You know when the Wii U was announced I was so excited about the asymmetric multiplayer games that would come out. I had a good half dozen ideas in my head the moment they showed off that controller. Yet more than a year later there has yet to be one really excellent game that makes use of the Wii U Gamepad. Yet last week Evolve was announced for PS4 and XBone but not for Wii U. A game literally tailor made for all the things the Wii U should be great at and it isn't coming out on Wii U. Meanwhile Nintendo releases new versions of Mario and Donkey Kong that make no use whatsoever of the Gamepad while the upcoming Mario Kart and Super Smash Bros likewise have made no announcement about Gamepad use and they are multiplayer games. So I thought I would list a couple of modes I hope to see in those games upon release. Make it happen Nintendo!

Mario Kart

• Have the player with the Gamepad change the track layout and item placement in real time. We've seen ModNation Racers do real time track editing on the less powerful PS3 but if you can't manage real time deformation then at least have a track with multiple paths and let a player open and close those paths as he or she sees fit. If a player is dominating the race maybe remove some items from his or her path or put some in front of losing players.

• How about a battle arena mode where the goal is to take out the player using the gamepad? Only thing is that no one knows what character that player is controlling and which ones are AI. The Gamepad player has to knock out the other four players before they knock him out.

Smash Bros

• Those random items? What if they weren't so random with a fifth player using the Gamepad choosing what items to spawn and when. Also have them control the maps that change over the course of the match. Want lava to raise slowly taking over the map? Let a player control how much lava there is. How about a map where the level is breaking apart with a player choosing which pieces to destroy and when. If you want to get really crazy, let a player change rules in real time. Want the game to move in slow motion for 10 seconds? Do it. How about the next player to get hit is automatically knocked out. Or the person who knocks out the next player gets all his or her health back? Or maybe they are pushed up to 300% or whatever the max damage is.

Nintendo is making two games that excel at random, crazy, game changing nonsense so it only makes sense to put that nonsense in the hands of a player not a computer. Obviously these would be party modes not meant for more serious competition but they are the type of modes that have made those two series so popular.

Also...

Lastly, the very first idea that came to my head when the Wii U was announced was Dungeons and Dragons. Being able to have a game console take care of the math and create a visual representation of the DM's campaign would be great. The game could have two modes, one where it literally just kept track of locations and did calculations, and one where the gameplay would be more similar to something like Baldur's Gate just with the dungeons and story created and updated by a real person on the fly. It just seemed like the perfect use of the system and yet we have yet to see any sort of game where one player directs the experience for the others. What if the AI director is Left 4 Dead was not an AI but a player? How about a top down shooter where one player had to guide and help other from an overhead view? Having one player with more info helping or hindering players who don't have that info just seems like it would make for great fun. Am I crazy or do others think those ideas would be hits?

When the first Harry Potter novel came out in the late 90's I recall paying somewhere around $40 for it. According to its modern day Amazon listing the book is 320 pages long. Nearly a decade later I payed almost the exact same price for the final book in the series, the 750+ page Deathly Hallows. After finishing this book I told my brother who had also just finished it that it would have been much better if they had cut 200 of the 300 pages spent detailing Harry moping in a forest. Overall my enjoyment of the series decreased as the books increased in length. Rowling began spending so much time on useless exposition that I nearly didn't even read the final two books.

In 1966 the Soviet Union produced its rendition of the legendary Russian novel War and Peace. The film was 427 minutes (or over 7 hours) long and likely cost the current equivalent of about $50 million to produce. I was able to see it during a very rare US showing at the Gene Siskel Center in Chicago in 2007. That year (2007 not 1966) also saw the release of Paranormal Activity. The film was a mere 86 minutes long and cost only $15,000 to produce. The price of a ticket at the Gene Siskel Center in 2007 was about $9 for a matinee. The price of a ticket at the AMC down the street where I could have watched Paranormal Activity? $9 for a matinee.

Why do I bring up these events? Because not a single person I know complained that they were charging the same amount to see a 80 minute long movie that cost $15,000 to make as they were to see films that cost 1000x that much to make and lasted nearly 3x as long. No one walked out of the theater muttering how the film would have been even better if they had just tacked on another couple of hours. That would be insane. I've seen animated films that barely broke the hour mark, and that War and Peace film had three intermissions built in for people to stretch and eat. Let me tell you that there were plenty of people who left long before the end credits rolled. The theater actually showed the film for three days so people could see part of the film one day and then come back the next day to see the rest. I assure you that many people didn't come back for day two.

But currently forums across the web are ablaze with comments about the length of Metal Gear Solid: Ground Zeroes. Beating 100% of the game is supposed to take around 4 or 5 hours with the main story taking only 2. Now in any other entertainment industry this would not be newsworthy. People complain far more when a book or movie is too long. If a writer can tell a story in only an hour or only 150 pages then no one tells them they wasted money on their book or play or movie. The story is as long as it needs to be. Once there is no more story to tell the book, movie, or whatever is over. No writer would add in several more scenes to a story just to pad out the length. That's the type of thing that causes audiences to get bored and walk out or put the book down.

