No, I'm not going to suggest anything along the lines of Jonathon Swift's satirical work, and I know none of you know who he is, but in the interest of keeping shallow garbage away from gaming cross overs, there are a few suggestions I have.

The first is kill Uwe Boll, something involving the anus and pointed probes.  The man has done more to set gaming back in the intellectual world than Panty Raider, John Romero, and Jack Thompson combined.  The man has a track record like a serial puppy rapist, it's not that difficult to predict how his movies are going to turn out.

The second would be to actually play the game instead of reading the description.  Doing this would give the writers, producers, directors, and actors a good idea of what the game has to offer for a big screen adaptation, as well as an indicator of whether or not it's possible to produce a quality movie of the said game.  Dungeon Siege, for example, involves about 30 hours of pointing and clicking, with about 3 minutes of story.  Probably not a good idea, but see point number one again.

The third isn't actually a suggestion, but more of a list of games that people should make into movies if they are so inclined for good material.  This includes Deus Ex, System Shock, Final Fantasy 7, Full Throttle, Grim Fandango, Metal Gear Solid, Psychonauts, Phantom Dust, Starcraft and Warcraft, Knights of the Old Republic games, Jedi Knight games, Elder Scrolls games, City of Heroes/Villains could do well with the universe, and the list goes on but those are the ones that would make competent cinema.

The fourth is like the third, but what not to make.  Everything that's been made into a movie with the exception of the Final Fantasy movie is a good start, and anything by Uwe Boll.

The fifth, and final suggestion is to just keep in mind that the games offer a template to make a story, it's nieve to think that the transition from game to movie won't take some compromise and artistic vision.  Nobody wanted to watch the Rock shoot things for an hour.  It's also a good idea to remember that these games already have layed out a foundation to build on, so supplumenting your artistic vision with what is already offered is a good idea.  Mario Brothers turned into some kind of monster with dinosaurs and robot boots. 

I'm very hopeful for Prince of Persia and Halo, and I'm ecouraged by the efforts being put into these movies.  Hopefully somebody finally got the message and is going to take the effort to elevate gaming from a hollywood joke to a memorable blockbuster. 

While my addiction to City of Villains was as powerful as an Assault Bot, it eventually was brought down by the lack end game content, a seemingly disinterested leadership for the Supergroup I joined, and a seemingly impossible prospect.  I’ll get to that in a bit, but my criticisms of CoV shall come first.

            City of Villains is a great game.  I maxed out a character in the game, a robot/traps mastermind, I got over 70 badges, I have over 5 million infamy, and on and on.  I’m ignorant of how others with no experience will analyze the above statement, but the following one should summarize the issue; I’m bored.  The end game content doesn’t excite, as it’s essentially more pvp, running small missions which have no bearing on the story, or running the same raids you did for the last 10 levels. 

            Essentially the game was released before completed, with the big content coming in April.  The level cap is being raised to 50, a GTA-esque style of mission is being released, new power types are being added, and more.  It’s very innovative, exciting, and three months away.

            I’ve always touted participating with other people in game to develop an experience that everyone enjoys, but lately the leadership from my group was disappointingly absent from group activities.  In the last three runs I made, the leader was nowhere to be found, leaving the groups up to whoever decided to hop on and throw down.  I appreciate their effort, but it’s demoralizing to have the commander bow out when realistically this kind of proclivity is his responsibility. 

            Because of the combined frustrations above, I have deactivated my account with the intent to activate upon the release of the new content.  I assume I’ll cap my character again, try the new stuff, and then deactivate for good.  It’s of course too early to tell, but for the moment this is the outcome I’m expecting.  Now for the seemingly impossible prospect.

            In the last few weeks of my City of Villains binge, I was introduced vicariously through my union contacts to a MMO called Maple Story, a simplified game with high accessibility.  I enjoyed this game greatly, and while spending time with my special cuddle pumpkin, commented on the game.  She responded that she would like to play with me, which I found amusing as I would designate her as an on again-off again gamer.  To make a long story short, she’s out leveled me.

