So I just finished listening to the new end of 2009 4 Guys 1 Up podcast with David Ellis and John Davidson.  During this podcast, Davidson mentioned that he thought New Super Mario Bros. Wii might be a bit too hard for kids nowadays and that kids have a different expectation on a game and if its too hard--they'll quit.  That got me to think about my tastes for games and how they've changed over the years, and perhaps I also dislike hard games.  This idea from a "hardcore" gamer may sound weak, but the idea of playing a level over and over and over again, just doesn't interest me.  And I found that if I hear about how hard the game is, Mega Man 9 and Demon's Souls are some recent examples, I tend not to be that interested.  How could this be? 
 
I started gaming way back in the Atari 2600 days when my dad took me to K-mart and randomly bought me that system.  I had no idea what came over him.  I didn't even know that this thing existed.  Interestingly enough, I had to beg for a NES.  I suppose like many old-school gamers, I grew up with the NES and the games that came out for that system:  Mega Man, Super Mario Bros., The Legend of Zelda, Gradius, etc...  Back then, those games were hard.  They were no nonsense, kick you while you're down hard.  I can't even begin to explain how difficult that Rock Boss in Mega Man was at the time.  World 8 in Mario was a bear.  In Zelda, once you were stuck, you were left with no option but to bomb ever part of the world, or try and set every bush on fire, or touch every gravestone just to see if you could find the next level.  And there wasn't any graphical clues--you had to literally randomly find it.  Back then, I loved that.  I loved challenge and would play levels over and over again until I could beat it.  NES Castlevania games were classics that were built on the idea of playing a really hard level just to face an even harder boss--and you had to play and play until you memorized the level and the boss pattern just to have a chance.  This was how gaming was. 
 
Today, we have auto-maps telling you where to go next.  Graphical queues in the world (like a crack in a wall) to guide you.  Hell, there have only a few boss encounters now that I didn't manage to kill them on my first attempt, or at least figure out what I needed to do and kill him on the second go around.  I've found that I actually prefer this.  I don't like being lost and having no idea where to go next.  If I'm stuck, I think it's the games fault for letting me know where to go.  Today, I take no joy in dying a bunch of times to get past a level--that just pisses me off now.  I'm not saying I don't enjoy a challenge.  I like enemy encounters that make me feel like I did something.  I like boss battles that almost kill me and make me play well.  I don't like easy games (the new Prince of Persia was too easy in my opinion).  That being said--I can't stand games that are way too though.  I stopped playing Devil May Cry 4 once I switched over to Dante--the gameplay just sort of switched mid-way though the game, something I personally think shouldn't happen but that another topic--due to the fact that the game, to me, got a little too complicated.  I never finished Ninja Gaiden for the xbox--got stuck on some sort of worm boss in one of the fire stages.  I didn't even consider getting Ninja Gaiden II.  I am really interested in Bayonetta, but am hoping that the game doesn't get too impossible like the Devil May Cry games can get. 
 
I've found that now I'm older, and have a pretty demanding job with very little time to play games, I just want to sit back and relax and experience the game--not be hammered into submission by them.  I think that's one of the reasons I love the God of War series...I think the difficulty in those games are perfect.  The game is just hard enough to keep you on your feet and play well, but not so impossible that it takes several attempts to pass a boss.  I like having autosave points right at the hard spots in the game, so if I fail, I don't have to replay the entire level over.  Hell, I enjoy games that are only 8-10 hours long, and if a game is much longer--there is a good chance I'll never finish it. 
 
Going back to John Davidson's comment, perhaps it isn't only the kids who's expectations for games have changed.   Perhaps my idea's of what's acceptable in a game has changed as well.  Perhaps I'm not nearly as "hardcore" as I once was.