And likewise no one expects to pay less for a ticket to see an indie film than they do to see a major summer blockbuster. A film could cost $10,000 or $100 million and we pay the same amount to view it. Yet when we are asked to, for example, pay full price for a game like Rayman Legends, many scoff at the idea of spending the same amount of money for a product that cost only a fraction as much to make.

Gaming is the only form of entertainment that is judged based on value for the dollar. People pay hundreds of dollars to go see their favorite musicians perform for a couple of hours and some will pay thousands to see their favorite sports team win the championship. According to a recent study there are only 11 minutes of game time in a Football game, with the rest spent planning and setting up each play. Yet when Europeans try to explain why their Football is better I never hear the argument that when they see a 90 minute game they are getting a full 90 minutes of playtime. In fact quite a few people prefer American Football because they only need to pay attention once every 10 or 15 minutes. People don't judge the value of a concert by its length, or the quality of a sport by the total game time. Yet a two hour long game is for many people automatically worse than one that is 100 hours long.

The entire concept reeks of a young medium in which quantity is judged over quality. Most movies run between one and a half and two and a half hours. The reason for that is that any more time and most people will get bored and any less and the film likely won't be able to fully develop its plot. In almost every narrative medium pacing is much more important than overall length. A 2 hour movie that is poorly paced can seem like a 5 hour slog, while a 3 and a half hour epic can seem like mere minutes in the hands of a master filmmaker. Compare two Stanly Kubrick films of similar length. The Shining, to me, feels like it passes by very quickly as tension is ratcheted up at a perfect rate so that two hours of nothing feel like some of the most intense of your life. Meanwhile in 2001: A Space Odyssey many people walk out long before the end credits, often during a 20 minute long light show in which nothing happens. For many those 20 minutes likely seem longer than the entirety of The Shining. (Of note I think both films are great but I don't mind super slow films). Point is, the pacing of a film, and its perceived length is far more important than its actual length when determining whether or not audiences find that length acceptable.

There is one other aspect of the economics of games I want to bring into this discussion as it is something no one seems to take into account when complaining about the rising cost of games. A common message among game makers is that used games are killing the industry. The response by many gamers is that numerous other industries have survived a strong used market so why should games be any different? I'll tell you why using a slightly unique metaphor. When I walk into an Italian restaurant I will almost always see a Pasta Alfredo of some sort on the menu. Nearby they might list a juicy steak. The Pasta will likely cost the diner only half as much as the steak but it costs the restaurant pennies for every dollar charged, compared to the steak which they likely can only price at double the cost of making it at most. Alfredo sauce costs a lot less to buy for the diner but it costs almost nothing to make. Using this strategy a restaurant can undercharge for a more expensive dish and make up the loss selling staple foods that cost pennies to make.

This strategy is also employed in the film industry. People often mention Marvel as being a major money maker in the film industry these days. And as far as pure dollar earnings go, Marvel Studios makes more money than any production company each year. But they also spend more. Even their less popular films cost upwards of $250 million to make and market, while The Avengers and Iron Man cost that much merely to make, with marketing eating up another $200 million. So while The Avengers might have made over 1.5 billion dollars that is only a 3 times return on investment. The most valuable production studio in Hollywood is actually Bloomhouse Productions. They are the folks behind Paranormal Activity, Insidious, Sinister, and several other horror films. What makes Bloomhouse films so great is that none cost more than a couple million dollars to make, with the early Paranormal Activity movies made for under $100,000. So while Paranormal Activity only made $250 million that is a 2500 times return on investment. Horror and comedy films are often movie studio's insurance. It isn't how they are going to make their billions, but they are almost pure profit meaning that a $200 million disaster like, say, last year's Lone Ranger, won't bring down the studio. Maybe they won't earn a ton of money in a year with a major flop, but the money earned from cheap films lets them take bigger risks because they have a safety net should those films fail. The only reason this works, though, is because the ticket and DVD price for a cheap horror or comedy film is the same as the price for a summer blockbuster.

Now you might see where this is going. Game studios don't have the safety net that film studios do. That is the difference between the industries. Because gamers want their cake and to eat it too. Since they won't pay top dollar for lower investment games studios are at a much greater risk when a big project fails. If a major publisher could charge $60 for a budget game then they would be much more willing to take a chance on a small project. The issue, though, is that if you have to charge a discounted price for a budget game then there is no incentive to make it. And by budget game I don't mean a low quality version of a AAA game, I mean something that could be made for a couple hundred thousand dollars. The types of games that we currently pay $15 to play. If gamers were willing to pay for quality and not quantity then game publishers would be a lot more willing to take risks. As it is, game publishing is a low margin business. If gamers want things like paid DLC to end then we have to be willing to pay more for games that may be cheaper to produce but are of very high quality. Until that day don't expect to see publishers back down on used games or DLC or micro-transactions. These studios need that safety net and time and again gamers have proven that the safety net is not going to come from buying high quality low budget games. I certainly hope that changes and games can be judged like any other form of entertainment based on how much they entertain, not how long that entertainment lasts or how much it cost to bring it to us.