            Playing together is a great deal of fun, aside from the utility of the matter; we spend more time on an activity that we both enjoy.  The solidarity appears to have strengthened our relationship, we talk a hell of a lot more, and we’re holding hands as we step up to our next stair; Final Fantasy 11.

            I’ve always wanted to get back into the game, as the story was truly epic, the class switch was always a big draw, and some friends of mine still play.  As a multiplier, content is being added that makes soloing a viable option, which was a large complaint, and the icing on the cake, a gambling class.  I squeal often when I think about the triple sevens from Final Fantasy 3, and I assume the stories about the class will be juicy and amusing.

            I enjoyed Final Fantasy 11, and quite because I didn’t like the pacing, the economy, or the attitude of the pick up groups on my server.  Now, I’m willing to forgive these irritations, because I’m going to be sharing a game that brought me so much joy with my special snuggle bunny. 

I saw this link posted off of a news blog I frequent http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=0&cId=3137498  Essentially, older games like Punchout and Galaga are given to kids about 10-13, and their comments are recorded.  It's an interesting piece and I highly recommend reading it.

The intent of this blog is to advocate policy change in the gaming industry, no matter how futile this may be.  However, I'd like to take a minute to introduce a little mmorpg that truly is a gem.

Maple Story is a free game that breathes fresh life into the mmorpg genre by taking traditional aspects of mmo's and kicking them squarely out the door.  Adopting a two dimensional side scrolling approach with a simplified control scheme help new people learn the ropes in less than an hour, and then have them running around slaying monsters and completing quests just as fast. 

The gameplay is very fast, with a hands on approach rather than pointing and clicking.  There isn't much strategy, but comparitively speaking there doesn't need to be a whole lot.  The idea of this minimalist approach helps elevate this game above other wannabes trying desperatley to penetrate a saturated market by appealing to mmorpg newbies and offering something to veterans as well.

My only complaint as such is the massive amount of time needed to become embedded in the game (creating a guild is a daunting task, with the amount of money needed ranging in the hundreds of hours of hunting and selling).  However, if your content for a distraction or just wanting to see something new, Maple Story is perfect.  Check it out at http://www.mapleglobal.com/

The entire basis of the console wars lies solely on the subjective argument that "x is better than y for z reason(s)".  The argument is generally heated, with clichéd arguments about how y only has one good game, or how the controller sucks, or the hardware causes liver cancer.  The entire argument seems a bit premature after further observation, not for the obvious reasons, but rather for the reason that I don't think it’s objectively possible to compare the consoles.

Every console brings unique aspects to the field of gaming, and generally people know why what they're buying.  The game cube is the casual gamers console, with soft games like Mario adventure/sports/party/kart/etc..., Smash Brothers, and a variety of other very quick fun party games.  The Gamecube tends to be more of a Nintendo only console, as mutli-console releases suffer from jaded development (see every Tom Clancy game released on Gamecube). 

The Xbox is the high online console, sporting a variety of games that feature online play, scoreboards, etc...  The games tend to be geared towards fans of English action games, with the leading franchise for the Xbox being the Tom Clancy line (Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell, Rainbow Six). 

The PS2 is the king of Japanese releases, featuring some amazingly unique role-playing and action games.  Games like Final Fantasy, .Hack, or Devil May Cry offer some enjoyable gaming experiences you can't find duplicated on other consoles.  In addition to its excellent line up, the PS2 can play original Playstation games, adding even more unique games to it's lineup.   

I own all three consoles, because I everything that these consoles have to offer.  I love Mario Kart/Tennis/Golf/Soccer; they're a great deal of fun for a party.  I like playing different games online for the Xbox, my favorite being Dance Dance Revolution and Crimson Skies.  I love the role playing games for the Playstation and Playstation 2, my favorites being Xenogears/Saga.

Every console offers something unique, with the intended audiences being defined by the consoles capabilities and game lineup.  Though most consoles share a variety of games, such as Madden or Grand Theft Auto, its the games oriented for a specific platform that keep people coming back for more and are used to measure the relative success or failure of said platform. 

