My Thoughts on Xbox One

Last week, Microsoft held a little conference to unveil the successor to the Xbox 360. The name of this successor is Xbox One, making reference to the apparent "all-in-one" philosophy behind the development of the console. Some aspects of the Xbox One are controversial, some are expected, and some are simply intriguing. The reaction to the Xbox One has been very interesting to observe, with many rallying against the system while others place themselves on the defense. It has some good and bad things going for it, and so far it really doesn't seem like it's for me but there's potential for that to change.

I guess I'll start out by addressing the name. It's bizarre. Microsoft chose not to give it a quirky name like Wii, but instead an additive name like Super Nintendo. What's so odd about it, though, is that is uses a number that doesn't indicate which it is in its series of platforms. Sure, the same can be said about the Xbox 360, but nobody hears that and thinks it's the three-hundred sixtieth Xbox platform. When someone hears "Xbox One"? Many would instinctively think of the first Xbox home console, but now they're going to think of the third, unless they haven't heard of it yet. In that case you'll have conversations like the following: 

"Man I love the Xbox One. Such a great system."

"All I really liked on there was Fable."

"Which Fable?"

"There was only one Fable on the first Xbox."

"No, I'm talking about the Xbox One, not the original Xbox."

[after a long pause and an incredulous look] "What?"

So, yeah, we can't call the first one "Xbox 1" anymore. In all fairness I've always called the first Xbox the "original Xbox," but this name still needlessly complicates things. When someone hears that the "Xbox One" is coming out, will they instantly think it's a step up from their Xbox 360? Will people think I don't need a One, I already have a 360, in a similar fashion as those who thought I don't need a Wii U, I already have a Wii? Maybe. It also draws attention to the multimedia functions of the console, which distracts from what many would assume its main function is; playing video games.

The conference held last week was not focused on gaming, in fact. A lot of it was on the UI, the cable television functions, and apps like Skype. The multitasking looked cool, besides the sketchy Kinect controls. Being able to switch from television to games to music on the fly sounds great, and it's technically impressive. But it's controlled by voice commands and gestures? What happens when you say something in conversation similar to a voice command? What happens when you have a person (like me) that constantly gesticulates? There's going to be annoying miscommunications between the Kinect and its users, and that's excluding those with disabilities (like speech impediments) and troll friends and family members that will fiendishly shout out obtrusive commands. 

The cable television integration seems fine, I guess, but it really doesn't interest me, personally. I don't watch TV. If the Kinect controls actually work well or can be avoided, and Xbox Live is as impressive as before, it's likely that if I owned this it would be my main source of multimedia entertainment on a television; especially because of the blu-ray drive, which was one of the 360's multimedia Achilles' heels. However, I definitely wouldn't buy this for that purchase, as I spend more time on a tablet than a television anyway, and also because my Wii U and PS3 do the job just fine. What's going to sell this to me is viability as a gaming platform. 

Not much has interested me so far, in that regard. Microsoft had a few sports games to show off with EA, all of which doesn't do much for me, as I'm not into sports. A new Forza will be there at launch which is great, but I'm not into cars at all, so simulation-racers don't appeal to me. Call of Duty: Ghosts looks impressive, but military shooters don't get me excited, and that's not exclusive anyway. Quantum Break is a neat concept that I'll be looking into, but not only does its tv-show integration sound personally unappealing for me to get into, but details are vague. The only things I've seen that are exciting to my tastes are the enhancements to the controller (like the novel vibrating sticks), power on par with PS4 (no longer lagging behind Playstation in that department like in the 7th gen), and the announcement that there will be fifteen exclusives in the first year; eight of which new IP's.

The Xbox 360's line-up of games doesn't appeal to my tastes nearly as much as that of the PS3 and Wii, and I've honestly never been interested in buying an original Xbox due to its seemingly weak supply of exclusives that I want to play. Exclusives games are a good thing, and fifteen in the first year is not bad. It's good for me that over half will be new IP's, because Microsoft's established game franchises aren't amongst my favorites. I like Gears of War but I don't love it, I loved the Fable series for the first couple of hours of Fable 2 and then I lost interest, Halo has always seemed cool but I've never actually bought any of the series, etc. It would take a lot from new entries in these franchises to get me to buy this console. 

And now, let's get to the elephant in the room; the controversial features of the console that fight against used games, borrowing and trading, as well as the connecting-once-a-day thing. I don't like these things. I'm not going to precisely describe these things because Microsoft isn't either, so you can just look into specifics on your own as they are at the moment and as they progress. The basic idea is that Microsoft, with Xbox One, is trying to push physical games into a direction more akin to the format's handling in the realm of PC gaming, which is antithetical to the point of a gaming console - convenience. Being able to borrow games and lend them out, trade games, not having to worry about installing huge games, not having to connect online in order to play games, not having to register games, etc. all adds to the convenience of console gaming. How will the less-than-tech-savy - like children, for example - respond to this?

