If I ever hear "DLC" spoken or written ever again, I will go insane! It's phonetically an alkward thing to say. What ever happened to when we called these "expansions?"

You can call me; nostalgic, dorky, or whatever. The simple fact is that I have been a Fallout fan for years. Now that the release is only days away I find many in the gaming community excited about Fallout as well. However I find that these people who are excited about Fallout are not necessarily those who would enjoy the earlier games in the series.

My point became apparent to me when I spoke to a coworker about Fallout 3. He said that he was excited about it and I told him he should try the first game. He did, and hated it. I couldn't imagine why someone would hate the first game, but still be excited for its sequel.

I know that the gaming landscape has changed. The slow purely turn based RPGs of yesteryear are gone. The Fallouts of the world were replaced by the; Neverwinters, KOTORs, and Elder Scrolls rule the RPG world.

That should be a problem with me. With the gaming landscape changing I feel that I am being robbed of my beloved games I used to play. This isn't just true with traditional RPG. There is also the issue with platformers, fighting, RTS, and almost every game genre in existence. I should look on all the new comers to the world of video gaming and shout. I would shout about how their existence is contributing to the destruction of what I see as video games.

But there is another side to that coin. Although the old style games are disappearing forever, what is replacing them isn't all that bad (with obvious exceptions). Although I cant stand the Wii, I do acknowledge that many people don't hate it.

Even if Fallout turns out more like Oblivion then Fallout, Oblivion was still pretty damn good. Maybe that little bit of Fallout DNA mixed into the Oblivion obsessed generation of gamers will revitalize the world of gaming in a new way I never expected.

I am sorry for wondering off topic, but I can't help it. My ADD is acting up. My point is; go buy Fallout 3.

A some time ago, I remember thinking about what series of games existed as the greatest fighting series. At that time the answer was quite clearly Street Fighter. Street Fighter II was an instant classic. Later Mortal Kombat managed to wrestle that crown away, because of it's graphic depiction of the violent acts. I don't believe for a second that MK II was a better game then SF II, but that is an arguement for another day. Later when 3D gameing became the standard, the king was Virtua Fighter, then Tekken, then Soul Caliber, then Virtua Fighter again, followed by Soul Caliber once more.

Where am I going with this? Although both Virtua Fighter 5 and Soul Caliber 4 are great games, both have dropped the ball in terms of how great they were expected to be. So we are left without an extrodnary current generation fighter. Although I am not a huge fighing game buff, I cant help but think that this is a problem. At least for now, we can't look to either Virtua Fighter, or Soul Caliber for the answer.

Where do we have to look? I have been looking recently, and no new series appears to be ready for the crown. So we must look to the past. As much as I loved Tekken, I don't believe Tekken 6 will be that game. We have to look farther back. Street Fighter 4 might be the game we all need. On top of that, Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe seems just crazy enough to work!

Maybe there is hope for us yet?

With all the hype surrounding Metal Gear Solid 4 I find it hard to believe that I will not be disappointed with it when it is released on the 12th. I of course know that it is best not to judge something based on my preconceived belief on how it will turn out. However like (mostly) everyone here, I am human. I have tried not to be swayed by the game media reporting on MGS4 over the past few years. However I find that as the release date approaches, and anticipation grows, I am looking at the high watermark MGS4 is supposed to achieve.

I can see one of two things happening once Gamespot reviews this game:

Gamespot will look at this game, and compare it to what they believed the game should have been. If they expect a perfect 10, and they see a 9, they will be disappointed. Then they will over compensate and give it an 8. We have all seen this before.

Or they will be so caught up with what they believe the game should be, that they will simply overlook, or downplay it's faults. They will artificially inflate it's scores (grand theft auto 4 anyone?).

So I began to give up on the system. How can we trust a gaming website where everyone has a bias regardless of what it is for? There is no simple answer for this. However you should understand that everyone is the same way. I prefer the PC, then the PS3, then the X360, then in a distant fourth place the Wii. I believe that I can not be trusted to review things like this just like I can't trust any reviewer regardless of who they work for.

So what can we do? We cant do anything. There is no way around it. We just have to try to interpret the reviews in whatever way we wish to. When MGS4 comes out, I will read the review, and I will partially base my decision on it, but when push comes to shove I have to understand that the review is an opinion, not solid fact. I will pick and choose what parts of the review to believe.

So the vicious cycle begins again. My biased opinion from a reviewers biased opinion.

I have been a fan of the Strategy genre since the original Warcraft. There is just something about the commanding of armies to destroy others that makes the game interesting. However I have to say that the turn based strategy often offers a more strategic gameplay then their real time brothers.

Now wait that doesn't seem to make any sense. If things happen in real time, or at least something that passes for real time then shouldn't it be more realistic? Shouldn't that mean that you have to employ more strategy to play them? The answer is usually "no." In a RTS game you usually spend your time juggling resource management, and spend less time with setting up formations, and planning battle strategy.