I've always been attracted to innovation in all its incarnations.  The DS, for example, doesn't have a particularly amazing selection of titles, as noteworthy as they are.  It's the touch screen that keeps me coming back, because it has proved itself to be more of a brilliant development rather than a cheap gimmick.  Hardware aside, the real issue worth discussion is that games have been suffering from a lack of innovation for some time, as fewer publishers are taking risks with unproven formulas or franchises. 

Currently the most heralded launch title for the Xbox 360 is Perfect Dark Zero, which is essentially a reworked Perfect Dark.  Its not as if holding two weapons at once was worked to death, or that cooperative play was unwelcome, but it's rather depressing to see another empty promise of the next generation/evolution/upgrade/level up of gaming.  Who trusts Microsoft anyways?

The PS3 titles offer no solace to the next generation, with over half of the games additions to existing franchises.  Metal Gear Solid 4, Unreal Tournament 2007, Tekken 14, the list goes on.  There are, of course, many titles that are unique, but whether the gameplay follows suite has yet to be seen. 

The revolution is currently the highlight of my gaming prospects at the moment, with the possibilities of the hardware gleaming brightly in the future, but currently over half the games are simply Nintendo sponsored, such as Link and Mario.  I don't mean to imply that these franchises don't appeal to me, I love jumping on goombas as much as the next person, however, I'm positive that there could be a better use of the hardware. 

It's too early to tell whether the industry will expand its scope in the titles it pushes to the market, but if the current trend continues, the army of generic shooters seems posed to overtake the legions of gamers by force.  It’s frightening to imagine the possibility that after all this time and sweat and blood, that we've simply developed a better Nintendo. 

It's certainly easy to measure the popularity of multiplayer gaming, and measure the decreasing trend in single player games.  One of the most popular games today, World Of Warcraft, is massively multiplayer, and hit a two million-person landmark in accounts logged.  An easily accessible, colorful world based on an award winning franchise always helps, but the question of its popularity is invariably answered by the copious amounts of players actively seeking to participate with other players, or kill them.

Whether acknowledged or not, the trend of the average gamer is to actively seek out others to play with rather than to test his mettle against the average drone, programmed by simple code to help or kill him.  If it were just the competition players sought, then indeed multiplayer would be scuttled in favor of smarter AI alone.  However, the company of like minded individuals is the opiate of the gamer, but what specifically fuels this desire?

Repeatedly I've asked this question to my friends, family, and other gamers I play with, and the resounding answer is the companionship found in the solidarity of gaming.  Whether cooperative or adversarial, a company of friends heightens the enjoyment of any specific game, whether it be Counter-Strike, City Of Villains, or Super Mario.  Obviously, this is just a generalization, meaning there are exceptions, but largely the people I've interacted with in the gaming community express a similar sentiment, that they want to enjoy the time they spend playing with their allies and opponents.  Clans, Guilds, or even supergroups are created for the sole purpose of finding friendly like minded people in any sphere of gaming, not to frag the nubz0r or whatever l337 prospects the army of 13 year old gamers may garner. 

Communities within games have largely helped or hindered the successes or failures of a given game.  There are countless stories of Counter-Strike players quitting because there were far to many angry players, or joining Everquest because they met a great guild online.  They go both ways, but in the end in a multiplayer arena, its not the thrill of the kill that keeps people coming back, but rather the camaraderie found with the people enjoying a similar hobby. 

I picked up Mario Kart this weekend after I finished all my life related business, as I was sure it would suck up my free time, along with City of Heroes.  It turns out I am the chosen one, as my ability to predict the future is uncanny and much sought after.  The multiplayer component has, of course, taken precedence over the attractive offerings of the single player, and there are a few observations on the quality of this aspect.

I had feared that the microphone would be used to communicate with your adversaries in game, much to the chagrin of everybody playing xbox live, however Nintendo decided against communication of any kind over wireless.  In my opinion, this is the pinnacle of perfection for multiplayer.  Many people may disagree, but after the nth time of being called various vulgarities, I decided to hang up Halo 2 multiplayer forever.  In fact, many games for me have become repulsive simply because the number of people taking the game way to seriously has exponentially increased over my career of online gaming. 

