Just finished Vanquish for the 360.  Man, that was one crazy ass game. 
 
-the story:  Does anyone even know what the hell the story was all about.  I suppose it's about the Russians attacking and blowing up San Francisco and the U.S. government trying to stop more war but what a convoluted plot.  Never really understood what the "Professor" had anything to do with the game/story.  Also, was that main marine guy a friend or a foe?  He was a boss at the end of the game but he eventually ended up helping you.  I don't really care.  This game is more of a vehicle for action than anything else.  Funny, I'm usually a sucker for stories and I just sort of ignored this one.    
 
-The voice acting:  Man, why the hell was my DARPA dude all rough sounding?  I mean, it was terrible.  Made me cringe every time I started to talk.  And who the hell was I?  Was I a scientist? I'm guessing I was something else but as I commented above, the story kind of made no sense and I sort of forget who the hell I was supposed to be.  

-"Most Action":  During the Bombast deliberations for Game of the Year, Jeff mentioned that Bayonetta should have gotten the award for "most graphics".  Man, this game is definitely up there for "most shooting" in a game.  The game is a combo of Max Payne's bullet time, Gears of War's cover mechanic, and some crazy sliding stuff.  The action was non-stop and really, I could only play like a level or two before I got all actioned out and needed a break.  The pacing was nonstop.  While the game was kind of repetitive, the cazyness of action was what kept me coming back for more. 
 
-Graphics:  They were really great.  Overall a beautiful looking game.  While the enemies were kind of boring looking (especially those Red robot dues) the world looked great.   
 
So overall I'd say the game was fun.  Nothing fantastic but worth a playthrough.

So after listening to the game of the year deliberations and hearing Jeff's recommendations on VVVVVV I decided to pick the game up off of steam for $5.  I have to say, that first of all, yes-the music is totally awesome.  It's fast paced and makes you want to keep playing and playing.  Secondly, the game is awesome.  I love the super-retro look and the game play is great.  I did have a bit of a time with some of the levels with the keyboard but overall I loved the way the game controlled.  I was really surprised how much sensitivity and control you had over your little dude.   I enjoyed almost everything about this game.  I fully recommend it to anyone interested in either chip tunes, retro gaming, or just gaming itself.  

Man.  It's been a really long time since I've beaten a game.  Anyway, I got this game back in October.  It seems every fall, I get into a "Castlevania" type mood and get the new Castlevania.  First of all, while it was fun, and atmospheric, it didn't really seem like a "real" Castlevania game.  The score was a bit generic and I thought that the score was supposed to be remastered versions of the traditional themes--that's what was hinted at during early interviews for the game.  Unfortunately the score is just sort of a generic "fantasy" score.  While the music was decent, wasn't anything special and wasn't what you'd expect from a Castlevania game.  Another disappointing thing was that the game really had nothing to do with the older Castlevania's.  While the main character was a Belmont-this game has nothing to do with the timeline of the older series.  It's a bit sad because I really liked how Iga tried to make sense of the Castlevania timeline. 
 
Anyway, I really enjoyed this game despite it not being what I'd expected or wanted from a Castlevania game.  The graphics were great--the scenery was terrific.  The voice acting (mostly) was pretty good.  One thing though--the game was almost too long.  I was ready for this game to be over around chapter 6'ish but it just kept going and going.  I think having the chapter breaks really hurt the pacing of this game.  Whenever I passed a chapter I kind of felt like it'd be a good time to stop instead of urging me to go forward with the game.  If the game just sort of went on without the breaks, I think I would have finished the thing in a shorter time period.  
 
Anyway, fun game with great graphics, ok score that was well worth the experience.  I'm not sure if I'd buy a direct sequel to this game though.  Would rather have a more "traditional" Castlevania game using this engine.

