I think we've all pretty much accepted that with the newer generation of console and PC games that developers just don't even try to get the game to a completely polished finished state before launch. The proliferation of the Internet has made patches and fixes all too easy. And while this can be great when unforeseen issues pop-up after the game has gone gold it doesn't always work out well for the end user. Sometimes the patches and updates just make things worse or screw up the gameplay.

The latest Skyrim patch is a perfect example. I don't personally have a copy of Skyrim at this point, and since I'd be playing it on the PS3 I don't really think that's such a bad thing from all that I've read recently. I know that developers have got to be paying people to test their stuff. So how is it that they can write a patch fixing a bunch of issues and not realise that once it's installed it fixes those issues but creates a bunch more in their place?

The other thing that comes from this trend is that some developers, under the notion of providing continuous support, continue to tinker with their game long after its initial release. Sometimes this is for the better and sometimes not. Naughty Dog has done this with the Uncharted series since Uncharted 2. As an avid player of the Uncharted 2 multiplayer I can attest that over the course of roughly 8 or 9 patches thatthe gameplay didn't always come out for the better after each one. And unfortunately I've noticed that the same is proving to be true for Uncharted 3.The hit to my kill to death ratio can attest to the negative effects of the latest "upgrade."

It often seems that developers are arbitrary in what they "fix" as well. Forums can be filled with user complaints about a certain bug or aspect of the game that never seems to get addressed while other things that nobody seems to have a problem with get adjusted. It's hard to say which is better: the days when games were on cartridges and in a fixed state once they were released or the way things are now with the ability to continuously support and "improve" on games. I think sometimes developers just need to a better job of finishing a game before mastering and when working to patch after the fact ask themselves why they are changing something before doing it.

So the news is out that Sony's new PS Vita is only going to support one account. They're official line is that it will prevent game sharing and piracy. Yeah sure. So it has nothing to do with basically forcing households with two or more gamers to buy more than one unit. I love how a company can do something that is a totally profit driven decision and try to spin it into something that actually benefits the consumer.

Don't sit around with your marketing telling me all about how your company is all about giving me the ability to play the way I want to play and then put ridiculous restrictions on your devices that just don't allow for that. How do I want to play? I don't want to HAVE to buy two of things in order to allow my wife and kids to be able to play the couple of games they are going to play versus the likely dozens I will own over the life of the thing. Ultimately I was probably going to wind up buying two at some point but this pretty well forces my hand on Sony's timetable rather than mine.

I don't really plan to buy at launch since I want a library built up to choose from anyway. I know for sure that I will get Uncharted Golden Abyss and Resistance Burning Skies. My wife will definitely want Final Fantasy X HD and I'll still play that one too. There are several games announced that will eventually have titles available (like a Bioshock game, Killzone, Metal Gear Solid) but they are all either in early development stage or TBA on release date. I'm pretty sure there will be some Lego titles that my wife will definitely want but she also is considering getting a 3DS at some point. It just makes things ungainly and expensive when the point of all this hardware is to support the games.

So thanks Sony for letting us play the way we want to play. :roll:

Well thanks to Black Friday deals I've now got a gluttony (that's right I used the word gluttony) of new games to choose from. Not sure what I should focus on this weekend. I'm still playing Uncharted 3, multi-player and single player. I'm working on a single player run through of Dead Island. And I recently started up playing Battlefield 3, campaign and multi-player. The multi-player is all going to be ongoing for a while for both Uncharted 3 and Battlefield 3. I'm also trying to get platinum trophy status for Uncharted 3 which will require me to beat the single player on Crushing as well as a few other things.

Earlier in the year I was actually in a gaming dry spell for a while. Now I'm suffering from the opposite,too many choices. It's not a bad place to be mind you. I'd rather have too many options as opposed to no good options. Well I'm sure I'll figure it out. Somewhat it depends on whether I can get a buddy of mine to play or not. I really could use some co-op play in Uncharted 3 to find some of the treasure sets I'm missing. If not I'll probably be polishing my newly minted Battlefield 3 skills. I've still got to get the hang of flying jets and choppers.

