With the reveal of the iPad Mini there has been much conversation on the internet about how this will affect gaming. In particular people have pointed out the upcoming release of Microsoft SmartGlass and the Wii U. Nintendo and Microsoft seem to think that tablets are at least part of the future for gaming. I'm still unsure, as I think that the reason tablets are successful gaming platforms are because people carry them around anyway, not because it presents the best gaming experience available.

I'm sure there will be interesting ways that this technology will be used, I just don't think it will be done for iOS games. iOS developers are usually smaller teams making games on a small budget and with limited technology. Until platforms like Unity, game development software used by the industry, integrate that technology then most iOS developers will not be able to make those games easily.

Some Interesting ideas may come of this.

By the time those sort of games can be made at a price realistic to iOS developers, the tech will have either been proved or disproved based Nintendo or Microsoft’s success. My money would be on Microsoft being more successful with it than Nintendo. The reason for this is twofold: On the consumer side you don't need to buy a specific tablet, it will work with your iOS, Android or Microsoft tablet, and on the developer side, I bet that Microsoft will be quick to integrate this technology into their own development software, Microsoft XNA, so indie developers who develop on that program will have access to that tech.

Apple may still come out ahead, but in order to do this they will need to back iOS gaming more than they actually do. Their "Game Center" is an abject failure, at least to the enthusiast crowd who would need to center around such an effort, and Apple always seem to have the attitude that they will win at gaming without trying. The iTunes Store is a mess with terrible, cheap games that bury the sort of high quality experiences that iOS can offer. Because of that many developers have an antagonistic relationship with Apple, especially when they are expected to pour their own money into developing games from which Apple will profit.

The fact that they also target non-gamers helps to expand the audience who use SmartGlass

All of this reminds me of when Apple made a big push for gaming on the Mac at Macworld Conference & Expo in 1999. They had one Mac exclusive game that really impressed people who attended the conference where they showed it off. Bungie, a developer who had made successful first person shooters on the mac, were showing off a game they had made called "Halo." Which, of course, ended up never seeing the Mac platform and instead made the Xbox a must-have console.

Coincidentally one of the games that will have Microsoft SmartGlass support is none other than Halo 4. Truth be told, Halo is not what it once was, but since this a Halo made by a new company (though by many of the same people, as well as some younger people with new ideas). I'll be curious to see how successful this endeavor is. It's great to talk about what Apple MAY do if they become interested, but other companies are already doing it. When I played Mass Effect 3, I got the free side-app that allowed me to work towards saving the galaxy even when I was away from my Xbox. It was a terrible app, of course, but at least the idea had been implemented and was somewhat interesting.

To me this integrated touch-screen-to-console idea has yet to really prove itself. Right now, it exists in the same place that 3D did 3 years ago. I'm interested to see how it's used, but no truly compelling idea has been implemented. I do want to check it out in the coming weeks with SmartGlass, and I find it a lot more compelling than I did 3D. I simply want to see the idea done well first. I've gotten excited about a console in its pre-release that I thought would completely change gaming (The Wii) only to find that it was completely vapid in its implementation (with, of course, some exceptions). So I want to see this prove itself before I commit to the idea that it is a "game-changer."

So we'll see. Apple is the leader of the tech world, but I do not think they are the leader of the gaming world. Only time will tell.

If you like my post and would like to read more, or simply want to comment about how terrible I am, go over to www.ingamedialog.com.

If you owned an Xbox 360 back in the late days of 2006 chances are that you played Gears of War. It was at that point one of the first high selling Xbox 360 games. So when I got the game for Christmas I was eager to play the game that everybody was excited about. What I found just wasn't my Jam, I didn't like the story, I didn't like gameplay and I couldn't identify with any of the characters. My issues with the story should be self-explanatory, and I do not I need to expand on it. Not enjoying the gameplay, however, seems like more of an affront to the game, which has influenced many successful games (some that I enjoy too). The issue wasn't in how the gameplay felt, which is to say “tight,” the issue was that the game was arena after arena of dudes on two sides shooting at each other for roughly just less than ten hours. The characters’ lack of appeal comes from the fact that they're a bunch of assholes who go around “Chainsawing Locust in the Face,” which I guess makes them rapscallions. The game lacked, for me, the appeal that it held for the many people who played and loved the game.

I feel as though knocking Gears of War for the story is a little bit like criticizing the war in Iraq on tactical grounds, it wasn't the focus of the people making the game, but I like to have a reason to care about what happens in a game. Instead I don't, I don't really care about anything that happens because I know it's the just there to create an excuse for me to crouch behind waist-high walls. I also never buy that Humanity is near extinction. Part of that is, while playing Gears of War 2, I have a pop-up that records how many kills I have, sort of like the famous scene in Hot Shots part Deux. Currently, most of the way through Act 2 (of 5), I have over 400 kills. This means that my one dude is worth hundreds of dudes. I don't have any count of how many Locusts I have killed in the first game, but thinking back on it they are clearly outmatched. Of course, none of the other characters are players, and they seem to be killed off at a rate that makes me question the survivability of being an extra in a video game.

The main characters themselves don't really drive this game, however, despite their superior survivability. I guess part of my problem with them is who they represent, a super bad-ass soldier, a super bad-ass soldier who is looking for his wife, a Football player (or this universe's approximate) and an asshole. These were the people that made fun of me for spending my time playing video games in high school, not the sort of people I wanted to go home and play as in my off time. I do find the character Baird, the afore mentioned asshole of the group, to be of particular interest. The entire group, from what I can tell, are just a bunch of assholes, so I wonder if Baird could actually function in normal society. The only other character worth pointing out is the woman who speaks into your headset. She's pretty much the only female in this game (though I hear there are more women in the third game that are actually pretty tough) and she pretty much serves as a secretary, relaying orders between the General character and the main character.

As for the gameplay, there's nothing bad in the way it plays. It's actually what drove me through the first game, but it's very repetitive. They add some twists onto it by adding more enemies, but none of these enemies feel very original, just the same old character types that are older than this game. I have nothing against the paranoia driven, definitely more strategic, hiding behind walls and popping out to shoot a guy, but besides a terrible vehicle segment it felt like that's all there was to the game.

There's nothing terrible about this game, excepting the story, the game plays well and the multi-player, when the game was big, was very popular and played by many. My problem with this game isn't that it's unplayable or broken, it's just unappealing to me. If you're reading this and have never played the game then don't take my word for its quality, just look at the massive following and legacy that the game has. I just need something different from a video game then what Gears of War offers to a player.

Think I'm righteous, think I'm completely off base? Go over to my blog www.ingamedialog.com to let me know!