The lack of communication hampers any attempt to acquire a friend code from people you enjoyed racing against, but is that really a problem?  These are people you've never met, and there are hundreds more like them.  The code is really for people who know each other or are connected vicariously in some way through some venue they both frequent.  Personally I agree with the policy that Nintendo seems to be setting down, it adds to the enjoyment I have anyhow.

I'm absolutely positive that, if pressed, Nintendo has the capability to enable online chat in some incarnation, but for the time being I'm blessed with the very enjoyable, very versatile, and very quiet Mario Kart racing game.  Of course should you feel so inclined to seek me out for an easy win, my friend code is 098843 958680.

I've played many MMORPGS in my time.  I tried the first Everquest as well as the second, World of Warcraft and City of Heroes more recently, Final Fantasy 11, Anarchy Online, and many others from days long past gone, and as much as I've played them, I'm still dissatisfied with the core components of every single MMORPG I've ever played, which explains the extremely short shelf life they have, about 2 months. 

The idea of MMORPGS that I've played is that you need to work with other players in order to maximize your play.  This would be fine and dandy, but getting a group of players is difficult in most games, getting a group of players who aren't prototypical noobs is even harder.  I don't roll with a specific group or have friends with the same gaming tastes, so I have a serious problem, and I know I'm not alone.  Here's where I get to the solution.

MMORPGs that I've played usually incorporate a method of playing solo, but this is inefficient and annoying ignoring the fact that many facets of the game, such as the quests and ilk, are completely inaccessible to the average soloer.  The solution?  Give the player the capability of making a party of computer controlled players, such as in a single player rpg.  Is this a difficult thing to give players?

I'm going to buy City of Villains, because I've finally found a game that my friends and family are interested in, which means I won't have problems finding a party or help, but I doubt everyone will be so lucky.  It's unfortunate that circumstances can limit someone’s enjoyment of a particularly unique genre of gaming, but until gaming companies wise up, these games will be made to the detriment of the entourage-less. 

I've finally managed to procure a Nintendo DS, which I'm very pleased with overall. The technology is well implemented, I've had no problems with the touch screen. So far I've purchased the necessary Mario game, and this afternoon I treated myself to a copy of Nintendogs. I'm not typically a sim gamer, nor am I inclined to purchase games based on "cute" factor, but the games appearance is actually quite deceiving; there's enough depth here to sink an armada.

Instead of discussing the points of the game, there's an issue I have with the game play; it requires you to wait between certain activities. Normally, this would seem logical with a game of this particular genre, but I've spent over an hour waiting for my dog to settle down in order to teach her new tricks. Setting the clock forward doesn't seem to help either, so for the moment, I have a game that isn't working in order to satisfy realism of owning a dog.

The idea of gameplay facets based on timing isn't new. A game that used this to what I think is it's own detriment is Boktai for the game boy advance. This game was excellent, combining Hideo Kojima's signature stealth with some action segments. The idea of using the sun was a mix of interest and frustration. Not being able to play without sunlight (i.e. inside, at night, on a plane, etc....) significantly reduced it's appeal to me.

Zelda: Ocarina of Time was a brilliant game that used a variety of different mechanics, including timing. Though it was nice, changing the scenery, and what enemies were abound in the land of Hyrule, the effect was minimal. Certainly it didn't detract from the experience, but it almost seemed superfluous in the way it was used.

Final Fantasy 11, an mmorpg for the pc and ps2, used timing based gameplay for certain aspects of the game. For example, fishing at certain times of the day, week, and month could gather your character different items. Fishing, while relying on timing, was not dominated by it, and it certainly didn't hinder gameplay to frustrating levels, which is exactly the syncretism that developers should strive for.

Regardless of what my preferences are, I'm stuck with a game that I can't play, and while certainly this entry may seem like simple churlish frustration, it's a plea for developers to understand that no matter what goes into a game, if you sacrifice fun for gameplay, you've sacrificed the game.