It's been a very very long time since I've done a blog on Giant Bomb, I think almost five years actually. But since I'm coming back to this community after being away so long I decided to write my first very long blog post about something that is troubling me, and that is the state of Microsoft's flagship Halo franchise.

Let's get it out of the way: Halo 5's story isn't great. It isn't even good either. It is very much the Halo 2 of the Xbox One generation. 343 Industries spent so much of their time working on crafting a great 4v4 arena multiplayer component that they forgot some of the other more important aspects of why Halo is a great franchise: Story.

Halo 4 was phenomenal game in terms of story. It was my favorite campaign of any Halo game since the original, and I loved that they explored more of the human side of Master Chief. And for my first point, the core Halo franchise has always and will always be about the character of Master Chief. That's why games like Halo: Reach, Halo Wars, Halo 3: ODST, and recently, Halo Wars 2 exist. Other games exist in this franchise to tell stories that don't involve Master Chief. However, the core numbered Halo franchise should always involve Master Chief as he is not only the main protagonist of this franchise and has been since day one, but he's also kind of Microsoft's damn mascot. So insert new Halo character Spartan Locke. The problem with Spartan Locke is that he isn't a well rounded character. They didn't do anything to really give us any insight or backstory into his character. Rather, they decided to shove this character down our throats as the new Master Chief, and it failed immensely. And while I do reference Halo 2 as the weakest story of the original trilogy (it is), that game at least had a solid 50/50 split between playing as Master Chief and playing as The Arbiter. Here, the split is 80/20, which is astounding that most of this game is played from the perspective as Spartan Locke and his team. The other sad thing is that the Master Chief levels in this game are great. I enjoyed the dynamic between him and his former colleagues during these 3 missions, but it's 3 missions out of 15. A really bad split for a numbered game in the Halo franchise. Imagine creating a Batman Arkham game where you play 80% as Robin while only briefly playing as Batman. Yet the franchise is called "Batman: Arkham _________". They wouldn't do that, so why are we doing that here?

Now putting aside the issues I have with not playing as Master Chief, exactly what is going on with the story here? I'm going to get into some heavy spoiler territory here, so if you haven't played or finished Halo 5: Guardians, than I advise you to skip ahead. At the end of Halo 4, Cortana's rampancy finally catches up with her, leaving her to essentially die. It's an extremely emotional and heart wrenching scene. It left me wondering what was going to happen in the inevitable sequel. Hell, I still like the idea of Master Chief going rogue, but they squandered it. Locke and Chief reconcile their differences too easily in the game, especially after the marketing for the game pushed it as this edgy confrontation between these two characters. Their confrontation in the actual game? A brief scene where they exchange punches until Chief bests Locke and moves on. Then Locke just kind of realizes that Chief is right and all is forgiven and by the end of the game they are buds. But what about the other odd part of this game? What about evil Cortana? Yeah that's a thing. As a Halo fan, I actually don't have a problem with this idea or concept, but it is poorly utilized here. And by the end of the game it is revealed that yes, she's bad and building another Halo ring.

Alright, let's take a breath and move on. So where do we go from here with Halo? How do we salvage the awful story in Halo 5? What would I do?

Well, it's simple: Halo 6 needs to be the Halo 3 of this generation. We already know that 343 did two things correct with Halo 5, and that was they created some of the best multiplayer Halo has had since 3, and they did an excellent job of going the route of having all of the maps be apart of free updates. In fact the only obvious issue I had with multiplayer in Halo 5 was the big team battle mode was a huge letdown. It just doesn't feel the same as it did in prior Halo games. I'm confident that can be fixed in a sequel though. Also, there is one other glaring issue that Halo 5 had for long-time fans of the franchise, and 343 has already confirmed it won't ever be an issue again with the core franchise: no split-screen play. Removing that did really hinder some of this game. It's the main reason why my girlfriend hasn't experienced this game yet, because she doesn't own an Xbox One (she's a Playstation girl) and with the lack of splitscreen, she hasn't played it yet. We recently sat down and played the first four games split screen in the excellent Halo: Master Chief Collection.