First off, sorry for the lengthy time between these blogs. Life sometimes gets in the way of these things. Anyways, today is a fitting day to write the second part of my Frozen blog. Yesterday the Annie's were held. For those unaware, the Annie's are essentially the Academy Awards of animated film. The awards have been given out for around 40 years but this year marked a very special achievement and one that helps bring focus to just why Frozen is such a great film. Snow White was released 75 years ago. In the intervening years there have been 52 official Disney Animated features. While the films have varied greatly in style, story, and pretty much every other aspect imaginable, one element that unified them all was the gender of their creators. Frozen is the first Disney film ever to be directed by a woman. And that director, Jennifer Lee, yesterday became only the second woman in history to be nominated for ann Annie for best director, and the first to win. In total, she in one of only six total female animation directors in history and only the third to direct a major animated blockbuster.

While many people look at professions like politics, business, or finance as areas women are most underrepresented at the top of their industry, the fact is that female film directors of any sort are staggeringly rare. It was only a couple years ago that the first women won an Academy Award for best director. She was one of only a handful ever nominated despite the fact that the Oscars have been handed out for over 80 years. I think it's important for parents of young girls to understand that Disney princess movies are the work of men. These are men telling your daughters what they should aspire to. That's why last year's Brave (directed and written by the most successful female animation director Brenda Chapman) was something of a breath of fresh air. Unfortunately the message it delivered was a bit too heavy. It was a girl power film that in many ways sacrificed a solid story to deliver a message. It was an animated film about an empowered Disney princess but it was one of the weakest films in Pixar's history and nowhere near as good as the standard bearing princess films that Disney made its name upon.

That's why Frozen is so important. First off, Frozen is arguably the best Disney film of the century. It has an incredible operatic soundtrack that gives Alan Menken's 90's classics a run for their money. The animation itself is truly gorgeous. Making a perpetual winter a thing of beauty is a challenge for any filmmaker yet there are very few animated films I'd say were as stunning to witness as Frozen. The story was also great, managing to not only deliver a message of female empowerment but also deliver a heartfelt, emotional, and funny tale. Olaf the snowman was a hilarious sidekick that to me ranks up there with Pumbaa and Timon as some of Disney's best. Meanwhile the story of sisterly love was well written and acted, and it's a story far too rarely told in Hollywood. Truly the whole film is magical, with impeccable pacing, catchy songs, wonderful animation, and a story that stands with the best stories Disney has ever told. The question is, of course, can Disney continue the upward trajectory that began with The Princess and the Frog?

The answer lies at the shoes of John Lassetter, head of Disney Animation. In my previous blog I mentioned that John currently holds complete creative control over Disney Animation. While his title may not be the same, he basically serves the same function Walt did before his death. He leads a team of top creatives who collectively ensure the quality of every film to come from the studio. This collective, reminiscent of Disney's Nine Old Men, or the team Lassetter lead at Pixar, is made up of the best of the best of Disney Animation. The key to keeping quality high lies in Lassetter's strategy of not releasing a film that isn't working. Walt Disney began work on Snow White in 1934, a half decade before it's release. Animation didn't start, though, for several years. During that time a core team of creatives worked through various story iterations, creating storyboards and tweaking both the tone and the focus of the story before ever beginning animation. Snow White initially was to focus on the dwarves not the princess, and was designed as a slapstick comedy similar to Disney's highly successful Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck cartoons. The final film with its more serious tone and focus on the relationship between Snow and her stepmother was a far cry from the initial pitch. This structure of workshopping a project in preproduction for years before beginning animation was the key to Disney's success as well as Pixar's. John has never shied away from canceling a film that wasn't working, even when there was a risk of losing the talent behind it. This strategy, though, means that films are more expensive to make, and that films that executives believed were going to be released in a certain year might get pushed back, or not released at all. In the world of film distribution scheduling is everything, and films are scheduled years in advance. There will be two Pixar movies released in 2015. What films? Most like The Good Dinosaur and Inside Out. Why mostly likely?

Well, next year Pixar was to release a film called The Good Dinosaur. It was about a young boy and his dinosaur friend. Clips of the film were shown at Disney's bi-annual expo D23, and concept art was released online. The film was directed by Bob Peterson, a Pixar veteran who co-wrote and directed Up. The film was the first original concept by a Pixar regular since Up was released several years ago. But John felt the story wasn't good enough. So he removed Peterson and began the process of reworking the film. This left a gaping hole in Disney's lineup next year. It will now be the first year since Disney bought Pixar that no Pixar film will be released. Now there is a gaping hole in Disney's schedule for next year but there is no film to fill it. Revenue projections have to be rewritten, and profits and growth will both drastically decrease. But this dedication to quality above all else is what makes John such a great leader, if not the best businessman.

Next year Disney will put two animated films into theaters. The first will be DisneyToon Studios followup to Planes entitled Planes: Fire and Rescue. The less said about that the better. The second film, to be released in the usual November timeframe, is called Big Hero Six and is an original story loosely based on a set of Marvel characters. (And by loosely based I mean in the sense that Frozen is loosely based on The Snow Queen). This will be Disney's second attempt to appeal to young boys after the highly successful Wreck It Ralph. Will it be any good? Footage screened at D23 was well received and production has moved at a steady pace, a rarity at Disney where most films are reworked at least a couple times before seeing release.