I have to say that this is the best Halo game that I've played.  Of course I'm a bit biased as I never really liked the prior 3 proper Halo games.  The graphics are much, much better than Halo 3 (in fact, I'd say that the graphics for Reach is what Bungie promised for 3 in the announcement trailer).  The characters are more engaging than any of the characters in the prior 3 games (except for Cortana).  And most importantly, the level design makes sense.  In all prior Halo games, several of the more open levels kind of looked the same and thus I'd get lost easily.  In Reach, the levels are more unique and easier to tell where the hell you are.  Of course, no more flood which I hated in all prior games.  

So after reading about Child of Eden in the new EGM, and the fact I was on vacation, I decided to buy Rez HD on Xbox Arcade to give it a spin.  This game has gotten a lot of praise over the years and I thought I'd like to know what everyone was talking about.  And, unfortunately I don't seem to get what everyone sees in this game. 
 
First of all, for a "music" game--I never felt like I was jiving with the music.  There were times when the background music and the stuff I did seemed in sync, but that really wasn't the case most of the time.  For the majority of the game, I felt like I was just making noise (especially when I shot my "max" beam--that sound never really seemed to fit in whenever I used it).  Also, I was hoping that I could just get into the vibe of the game and feel the music, but that never really happened.  For the majority of the game, I found that hitting the fire button over and over was probably the most effective solution to any problem that the game threw at me.  Which brings me to the game play... 
 
I tried to press down the fire button and max out my beam and shoot a bunch of enemies at a time, but from area 3 on, I never found that to be the most effective attack plan.  So I'd just fly through the level and hit "A" over and over until things are the screen disappeared.  Now, I may not have been playing the game the "right" way but there really wasn't a motivation to play it any other way (say with a combo system or the likes).  So after a few levels, the game got really repetitive.  The fact that I only paid $10 for this thing made me thing I'd gotten my monies worth (finally experiencing a touchtone game rather than the game experience itself), but if I'd paid full price for this thing (probably will not get Child of Eden if it's $60/$50) I'd be pretty disappointed. 
 
I think that this game will be one of those that I was too late to the party for and just don't get.  Shame since is seemed like a game I could have really dug.

I was listening to episode 10 of Weekend Confirmed and the topic of 3D came up.  The host, Garnett Lee, mentioned that he thought that this iteration of 3D would fail because it really isn't 3D (said something to the extent that 10 minutes of Mario Galaxy 2 portrays 3D better than 100 minutes of Avatar) and I have to agree with him. 
 
The 3D effect that Avatar, Clash of the Titans, Shrek 3D, etc... all use really doesn't look 3D--or rather does not look like 3D in real life.  I've also seen demonstrations of the 3D TV and they use a similar effect.  The issue is that this 3D effect give the illusion of depth with something going into or out of the screen, but the overall effect is one that looks like multiple 2D panels on different planes of sight.  Yes, while there is an image that is right in front of me, the object looks flat and no way "solid" or "3D".  It's like looking through a viewmaster.  Some time ago, Ebert said: 
  
  "There is a mistaken belief that 3-D is "realistic." Not at all. In real life we perceive in three dimensions, yes, but we do not perceive parts of our vision dislodging themselves from the rest and leaping at us. " (ref)  
 
I hold this belief as well.  3D movies for the most part been a  gimmick with a spear in your face, or a robot hovering right in front of you.  Now, I have to admit that sometimes this effect can be cool--but there seems to be a disconnect when the object in front of me is "closer" than the rest of the objects on the screen, but look flat.  
 
It would seem that my issue with 3D is that nothing looks solid in the 3D planes.  In real life, I do not have things jumping out at me.  A picture is "2D" but I doubt anyone looked at one an thought something was off.  Pictures and other 2D images have a sense of depth and weight to the objects in a way 3D movies have yet to show me.  Hell, the best 3D I've ever seen is probably this: 
 
     

I have no doubt that 3D will be the next standard for TV's and movies (it seems like there is just too much momentum to stop it at this point).  But are the images we are seeing really 3D?  Will there be advancements in the technology to really see "into" a screen or are we just relegated to looking at flat images that seem to be closer than the other flat image?