For story? Let's obviously bring back 4-player co-op but I want it to be Chief, Locke, Arby, and Buck. I think that would be an excellent squad that would work wonders. I don't have a problem with the character of Locke, but we need more of a backstory about him. Especially considering we have a better back story of the other three characters, his character just doesn't stand on the same level at all. Halo 6 could rectify this by giving us more of a backstory on Locke. Who is he? Where is he coming from? What are his motivations? I'd like more of a story on him then just "guy who is following orders", and that's all his character was in Halo 5. This story needs to be Chief centered though. I miss Master Chief. I feel like he's was back in cryo-sleep during most of Halo 5, simply because you didn't play as him that much at all. And finally, if we want to make Cortana the true bad guy of this trilogy, that's fine, but we need more backstory on why. They didn't do a good job of explaining this in Halo 5, and while the idea of this is very intriguing, I want more.

Halo 6 has some big shoes to fill. It's no secret that Microsoft's big franchises haven't been selling nearly as well as they did during the Xbox 360 generation, and Halo 5 didn't do nearly as well as the company probably hoped. That's not to say it was a flop either, but it didn't pull in Halo 3 numbers. And while Gears of War 4 seems to have gone a correct direction (I'm still in the process of playing through the campaign), that didn't sell as well as it's predecessors either.

In my next blog post, I'll focus on Microsoft and their 2017. What I feel they need to do and where I feel they stand right now. And while I'm not a fanboy of either console or platform, I mean hell I'm getting Horizon: Zero Dawn tomorrow and the damn Nintendo Switch and Zelda on Friday, I'm making the choice to focus these first few blog posts of 2017 on Microsoft because I feel that they are the most interesting company to talk about right now. They seem to be the ones that stand to have the most to gain in 2017.

It's been nearly a week now since Capcom 's latest in it's long running franchise, Resident Evil 6 , was released. Now, as everyone knows, Resident Evil 6 has probably received the most controversial reviews of a game that I can remember in quite some time, all stemming from Jim Sterling's initial review. Like him or hate him, Jim Sterling writes a hell of a review, and he voiced his opinions on the game in great form. The problem I have is that I've played through now both Leon and Chris's campaigns respectively (I haven't finished Jake's yet), and I absolutely love the game. I have also played several hours of the new version of Mercenaries. But let's back things up a bit before I continue here.

For clarification, I have been a Resident Evil fan since I first played the original game on the PlayStation sometime in 1997. I couldn't tell you the exact date this happened, but I can tell you it was around the same time that I played Castlevania: Symphony of the Night . When you are an 11 year old kid in 1997, a game like Resident Evil is a life changing event, much as Symphony of the Night was. I had never played anything like it. It scared the hell out of me, but also was a major factor in introducing me to the world horror, and led me down the path to becoming the horror genre lover that I currently am. It also introduced me to the strategy of item management, and a heavy dose of puzzle filled game play. Since that moment, I have played every single iteration of Capcom's franchise, with the exception of Resident Evil: Outbreak - File #2, and for more or less, have enjoyed most of what the series has offered. So yes, I am a diehard fan of this series. However, unlike 90% of what I've read from the reviews, I've enjoyed the hell out of what I've played of 6 thus far, and I feel the need to weigh my two cents here.

No one will argue that Resident Evil 4 changed everything. Without it, we wouldn't have Gears of War or Dead Space. The sudden shift from survival horror to the aspects of straight up action and gun play threw many off, but going back and looking at those reviews you will see almost no complaints about this. Sure, it strayed from the ideas of item management and the whole concept of Survival Horror, but no critic then was willing to admit that, everyone just seemed to accept it. Resident Evil 4 isn't so much a survival horror game as it is a tension filled action experience. 4 was also one of the first games to introduce the idea of Quick Time Events, something that I personally can take or leave. The Resident Evil franchise, since 4, as done an excellent job of turning this idea into straight up melee focused combat, which is up for major display in Resident Evil 6. If Resident Evil 4 changed everything about the series, Resident Evil 5 took it a step further by introducing Cooperative Play, and through that concept alone I would argue that Resident Evil 5 was one of the best games of this past generation of games. Sure, the story becomes complete slop at this point, but at the same time, if you are a fan of the series, who cares. The major plot points of Resident Evil have always been an over-the-top fare, going all the way back to the original game. The series is grounded in it's b-movie horror roots, and has always embraced that concept, so why change it? I put countless hours into Resident Evil 5, and I enjoyed every minute of that game, Downloadable Content included. So flash forward to October 2012, and imagine my shock at the reviews of Resident Evil 6.

