and reflect a little. I think if anyone told me they absolutely loved the combat in Mass Effect 1 and would not want it changed in ANY way, I would tell them that they need to stop whacking their temple with a hammer and get some psychiatric assistance. Ok ok, getting back into the editorial mode a bit. But honestly, everyone needs to not stress about proposed changes to a game formula when it is confidently stated by ALL of the developers interviewed that they believe the change to be a positive one (although I think we can agree that no matter what IW says, no dedi servers is all around a **** idea). And if all else fails, go play the game at a friends house before going out to buy it and THEN feel free to spout doom and gloom on the forums. But don't get tunnel vision people, for Bioware has another potentially whicked project coming to fruition very soon and that is Dragon Age. Oooo, goody goody. Bioware finally goes back their roots to make another game where we get to slice and dice **** up (as well as blow things up with some particularily nasty and sufficiently gory spells). If anyone is like-minded with this particular gamer, then that means EVERYONE is about to have a nerd-gasm over the bloody sexiness that is Dragon Age. It is what Oblivion should have been, it is what Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance should have been (not that I didn't like it!). Now ok fine, I will follow my own advice and not judge a book by its cover. After all, I will never honestly know how good the game is until I play it, but anyone can admit that the trailers form a ****ing SWEET cover for the book.

Well that is all folks. Until next time, keep your buns dry and your weapons loaded cause it things are ****in CRAZY out there!

I sure everyone has experienced it. People review things they haven't experienced. I'm telling you, nothing makes me more angry than people writing reviews, and putting scores on things they have not purchased, played, watched, etc. Especially since many people try to base whether or not they will pay real money for these things on the average ratings. I mean, I could go to Fandango right now and look at movies slated for the fall and for christ's sake, they already have 1,200 reviews! Some of them say the dumbest things like "Looks like it will be great" or "I can't wait". It all comes down to my biggest pet peeve: people going on about things they know nothing about. Anyway, now that that's over with on to the current events.

Starting play Modern Warfare again. Damn World at War is such a let-down. I mean, the weapons are all crap. I suppose they're all from WWII, but still I mean come on. The only good weapons in the game are the Garand and the MP44, which is ironic since the one in CoD 4 was terribad. Tanks are crap, no one should ever put tanks in a CoD multiplayer...ever. And then if that's not enough, they've got snipers using a PTSH as an anti-infantry rifle. I mean, utter butchery of history. It's a weapon designed for a two-man team to take out lightly armored vehicles. If you could find the person on Earth who can carry that weapon at the hip and stand while firing it, I would love to meet them. Then again I shouldn't expect much from Activision, they are practically the new EA Games. The Guitar Hero franchise has gone to **** since they took over. I mean, it's not like the songs aren't any good, but their hardware is utter crap. I had to buy a new Guitar Hero 3 controller after only a year of use, because my original no longer worked. And I was lucky the first time around apparently, because the second one crapped out within a month. And again with Guitar Hero World Tour, the new guitar had lots of cool features like the ability to slap note, sythisize effects, blah, blah, blah. All that would have been great if the controller worked for more than a couple months. I'm telling you Activision needs to take notes from Harmonix who clearly know a whole lot more about quality control. I used the same Rock Band guitar all the way up until I bought the sequel with no problems whatsoever. And again, with Rock Band 2, I ravaged that new shiny wireless controller until my fingers were raw, but it is still working perfectly. I even used my Rock Band 2 controller to play Guitar Hero, since it's more responsive and always works, knock on wood. Overlord II turned out to be as great as the first, better even thanks to new included features, though it was nowhere near perfect, see my review for details. Codemasters pulled some cheap crap on me though with their whole eStore. Join our club the said, here's a birthday discount they said. And after all of that it turns out they have an eStore for ever country EXCEPT the United States. Customer services says they are currently working on making an eStore for the U.S. and in the meantime, any applicable discounts are not usable in the supported US retailers. I love it when someone tells me I get a 20% discount and then says, oh but you are live in America, so you aren't eligible. But that didn't stop them from asking me to join and sending me birthday discounts and whatnot. Whatever, at least Overlord II was only 39.99. Finally, as I am sure all you Blizzard Fanboys and Girls are aware, Starcraft 2 is just on the horizon. At least there is one video game company that has never let me down, not once. Blizzard Entertainment forever, Activision-Blizzard be damned. At least it was some sort of merger and not a takeover like EA did right before they ruined 3 different game franchises in the same year. Speaking of EA, at least it sounds like they are beginning to get the picture. They have returned to their roots and apparently we should be expected Battlefield 3 any year now. I hope to god they have got their **** together, because despite a rocky start, Battlefield 2 was the **** back in the day. From what I hear about Bad Company, it sounds like they may have done just that. For all the malice I hold for EA, I am willing to give them a second chance.

Anywho, thanks for listening chill-dren, this is Three-Crog, Owwwwww, and you're listinen' to Galaxy News Radio. We're Radio Free Wasteland and we're here for you.

Just kidding. Anyway, this is my first blog so I don't know what to expect. I will begin with an odd question. How does a single reviewer at Gamespot, someone who is supposed to be trusted source of gaming intel, rate a game far lower than the majority of users and even some of the secondary critics :?. Even now I am still trying to wrap my mind around it. Specifically, I am talking about recent Pandemic release, Mercenaries 2: World in Flames. The gamespot 'expert' who review this game rated it a mere 5.0, citing "game-crippling bugs" and "shallow gameplay", while the critic score out of 47, 47 reviewers, said the game was an average of 7.3. Not to mention the score of 2,730 users, which averaged at 7.9. That is bordering on Great. I will admit, the game has its flaws. But it is no more flawed than the original Mercenaries. In fact, I would state that there are flaws that have been resolved between that game and in this one, namely the soldiers that stick around inside building after you've levelled them and continue to shoot you through walls. I actually did not see that bug in the newest installment.

I personally have only a few complaints about Mercenaries 2. Firstly, there isn't much to do after you've done everything (kind of self-explanatory), which happens to be a major problem with open-ended games in general. Also, your allies will occasionally turn on you when you're defending the church on that one PLAV mission. And lastly, getting allies to jump into your helicopter is pure torture. That's about it. The gunships are enormously fun to bomb around in, most of the missions are aimply awesome, and the Fuel-air RPG is possibly the most fun weapon I have ever used in any Mercenaries game (oh yeah by the way, that is a real weapon, designed by the Russians, look it up). I scorn the comment that the missions are repetetive. In no way is that true. At any particular moment, I may be defending a church from legions of tanks, blasting the supports of an oil rig with C4, or chasing a corrupt Venezuelan general at high speed who took my support operative hostage. This really is a decent game. By no means is it perfect, I'll admit to that. But I haven't even played the coop mode yet and I still like this game.

Of course, I concede that as a reviewer, Aaron is entitled to his opinion. But the evidence he sights is somewhat skewed, making me think that he really didn't play the game all the way through. He also states that the previous Mercenaries game was better. I can't even see how he came to that conclusion, since the original game didn't have anything that World in Flames hasn't got, except for maybe marginally better voice-overs, and instanced 'boss' levels (For each Ace of a particular suit). Having beaten both games once (Mercenaries 1 more than once), I can say without a doubt, that the game deserves at least a 7.3, which I might add, is conservative compared to what 2700 other players have said.