I haven't even touched my copies of Deus Ex Human Revolution or Rage yet. Guess it's a good thing I'm getting a week and a half off for winter break at the end of the month.

Started playing Battlefield 3 last night. I got a copy for $30 so I thought I'd see what all the hype is about. This is my first real foray into military shooters so I've got a little bit of a learning curve. For starters you can get taken down pretty easily if you're not careful. Unlike most other games you can't absorb much damage. A few well placed shots is all it takes. That said it's also important to take your time when shooting at an enemy combatant. Firing wildly even when the guy is only 10 feet away is the best way to not hit him at all.

I started out with the first few campaign missions just to get a feel for the controls and the game mechanics. After about an hour I felt comfortable enough to get into the multiplayer. I was adamant with myself that I was going to get at least one kill before being taken out the first time, and I did so that at least made me happy. I still wound up pretty much getting owned that 1st match but I still had a score better than the n00bs on The Controller. I was 7 and 12 at the end of the 1st match. By the end of the 2nd match I was pulling a better ratio of 9 and 7. Slightly better than 1 to 1 so I think I did alright. I know I can do better.

I still haven't quite figured out all the controls or the support abilities. I haven't had a chance to take on any vehicle combat either. I really want to blow some stuff up with a tank. I did manage to get up on a guy and score a knife kill which was pretty awesome... right up until the grenade he dropped just before dying fragged me anyway. I've got to get the sniperfigured out too but my usual playstyle is more of the assault style. I really like to bring it right up in your face and leave you trying to back pedal away while I pump you full of rounds. So I'd say so far I'm enjoying the game. Hopefully I'll get to spend some time with it over the next few weeks and during the holidays. Black Friday deals gave me abunch of titles to either juggle or wait to play so we'll see.

Ever have one of those days when you just can't seem to concentrate or stay focused? Yeah, I'm having one of those. I keep realizing that I've been messing with the same task for like 15 minutes and haven't accomplished anything. They should really come up with a system that works better than a 5 day work week with 8 hours in the work day. How about a 4 day work week, work starts at 9am, you get an hour for lunch, and work ends at 3pm. Sounds good to me. Especially if they'd keep paying me the 40 hour week salary.

Think I'll get them to go for that? Yeah, sure. :roll:

I was just reading up on Ubisoft's latest Rainbow 6 game and I latched onto an idea they say they are going to try and present in the game, facing morally ambiguous choices. That's a bold statement in the way they are presenting it, actually attempting to have the player make morality based decisions. This has the potential to be truly great or go completely sideways in a hurry. But it got me to thinking: How should they go about it?

Is it really a morality choice if the developer forces you into it? If the choice of option A or option B is presented and option B always results in GAME OVER, was there ever really a choice? If you reacting to the commands of others,is following their orders really a moral choice if you have to do it in order to proceed? If I'm supposed to make the tough call of sacrificing the needs of the few to meet the needs of the many then I really need to be given the freedom to make that choice with all the consequences that go along with it. If you just provide the illusion of morality but force me down the path of the righteous hero or even the anti-hero then there was no real choosing to be had.

From what I've read and seen the game looks promising. There is definitely room for much groundbreaking in this area of gaming. Presenting a player with realistic choices of right and wrong and even the moral gray area with true consequences attached could push gaming to new heights of acceptance and respectability. If they can honestly give us that feeling of caring about our actions and their outcome then they will truly have innovated gaming. That said, I'll just say I'm not hopping down off the fence just yet as to whether or not they'll actually pull it off. A lot of developers have made these kinds of claims in the past that were never truly realized.

So I picked up a copy of Dead Island over the weekend. Managed to get it for $29.99 so it gives the game a lot more leeway in my book. Nothing irks me more than paying $60 for a game and having it suck or be just mediocre (*cough* Duke Nukem Forever *cough*). I can say I'm glad I didn't pay full price for it but it is definitely worth $30. It's like playing The Walking Dead the game, well if the show was full of characters with bad Australian accents and never ending fetch quests maybe...