Someone like me uses reviews as a deciding factor on my game purchases, I mean come on, I'm not made of money, most of us aren't. However if it is something I am truly behind (Halo 4 would be a fine example), I know that I will enjoy the game without having to read any of the reviews. So imagine my shock, as a Resident Evil fan, when the reviews started to drop for the latest installment, and they are pretty weak across the board. Now, obviously Jim Sterling's epic 3/10 review really shocked me, especially coming from a supposed Resident Evil diehard like me, but because of that second demo that was released a few weeks back that I enjoyed the most, I decided to ignore reviews this time and jump right in.

My biggest problem with this game, my only real gripe, deals with the final moments of Chris's campaign, where there's a chase sequence that sometimes doesn't line up with exactly what you are supposed to do. It boils down to trial and error, and I admit that Capcom probably could have done a better job of explaining to players what to do at this moment, but putting that aside, I think from what I've played thus far, about 20 hours or so, that the game is fantastic. The melee combat focus this time makes more sense, as they started to go that way with the previous game, and the changes in controls all make sense to me and feel natural. I also haven't had the problems of button commands not working (like I've read in so many reviews). I also like that they changed up things for you to be able to run and shoot (it feels more natural, but I was never against the stop and shoot concepts of previous games), the ability to roll around on the ground, and easier changes of being able to switch between holding your gone left and right. I also don't think that the combining herbs from the quick menu is that big of a difference, if anyone remembers from 5, you still had to open a quick menu to add and mix herbs, and here you do. There's one extra step into turning it to pill form (or in the case of my friend and I playing co-op, we've called the tablets tic-tacs), but that step takes half a second, and doesn't bother me. Quick Time Events also work much better this time for the most part, I haven't had many problems other then the time I mentioned above, and perhaps one other occurrence of this coming up. But perhaps the biggest thing that I have to complain about, and almost say "shame on you" to anyone whose reviewed this game negatively, though, is the fact that they claim there are no survival horror elements in Resident Evil 6. Did we play the same game? Did you play Leon's campaign? How about Chris's? Both campaign's contain an excellent dose of survival horror, with Leon's being a throw-back to zombies, and Chris's campaign, although for the most part more action oriented, has a fantastic chapter involving his crew being slaughtered by an invisible snake (a throw back to the gigantic snake from the original game). There are some great pop out moments in Leon's campaign, and other then the usual gigantic absurd boss at the end (something we've enjoyed since Resident Evil 4 mind you), the campaign is a gigantic throwback to horror.

The final thought I can throw up is that the game did release with a day one patch. It is possible some of the elements of melee combat that were trashed in some reviews were fixed day one, who knows? It all boils down to that in my opinion, Resident Evil 6 is a fantastic game that I don't think anyone who is a fan of this series should miss or let be spoiled by a few negative reviews.

Like it or not, a storm is brewing, and one that is likely to impact gamers everywhere in a negative light. That storm would be the on-going battle for used game sales and DRM. With every new day bringing on the potential rumors of the next generation of consoles blocking used games, the war for this seems to be seeping through at every corner. But just why should this be allowed? Where is there an underlining rule that says used games are bad for business?

I heard an interesting analogy the other day, and I think it fits this argument wonderfully: a company doesn't get paid twice when a used car is sold, so why should a game developer and publisher get paid twice when their game sells? This is an excellent argument, and I agree with this 100%. Why should developers be given even more money? When their game launches, and its a relatively big title, why should they be paid twice? Skyrim, Mass Effect 3, Gears of War 3, all of these did exceptionally well when they were released. Why should these companies get paid again when this game sells at a used game store? That is how companies like Gamestop make their money, so if we block used game usage, then this is a gigantic nail in the coffin for companies like gamestop.