So it's the 26th of December, I just received Borderlands for the 360 for x-mas, it's snowing outside, I really have no responsibilities, and am home alone for the entire day.  Would be a great time to play Borderlands, but the old 360 has RROD on me, and is back at Microsoft for the second time--ruins that plan.   So I decided to go back to Batman:  Arkham Asylum as see if I can get all the Riddler challenges and get some more trophies for the PS3.  I also decided to take the easy route and look at an on-line walkthrough.  Well, about 20 minutes into trying to get all the challenges, I decided "enough was enough" and quit on the entire idea.  I realized that I don't find collecting hidden items all that interesting, and while I like achievements/trophies, once I win a game--I just don't have any motivation to go back and play it again just to collect the achievements/trophies I missed.   
 
 The first game I tried to go back on and play was Uncharted:  Drakes Fortune.  I loved that game and when the trophy patch came out, I thought it would be a great reason to play the game again.  I made into about 3-4 levels into the game (with printed out walkthrough in had for the relics) and decided I had my fill.  Some of my friends even managed to get Platinum trophies on that game, in-theory motivating me more, but I could really never get myself to play through it again--especially doing all the random things that you needed to do to get all the trophies.   
 
The next game I really thought that I would go back an win again and get all the trophies was inFamous.  I loved this game and won it over the course of 2 or so weeks (which is really fast for me).  I loved getting all the blast shards, got all the audio logs, 100% all the side missions.  Really, the only thing else I needed to do was the win the game on hard, collect the rest of the shards, and do the stunt challenges.  I was totally motivated to do this.  My buddy already got a platinum on this game, so I was thinking that this one was a sure bet.  Haven't played the game since I thought about doing all that stuff.  
 
So really, I just have to come to grips with the fact that I do not like to play games once I've won them.  This isn't to say I don't like achievements/trophies.  When I'm playing a game, I'll go out of my way to do the odd little things to get a reward--but I can't force myself to do those things once I've won the game.   I am also the same way about multiple/alternate endings.  Perhaps in the fact that there are so many good games out there that I would rather play a new game than 100% an old one.  Or perhaps it's the fact that I already did most of the easy/obvious achievements in my initial play through and the ones that remain are either on-line based ones (don't really like to play on-line with people--I'm just not that good at them) or are the ones that are hard to get, or require another play though on a harder difficulty.  Don't get me wrong, I would like to raise by level on the PSN, or increase my score on live--I just can't get that jazzed about doing it. 

Ever since I heard that Tim Schafer was making a game after Psychonauts I couldn't wait.  I loved the old Lucas Arts games, especially the ones Schafer was involved in.  I loved Psychonauts, and was bummed how poorly it did in retail.  Thus when I heard of the concept of Brutal Legend, I thought "genius!!!  Time Schafer has done it once again!!!"  I am still a Jack Black fan (especially the Tenacious D persona) and all the videos made the game look totally bad-assed.  I even thought the demo was brilliant-with a good blend of story, humor, graphics, character design and gameplay.   
  
Unfortunately, I have to say that this game was the biggest disappointment of the year.  The game is decent, but I was expecting a whole lot more.  I think the biggest disappointment for me in the game was the story.  Every little piece of news I got from this game was that the gameplay may be a bit light, but the Schafer writing and humor will carry the game.  In this case--I don't it did.  The beginning was great.  I loved the set-up.  I loved that neo-rock-metal boy-band in the beginning of the game.  I loved the story up until the part after the demo ended.  Once the game proper started, I felt that while some of the dialogue was funny, it wasn't nearly a funny or as clever as past Schafer games.  While I could tell that the world had a great history and backstory--really none of that came through in the game.  I think a big opportunity was lost in telling the story of the world, and not just the fight of humanity against the demons.  I felt like I was going from location to location, knowing each new venue was supposed to be bad-assed, but learning nothing about the places I fought in.  To make things worse, the story just sort of stops mid-way and decides to take you to random place to random place (no idea where I really was) and fight a bunch of battles. 
 