I'm playing through Red Dead Redemption and  just got into Mexico and for some reason I don't have a real desire to go on.  Mind you I played about 8hrs of the game over 2 days (6.5 hrs on the first day) and think the game is OK.  I'm not hating it, but not really loving it either.  I find that when I play some gamea, when I get to a brand new world with totally new stuff to explore or people to meet, or when I get to a part in the game that has a different gameplay mechanic, or I get to a part in the game that is tonally different from the previous parts of the game, or part of a game that is just 10x harder than the game has been, there is a good change I might stop the game because I just don't want to play it anymore. 
 
The first time this happened (as I can recall) was Grand Theft Auto III.  When this game first came out I loved it.  I loved Liberty City and loved the exploring, carjacking and the openness of missions.  But then I got to the second island, and never played the game again.  I think the my problem with that game was that I knew the first island well enough to get around and when I got to the second island (and knowing there was a third out there), I just didn't want to learn a brand new map.  GTAIII didn't have that handy "green line" GPS directions thing that IV had (or that RDR has) and knowing where things were was very important in the game.  You had to have an idea of where the paint shops were, where your house was, etc... because you had to drive there.  After getting a handle on where things were and getting into GTAIII, they open a new island and I really didn't feel like learning all new locations so I never played it again.   I suppose I like just playing games, and not learning maps (hell I barely know my way around Denver and I've been here 4 years).
 
The next game I quit mid way was Resident Evil 4.  Once again, was really loving the game.  I enjoyed the atmosphere and the shooting.  Then I got about half way through the game, into the chapel where instead of fighting peasants you were fighting crazed monks.  For some reason I found them much creepier, and they seemed a lot harder to beat.  I didn't like the jump in difficulty and to tone was just too creepy for me (I am kind of a wuss when it comes to horror).  Anyway, never played the game again. 
 
The last game I can think of (before RDR that is) was Devil May Cry 4.  I loved this game.  I loved the combat and really had some sweet combos/strategies with Nero.  Then on the first Dante mission, everything changed.  All the strategies you had for the enemies no longer applied (as you longer had access to the "hand" that was integral to Nero's combat), and not only did Dante have a new set of moves, he had 4 totally different styles with all new combos to learn.  And instead of gradually letting you learn them as the game progresses, they just kind of give you a whole bunch to learn at the same time.  That coupled with the fact that the enemies were a bit stronger than in the beginning, and that they required new strategies to beat was all too much for me to wrap around my head.  So I never played the game again. 
 
Does this happen to anyone else?  Does anyone get mid-game fatigue?  I feel like this happens when a game isn't paced to my liking.  In an open world game, I would prefer to have smaller chunks open up rather than an entire new continent.  I would rather gradually learn one character than having to switch to a new one mid-game (especially if I have to learn all new mechanics).  I would rather have subtle changes in tone, than radically changing the feel of the game.  Perhaps its because I'm older now and really do not like to be frustrated in games.  I do enjoy a challenge, but retrying a level/mission 10x over and over again just isn't fun like it used to be.  I'm playing games because I like the gameplay or enjoying the story.  Having to brute memorize levels just to have a chance no longer has much appeal to me.  Perhaps it is pacing.  If developers kind of gradually made changes to the game, then perhaps I wouldn't have noticed.  If a game ramps up difficulty well, perhaps I would feel like I was prepared for a new area, instead of being overwhelmed and wondering what the hell happened?  Not sure.  I'm sure I'll sit down and finish RDR soon enough, but right now, I just don't have a real motivation to go back to it. 

After about 2 weeks of intense playing, I beat Mass Effect 2 and I have to say that this game was so much better than the first one in almost all levels.  While I enjoyed the original Mass Effect, I really didn't think it was all that great.  I thought the combat was clunky, the side-mission useless, load-times awful, and the Mako sequences boring.  This game not only improved the graphics, had much better character models, but the combat, "level design", mission structure, and combat were all so much better than the first.  I also enjoyed the story a bit more than the first one was well.   
 