That film will be followed in 2016 with two films that have good potential. The first is an adaptation of Jack and the Beanstalk entitled Giants. I know, it's been done, recently even in live action form. But if Disney's recent efforts have proven anything it's that the studio can say something is an "adaptation" of something else when really all they are taking from the source story is a setting or maybe a couple of characters. The film is the work of Nathan Greno, who co-directed Tangled, wrote Meet the Robinsons and was the lead story artist for Bolt. Considering his films have improved with each attempt, I have high hopes for his latest effort. The second film is entitled Zootopia and is the work of Bolt and Tangled director Bryon Howard. The film is about a world in which man never existed and animals have evolved and created their version of a modern society. Both films have a lot of potential and of course a lot of risk. Zootopia is unique in that its animal society is one that exists without human presence, a rarity in animated films about animals.

The final film officially confirmed to be in development at Disney is entitled Moana and is an original story featuring Polynesian folklore. The film is being written and directed by legendary animators John Musker and Ron Clements, the team that revitalized Disney in the late 80's and early 90's with The Little Mermaid and Aladdin. They also are the creators of Hercules and Princess and the Frog. Moana will be their first CG film, although rumors abound that several new techniques will be used to make the CG look closer to traditional animation, although sadly the technology used to create the incredible Paperman short will not be ready for use in a feature film for several more years. Moana will be released in 2018, alongside a second film that has yet to be decided.

It's an ambitious slate, and one that has seen numerous changes in just the past couple of years. Plans for a feature length Mickey Mouse cartoon were scrapped, as were plans for a traditionally animated take on King of the Elves. Giants is just the latest in a string of attempts to create a Jack film, and Frozen replaced a traditionally animated version that was in development several years ago. Point is, the key behind Disney's third Golden Age will remain the studio's dedication to canceling films that aren't working. The question, though, remains, will such a strategy remain viable as upstart studios begin producing animated films of lower quality in less time? That question is what I'll be examining in Part Three of my Frozen blog, which knowing my output won't be written for another month. Can quality and profit exist side by side in an industry with a lowering cost of entry and where less honest filmmakers will release bad films with smart marketing that will make as much or more money than the best efforts of Disney? We'll look at the numbers next time around. In the meantime, enjoy the blog and if you haven't seen Frozen, be sure to check it out before the Oscars hit next month.

Last summer I wrote a blog entitled

The Perfect Run

, in which I covered the lengthy history of Pixar and its rise from computer software company to animated powerhouse and ending with its tragic fall from grace with Cars 2. As I said in that blog, a perfect run is something that once taken away can never be returned. That's the thing with perfection. One mistake is all it takes to ruin it. Pixar made a dozen incredible films before failing so utterly that it felt like a slap in the face to longtime supporters and made many question whether Disney was forcing John Lassetter to release films that weren't up to his normal standards. A year and a half later we have a considerably different animation landscape. So I thought it would be a good time to look back at the past year and a half of animation and question whether the recently released Frozen is a sign of a second Disney resurgence, or whether it was merely a fluke in the heartless cog of corporate America. But before we do that a bit of a history lesson is in order. So I'll be splitting this blog into a couple of parts. In this first part I'll detail Disney's lengthy history focusing on the facets that lead to the various peaks and dips in quality over the decades. So if you ever wanted a nice, condensed piece on Disney history here you go.

So here is the issue facing Disney Animation (both the Animated Studios portion and Pixar) today. In fact it is the same issue that has faced Disney throughout its entire existence. Quality takes time. In fact it can take a lot of time. Frozen was released this year, in 2013, somewhere around 75 years after Disney first attempted to adapt The Snow Queen to film. The challenge was so great that Disney ended up never adapting a Hand Christian Anderson novel to film in his lifetime. But it isn't only that film that saw numerous starts and stops at Disney. Rapunzel was in the works for over a decade. Jack and the Beanstock is still in production hell. Walt Disney spent years perfecting his studio's films. When something wasn't working it was cancelled. And the final product lost money far more often than it made money. Today we look at Disney's classic films like they were a sure thing, but at the time virtually all of Disney's movies were a financial disaster. Only a handful made a significant profit, and a fair number lost quite a bit of money.

Disney refused to sell out. He refused to release a film he didn't feel was up to his ridiculously high standards. People will give you varying takes on how much influence Walt the man had on the films that bear his name. The truth is that while he never animated a movie in his lifetime, and by the late 1950's spent only a small portion of his time working on animated films at all, his influence was similar to the one Steve Jobs had at Apple. He took people who were good and made them great. He would send workers home crying. He would tear apart work that most other animation studios would release. He was a perfectionist beyond measure and he held every single one of his animators up the high standards to which he held himself.

