There is an interesting topic in the Xbox thread which triggered this thought. The thread was made by an absolute dumbass who asked if there is going to be ANOTHER halo or not?!? What this dumbass would have found out just by googling Halo, is there is another addition to the Halo brand called ODST comming out this year. What the thread turned into was actually interesting unlike the poster's initial comment.
I am using the Halo series as my source/example, but obviously this would be the same for such other games like Call of Duty, Gears of War, Fallout, Killzone, Resident Evil.... the list goes on. Halo is a billion dollar brand, Microsoft is actually the owner of the Halo brand and though Bungie develops the games Microsoft can contract with any developer to continue the Halo brand/series on until the world is capped of Halo (which will that ever happen? Who knows) So my question is, how much are designers/brand owners really going to try in the future for a successful Launch when they can just pump out series games one after the other.
So back to my question... What does the future hold for us when it comes to gaming? Well if it is up to the big conglomerates I am sure we will see Halo 10 before we die, and Resident Evil 20. If it is up to the designer's who live for the passion of the gamer's and keep developing new ideas and features like we see with the upcomming game M.A.G for Ps3... Then who knows what the future holds for us in the gaming industry. Something interesting to think about, when we have children trying to get the newest and latest... are we going to be say "Child you should have seen me own in Halo 2, let alone your copy of Halo 12" or are we going to be the generation that says "This is intense... What do I do now?"

So I picked up Killzone 2 over the weekend, and I think it is a great game and the graphics are great. However, one thing I am really disappointed about is the controls. For one, the controls only have minor changes in their "alternative" controls not really customizing to each gamer very well. Another thing is a non-toggle run feature making it extremely hard to stop and turn while running. The game has also many complaints about the input lag in-game controls, and I guess they came out with a patch to try and correct some of these addressed issues, however, I am moving next week so I have already cancelled my cable/internet so I was unable to download it.
I don't want to be to biased but I have played 3 series extensively; Rainbow Six:3, Halo, and Call of Duty. These are probably the biggest/most popular series in current gaming today and they all resemble some similarities in controls and playing style. One biggest change I have noticed is the complete disregard for the classic (B, or O) as a melee attack, and it is not able to be customized either. Now I know every game designer wants to set it'self apart from the competition but in this case is it hindering the game?
I posted this comment in a forum thread; asking if other people thought the controls were Mediocre... and within hours there were over 75 posts about people slamming the controls saying they hinder the game or others sticking up for their originality. Many people went back to a previously loved game because of the difference. Peronsally, controls aren't going to make me stop playing a game, I love video games and I respect the time and effort put in to create such a game like Killzone 2. The game is fun and has good gameplay so I am going to finish it out, but we will see if there are any more control patches to come.
So I end with my inquiry, when it comes to a specific genre of game (FPS in this case), is it better for gaming developers to stick to the mold created by previous blockbusters like Rainbow Six, Halo, and Call of Duty?

So everyone who has played a game online has probably experienced in one way or another a player who gives themself a player's advatage with a glitch or cheat/hack. In Rinabow Six:3 it was all about corner glitches, creep walking and making yourself un-killable. In Halo 2 it was all about bounces, and getting out of the levels giving yourself a very Above-Lower shooting advantage. You name the game people have destroyed the fun factor of playing online in some way.
From persepectives like mine, I love competitive gaming and I love knowing I am able to out play someone, but there will always be someone who will take that thirst to the next level and cheat or glitch to get that. It really pisses me off when people just can not take a loss, or cannot take a death.
so what are developers doing about this? You see game after game released and the bigger the title is doesn't seem to matter, there are still glitches, which is not necessarily all on the developers end but rather creating a PERFECT game is next to impossible, but there will always be options for people to give themself an unfair advantage.It seems like there is no hope for us who love the sport of compettiive gaming... Until now?
One action I see is comming from playstation designers and developers. First, with the creation of the PSP-3000. With some attractive upgrades to the actual console, the console it'self has a great value to either purchase a new PSP or upgrade. The 3000 was launched last year and it was said to be unhackable, no homebrews and no custom firmwares or downgrades. Since the release Datel has created a tool which will lead to the eventual hack of the PSP-3000 but it was a good fight.
Another action is an upcomming game exclusive to the Ps3, called: M.A.G. (Massive Action Game) which can support 256 online players going at in a true US military platoon manner. The game is developing PunkBuster quality cheating detection. Allowing the system to test for things like rate of fire/movement/damage to keep things in check, and hopefully boot all exceptions to the classic gameplay.
For me this is exciting to hopefully one day be able to purchase a game that one day I will be able to play for the life of the game and after a victory or loss know that I am truely better than the other team/player or visa-versa