That being said, not all was great in the game.  Ever since ME 1 was announced, and Bioware games in general, a lot has been made of "making your own decisions" or rather the morality system.  In KoTOR that translated to the light and dark side of the force.  In the Mass Effect universe, that translates to Paragon or Renegade.  While I like having the choice of being "good" or "bad", I really felt like the choices in the game were completely binary.  You were either good or bad, and not really in the middle.  It was also pretty obvious which side you were making a choice on.  While I haven't played Dragon Age, I've heard that the morality system in the game is less transparent than the prior Bioware systems, and I think I would have enjoyed ME2 a bit better if I didn't really know if my choice was the good of bad one.  It would have made me think about my choices more and how it would impact my game rather than always choosing the "good" side (which I always do in games anyway).   
  
I also thought the in between mission aspects of the game as a bit boring.  It was always the same thing, complete a mission then talk to everyone of my crew members to learn a bit more about them and see if I can get them to be more loyal.  While in the beginning, talking to all your dudes was not that big of a deal, towards the end of the game it was a bit annoying to go all 3 decks and search out all my dudes and individually talk to them.  Perhaps it was just the way I particularly played the game, but I thought that the backstory/team building in the game could have been better integrated into the main game itself and not just a side thing you could do if you wanted to. 
 
 The combat, while much improved, could have been a bit better.  I still felt like Shepard was a bit clunky and the cover system just didn't feel as responsive as say Gears of War or Uncharted.  Now I understand that ME2 is a an RPG, but really, this game is a 3rd person action shooter with role playing (character building and dialog).  The main gameplay interaction is shooting and using biotics.  That being said I still loved the combat and liked the sound by "warp" biotic power made while flying through the air or hitting a dude.  
 
I know a few people were bummed about the lack of loot or item drops in this game, but I appreciated the streamlined approach Bioware took to inventory.  Hell, I really just used my repeater pistol in the beginning of the game and later on my assault riffle.  I thought upgrading those weapons was a fine thing and never really cared that I wasn't finding or buying new guns or armor.  Hell, most of the time in the game I had no idea what the hell I was buying.   
 
Anyway, had a great time with the game and really appreciated the recent patch that sped up planet scanning!!!  I was about 80% through the game and one day, the game updated and all of a sudden the scanning was crazy fast.  I thought I hit some bug until I realized that some patch must have come through.  

I saw Clash of the Titans in 3D when it came out, and it stuck me that this was the first movie that I saw that didn't compare to the spectacle of a video game (God of War III).  During the past few weeks I've had a lot of time to myself  (my wife is working nights for 6 weeks) and each night I decide how to entertain myself.  And each night, I keep thinking that I'm going to watch a movie (I collect DVDs/Blu-Rays) but each night, I find that I've spent all my time on video games and don't have time to do anything else.   
 
As the movie and TV industry have cited a decrease in audience in the past few years, I have to say I am one of those people that has seen less TV and watches fewer movies.  We all have a finite amount of free time and what we do with that free time is important.  And more and more, when I'm by myself, I'll play games instead of watching TV, seeing a movie, etc.  Games have always been my hobby of choice as a kid, but you had so much more time back then.  I never really had to decided if I was going to see a movie of play a game, I could do both because I would just stay up later and wake up later.  Now that I'm an adult, I have to choose the things I do in my free time that really engage, and satisfy me.  I feel that games have become so engaging that they really are starting to replace other media for me--especially for entertainment.  While I do have fond memories of the NES/SNES generation, and it is in vogue to lament how gaming "just isn't what it used to be", I feel like gaming has never been better.

Wow, just wow.  This game is such an improvement over the first game, it's amazing.  Granted, I just played the first few missions and just got my ship, but the combat has been so much improved.  The shooting feels responsive and the frame rate seems noticeably better than the first.  The graphics have also been stepped up a notch.  I am really impressed at this game right now...however, I still think that the Joker character model looks kind of janky--especially when he talks.  Looks like he isn't opening his mouth all the way open to talk or something like that.  Oh well, they couldn't have fixed everything.