Gamer's are generally not wealthy people. For me personally, I have to really factor a new game purchase well, because I don't want to waste $60 - $70 on a game that might potentially suck. My most recent example of this would be Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City. I owned that game for a grand total of six hours, and until I saw the horrible reviews, I finally returned it and ended up picking a different game up instead. Now, in a situation like that, yes reviews saved me there, but what about the good old method of trying a game out and returning it because you didn't like it? I can name countless times I've picked up a used game, tried it out, and returned it (or even the good old fashioned video game rental). This kind of thing will go down the tube fast if Microsoft and Sony decide to block used games.

Sure, we've already begun to see the downside of this with Online passes. I also hate the idea of this because if you want to let a friend borrow a game, then you simply have to buy the online pass, and that's like spending another ten dollars on something you already spent full price on (if you picked this up used that is).

Now no, I don't hate game developers. I just feel that a sense of greed is starting to become overwhelming in the games marketplace. With 2013 ramping up to most likely be the inevitable launch of new consoles, I for one hope that this used game, DRM business gets subsided. Plus we all know in the end, Gamestop will probably pay a large sum of money under the table to these compaines to keep this blocking used game business at bay. I just don't see a company like Gamestop rolling over and dying anytime soon.

When Microsoft launched the Xbox 360 in 2005, I didn't wait in line because I was going to be hooked on this new achievement trend, I waited in line for the next evolution in gaming. I had no idea what achievements were when I popped in Perfect Dark Zero on launch day, and I slowly started to understand after that game, and slowly built my gamerscore from there.

Now, everyone's got there thing. I personally take achievements pretty seriously, as I have a gamerscore of over 100,000, actually it is approaching almost 130,000 as I write this. I've played some good, and some bad games to get my gamerscore this high, believe me. I had no idea on launch day nearly seven years ago that this would become an addiction that could rival alcohol, or drugs, but it has. And when I approached the milestone of 100,000 last summer, I realized and made a conscious decision to not play anymore crap games simply for gamerscore. No more Terminator Salvation's or Backyard Football's, that's for sure. If it is a game that I want to play, and a foreseeable thousand, I'll pick up the game.

However, something happened this past fall that has angered not only myself, but many fellow gamers out there. That something was Gears of War 3. Well I can't fault Epic Games for making a bad game, because Gears of War 3 is not a bad game, I can fault them for being insanely hardcore on the achievement front of things, hard enough that they have breached the point of becoming insane bastards.

And you know what, when Gears 3 launched, I was ok and accepted the fact that I will never get Seriously 3.0. Legitimately, no one will. The man hours alone would be enough to drive anyone to brink of insanity, that's for sure. But the rest of Gears of War 3 should have been a cakewalk, like the previous installments. Then with the promised "season pass" offer, an offer I actually refused to pick up on, they promised out the gate four stellar dlc packs. None of the downloadable content packs for Gears of War 3 have been stellar, to say the least.

The Horde Command Pack added some great new functionality, maps, weapons, and skins to Horde mode, that's for sure, but was crushed be more seemingly unobtainable achievements. To level up the silverback and get the highest command center and turret, the man hours there are borderline insane. I enjoy horde mode, as does a lot of people, but not to that extreme. However after that dlc, I new the second one should bring things back, as it was the first promised "extensive single-player/co-op story" dlc. However, this only broke my soul even more on this game.

The nearly two hour shitfest that is "RAAM's Shadow" is filled with unimaginative characters, who bicker along like arrogant school children, and have absolutely nothing funny or interesting to say. Instead there inane chatter only made me groan during the entire experience. Then add up to that, yet two more unobtainable achievements (no one will play as the Asian dude in multiplayer, so yeah, that's ruined), and the fact that the only cool part of Raam's shadow, when you play as General Raam, lasts about five minutes, and you have another disappointing entry into the Gears package.

But nothing, absolutely nothing could prepare me for the onslaught of almost an entire unobtainable achievement list with the third dlc. Nearly all of the achievements border on unobtainable, with you requiring to level up to a "prestige" mode-like level, and then do it all over again. Look Epic, artificially trying to make people play your game isn't going to make people play your game, fixing it will. At this point, I'm probably just going to pass on the third dlc, and hope the fourth one adds something cool, but my hope has kind of run out for Gears of War. Nothing is ever going to top what the first one was to me, and Gears of War is a dead franchise at this point.