But as for smashing the undead over the head with wooden planks, boat oars, hammers, machetes or pretty much anything else blunt or sharp you can pick up it doesn't really get old. It's surprising how much fun you can have dealing out damage on the unsuspecting shambling hordes. It sort of works out your frustrations to pick up a 2x4 and proceed to punish the face of a nameless zombie who wants nothing more than his 3 squares. Forget that just yesterday these were people too. Now they're the walking undead and they don't need your love or caring, just a timely thrashing about the limbs and torso from the nearest heavy object you can find.

It's not the best game I've ever played and it certainly has it's flaws. The bad voice acting I've already mentioned,one dimensional characters who only havea certain fetch quest goal in mind for you, a few BS quirks of the game mechanics that you can tell the designers intended to give you a scare but only irritate you because they just aren't realisitic (such as zombies going from prone at your feet to holding you in a standing choke hold in less than 1 second),a little too much retreading of the same areas, getting stuck on sharp edges making the world seem blocky. There are other frustrations but the game is still fun. Makes me kind of wish I was playing some right now. I haven't had the chance to try out the co-op feature yet but I'm betting getting some teamwork involved will help add to the realism factor if nothing else.

Time to cast your vote for Spike TV's 2011 Video Game Awards.

http://www.spike.com/events/video-game-awards-2011

I will unashamedly admit that I gave Naughthy Dog my vote in all categoriesin whichUncharted 3 was included.

I'm having one of those really don't care kind of days. I'm stuck at work, tomorrow is a holiday, and my inbox is empty. That's not saying I couldn't drum up something to do. But this place is quiet. I'm one of only a handful of people that isn't getting to take the day off. I don't expect the phone to ring or to receive many emails. So basically I have to suffer through what is likely to be an excruciatingly long day.

I'd rather be home playing some Uncharted 3 multiplayer. Or working on finishing my single player run on Hard. Can't get platinum status if I don't ever get to finish. Either way I've got gaming on the brain and I just can't focus on dreaming up some work to do. Sigh. At least tomorrow I get to be glutinous and sit around doing nothing. Too bad that the Vita isn't out yet, I'd take it to my inlaws with me. It's too much trouble to pack up the PS3 and it's probably just a little rude to co-op the TV when everybody else is trying to watch football so I can play a game they don't care about.

Guess I'll just have to interact with people in a real world way.

I call myself a fanboy as a joke because I know too much about something or I really enjoy it. I am not someone who will diehard defend something despite it's faults. I can admit when something doesn't live up to expectations.I am not afraid to call it like it is.

I can't stand trying to make any kind of a valid point up against the likes of Nintendo fanboys. Oh gush praise and glory for the holy game series that is The Legend of Zelda. Bow at the altar of Link and hold up the sacred tri-force. Pft... Let me just say that the last Zelda game that I actually enjoyed playing and finished was A Link to the Past if you want to know how over this series I am. This story is just worn out. Find me a princess that gets captured more than Zelda outside of Peach.

The formula is the same in every game. Hell even the game play is practically the same since Ocarina of Time. I blame Nintendo for not adapting. I blame Nintendo for shoving themselves into a mold when they didn't need to. Actually I have this same problem with most of their inhouse games. Mario at least changes things up but the only real reason for that is they shove Mario into practically every title they make. I almost expect to see the Legend of Super Mario or Mario Prime. Why not? We've already got Mario Golf, Mario Tennis, Mario Soccer, Mario Kart, Mario Land, Mario World, Sunshine, 3D, and on and on.

And don't even get me started on playing with that crappy excuse for a controller that is the Wii remote. Motion control only works if it correctly registers your movements. Sony has done this one better by making the thing wireless and bluetooth and incorporating a camera. I see Nintendo doing all these things to move hardware in new directions but never anything to make it work well or doing anything to keep their games fresh. Actually, with Mario I wish they would kind of revert back to the original formula. Mario worked well as a 2D side scroller. The only 3D incarnation I've enjoyed was Super Mario Galaxy.

Lots of flash and newness doesn't mean it's a good game. I can't say specifically about the latest Zelda but I also have no intention of playing it. My Wii is basically dead to me, used for nothing more than watching Netflix or playing Lego games. I blame Nintendo for that too for not getting good 3rd party support and not even providing good inhouse support the last couple of years.