This brings me to my second point of disappointment.  Yes--this is an action game/RTS.  The problem is that through out the short campaign, I never felt like I had any idea what the hell I was doing in the RTS mode of the game.  The last RTS I played was Warcraft III--and that game started gradually, introduced new units slowly, and by the end of each chapter, you had a real idea of what each unit did, and how to effectively use them.  I felt like this game tried to gradually introduce thing--but I never had any idea what the hell any of the units did.  I won the game, and I feel like I had no idea how to manage an effective battle plan.  I was just really spamming units and going around trying to kill as many dudes as possible.  Then, sometimes, the A.I. would decided to attack the enemy stage or other thing I was supposed to attack to progress me through the level.  I never really felt like I was in control--I was just hanging around killing thing hoping that the A.I. would eventually do something good.  Now I realize that I probably wasn't playing the game "right", but I WON THE GAME!!!  How did I win without really knowing what the hell was going on?  In Warcraft III, I always knew what was going on and never really felt like "huh?".  I think the main problems is the lack of missions.  If the game was longer, then perhaps they could have made the learning curve a bit easier.  But the game is pretty short, and you keep seeing new enemy types that you have no idea how to attack or defend against--so you just spam some of your higher level dudes and hope that they can sort things out.   
 
The next problem with the game was the control of your vehicle, the Deuce, aka the druid plow.  I had no idea that this car would play such a big part of the game, but it controls horribly.  I kept running into things, or getting caught up on something.  In the "race here" side missions, I had no idea where I was going and just headed towards the light.  The problem with this tactic is I would invariably go in the wrong direction and end up at a dead end or on the wrong side of a cliff.  Then, every 3rd or so mission is an escort mission.  You basically have to follow behind your escort and shoot at the dudes that attack the tour bus.  If the controls were decent--this might not have been so bad, but I kept running into things and getting hung up on the world geometry.  So I decided to drive very SLOWLY, far behind my escort and just shoot blindly at the enemies ahead--not real fun.  It got real boring fast--and you had to do it like 3-4 times in the game.   
 
Now for the side missions--man, they are some of the most repetitive, useless side missions in any "open world" game (only Mass Effect's side missions were more useless).  The racing missions are useless due to the awful controls of the Deuce, the ambush missions are useless, the "drive the keg here" missions were even worse than the racing missions.  There was almost no fun had in the side missions.  Worse of all, they don't really even expand upon the story--what a waste. 
 
I know I sound like I'm doing nothing but bashing this game, and truth be told, I did have some fun.  But when you get a game knowing that the gameplay is kind of weak, but hoping that the story will be carry it to awesomeness--the failure of the story to inspire, really disappoints.  Not a terrible game, but a game that could have been much, much more.

So after seeing the trailer for Iron Man 2 I naturally starting thinking about what a Batman 3 would be.  At the end of Batman Begins, Lt. Gordon starts to talk about escalation:   "We start carrying semi-automatics, they buy automatics.  We start wearing Kevlar, they buy armor-piercing rounds."  Or perhaps better put by Jim Malone in the Untouchables (aka Sean Connery):  " If he comes at you with a knife, you come at him with a gun.  If he puts one of your men in the hospital, you put one of his in the morgue.  That's the Chicago way."  Seeing the Iron Man 2 trailer made me excited for the movie, but also got me to think--hmmmm, that seems like a bunch of dudes (characters) in that movie. 
 
There is a unwritten rule (or perhaps it is a written rule--I don't know, I 'm not a unionized member of the writer's guild) that sequels need to be bigger, larger, with more characters, and more famous actors.  You saw this with the Burton/Schumacher Batmans where the first movie had the Joker (Jack Nicholson), then the second had Catwoman (Michelle Pfeiffer) and the Penguin (Danny DeVito), then the third had Two-Face (Tommy Lee Jones) and the Riddler (Jim Carey) and decided to add Robin (Chris O'Donnell) to the mix.  And finally, who can forget the glory that was Batman and Robin?  We had George Clooney as Batman, O'Donnell as Robin, then adding Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl, Arnold as Mr. Freeze , Uma Thurman as Poison Ivy, some dude as Bane, and an entire hockey team from hell. 
 
We saw this escalation phenomenon more recently in the Spiderman films where we went from 1 villain in first movie, to 3 in the last.  Now I understand that as we get sequels and thus see established characters develop, and in the case of super-hero movies facing greater challenges, we need to see our characters undergo more hardships to develop.  But does this mean that we need to have more enemies?  Does this mean that we need to cast more famous actors? 
 
