Recently everyone isn't talking about IF you complete a game, but rather how long until you complete a game. I'm part of this as well, being that I consider a game only complete once I've beaten it at least once, if not multiple times. I actually feel bad walking away from games that I have put time into these days. Sure, this is obvious for games like MGS3, where I was on the last boss (I confirmed this) and walking away from 18 hours of work for a simple last boss was almost obscene (especially after that battle with The End). At the same time, there's no reason I should even care about walking away from Condemned 2 after playing about three hours and I'm on level four. I still do, though, and it was at that time that I realized that games used to be different and that you would walk away, sometimes against your will. In fact, I've walked from final bosses more often on NES than I ever did by choice on 360/PS3 (remember the last boss on Bionic Commando, Contra without the code, or even Castlevania).

Back then, dying on a last boss and having to start all over again was just an acceptance you had. Completing certain games like Ghosts N Goblins, Rush N Attack, and even Super Mario Bros 2 was an achievement (and we trusted you did it without some cheaply hacked points, too!). I think that's why people in this generation didn't really care for the rerelease of Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, because it comes close to being the classic platformer of the past. There's still saving and all, but it's just really an upgrade of Castlevania II: Dracula's Curse and people were not digging it.

I will admit, like all retro nostalgia, that I prefer the direction that games have recently taken and that this change is eminent, but at the same time it's important to remember your roots and the lessons it taught you. For all of you that can't beat a game, but instead of quitting simply drop to the easy setting and complete a game you don't even care about, remember that we were walking away from Mega Man and Ninja Gaiden without having ever seen the ending and some of us had seen the last boss many times! I think Rock Band and Guitar Hero are the only games out there that remind you that the tail can still find itself between the legs.

Just an FYI: There will be 2 blogs today because I realized I never posted the Tuesday, 08/12, blog. This is the one that was supposed to go up on Tuesday.

So as I begin the early portion of this week, I was eager to start a new game. Having left Metal Gear Solid 3 in the past (with fond memories) and nearly completing Battlefield: Bad Company in the FPS genre, I decided to take a slight shift over to first-person melee with Condemned 2.

I loved Condemned: Criminal Origins. I reluctantly purchased this game on the 360 early into my owning cycle (along with COD 2) and it impressed me very much. I loved the scary atmosphere, the change from a shooter to a fighter/brawler, and the investigation elements. I was also psyched about Condemned 2 because most critics rated this the better of the two and mentioned that fans of the original will love the game.

Sadly, among the tweaks, there is too much difference in the wrong direction for me to even continue. I will be walking away from this game and not returning (I'm on level 4) and here's why. The creepy factor is definitely off the charts as the closest comparison to playing this game is being the person to go first in a haunted house (only that death and pain are guaranteed in this game); kudos to Sega and WB for taking that creepy factor one step farther. What I don't like, however, is that the combat system was upgraded to be both harder to perform attacks and blocks (a complaint that was prevalent in the first and they only complicated it more) and that it now revolves around each trigger being each hand. This may work if the controls were smooth and responsive, but I'm constantly working on my timing and in a game where fractions of a second are critical it is absurd to have wonky controls. The hit point system also sucks, whereas in the first game each guy took a certain number of moves to go down, this installment has some guys dropping in 3 hits and others still coming at you after 10 solid punches. Couple that with the fact that many enemies have guns or throwing objects and you are left with nothing, this game is now very niche and sadly I am not part of that limited group.

If you want to try something truly scary and gruesome and FPSers are getting a little too old for you, rent this and try it. I, however, now know exactly why only 45 days after release this game dropped from $60 to $30 for NEW copies in all retailers.

We've been podcasting for the last 3 weeks, but I've been too bogged down to edit and post live, UNTIL NOW!

http://www.geocities.com/unscripted1/

We've now included running times and the newest episode has some great multimedia goodies.

Okay, so I haven't been blogging in a while, and I'm honestly not sure who even reads my blog (but a HUGE thanks to those that do), however essentially a blog is a form of journal that is public, so I guess it's serving its purpose, even with zero readers. The reason I haven't been blogging is simple: not much has been going on. I find myself talking about the same things kind of over and over again in my podcast (pathetic self promotion: http://www.geocities.com/unscripted1/) and the news and feature portion are overwhelmed by my "what'cha been playing" portion. It's because the summer doldrums are at their worst right now.

No new games are coming and now we know all about the previews from E3 and we're just waiting to see them appear. Also, I've recently gotten a promotion at work which has me focusing more on my professional world during the day and early evening. Does that mean that I don't game? Hell no, I've been gaming almost daily (currently crunching through Condemned 2, although I don't think I'm going further, real letdown for a Condemned: Criminal Origins lover; I'm also beating Battlefield: Bad Company and can't get enough of both Single Player on Hard and Multiplayer). It just means that my days aren't always about dreaming of video games and rather completing my tasks and managing my team (no, I do not work in sales). My nights are spent playing games most hardcore's have already conquered (see the games above and coming up on my list are: Orange Box, Mass Effect, Ninja Gaiden Sigma and Ninja Gaiden II, followed closely by MGS4). So I've got nothing to bring to the table that hundreds already have and these are not games that are quickly beaten. Besides, in about a week, I'll be stuck playing Too Human over and over that this "queue" won't even matter.