I know I spent a lot of time picking on Gears of War, because it is the most recent example of this treachery, but there are plenty of other games in the sea of "impossible", that's for sure. The bottom line is that developers should concentrate on making something challenging and fun to play, but obtainable. I would rather spend 100 hours trying to get a full 1000 in any RPG then spend nearly three years of my life playing match after match of Gears multiplayer, that's for sure.

So as many of you know, unless you live under a rock, literally, that GTA V's trailer will be hitting on November 2nd, 2011. Despite my many problems with Grand Theft Auto IV, I can't help but be excited beyond containment about a new GTA. I've fallen in love with the GTA series since it's debut on the pc way back when, and it's one of those rare games that I actually still own every single game in the series. 2008's GTA IV was a massive disappointment for me, as I felt that they stripped out a lot of what was fun about the series in exchange for putting down a more serious tone. In many ways, Saint's Row 2 revitalized a lot of what I love about the Grand Theft Auto series. The only downfall there is that I feel Saint's Row 3 is going to be just a bit too over-the-top. However, I present the five things that need to be addressed or changed to make GTA V a true successor to it's predecessors.

5. Bring back some hilarity to balance out the serious tone. One of the biggest things that bothered me about Grand Theft Auto IV was the insanely serious tone 90% of the time. The tone was so serious in IV that anytime a joke was cracked or something was played off as being funny it came out of no where and misfired. The DLC tried to add humor and at times it was funny, but at times it was just completely distasteful (digital penis anyone?). But bring back the crazy things, like jetpacks and bizarre weapons.

4. Bring back some of the fun arcade elements like Rampages. There were always some pretty cool side-mission things in the earlier GTA's, that fell off on the wayside with IV. I'd love to see Rampages and some of the other cool side-missions you can discover to bring a nice distraction to the series, not to mention something more fun to do then simply run around and shoot pigeons as a collectible. Those "hidden package" pigeons really sucked.

3. Don't focus so much on a multiplayer aspect. I'd rather see the development team spend more time on making a great single-player campaign then dump there time into a throw away mutliplayer component. Grand Theft Auto IV's multiplayer was a joke. Let's be honest. And in a world where only games like Halo and Call of Duty are really played competitively online, lets stop while we are ahead. I'm all ok with a freemode, but that's about it. Unless Rockstar can blow my mind and make a decent multiplayer like Red Dead Redemption, but I doubt that's the case here.

2. Fix the driving! Anyone who claimed that GTA IV's driving mechanic was the best, they were simply drunk or just flat out stupid. I shouldn't hop in a car and feel like I'm driving on a thin sheet of ice at all times. That would make sense with it raining or snowing in the game, but not when it's Sunny outside. Seriously, the driving in IV was abysmal to say the least. It was so awful I never finished the races for Brucie. Saint's Row has a nice driving mechanic, I hope that Rockstar has been paying attention to them.

And the number one thing?

1. DON'T BE LIKE GRAND THEFT AUTO IV! Honestly, it's time to move on Rockstar. You had your fun making a serious entry into a series that has never been serious or never was meant to be, but it's time to move on. Grand Theft Auto IV was never a perfect game, it always felt like an 8/10 in my opinion, but Rockstar has had a nice break between games and really came into their own with Red Dead Redemption, a game that I still think is that studio's masterpiece. I'd love to see them climb back to the top with Grand Theft Auto V. I really hope they do a new location too. Revisiting Liberty City was a nice change of pace, but it's time to do something unique and cool. And bring back the MASSIVE world style that was in San Andreas, because that was awesome. Overall though Rockstar, just don't be anything like GTA IV.

Before I say anything else, no I haven't finished Duke Nukem Forever.  I've played through a good portion of the game.  While critically, this game is being hammered down as being one of the worst games ever, I can honestly say, people, Duke Nukem Forever is really not that bad. 
 
Sure, Duke's dated.  I mean, this is a game that should have been released in 2004.   In fact, I honestly don't understand why this game received the fourteen year development cycle that it did.  Duke is something of an era that is long gone, he's a badass, 80's style hero who doesn't really fit into today's world.  Sure, the humor is a little immature, but sadly I've found myself laughing quite frequently during the game.  And come on, those that have played this, you have laughed too. 
 