I think it would be tempting in the next Batman film to throw more villains at us.  Say the Riddler and Penguin along with Catwoman.  I personally feel that in the universe that Nolan build for his Gotham, having Catwoman wouldn't make sense, and having a bunch of super villains would throw off the believability of the world.  What would be even more jarring would be to have Johnny Depp as the Riddler, DeVito (come on, that's just perfect casting, even 17 years later), and Angelina Jolie as Catwoman (all rumors over the past 2 years) in the movie.  I hope that the 2 villain structure of the past 2 Batman film stays but I know that the studio is probably pushing Nolan to add bigger and more badassed dudes in the film.  Nolan has earned my trust running the Batman franchise--but even he wasn't perfect (Katie Holmes anyone?  And Maggie Gyllenhaal wasn't such a great move either).  In the Dark Knight, would we have had more drama if we had more villains?  Or if more famous actors were involved.  The drama came from the fact that Batman was facing an enemy that wouldn't back down, and same characteristic could come from one villain in the next movie.  Anyway, how would the presence of 3+ enemies make Batman's life worse?  He is already an outcast, a hunted criminal wanted for the murder of Harvey Dent and others.  I am just hoping that the next Batman movie will not be escalated to the point of ridiculousness.  

The Mass Effect 2 hype train is now in full effect with various videos all over the place.  Recently, Gameinformer listed Mass Effect #58 on their "Top 200 Games of all-time" list.  Mass Effect has also won several "best of awards" in 2007.  I am really looking forward to Mass Effect 2--it looks like a great "action RPG".  I also enjoyed the original Mass Effect when I played (and won) it several months ago.  While I agree that Mass Effect was a fun/good game...I do not fully understand how this game is praised so highly.  I believe that the praise this game had accumulated is more of the promise of the universe rather than the game itself. 
 
First of all, this is an RPG.  While it is heavily action-focused, it is still a Bioware game that likes to focus on story and characters.  The new mechanic this game brings to the RPG table was the way in handled it's dialog system.  Instead of selecting the line of dialog you are going to say from a list of options, you select the overall feel of your response.  This way allows you to be surprised to what your character says.  I do think this is a nice system and enjoyed the way dialog played out, but the promise was far more.  Other games have tried this system of dialog, the Bard's Tale  for example, but I do believe that Mass Effect this has been the best implementation thus far.  But during E3 presentations, Bioware advertised this dialog system as a fluid/dynamic system that had almost infinite possibilities--this was not the case.  At the end of the day, it is still a static dialog system where the character will just sit and wait for your response.  The promise of ending  conversation early was hardly used, and the conversations were still "2-camera" system where not many "dynamic" things occurred. 
 
While the conversation wasn't quite as promised, the writing was well done and did mange to be interesting.  Possibly the biggest thing that really stood out for me about this game was the universe, or lack of it.  And because the "world" is so important for an RPG, I am so surprised that so many people think that Mass Effect was such a great game.  When you start the game, it seems like the universe is huge.  It has a large space map and many, many worlds to explore--or so it seems.  In reality, the world is just a bunch of planets that you cannot visit, and the worlds that you can are filled with the same type of buildings with the same type of quests.  The side missions, other than the Moon mission, were totally forgettable.  How is repetitive level design part of one of the "greatest games of all time".   
 
Speaking of repetitive, when it came to the gameplay--I would guess that roughly 30% of the game involves vehicle combat, and thus your vehicle:  the Mako.  Every time you enter a side mission planet-you have to pilot the mako to various dots on the map.  In the main missions, there usually is a long section devoted to mako play.  While I initially enjoyed the mako  in the beginning of the game, it just really wasn't that deep or enjoyable to be used for so much of the gameplay mechanic.  The vehicle controls poorly, and ultimately you just drive around and shoot at the red targets that appear on your HUD, occasionally jumping.  Hardly engaging and not the type of thing that you would think would be in best RPG of 2007. 
 