And I blame the video game journalism community. I love you guys, I read every little article people have, my netvibes keeps me up to date on over 20 video game rss feeds, I listen to at least 15 hours of podcasts a week (from my office), and read 5 gaming magazines a month. I want to be you guys, and surprisingly I think I'm qualified.

I have a BS of Journalism from the University of Kansas (with a minor in Film), I blog constantly on gamespot as well as my own web site, I have my own podcast that I do for no money (and barely anyone listens to), and I have enough review and creative writing samples to fill a warehouse! I have sent in my resume and actually been considered, but unfortunately I have to stop there because I don't live in San Francisco. I know, boo hoo for me, right? But I do live in Chicago! Isn't there anything out here for a guy who's trying to start a family and just can't see taking a (at least) 50 percent pay cut to move to a city that's more expensive! My fiance's job here could easily get both of us by if I wanted to be a chicago-based video game journalist, but for that same reason, we can't afford to pick up and move (especially because she's still getting used to the city as she's a Kansas girl, whereas I grew up around Chicago).

If there was ever a full-time job in video game journalism that could be performed in Chicago I'd jump at it (yes, I'm currently praying for the day that Midway needs a PR or advertising/marketing guy, but as it stands they are not hiring for these positions right now). Please help me, anyone who reads this, for if I can get into this field, I can finally get paid or at least justified to write more blogs people won't read!

Thank you and please enjoy the rest of your summer of getting caught up!

I have never played MGS 3, it was just too overwhelming for me in past years, but with MGS 4 coming out and the fact that I'd completed the other two, I needed to finish this before moving onto MGS 4. After finishing it, I must look back in awe. You can read my review on Gamespot if you want to know what I thought, but let me assure you, I was impressed!

Sadly, just like a marathon, I need a break for a while. I intend to burn through some current gen gems I missed (like Condemned 2 and Ninja Gaiden Sigma) before continuing to bring Snake on another adventure, although rest assured, I can't wait to complete that game as well! Hopefully it delivers like the others, because I know I will play through MGS 3 at least a few more times in the future.

Short and sweet, but oh so complete. We take everything we saw from these two big two companies and reveal all that we saw at the press conference. No commercials, no boring speaches, and only about half an hour apiece!

http://www.geocities.com/unscripted1/

http://www.geocities.com/unscripted1/

Big announcements, previews, and exactly what Microsoft wants to do with the 360 for the next year! Only 1 hour long and covers an almost 3 hour press conference!

Okay, so it has happened. Solid Snake is now a non-issue. For those of you who have completed the game, you know all the secrets, you've seen 6-8 hours of cutscenes, and you've got the save file that makes your MGS database complete. Good for you. So now, I want to take a step back and wonder if we're really giving the Metal Gear Solid game a pass that it doesn't deserve.

When Metal Gear Solid first premiered on the PSX it was unlike anything I had ever seen before. It had great strategies, great content, and even a great story. It also had a (comparatively) small amount of cutscenes. As time has moved on, the MGS series has gotten better and better and evolved into the great final compilation that we see before us. But does it really deserve a 10? An "A"? Would we be that nice for other games?

In the house that Kojima built, I think I've heard too many, "oh well that's just how a Metal Gear Solid game is supposed to be," which doesn't seem to make any sense. I like the series, but I've been honest with other people and warned them against this game if they aren't familiar with the series and aren't ready to not only get down and challenging, but also relax and watch some six hours of cutscenes. Would a game like this, especially as a new IP, really get this score? It's kind of like critical reviews in other mediums, we find ourselves giving this game more than it deserves. Is it horrible? No. But having said that, there are many games with lower scores that have pulled off a successful stealth story in a much better way.

I guess this just goes to show that no medium is safe. Just like the Steven Speilburg's of movies, there are the Kojima's of video games: a hit even if it's slightly a miss.

Ah, the classics. Back when 8-bit pixelation yielded graphics that were described as "awesome", 16 KB was enough for a top notch game, the joystick was all that was required (maybe one button), and every public place that had kids would proudly display a cabinet that cost 25 cents to play. These days, before I was even old enough to walk, when video games (namely coin-op arcades) were all we had, and even in diapers, I was interested. Now, granted, it may have just been the fact that my eyes focused on the bright blinky screen, but either way, I could recognize a Ms. Pac-Man without someone pointing at it. These arcades have a vast nostalgia, even today, as the greatest games ever created. Your uncle, grandfather, and girlfriend can dig on a good old round of Arkanoid or Donkey Kong any day. While these games were simpler, they seem to have aspects that differentiate them from todays games: while repetative, they don't seem to get old or boring. This is so much the case that even though I can barely tell you every character that was in the original Super Mario Bros. (and I won't even attempt SMB 3), people like Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell can predict exactly where an off-timed fireball or springboard will land in Donkey Kong.