When playing a RTS game you basically use one of two strategies. Rapid Dominance (A.K.A. shock and awe), and attrition warfare. Now don't go commenting on all the little game specific strategies that you use. Zorging or whatever. I shouldn't have to tell you that any strategy you use in most RTS games falls into one of these two categories.

Where as in a turn based strategy especially the 4X flavor you can sign peace treaties, declare war on a peaceful neighbor, and many other things. This is why I was so pleasantly surprised when I first played Sins of a Solar Empire. This game seemed to combine the best of both worlds into a extreme awesome something that happens to be the game I have paused in order to write this blog. Like a 4X games can take days to complete, like a RTS you control everything in real time. Resource management is here, but I won my first game not by just optimising my resources but by using and inventing new strategy on my computer controlled enemies. Just building a fleet and attacking like in normal RTS games wouldn't, and didn't work. I actually had to think about what, how, who, and when to attack.

It started to make me think about the future of gaming. I am not a huge fan of the Wii motion control thing, but this makes me see that not all advancement in the gaming world is bad.

Sins of a Solar Empire may not have replaced Galactic Civilisations 2 as my favorite strategy game but it has really given me something to thing about.

Final Fantasy 12 is a great game, but I am not here to talk about that. What really gets to me is how one of the things that makes it great is the battle system. They ditched the normal Active Time Battle in favor of some sort of ATB/Real time hybrid. It works. It works well. So what is wrong? The first time I played FF12 I made the comment outloud "this plays like Parasite Eve." The battle system was much a parasite eve decendent. That doesn't bother me at all. I liked Parasite Eve. So what is my problem? Well when I look back to the old reviews of Parasite Eve I find that the battle system was one of the most critizied parts of the game. Prehaps Parasite Eve was ahead of its time by about eight years. I doubt it. The battle system worked just as well then as it did in FF12.

That brings me to my actual reason for this post. People don't know what they like. In most cases they stick to what is familiar. In other cases they have to be told what to like. Back in 1998 or 1997 or whatever year PE was released people were not used to such a concept as the battle system. The people rejected it. People didn't want it. I blame the fall of many great ideas do to peoples unwillingness to look, or accept due to unfamiliarity.

Another example: the Sega Game Gear was a great portable system. It had color, backlit screen, better graphics, and better sound then the Gameboy. Why did the Game Gear fail? Aside from some minor techniciial issues it was because it didn't have the name Nintendo on it, and it lacked a fat plumber squashing things with his butt.

This brings me to another point I wish to make. We look some games with undeserved favorable eyes. Not every Final Fantasy game should be rated high, Halo 3 does not deserve to be rated 9.5, and you would find it hard to convince me that every Mario game is a masterpeace.

Here is what I am saying "don't like (or dislike) something simply because it is different. You might be missing the next big thing."

Now if you will excuse me I am going to take my own advice and buy a Wii.

I noticed things have changed in the gaming world. It is very hard not to notice this change. I may be only 23 years old as of this writing but i started gaming on a Mattel Intelevision. I loved that thing. I moved on to a Atari VCS (2600) then to the NES, and then the SNES, Playstaiton, PS2/Gamecube, now the PS3. I have also been a PC gamer for the past six years. Because of this I have witnessed four major changes to the way gaming is played in my lifetime.

The first change happened when Nintendo saved the industry from death with the NES. Instead of Pong, Combat, Joust, and B-52 Bomber we moved on to Mario, Zelda, and Metroid. Thes games were fundamentally different from their predecessors in ways I will not bother to talk about now.

The second change occoured with the move to 3-D gaming. Although both Nintendo and Sega had 3-D games for their SNES and Genesis respectively, and the Sega Saturn launched before the Playstation, I mostly give the credit for this change to Sony with their Playstaion. I do this because it harbored more adult oriented gaming then what came on Nintendo 64, and was far more successful then the struggling Saturn.

The third rode the wave of the second change, but was marked by the proliferation of online gaming. For the console world I have to give this one wholly to Microsoft, although it existed on PC and console games by non-microsoft companies long before the X-box came to town. Things like Sega Channel, X-band(who else remembers those piles of crap), Battle.net, GameSpy, and things like the old BBS (Bulletin Board System) games started this trend, just Microsoft made it standard for console gaming.

Now we are at another change. I have to point to Nintendo as the star example of this one, it is a feat that is actually shared by may in the industry. New ways of interacting with the game are upon us. With the Wii it is in it's motion control. With PS3 with the Playstation Eye (I expect big things from it). All the companys have to benefit from the other games like Rockband (my new obsession) and Guitar Hero. These games are very different from what we have seen before.