Another part of an RPG that this game did poorly was inventory management.  Does anyone really have any idea what all the stuff your weapons did?  By the middle of the game, I got a shotgun that I kept until the end of the game.  Getting new items in the "stores" were chores and I never really felt like I was buying really cool stuff.  Also, when you're on your ship, the Normandy, you can't find out what the hell the rest of your party is equipped with and thus can't really buy new armor/weapons for your party.  Getting new equipment is a usually provides a major source of progression/accomplishment in RPG's--not in Mass Effect.  
 
How about the combat?  I was looking forward to playing an action RPG--but really, the gameplay fails to satisfy the part in me that loved Gears of War, and failed to satisfy the part of me that loves Final Fantasy.  The combat is a bit clumsy, with a poor cover mechanic.  I kept finding that I was dying because the enemy would flank me and I was unable to get off cover and shoot the dude right next to me.  Granted, this is a problem is almost any cover based shooter game, but the Mass Effect enemies could kill you in 1-2 shots, so while you're struggling in getting out of cover--you're dead.  Most of the cool offensive "biotic" powers were line of sight based and with the choppy frame rate, a bit difficult to use in combat. 
 
Now I know it seems like I hated the game.  I didn't.  I enjoyed it and am really looking forward to playing Mass Effect 2.  But as we get closer and closer to the sequel, I keep seeing people praise the original--and I don't know why.  I thought the game managed to get past it's flaws to be enjoyable, but by no means on of the best games of all time.  It does seem that the promise of the universe was more seductive than the actual universe itself.

So I just say Avatar in IMAX 3D Friday, and man, was this great movie. 
 
This is truly a movie for all the geeks that grew up in the 80's who are now grown up and want more than just an "action" movie.  I will admit, the story is pretty by-the-numbers but the trick is the execution and this film is put together masterfully.   
 
First of all, you can't talk about this movie without talking about the special effects.  Now, the hype leading up to the movie made one think that the special effects will blow you away and it's stuff "never before seen".  In reality, the special effects are just an evolution of the effects you've seen before, just never this well done.  I think the best compliment I can give to the special effects is that it made you forget that for about 2/3 of the movie, you were watching nothing but a CG animated film.  The backgrounds and scenery is photo real, no it hyper real (because real life does not look this sweet-most of the time).  The characters animate wonderfully, and since the Na'vi are human like, not human thus avoiding the uncanny valley thing that Robert Zemeckis is fighting with in his CG movies.  These animated characters also differ from the Prequel episodes in the fact that they are real characters with emotion that act.  
 
Another great thing about the special effects is the scale.  There are several HUGE things in this movie and they are a sight to behold.  I love scenes where you see this tiny little dude next to a large set piece, and in this movie, the set piece isn't a mountain, but a giant futuristic bulldozer, or robot, or troop transport.  And unlike the prequel trilogy, everything looks real--and that's an accomplishment. 
 
Now this movie is in 3D.  When most movies do 3D (Up is an exception), it's usually a spear in your face, or a ball flying towards you.  In this movie, there is very little of that happening.  Here, the 3D is used for depth and it really is stunning.  I hope to see more movie go for this type of 3D than the "gotcha" 3D used in so many of today's films. 
 
I though the acting was well done (nothing terrible, but nothing great either) and the action was phenomenal, but as District 9 has shown, everything is better with Mechs. 
 
Now due to the hype of cost of the movie, and how long it took to make, there will plenty of haters.  And of course, this is not a "perfect" movie.  It is a bit long.  The story is a bit cliche, the acting is OK, but really none of that matters.  For a little under 3 hours, you  are transported to a totally different world that looks beautiful.  The story has heart, and there are mechs.

So I just won Batman:  Arkham Asylum.  This game is great.  Make no mistake about it.  In fact, it might be my favorite game of 2009 (and yes, I did play Uncharted 2).  Like anyone who has played this game has said before, this game seems to have captured what it feels like to be Batman.  Batman is a badass--and this game makes you feel like one.  From the moment you boot up the game, the music, sound and visuals all ring true towards the dark and gothic world of Batman. 
 