During these times, Billy Mitchell was (and probably still is) the man to beat. He currently holds the world record for Pac-Man, and while he used to hold the record for Ms. Pac-Man, I'm pretty sure that now belongs to Dwayne Abner, and of course, Billy is proud to currently be the world record holder (recently re-awarded after being knocked off by Wiebe) in Donkey Kong (and probably Donkey Kong Jr.). Anyone who saw The King Of Kong is familiar with the eccentric Billy Mitchell. The man who's hair helment redefines a perfectly-groomed mullet and I must admit I would be proud to own myself. Additionally he is a successful business man, in charge of his father's restaurant's famous hot sauce, and a very proud American indeed (down to the patriotic ties and the fact that his initials in any video game are now officially "USA"). Unfortunately, for better or worse, Billy Mitchell is also a meglomaniac. For those that don't know, it basically means he's extremely cocky. This whole package is completed by the fact that Mitchell is also a perfectionist, which means that if he were to set a world record, he will defend it. The moment a record is beaten, Billy is there to reclaim it, and as his Donkey Kong score will prove, he reclaims quickly.

In King of Kong Billy Mitchell is portrayed quite negatively, so much so that you find yourself considering a real person in a documentary as "the bad guy". I must admit that I couldn't help but notice that the way Mitchell was portrayed was far from fair, editing playing at least a little role in this, but ultimately I can't say I blame the filmmaker. Steve Wiebe, the generous and humble man trying to dethrone Mitchell, is just too nice for words. Anyone who knows him probably thinks he's a great guy and I would be proud to call him a friend. Billy Mitchell may charge me admission to be in his presence and therefore may not size up as the greatest friend, and in comparison to Wiebe's caring nature, can easily appear downright villianous. The question is, "is Billy Mitchell really that much of a dick or is it just perception?"

The easy answer is yes, he really is. While I admit that King of Kong swayed negatively against him, Billy is not much different in real life. I don't think that makes him a bad person, though, nor does it really make him a dick. He's confident and he's sure of himself, and damnit, he's gone out of his way to prove that both are a sure bet. His first achievement of setting the Millipede high score in 1982 (the year I was born, mind you) got him on the cover of Time magazine at the age of 17. At that time he also claimed the Donkey Kong high score, which until recently, no one had ever come close to beating. In 1999, Mitchell also set the unbeatable world record for Pac-Man in playing a "perfect game", which entails getting every point possible before the kill screen (inevitable end to an old school arcade game). This score can not be beaten and for a rational perfectionist like Mitchell, is the epitome of why he plays video games. He popped the Pac-Man perfect game's cherry.

After seeing the movie (last month), I caught an article in Harper's by Joshuah Bearman (entitled "The Perfect Game") that offers a different side of Mitchell. Sure, there are still some defacing facts that are just bad PR on Billy's end, like the fact that he wanted Wiebe's score wiped the moment he beat it and thus didn't give Steve Wiebe much time (not sure exactly how long) to revel in a score that normally would be displayed for a few months. He also submitted a goofy tape to initially get his Donkey Kong score up that would later be the cause of new rulings for how to submit that particular score, but would later show up and claim an even higher score in public, proving that he's still got it. The article isn't anywhere near as positive as Kong was negative, but then, it wasn't intended to be. It's just a classic case of the fact that the awesome pioneer of many of these high scores and Twin Galaxies (along with Walter Day and Co.) creates a force to be reckoned with. I think it's a little too close to home that some of the top scores regarded in Guiness are being judged in part by the person who holds some of the highest (and probably the most) world records. In the end, justice prevails, and we can't disregard Billy for successfully beating Wiebe the old-fashioned way: in public.

So is Billy Mitchell a little screwy? Sure. Does he use his influence to live life by his own rules? Maybe, but I feel he's earned it. Is he a great man? No, but he's done some great things. I think ultimately Billy Mitchell is viewed overall as bad in the public's eye because most people dislike a person who seeks his own personal gain rather than distributing good will. At the same time, so do we all, if we can. Billy Mitchell isn't a dick, he's just on top and likes to rub it in. Being a bad sport doesn't make you a dick, just highly disliked.

Photo courtesy of www.twingalaxies.com

http://www.geocities.com/unscripted1/

Wow, tons of stuff this week for our pre-E3 show (as well as final single digit show)! We discuss Too Human and the internet buzz, our best in show for E3, how the stock market is TANKING, and tons of news! We also have a review from Julie on the Super Mario Bros. instruction manual, Sonic and the Seven Rings on Wii, Ninja Gaiden Sigma on PS3, and a long spoiler-rich discussion on GTA IV ends the show! A whopping 2 1/2 hours, but well worth it, trust us!