And that's probably the greatest thing that pisses me off, simply put: Duke's not that bad.  But every critic in America is taking a gigantic dookie on this game.  Seriously people, what were you expecting?  Sure, I will blame Gearbox for simply just slapping nothing more then a new coat of paint on this game, so to speak, and releasing it that way, but honestly they did that to preserve what this game is.  Gearbox could have taken another year or two, really sat down and rewrote everything from the ground up, and made a Duke Nukem game that blew us all away, but instead they chose to just release this game for what it is.  And honestly, they are going to be laughing all the way to the bank regardless, because I'm sure despite negative reviews, people will buy this game simply because it is Duke Nukem. 
 
To be fair, I've played much worse games then DNF.  For starters, anyone ever tried "Secret Service: The Ultimate Sacrifice" on the xbox 360?  Yeah, go play that, then play this and tell me Duke isn't better.  Seriously.  That's just one comparison I can list to several of games that are much worse then Duke.  Sure, it is dated, but it isn't the trainwreck that every critic is panning it to be.  I'm sorry that Duke doesn't offer some insanely amazing story, some sort of leveling up system, or any one of those things that cause reviewers to get a little tight in their pants.  What DNF has offered me for the first several hours is a fun and entertaining experience, which is why we play video games in the first place.  
 
Anyways, I will get back to finishing this game up, so I can review it.  But do yourself a favor, if you are a fan of Duke, you have a Ps3 or a pc, check it out.  You won't be disappointed, it is a new Duke Nukem after all

I've decided to blog about my opinions on Duke Nukem Forever a day before I play the release, and then again after I finally get my hands on the game. 
 
Now honestly, I, like most gamers, remember seeing Forever being announced way back in 1997 as the sequel to Duke Nukem 3D.  1997 was a time when Arnold and Stallone were on top of the world, when big budget action movies were kicking everyone's ass at the box office, and we were on the edge of the release of 3D era of consoles (I didn't own a Playstation at the time, but I was readying myself for the Nintendo 64).  I remember going to a friend's house and playing hours upon hours of many different games, but the three games that have always stuck out in my mind are The Legend of Zelda, Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3, and of course, Duke Nukem 3D.   The biggest thing that made Duke Nukem 3D such an experience for me growing up is that my parents didn't buy a home computer until 2001.  So going to a friend's house and playing Duke Nukem 3D on a platform I didn't own was kind of a big deal.   Throughout the years, I've played through Duke several times, and I still enjoy it to this day.  In 1997, when Forever was announced, everyone was pretty damn excited to see the return of the king.  
 
Now I don't need to sit here and write out about the fourteen years between Forever's announcement and what's happening now, but suffice to say, that damn game has been nothing more then the joke of the video game world.  When Gearbox finally purchased the rights to finish the game, my hopes reached their highest.  I mean, this is Gearbox, they made Borderlands, so this has to be good right? 
 
Literally every review of Forever is about what I expected.  Which is surprising and disappointing.  I mean, why wouldn't Gearbox have just scrapped what Duke was and made it their own?  I understand the idea of "preserving" the original idea, but come on.  That shouldn't excuse what seems to be laziness.  I honestly think they are banking on people buying this game for the sole fact that it's "Duke Nukem Forever".  Yes, this damn game is finally coming out.   
 
I was extremely hyped up on this game until the dust settled around the time that demo was released, and honestly, that's what really killed it for me.  Yes, I'm still buying the game, but as I am an achievement junkie/whore, I realized that this game isn't probably going to be the walk in the park for achievements as it should be.  Not to mention, Gearbox really did everyone a disservice by releasing that demo, which sucked horribly mind you, because it crushed my hope for Duke's return.   I will be playing the Playstation 3 version of the game now (thanks to the fact that I really don't care about trophies), and I will enjoy the game for what it is.  But until I complete the game, we will see how I really feel.  Right now, I'm pretty let-down.   But I will hold my final judgement, as always, until I see the final credits roll.

The first half of 2011 is coming to a close, and I think it's a wonderful time to sit down and compare on some of the bigger and better things that have happened in the gaming world this year, and some of the disappointments. 
 
The year started off strong with Dead Space 2, EA's answer to a giant release to start off the year (last year started off with Mass Effect 2). The game saw the return of Issac Clarke, this time with an actual voice.  The story was great and the action unparalled: the only downfall of the game was the ending was a disappointment. Yes, there will be a third game. 
 