One of the best things about this game is the variety that it provides.  You never feel like you're doing the same thing over and over.  The scenarios change, as well the actions you're doing.  The interesting thing is that this game provides variety not from doing a whole bunch of mini-games or throw away scenes (how tempted do you think they were to add a Batmobile level?), but rather provided variety my varying the mission types and set-ups you face.  So in one part of the game, you'll fight 3-4 dudes directly, and then the next part you're silently taking out armed guards, and the next part you're fighting 10 dudes (some with knives).  While this may sound like the same thing over and over, the way the scenarios are set-up provides enough variety to keep things interesting and fun. 
 
Speaking of fun, the combat in this game is addicting.  The combat really boils down to hitting the "attack" button and sometimes hitting the "counter" button (with some minor variations later on).  This simple system initially turned me off in the demo, but after a few battles, it won me over.  I like that the combat is more "combo" based, and thus the challenge is not about if you're going to win the fight (of course you will, you're Batman).  The challenge is winning the fight in the most cool manner, with the longest combo.  This combat system is easy for people to understand, but has some real depth with a fun meta-game portion attached to it. 
 
The level design in this game is also, very well done.  People have mentioned in other descriptions of the game about how it's a 3-D "Metriod-vania" style game with backtracking.  I'm not really convinced it is that.  It's more of a Zelda game, where you do from dungeon to dungeon, but the items you get will allow to open up secrete items.  I think that Metriod games traditionally have a lot more backtracking and remembering how you saw some sort of superbomb door way in the beginning of the game than Batman does.  Batman really flows well and I never seem lost or had a question of what to do next (I suppose the use of that automap was key  in that regard!!!).   
 
Graphics were great, but the sound was even better.  I never got tired of the sound your bat grapple thing made when it was pulling you up.  The music was spot on with what one would expect from Batman.  And of course, the voice acting was fantastic.  It probably helps that I was a fan of the animated series back in the day, but even if I wasn't familiar with the old cartoon, the voice acting was still spot-on. 
 
Overall, at great experience.  The game always felt like you were getting something accomplished (by getting the Riddler challenges or natural progression of the game) and never felt like it was rushing me, or was too slow.  Interestingly, not that excited about Arkham 2--but that's probably because I just finished the first game.  Wish the game would come out a bit later though, to wet the old appetite.  

Well, I just won New Super Mario Bros. Wii, and I have to say that I loved the game.  I loved the 2-D gameplay and I loved the challenge.   The thing that I really loved about the game was that I played the entire game with my wife, and we both had a blast.   
 
The genius part about this game is the multiplayer component.  If this was a single player only game, I would have enjoyed it but would have ultimately forgotten it.  With the addition of the multiplayer though, it is elevated to a classic game.  The genius of the multiplayer isn't the fact that it's there.  The genius of the multiplayer is the fact that it allow people of different skill groups to play together.  More specifically, it allows people of different generations to play together.  For those that haven't played the game, when in multiplayer, you can stop playing and watch the others play by pressing "A".  This allows you to be a bystander when a really hard part of the game is occurs.  While this may be a turnoff for the hardcore, it wasn't meant for you.  It was meant for your kids who are not quite as good at games (at least not yet).  It was made for your wife who would normally never play games, let alone hard ones.  It was meant for your parents who always watched you play. 
 
By having a co-op multiplayer component that was designed for people of all skill levels to play together, Nintendo has truly made a game for everyone.

So the iPhone version of  Dragon's Lair was released a few days ago and, of course, I got the thing.  I actually bought Space Ace a few days earlier when I heard that EA was going to publish DL for the iPhone.  Now, I admit--the game is kind of frustrating.  It is impossible to pass almost any level without knowing what to do before the level begins.  It is trial-and-error at it's worst.  The only way to play is to memorize.  With all that being said-I love this game on the iPhone and it is the 3rd time that I've bought this game. 
 
I really don't think anyone less than the age of 30 can really appreciate this game, because by today's standards, and by "game" standards--I does kind of suck.  But the first time I saw the intro reel play at my local Showbiz Pizza, I fell in love with this game.  I had keep putting in the 50 cents to play.  I never really got good in the arcade, but always thought the game as nothing but awesome. 
 