Now I look back and think about how I miss the old days. Combat was simple, but I had fun with it. Super Mario Bros. is still a classic I enjoy today. So although I look to the future with eager anticipation as to what the next bend in the road might bring, I feel we should be cautious. Although the new advances are something we all should pay attention to it seems like the world is all too willing to abandon the old as soon as they feel something better has come along. What happens when a great game series like Metal Gear fades to obscurity because of the Wii Fits, and Guitar Heroes of the world rein supreme? I like these things (although I feel Wii fit is a stupid idea) but I don't want them to eclipse more traditional gaming.

Call me the old fool if you like. Some people may see this view as a nostalgic or outdated. You may think that people like me hinder the progress of the industry. I seem similar to those people who still believe that Laserdisc is superior to the DVD or that 33 RPM records are better then compact discs or my Zen Vision:M. I say this to that: progress is good. Keep moving forward, just don't forget where everything came from, don't forget that there is still fun to be had in places where we have been. As I write this I wish someone would release a good new sidescroller. All we have for that are the Castlevania games. Wow there is something from my childhood which as survived with some resemblance of its former self. Maybe there is hope for this world yet?

It isn't that i really care about this whole Halo 3 sub HD thing. I really don't think there is enough of a difference between 1152x640 and 1280x720 to make a noticeable difference in visual quality. I believe that everyone will blow this whole thing way out of proportion by fan boys on every side. That is not what this post is about. What this post is about is a very specific portion of the article that Gamestop posted about Halo 3 running in 640p.

I am not talking about the somewhat insulting remark that they made to the people who would obsess about it. This is about the first sentience of the last paragraph. Without plagiarizing I can say that they say that they can not tell the difference between the 1152x640 and the image upscaled to 1280x720.

After years of HD news in the gaming world I can't help but be disappointed by the general lack of knowledge about it. What I am specifically complaining about is the lack of knowledge of what upscaling actually accomplishes.

The concept of up scaling is so marketable but it is not marketable because of what it does but because of what it can't actually do. Here is a wakeup call. Up scaling does NOT improve image quality. In a vast majority of situations up scaling does actually noting at all. Upscaling is only actually useful when using a LCD television with a cheap processor that unable to do an acceptable job of up scaling image by its self because LCD tvs are not capable of displaying anything less then their native rez. That is the only reason why anyone should care about it. If you have even a decent LCD tv, or any other type of HDTV such as a CRT, DLP, or any other type the process of up scaling is superfluous, and can actually have a negative affect on the image quality. If you up scale the picture from 640 to 720 then that means that one out of every nine pixels are now twice the size of its fellow pixels. This means that the image has the potental to look odd.

If you don't believe me, then do a little research. You will see that I am right.

It really isn't my place to judge what a company chooses to back when it comes to a potential market. I am not even going to pretend that I understand the extreme complexities of making business decisions. However I do understand the simple obvious choice of what makes Paramount choose HDDVD over Blu-ray.

I originally belived Blu-ray to be the winner of the HD format war simply because of it's higher data storage capability. Despite the ability to use better video compressions formats based on the MPEG-4 standard such as Microsoft's VC-1, I believe that the old standard of MPEG-2 with it's higher bit-rate makes for a better picture quality. The ability to have a larger storage gives us the ability to use this higher bit-rate will in the end will result in a higher quality video and the format lasting for longer on the market.

Taking into account the recent sales figures that state that Blu-ray outsells HDDVD two to one would make it the obvious choice for a exclusive format, I find it unlikely that any major production company will knowingly choose the market with the lower sales potential. Paramount says that they believe that the lower price of the HDDVD players will turn around the sales to HDDVD's benefit.

A single fact that must be stated is that when Blu-ray launched the players cost twice as much as the most executive HDDVD player. Now that the prices have fallen it makes the price difference not as significant as before.

This is now where I change into what I really want to talk about.

The HDDVD does have its tech supporters. Namely Microsoft and Intel. However these two mega companies have little to do with the movie industry. However they are huge supporters for the tech community. That is where it gets strange. Unless you own a expensive Toshiba laptop then you do not have a HDDVD RW drive. You can get a HDDVD ROM drive for you desktop but you lack the ability to write to disks. That begs the question of why these tech companies care about HDDVD at all.

For the life of me, I can't tell why Intel backs HDDVD but I know for sure why Microsoft does. Microsoft made it very apparent some time ago that they wanted to pioneer or at least mainstream the purchasing of movies over the Internet. Bill Gates also stated that Blu-ray had a longer potential time on the market then HDDVD does. It is very obvious that Microsoft only backs HDDVD because it will become obsolete well before Blu-ray does because of it's lower data capacity.

HDDVD maxes out at a theoretical three layers totaling forty five gigabytes. Blu-ray has a theoretical maximum of eight layers totaling a two hundred gigabytes. Keep in mind that these are just theoretical numbers, but it is obvious that in five to ten years time they would have long reached the ceiling of HDDVD leaving the next technology to come in and replace it. Microsoft wants it to be it's not yet announced movie download service. If Blu-ray stood in it's way Microsoft would have a hard time succeeding a format that still has a so much life left in it.