The first five films Disney made are still considered by many to be the greatest animated films of all time. Snow White, Pinocchio, Dumbo, Fantasia, and Bambi are masterworks of animation. Outside of Dumbo and Snow White they all were massive financial failures, but they were and are true pieces of art. During the 1940's Disney put his animated features on hold to make propaganda films for the US during World War 2. He kept his team's creative juices flowing through what he called package films, or films containing a series of shorts. None of these films are fondly remembered today (or remembered at all by most people) but they kept the studio afloat during the war years.

In the 1950's Disney resumed animation on a number of features. These included Cinderella, Peter Pan, Alice in Wonderland, and Lady and the Tramp. Of these all but Alice were both critically and commercially successful. Disney ended the decade with what is maybe the most ambitious animated film of all time, Sleeping Beauty. Made for an at the time staggering cost, and in development for more than a decade, Sleeping Beauty was Disney's magnum opus and arguably the single greatest achievement in traditional, non-computer assisted animation ever. Of course the lacking story and the sheer cost of it all meant the production nearly bankrupted the company. The final three films worked on by the man himself were One Hundred and One Dalmatians, Sword in the Stone, and The Jungle Book. And with the end of Disney's life came the 1970's and the darkest period of Disney animation. After the failure of The Aristocats, and Robin Hood, Disney released the series of shorts they had created about Winnie the Pooh as a single feature length film. The followed this with The Rescuers, which was the first financial success for the company since Disney's death. But that success was followed by The Fox and the Hound and the utterly terrible The Black Cauldron.

With those failures the then CEO of the company nearly shuttered the animation department. It took Disney's nephew Roy E Disney to save the animation division by bringing in Michael Eisner to help revitalize the company. While several mid 80's films like The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Company were minor successes, it was the implementation of the CAPS system designed by then fledgling computer software company Pixar that lead to Disney's second golden age. CAPS was a computer assisted technology that let Disney return to the painterly style that defined its earlier films as opposed to the 70's and 80's when the company used Xerox technology to make its films. The first film made in this style was The Little Mermaid and it brought about what is arguably Disney's greatest era. It was followed by Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, and The Lion King. All these films were massive critical and financial successes. But it wasn't to last. The second half of the 90's saw a decline in the critical success of the films if not their commercial popularity. Hercules, Mulan, and Tarzan were all financial successes. But starting with the new decade Disney's animation department fell apart. A string of commercial failures lead to the company shuttering most of its animation division. Duds like Atlantis the Lost Empire, Treasure Planet, Brother Bear, and Home on the Range eventually saw Disney's animation team moving from traditional 2D animation to digital CG.

But these films were unsuccessful as well. Chicken Little and Meet the Robinsons continued the studios decline. With the animation division of Disney once again in peril Roy E Disney decided to step in one last time. In an unprecedented event Roy gathered thousands of minor Disney shareholders across from a meeting of Disney's board of directors. There he lead a massive coup, ousting Eisner from the position that Roy helped him get 20 years earlier. With Eisner gone, talks occurred between Pixar and Disney. Steve Jobs, Pixar's owner at the time, agreed to sell Pixar to Disney under the condition that Ed Catmull, Pixar's president take the same position at Disney Animation, and that John Lassetter would become Disney Animation's chief creative officer. In this position Lassetter would have complete control over all creative aspects of Disney's animation division and would bypass all normal greenlighting processes. Lassetter had complete control to make whatever he wanted.

Over the next 5 years quality at Disney slowly but steadily increased. Bolt was followed by Princess and the Frog, Tangled, Winnie the Pooh and Wreck-It-Ralph. While these films weren't as good as the best work of either Disney or Pixar they were significantly better than anything Disney had put out in the previous 10 years. Last year, for the first time ever, Disney put out a film that was just as good, if not better than the film Pixar put out. Wreck-It-Ralph was a great little film but it felt a lot more like a Pixar movie than a Disney one. This year Disney finally got its groove back, putting out easily the best American animated film of the year with Frozen. In fact it put out the best American animated film since Toy Story 3 and the best animated Disney film in nearly 20 years.

And that brings us to the present. 75 years after Snow White, Disney has the potential to once again find animation glory. But questions remain about quality control. The shadow of Cars 2 still looms over the entirety of Disney animation, and the money grab that is Planes (and will be Planes 2) only rubs sand into the already festering wound. It doesn't help that Brave and Monster's University were nowhere near as good as last decade's Pixar work. Neither were bad, mind you. Brave had some astounding animation and Monster's University did a great job parodying college life in a way that was fun for the whole family. The first day of school scene especially was probably the best parody of that event I have ever seen in film. The film lacked the emotional heart that the best Pixar films have, and was a bit poorly paced. So the question is, what does the future hold? I may not have all the answers, but several recent events can shed some light on the future of this storied studio. But those events will have to wait until next time. I hope you enjoyed your Disney history lesson. With this knowledge in your head be prepared for next time when I look into the future and predict what the future will hold for Disney and Pixar.