Later when the game was released in the PC, it didn't have soundcard support, and not all the levels were included, and also the levels weren't random (like in the arcade), but I had to get the game, and play it over and over again, until I finally won it.  Even after winning the game, I felt like it wasn't the "real" Dragon's Lair experience and I always wanted the EXACT arcade game at home.  I felt like I needed more. 
 
The next time I got DL, was when it was released on DVD.  Not a PS2 or XBox, but a DVD player.  Now this game looked great, sounded great, and had some fun documentaries but it suffered from the constraints of DVD tech.  This "game" did not have the random order of the levels like in the arcade, and it had severe lag after inputting your controls--kind of annoying, but I was experiencing DL with best graphics and sound to date.  I actually enjoyed this version, but still wished to have a perfect arcade port. 
 
I somehow managed NOT to buy this game when it came out on Blu-ray (did get it through Netflix though) and I thought the conversion was great.  It looked stunning and the sound was faithfully reproduced, but I couldn't picture myself playing this thing on the PS3 (not sure of the levels were random either...). 
 
So when I broke down and bought the game for the iPhone ($5--how could I not get this game), I was really surprised how much I was enjoying the game.  I love the face that if offers you the arcade mode (random levels, and if you fail a level it goes to another one), or a "Home" mode (where the levels are random, but you keep doing a level until you succeed or loose all your lives).  The graphics are spot on, and the sound is great.  This game is actually perfect for the iPhone, because while I can't see myself in the future sitting down and playing DL for 30 minutes straight (hell, even 10 minutes), having it on the phone let's me play for 1 game (2 minutes?) before I go on to other things.  Good times.

Space Ace has been on the iPhone since July of 2009, and how did I not know this?  What's better is that Dragon's Lair is coming to the iPhone sometime in the future.  This is amazingly awesome.  OK--if you're younger than 30, you might have no idea what I'm talking about, but these games were the bomb when they came out.  I remember walking around at "Showbiz Pizza Place" and spending the 50 cents it took to play this game--wow.  Now it blows my mind that I am now playing games like this in the PALM OF MY HAND!!!   
 
OK, now that's out of my system...I have to say that old games from my past are the games I want to play on my iPhone.  Now, for awhile I've managed never to pay for an app, but then I saw Wolfenstein 3D in the app store for like $3--how could I not get that?  Then the Secret of Monkey Island came out, and I had to get that.  For some reason, I am really looking forward to playing Day of the Tentacle on the phone (although not announced, but come on, it has to happen) even though I have the frickin' disk here with me.  I'll get DOOM once it drops in price, and now Space Ace is mine. 
 
I'm still not convinced the iPhone is a "gaming machine", but for some reason when I see an old school game I used to love--I have to get the thing.  I know a part (really most) of it is nostalgia--trying to relive the gaming glory days of my youth, but another part of it has to do with playing a game in on my phone that I used to play on a $2000 PC blows my mind.  It reminded me of when Street Fighter IV came out, and if I told my 16 year old SFII playing self that in 25 or so years, I'd be playing SFIV on a 52 inch flatscreen HDTV with an arcade stick in my own home and fighting my buddies over the internet--I would have totally lost it. 
 
Yea, so back on topic...I really haven't enjoyed any of the games that has come out for the iPhone.  I felt the controls clunky, or the gameplay shallow.  But for some reason, I love playing these old games on the thing.  Hell, I even started to convince myself that the Wolfenstein controls were pretty good (which they are, for a "console" with no frickin' buttons!!!)  I guess the joy of playing the games I love and the novelty of having them all on my phone is something that appeals to me.  
 
So I say, keep the games coming!!!  Wouldn't mind playing Phoenix Wright on the phone, although that's a "new school" game, it's seems like a adventure game to me.  Funny how I never really wanted the game for the DS or the Wii (which I both have) but the thought of playing games like this on the phone draws me in.  Hopefully that Pac-Man championship edition will be at least more playable than Pac-man.