I have a job now, but before I did, I relied heavily on trading in and selling games to get new games, so if I didn't have a job, this would be a big deterrent. Why treat the physical format in this way? GameStop ganking cash from publishers through used sales may be a problem, but there are much better ways of handling this, such as including additive digital incentives for buying new (like discounts on DLC or a digital copy of an older game in the series) and online passes. These new things also make these games less durable in the sense that you may not be able to play them decades after they release like you can with physical console games right now. As I said, these features are not clearly defined and could change, but as it all stands - yuck. 

Many seem very against the Xbox One for these controversial features, some calling for a boycott and already placing themselves in a battle against Microsoft. If the Xbox One seems like it's worth my money, I'll buy it. If the cons (like these controversial features) outweigh the pros, I won't buy it. I don't want to deprive myself of a system I may like in an attempt to win a war against these features. If you can't wrap your head around the value in a system with these new features, I totally understand not buying it. By not buying it, you're showing through your dollars that what Microsoft is producing isn't reaching you as a consumer. For me, while I am against these new features, it's not enough on its own to stop me from buying the system.

Anyway, as it stands, the system isn't particularly enticing to me. As I said, the original Xbox has never appealed to me. The Xbox 360 was a hard sell, but they eventually got me once the slim model came out, finally completely stamping out the "Red Ring of Death" catastrophe. What truly sold me on the 360 was the impressive library of smaller downloadable titles that were console-exclusive, like Super Meat Boy and Splosion Man, and the superior social experience for multiplatform games because of Xbox Live. I actually sold my 360, but during a period in which I wasn't very into games. So the system itself wasn't the main reason for selling it, but it was the main reason I chose that one over my other systems. 

I already bought a Wii U and price is the only thing that has me holding my breath on the PS4. What's shown so far may be great for someone that just wants to watch Netflix and play shooters and sports games with their friends online, but that's not quite what I'm looking to buy. But things could change, and unlike some that have already given up on it, I'd love that. Let's hope the folks at Microsoft bring their A game to E3 this year: They need to. 

Dredd (Film) - Review

 When Dredd was announced and trailers started coming out for it, the response seemed pretty negative. I saw people write it off as Hollywood frigidly attempting to make a quick buck off of the nostalgia of its audiences for the 90s Stallone film and Judge Dredd comic book series. When the movie actually hit theaters, the reaction was surprisingly positive. Those that saw the movie generally had great things to say about it, and the movie was critically well-received despite being a financial flop, actually losing money at the box office. I haven't extensively read the comics, nor have I seen the Stallone movie, but my interest was piqued. I just got done watching it on Blu-Ray, and I'd say it's a pretty good action-filled romp, despite some problems with characterization. 

The movie starts off with an incredibly awesome intro sequence establishing Dredd as a badass cop [called a "Judge"] trying to establish justice in a city filled to the brim with crime. After that, Dredd is introduced to a rookie named Anderson that just narrowly failed her exam to become a Judge. He is instructed to take her out on duty and judge whether or not she should be hired, because she not only shows potential but she has psychic powers. The two decide to investigate a block at the scene of a triple-homicide.

They encounter a man that Anderson's psychic powers tells her is responsible for the triple-homicide, but Dredd decides rather than trust her "ninety-nine percent" certainty, it's best to take him in for interrogation. This intimidates drug-lord Ma-Ma, who has employed this man in her gang's murderous domination on other gangs and the production and distribution of an illegal drug called "Slo-Mo." She devises a plan that sends the entire block into lockdown, and intends to kill Dredd and Anderson in order to stop them from taking in the man for interrogation and spilling the details on her operation. The basic premise is established: Dredd and Anderson have to get themselves out of this block alive, and ensure justice is served. 

It's a pleasantly simple premise. This allows for tons of action, and the action is good. The violence looks great. It certainly leans on the cheesy side, but that doesn't take away from the entertainment value. People's faces get torn apart, mush that looks like bubble gum is underneath of skin, the "Slo-Mo" drug allows for some sweet slo-mo sequences, and the various applications of Dredd's weaponry are fun to watch. It's brutal, but rather than being uncomfortable, the brutality serves as spectacle when it's supposed to be spectacle and service to the story when it's supposed to be service to the story. The low budget makes the film look noticeably less produced than other movies you'd see at the theater, but it's not much of a problem. The story is unaffected and what they do with the budget is creative and looks good, so I can't knock it too much for its noticeably low budget.