According to

this

article on Eurogamer the latest Call of Duty will have a couple levels so big that you could actually get lost in them. Earlier this year DICE made a similar comment about Battlefield 4. Both these studios have made it clear. One of their biggest game changers this year will be the scope of their levels. Comments on Eurogamer's article mostly focus on how hilarious it is that Infinity Ward has finally found this "innovation" that was commonplace 15 years ago. The general stance seems to be that the studio is trying to make a token effort to satiate the needs of shooter fans who abandoned their series ages ago. But the truth behind the matter lies within the technical limitations of current gen consoles.

Current gen systems have a total of 512 MB of RAM. Subtract the 100 MB or so needed to run the OS and there is an extremely limited pool available for games. In the case of the PS3, only 256 MB are available for the graphics card. Because of this, games this generation had to make a choice. Larger open levels with limited graphical fidelity or smaller levels with greater fidelity. For a game like Call of Duty the choice was obvious. The series has always made its name off of big explosions and epic set piece battles. Both of these would be limited if the player had the freedom to walk around a big level.

So you got the modern shooter. I played the Beyond: Two Souls demo released yesterday and guess what? The game looks fantastic. But it can do that because of how ridiculously limited you are in the game.

The new generation though, it doesn't have this limitation. A lot of people question how the next-gen consoles will actually improve gameplay, and I think the key area will be scope. Now developers can have their cake and eat it too. They can have highly detailed areas filled with destructibility and pretty explosions, but they can have those areas be city sized as well. Now this year's Battlefield and Call of Duty won't take full advantage of this because they have to make the game at least somewhat function on current gen systems. And the same will probably be true next year as well. But as soon as next gen systems become numerous enough that developers no longer have to worry about current gen versions of their game, then we'll start seeing some really amazing stuff from series traditionally associated with very linear gameplay.

I think Beyond: Two Souls is probably going to be the pinnacle of the current gen style of interactive movie games. Almost no gameplay. Extremely linear with little player agency. But boy will it look amazing. I can't wait for next generation when we'll be able to have games that look this good while actually letting us explore their worlds.

Some of you who are art lovers may have spent time over the past year exploring the work of Vivien Maier. This brilliant photographer is today considered one of the greatest who ever lived. Yet despite taking over 100,000 photos throughout the 1950's and 1960's she never developed a single negative. It wasn't until 2007, over half a century later, that her undeveloped work was purchased by an amatuer historian at a Chicago auction house. As he started developing the photos he realized that he had stumbled upon a work of great importance. Here were some of the greatest street photos of Chicago and New York ever taken yet he had no idea who took the photos or when. It wasn't until 2009 that he learned of Vivien Maier, and at that point she was already dead. Speaking to her friends and relatives, the historian learned that no one knew about her photographs. She never spoke of them, never showed them to anybody. In fact very few people knew anything about her. She was private and secretive. Her life remains mostly a mystery even today. Later this year a documentary will be released that does its best to piece together the life of Vivien Maier. Meanwhile you can look through some of her photos and find more info here.

I think the most interesting part of this story to me is imagining in today's society a person who never shared a single photo they took. Today's obsession with fame, fans, and followers means that most people put as much of themselves as possible out there for the world to see. People make art and post it online hours after it is done. You aren't an artist unless you have an online portfolio, and a Facebook Like page where all your friends and fans can openly admire your greatness. Who now makes art for the sake of art? Vivien took photos because it was her passion. She created art for the sake of creating art. Creativity was her drive and creation was her end goal. Fame and fortune were not in her mind. This was a woman who knew her skill and talent and didn't need or want anyone to tell her how great she was. Some of my friends on Facebook have well over 1,000 photos posted. Instagram lets people take and share a photo instantly across the web. Seeing something cool means sharing it with your friends. Making something cool means sharing it ith your friends. In our connected society the idea of a Vivien Maier is almost ridiculous. Yet here we are about to learn the story of one of the greatest photographers of all time who never shared a single photograph. It just makes me think about today's society and our obsession with celebrity. To be so great yet never admit it. Now that is truly an artist.

To The Moon is the most powerful game I have ever played. As I went through this incredibly affecting and stunningly powerful tale of love, loss, and redemption I found myself near to tears several times. That beats the previous record held by Mass Effect 2 of me being momentarily sad when Tali's father dies. To The Moon features outstanding writing and one of the greatest musical scores I have ever heard in any medium. To The Moon also was made in RPG Maker. It's simplisitic and often poorly drawn sprite graphics might turn away more visually minded gamers, but To The Moon is an incredible example of a game whose graphics don't make or break the experience. Unfortunately, the gameplay also is largely inessential to the experience. And herein lies my problem with To The Moon. The "game" part of To The Moon borders between boring and downright bad. The only real gameplay present outside of walking around the environment to progress the story, is a simple flip puzzle where you have to flip squares on a grid to create a picture. It's incredibly simple, easy, and boring. By the third or fourth puzzle I just wanted to finish the damn thing and get back to the story. And I began to question how big of a problem this was.