In February we got the release of two major titles: Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 and Bulletstorm.  While Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 proved to be a great entry into that series, Bulletstorm failed to really impress me.  Its absurd, over-the-top humor and overall short campaign mixed with the inability to play it in co-op was a gigantic step backwards for gaming, and one that made me feel like a fool for purchasing it at a full, $60 price tag.  Sure it came with a week's early access of that Gears beta, but it wasn't worth that. 
 
March saw the release of two very high profile games.  While I enjoyed the little bit of Dragon Age 2 (a game that has gamers pretty evenly divided), I didn't play nearly as much of that game as I probably should have.  It is one of my summer ventures though.  Toward the end of March we saw the release of Crysis 2.  Sporting some of the most fantastic and jaw dropping graphics, Crysis 2 actually made more sense on consoles then everyone previously thought.  In fact the only downfall of that game is its muliplayer, which is nothing more then a rip-off of Call of Duty. 
 
April was perhaps the biggest month of this year so far, with a few very high profile releases.  We finally saw the return of two major franchises in Portal 2 and Mortal Kombat. I'll be honest here though, I seriously have no interest in Portal 2 and I skipped that game.  I am recognizing it as a great game, I'm sure it is, but honestly it just doesn't interest me.  However, Mortal Kombat has become the true success and surprise story of 2011 so far.  It is by far not only the best game released this year so far, but it also is one of the few games to get the whole nostalgia feel absolutely correct.   With a great story mode (the best a fighting game has ever seen) and classic gameplay everyone remembers, Mortal Kombat will surely be remembered as being one of the best of 2011. 
 
Finally we have May, which saw the release of "L.A. Noire".  While I applaud the game for having the awesome facial recognition and its extremely adult oriented story, the end of that game made me shake my head in disgust.  Seriously Rockstar, your game is good, but you missed achieving greatness by writing a terrible ending to an otherwise amazing game.  Still, no one should skip Noire. 
 
Finally, it goes without saying that in June, at E3, the biggest announcement happened with the return of Master Chief in Halo 4.  While no plot details or gameplay footage have been announced or shown, it doesn't matter at this point.  All anyone cares about is that the chief is back!
 
However the coming months look to be promising.  With Gears of War 3, Dead Island, Batman Arkham City, Uncharted 3, a Metal Gear Solid HD collection (amongst various awesome HD collections), Assassin's Creed Revelations, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, and finally, and what I am already calling will be the game of the year, The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, 2011 is perhaps the biggest year gaming has seen yet!

It's not an easy question to swallow at this point, but for the last ten years, every Halo game released has become the staple point of Microsoft's console.   So when Halo: Reach was released last September, I assumed that it would have a high life expectancy on Xbox Live.  Then a little game called Call of Duty: Black Ops was released, crushing literally every online game in its path.  
 
Reach went from having an average of 500,000 users online, to an average of 150,000, and even lower numbers during the weekdays and weeknights.  Since playing Black Ops, I've seen it clock in over a million, and an average around 550,000 whenever I've played.  Yes, I've enjoyed the multiplayer, and I do feel that Black Ops offers the most redefined multiplayer of the Call of Duty series to this date, but lately I've been feeling some Halo itch...as I'm sure a few other gamers here have. 
 
For kicks, I loaded up Halo 3 the other night.  Halo 3 is a multiplayer game I came back to over and over again for the course of the three years (before the release of Reach), and is probably the greatest multiplayer FPS I've ever played.  There are about 5,000 kids still playing online, and I was able to get a few matches with little to no problems.  Then I popped in Reach.  Reach sported about 100,000 people online, and yes I got in a few matches, but the question is simple: what is wrong with Reach? 
 
Surely kids have not forgotten about Halo?  Well for starters, perhaps it's the nerfed weapons offered in Reach.  The chaingun has an insane cool down time, not to mention it's effectiveness is complete garbage.  Other weapons, such as the Spartan Laser, have become way too powerful.  Grenades no longer justify that cool, easy kill after popping a few rounds into an enemy.  Instead it's become more then one grenade to kill an enemy.
 
So with the inevitable announcement of a Halo remake coming this fall, the question remains simple: should the Halo remake have a multiplayer component?