Disclaimer: Now I know homebrews can give an edge to your system that no one else has which can be exciting, but I am looking at this from a competitve gamer's perspective trying to keep the game the way the game was ment to be played.

I have been a competitive gamer since Ghost Recon launched on the PC; I played on Tagaming.com which has since been dropped and bought by another source which has ruined everything. From there I went to play Rainbow Six: 3 and Black Arrow for TeamCompete.com which since then has dropped and been bought out again by another source which ruined it as well. For the last 4-5 years I have been playing numerous games on Xbox 360 and Ps3 for GameBattles.com where I am still a member and have been ranked in top 1,000 players on GameBattles when I was an active member for COD4.
Now that you know my competitive history, and don't really care either; I begin to Reminisce of the good days of competitive gaming, back when you had a scheduled match and you couldn't plan one for 30 minutes later like you can now on GameBattles. Matches back then last for hours and when the match was over; you knew who deserved the win.
I remember one match; Rainbow Six:3 for Xbox :: season 3, round 3 of the championship tournament; My team, Darkness Falls (ranked 23rd) played Cohesion (ranked 9th). The match start at 8:30 p.m., and Cohesion was Notorious for raping clans on this map called Peaks, which was completely white with zero visability, and they were famous for pre-firing corners picking off enemies in seconds.
TeamCompete tournament rules played best of 5/ best of 5; and it was tied 2-2 going into the 5th map and it was now 1:00 a.m. Cohesion had map choice, and choose Peaks (we all knew it was comming) for their last map. The match finally ended at 3:30 a.m. with a final map score of Darkness Falls 3, Cohesion 2. We won on Peaks after a gruelling 150 minute match ending with us winning 3 rounds over Cohesion's 1.
I will now recap, now that no one really cares and is extremely bored of reading. The match last a total of 7 hours, went through countless rounds, and had over 5 subs in total with players not able to finish out the match.
After a match like that, you knew who deserved that win and who deserved to proceed on to the next round. That is when champions were made. Now days, clan matches are still instenseand fun, there are still winners and champions... but if you want to talk about a victory, tell a story like that not about something that last 45 minutes.

I was thinking over the weekend while playing Halo Wars, which I rented, that this game is no where near good enough to buy. Now, I have purchased Halo 2, and Halo 3 at midnight and even though neither of them were able to be compared to the greatness of Combat Evolved they were still good games and I support Bungie and the Halo series.

However, I was wondering then how many people due to their loyalty to the Halo series purchased this game without previously playing it, and even though it is a completely different game format, were completely disappointed like myself.
With so many different developers out there, and so many different games coming to every system, with the ability to rent a game before you buy it, are people now hesitant to put their trust in their favorite video game developers knowing there are now specific niches for every genre and game?
How many people no longer trust their favorite game developer to put out a quality game and will now rent a game before a purchase? What does it take for a developer to be considered successful? and what does it take for someone now to trust the quality of a game? Does it take another addition to your already popular series to purchase the game? Gears of War 1 & 2, COD Modern Warefare:1 & 2?
Here's my take, I am a buyer... I own over 400+ DVDs, 50+ TV seasons, 30+ Blu-Rays, and probably 6 games for each of my systems. So I tend to buy things even if I haven't played them; but 2 games I did have to rent before a purchase were: Resident Evil: 5, totally warrented a purchase, and Halo Wars; which didn't deserve the rental.
disclaimer: I love the Halo series, and I love strategy games (Dark reign, Star Craft) I just feel that Halo Wars is too limited. I know you can expand a base and upgrade to have over 40 groups of units... but come on 40? that is not an army