To The Moon doesn't even have the excuse of games like The Walking Dead that the interactivity comes from making story choices. To The Moon has a linear narrative. The question is, really, would To The Moon work better as a visual novel? If the gameplay does nothing to enhance the experience, and, in fact, hinders it in several situations, why have gameplay at all? It's an interesting question and one that many people will argue over. For my money, a good game narrative is one that works best as a game. It's the type of narrative that is either enhanced through gameplay, or makes some sort of commentary on the game you are playing. A great recent example is Spec Ops: The Line. The story in Spec Ops was linear, but it forced the player to question the nature of modern military shooters and their sense of bravado. It is a story that would be an average movie, but because it is a game it works incredibly well. To The Moon gains nothing from being a game.

All that said, I have to return to my original statement that To The Moon is the most powerful game I have ever played. It is something that makes me pause. The recently deceased Roger Ebert said that games couldn't be art because of their interactivity. He said that the author of a piece needs to be able to direct the experience of the person entirely for the piece of art to have its intended effect. Looking at many of the non-linear narratives in gaming, I can't say that the story itself has been enhanced by non-linearity. It gives the player greater agency, and a sense that he or she is truly having an effect on the world. But as far as telling a compelling story goes, most of these stories would be as good or better without the interactive element. At the end of To The Moon a character makes a choice. It was a choice that could have been left to the player. But in doing so, the developers would have had to forsake the powerful ending that was the perfect conclusion to this tale. In letting the character make their choice without player input, the game was able to keep their motivations hidden, and the result is something that makes this story as amazing as it is.

So I guess the question on my mind is, is it possible to create an interactive story that has the same effect on the player as a linear story does? Or, is the addition of player agency a compelling enough reason to ignore the lower quality narrative? It's a question I am curious to explore and I'm curious to hear what all of you think about this. Regardless of my feelings that this "game" is much less a game and more of a visual novel, I would highly recommend it to anyone who values story in their games. This is the most powerful story ever told in a game. It combines a great premise with realistic dialogue and a musical score that is worth listening to over and over long after the game has finished. In fact I am listening to it as I write this blog. If you need action, excitement, or challenge in your games then stay away. This game isn't for you. If, on the other hand, you are willing to put aside the weak gameplay to experience this incredible story then please do so. It is worth your time and your money and will affect you like few other games you have played.

So this is mostly just a bragging blog but I felt good about it and wanted to share. So due to events which I am no longer allowed to discuss on here I've lost 15 pounds over the past week and a half. The vague event which I cannot discuss continues for a period of two months. So that means that if I continue the current trend I'll be losing close to 100 pounds in 2 months. For someone who started at nearly 360 pounds that still leaves a fair amount of work before I hit my ideal weight but 100 pounds is a hell of a lot of weight to lose in just 2 months. Before I get yelled at again, I do not condone eating so little that you lose 15 pounds in a week and a half. Please be healthy when you diet and take in the correct amount of vitamins and minerals. There is a way to do this healthily and then then there is the type of situation I'm in. I am in no way saying what I am doing is healthy or the best way of going about it and encourage anyone who plans on losing over 100 pounds to discuss their plan with a nutritionist before starting any diet.

Today I weigh less than I have in a good 5 or 6 years. Although my weight loss is not the direct result of a healthy diet, I am glad that I am finally shedding those excess pounds. Other factors that have helped in my weight loss include rising early and being more active. These are again both effects of the events which I am not allowed to discuss. It has so far been a hard but rewarding week and a half. I've spent a lot of time incredibly hungry and incredibly tired but I'm hoping the end results are worth the suffering. I have suffered from my weight for most of my life but especially since I began puberty. Due to certain situations which I can also not discuss I gained a lot of weight and was unable to lose it. Now I am taking my life back. I am on the track to become a productive member of society, a better friend, a better family member and a better person.

Also for anyone who knows about the unnamed event which I am talking about, I apologize for offending some people and for not clearly stating my intentions. I was excited about this event and shared it in a way that was inappropriate. I hope this blog is much clearer in its intentions than the previous one. I'll say it one last time just in case I wasn't completely clear. It is not healthy to lose over 100 pounds in two months. Please do not go on a crash diet. My situation is unique and not the result of a healthy well planned diet. If you wish to lose weight please consult a nutritionist and make a plan that will allow you to get the correct daily allotment of nutrients. If you are losing more than 5 pounds a week chances are you are not eating correctly and could expose yourself to dangerous illnesses. My weight loss is NOT the result of any diet but of factors which I cannot name. That said, I'm glad to be losing weight and getting healthy and plan on continuing to work with my doctor to do this in the best way possible.

EDIT: Guys please stop guessing. I simply cannot tell you. If you really want to know then PM some mods and get them to reverse their decision. Barring that I simply cannot say.

EDIT 2: Okay I am going to try to describe this in a vague way because people are not willing to give it up. My weight gain was the result of a medical issue. This medical issue is something that I have been unable to overcome for a decade. I became complacent in accepting it as part of my life. Recently I said enough is enough and am working through a brutal regime to fix this problem. Weight loss is a side effect of this process. I am not trying to lose weight. It's more like I am returning to my body's natural weight now that the issues are slowly being fixed. What I am going through is incredibly terrible. I would not wish it upon my worst enemy. The end result I hope will be worth it, but please, please, please do not attempt to lose 15 pounds in one week. If I could choose I would not go about losing weight this way. Going slow but steady is the right way to do it. So again, medical issue. Please do not attempt. I seriously have never experienced anything so horrible as the past week and a half. I would not go through this if the only result was major weight loss. Thanks for understanding.