So Rock Band 3 is out, and it's taken over my life...as expected.  With that said, I've compiled a list of what I feel are the top ten artists that should be in this game, and why it's a shame that they aren't.  You can agree or disagree, but remember this is my opinion: 
 
1. CKY - CKY has been my second favorite band of all time for nearly ten years now.  Ever since I heard "96 Quite Bitter Beings" during my middle school years, I've been hooked on the intense guitar riffs and the CKY sound.  No other band sounds like this band, and that's what makes them one of the best.  There's a multitude of songs to choose from here, and while I would recommend any CKY songs, the musts are pretty obvious: "96 Quite Bitter Beings" , "Rio Bravo", "Flesh Into Gear", "Escape From Hellview", and "Disengage the Simulator" are all musts. 
 
2. Alkaline Trio: Arguably another one of the great punk bands that hasn't seen the light of day in any music game yet, Alkaline Trio has been pumping out quality music for almost fifteen years now. While I'm not a fan of 2008's "Agony & Irony", litterally any song from any other album would be tremendous.  Some musts are: "Private Eye", "Southern Rock", "'97", "We've Had Enough", "This Addiction", "Stupid Kid", and "Donner Party (All Night)".  
 
3. U2: Seriously?  I can't believe we've had this many music games in five years, and no one has touched the U2 discography.  While their music in the 90's is questionable at best, their early work is some of the best music you can ever hear, and anything would be welcome from them.  Musts would be: "With or Without You", "Beautiful Day", "Sunday Bloody Sunday", "Where The Streets Have No Name", "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me", and "One". 
 
4.Thursday: Two words: "Full Collapse".  One of the greatest albums of all time (in my opinion, I can't stress that enough here), I'd really like to see any Thursday, but especially anything off that epic album.  Thursday is one of the first screamo bands that I heard, and turned me on to the genre.  Musts: "Cross Out The Eyes", "A Hole In The World", "Understanding In a Car Crash", "War All The Time", "Signals Over The Air", and "Counting 5-4-3-2-1" 
 
5. Further Seems Forever: Also known as the band that started Chris Carabba's career, FSF is one of the better and more talented indie bands from the past ten years.  With the announment of their recent reunion tour, I'd like to see some great songs here added in.  Musts are: "The Moon Is Down", "Madison Prep", "How to Start a Fire", "Pride War", "Light Up Ahead", "Like Someone You Know", and "Justice Prevails". 
 
6. Something Corporate & Jack's Mannequin: Andrew McMahon is a genius.  I put both his bands in one pick because they are both just simply amazing.  And now that Rock Band has the keyboard ability, it would get quite a good work out.  Songs that are musts include: "Space", "If U C Jordan", "Watch the Sky!", "Only Ashes", "I Woke Up In A Car", "The Mixed Tape", and "I'm Ready". 
 
7. Boys Night Out: One of the few Canadian Rock Bands I enjoy, Boys Night Out are currently on a hiatus, but that doesn't mean there's quite a few good songs to choose from here that would make great screamo/metal choices: "The Only Honest Love Song", "A Torrid Love Affair", "Composing", "Medicating", "Up With Me", and "Sketch Artist Composite". 
 
8. Ac/Dc: Yes I know, we have the live track pack...but since I never got one of those codes I'm not counting that.  I want real, master track's of Ac/Dc songs.  Musts are: "Sin City", "Back in Black", "Dirty Deeds (Done Dirt Cheap)", "T.N.T.", "Highway to Hell", "Lets Get It Up", and "Shoot to Thrill".  
 
9. Bayside: Bayside has been rocking for a few years here, and there's a few good quality tunes that I'd love to hear.  Some good guitar solo work too: "Devotion and Desire", "A Call to Arms", "Masterpiece", "The Ghost of St. Valentine", and "The Walking Wounded". 
 
10. Horse The Band and Arsonists Get All The Girls: I put both these bands together because they are Nintendocore.  They use 8-bit keyboards, which is incredibly awesome.  Some good tunes I'd like to see are: "The Failure of All Things", "Cutsman", "The 42nd Ego" and "Save The Castle, Screw the Princess".  
 
So there are my ten hopefulls...what are yours?