EDIT 3: Kind of crazy thing just happened. I weighed myself again tonight and I got some insane results. If my parents hadn't just used the exact same scale and got the correct weight I would say the scale is broken. I don't know what to say about this but instead of losing 15 pounds my scale read 303 pounds. I weighed myself three times and got the same weight every time. That would mean I've lost close to 60 pounds in a week and a half. I don't know how to feel about that. 15 pounds is one thing. 60 pounds is another. I'm going to weigh myself regularly over the next couple of days to verify but 303 pounds? That just can't be right could it?

EDIT 4: So I should really pay attention to where I put my scale. After realizing it was half on a carpet and half off I weighed myself with it standing level on the floor and clocked in at 333. So I've lost about 30 pounds. Much more believable than 60.

So I know this isn't exactly the best place to post this type of blog, but I've always found this community very supportive and I'm going to need a lot of support soon. So some backstory. I have fought with mental illness my entire life. I have been on anti-psychotics since I was 12, or half of my life. The first anti-psychotic I was on caused me to gain nearly 200 pounds in two years. It also had numerous other horrendous side effects. So when I was 15 I switched over to Geodon. This medication made me gain weight much more slowly and eventually I leveled out at around 350 lbs. My energy levels have decreased with each passing year. I now sleep as much as 16 hours a day. So after living through this for 12 years I have decided to quit. I made this decision after forgetting to take my pills last night. Today has been among the worst days of my life. Going cold turkey on Geodon has similar side effects and severity levels to going cold turkey on Heroine. In essence you feel like your insides were scrambled around and set on fire. You are freezing and boiling at the same time, you shake uncontrollably, have muscle spasms, sweat intensely, are unable to eat or sleep, and in general feel like you are about to die. I plan to spend the next month feeling this as I ween myself off of the drug. It is going to be one of the hardest things I'll ever do. It will be incredibly painful. I'll be weak, starving, exhausted and angry. I might have psychotic episodes. I might hallucinate. I basically am going to go through hell on Earth in hopes of proving that I don't need this medication to function. If I succeed I will hopefully become a new man, healthier and happier than before. I'll be blogging about the experience as I go through it since I won't be good for much else. Right now my next step is coming up with a plan with my physician, which I'll begin to execute sometime later this week. Any advice anyone has would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading!

EDIT: Just to clarify, the cold turkey part was referring to how it felt to not take the medication for one day. I definitely plan on doing it gradually and with the help of a doctor. Thanks for the concern!

People here often complain about waiting a long time for a game to get released. After all, seven years is a long time to wait for Final Fantasy Versus 13 or The Last Guardian. Versus was announced before the PS3 launched while The Last Guardian was announced shortly after. Both games have been in development since 2005. Of course the wait for Duke Nukem Forever was even longer - nearly 15 years. The result of all that work - not a lot. At least the game was eventually released, which may be more than either Versus or The Last Guardian can say. Of course while 15 years may seem like a long time, the record for longest in development movie is double that - 31 years for The Thief and the Cobbler. That animated movie was eventually taken by debtors away from its creator and completely ruined in an attempt to make it appeal to family audiences. The director, who worked on the film from 1964 to 1992, never worked in the film industry again, and the rest of us lost a chance to see what many who had seen it called the greatest animated film of all time. 31 years seems like a hell of a long time, and it has been for The Overcoat, a film that began production in 1981 and is still in production today. The film began its life as one of many animated films that were made in the Soviet Union at the Soyuzmultfilm. Because its films never had to make a profit, and were financed entirely by the Soviet government, the artists were allowed to make whatever they wished with an unlimited budget and no oversight from businessmen. The result was some of the greatest animated films in history, almost none of which are known to Americans. The Overcoat was directed by Yuriy Norshteyn, whose previous film, Tale of Tales, has numerous times been voted the best animated film of all time by animators from all around the world. Suffice to say that anticipation over his next project was huge. But as the Soviet Union neared collapse, his production house was shutdown. He continued work, animating every frame of the proposed 60 minute film himself. Now in 2012, 31 years later, he has only 30 minutes of the film complete. Born in 1941, it is predicted that Yuriy Norshteyn will likely die before he completes the film. His fans of course still wait patiently for the day when they will see the next great film from the greatest of Russian animators. In just a couple weeks, when the year turns over to 2013, The Overcoat will have been in production for 32 years, breaking the record set by Thief and the Cobbler.

So before you go complaining that 7 years is a long time, think about waiting over 4x that long for something that in the end may never be released. That is the fate for Soviet animation fans. For many of us, we were not even born when The Overcoat began production. To put it in perspective, the NES was released in 1985. The video game crash that ended Atari occurred in 1983. When this film started development, the big games were things like Pac Man and Space Invaders. Imagine a game being announced then and still be in production today. Pretty crazy, right?