My biggest issue with the movie is a rather annoying plot hole dealing with Dredd's characterization. As I said earlier, Dredd decides at the beginning of the movie that Anderson's "ninety-nine percent" certainty wasn't good enough to execute the man for the triple homicide, so they have to take him in for interrogation. This implies that he needs a spoken confession or hard evidence for an execution. However, later in the movie, in an act of rage, Dredd decides to do a makeshift interrogation of his own, and eventually allows Anderson to read the man's mind. "If you leave it to me he doesn't have to speak," Anderson says. She learns about Ma-Ma's operation in full through just her psychic interrogation, and not through a spoken confession or any hard evidence. Dredd doesn't object this time, and even formally accuses Ma-Ma of the new information he acquires from this moment shortly after. Is this because he gained more trust in Anderson from the start of the movie up to that point? Maybe that's what they were going for, but nothing here substantially makes that implication. By the end Dredd certainly seems to have gained trust in her, but I think the moments that made that change in him happen after this troubling scene. As it stands, Dredd seemingly makes a decision during this makeshift interrogation that contradicts the decision at the beginning of the film that gets them wrapped up in this predicament in the first place. 

Looking past that, the performances are great and the film does some great things thematically. Karl Urban plays a badass Dredd and has some really satisfying dialogue. The movie establishes him as an uncompromising function of the law that isn't against executing those that the law finds guilty of such a punishment. This of course raises ethical questions about government-sanctioned execution, that is thankfully challenged through Anderson's character, played by Olivia Thirlby. She hesitates to use her power to execute as she is more empathetic and kind, seeing the good in people and the problem with the coldness of government execution. Lena Heady plays a detestable bad guy as Ma-Ma that sets up a conclusion that has Dredd giving her a taste of her own medicine. How Dredd does what he needs to do comes off as uncharacteristically cruel from him, but brings her story arc full-circle in an inventive way.  

The action really is great, and unabashedly violent without being uncomfortable. The characterization of Dredd takes some head-scratching turns towards Unchallenged Contradiction City, which really hurts the film. But the characterization at its best is when the movie really shines, portraying Dredd as an utterly badass but ethically questionable function of law-enforcement and Anderson as a sympathetic counterweight, both fighting against the despicable baddy in Ma-Ma. As a whole, it's pretty good. 

Iron Man 3 (Film) - Review

Iron Man 3 may just be the best super hero movie of all-time. This flick is jam-packed with sweet action, near-perfect characterization and great laughs, all tied together with smart story-telling. Like Tony Stark's suit, it's not free of its rusty parts, but dude, it's still a freaking Iron Man suit.

Robert Downey Jr. is out of the suit quite a bit in this movie, which actually works to the film's benefit. The movie displays the man as the human being he is. As a line of dialogue accounts for, Tony is, on the surface, just a guy in a suit, in a world filled with aliens and super soldiers and demi-gods. Throughout Iron Man 3, it's made clear that Stark is a serious force to be reckoned with, and made more badass by the deck of cards he's dealt. It's awesome. This character is impossible for me to root against. He's the ultimate super hero.

His weaknesses really add to to his ultimate super hero status. Stark has developed severe cases of anxiety and insomnia from the events of Avengers, and when a terrorist called Mandarin is crafting disasters around America, he's pushed to the brink. Stark has severe panic attacks (which are depicted realistically, speaking as someone who has had panic attacks), makes some irrational decisions, and loses the trust of love interest Pepper. Instead of beating the character down in a way that makes him less compelling, this humanizes him, making him more compelling. Iron Man is the ultimate super hero because he's awesome despite the odds.

There's a major plot twist around half-way through the movie, and it just makes the main antagonist cooler and more intimidating. The origin of the bad guys actually ties in thematically with the demons and fears of Tony Stark, albeit not as strongly as it could. And it's just clever, and rather original. For the most part the performances for these baddies are great, creating utterly detestable faces to punch, but the most important role, while great, isn't superb. The character's performance is just one piece of the puzzle, though - the writing and placement in the story still rocks.

As I said, it's not without its issues here and there. The biggest issue is that the final fight scene, while purely satisfying from an emotional angle, is a lot to take in from a logical standpoint. After the credits rolled I was able to piece everything together to a point that made sense in my head, but that doesn't excuse the head-scratching. Besides that, the president of this film is frustratingly dopey, which is such a small complaint because, within the context of this movie, it doesn't really matter how smart he is, but I wish there would have been a joke or two thrown in or a scene of explanation to calm my mild frustration. And sometimes, I felt like it tried too hard with the comedy. 

But don't get me wrong, it's funny, and also just fun in general. Robert Downey Jr. follows up his stellar performances from before as a one-liner-filled powerhouse of amusement. Stark meets a tech-savvy kid that helps him out as the plot unfolds, and all of his bits don't miss a beat, at best managing to not only be funny but also charming. Don Cheadle is better than ever before as War Machine, and even Gwyneth Paltrow as Pepper gets an upgrade in some respects. The action is fantastic, with some invigorating set pieces of pure visual splendor. These set pieces are often quite creative, the best of which being the scene with the plane in the sky from the trailers, forcing Stark to link save everyone in a fashion similar to, as he says, the game "Barrel of Monkeys."

Iron Man 3 is such a great movie. It gives viewers the ultimate super hero, who's incredibly awesome despite the odds. It's funny and purely entertaining, but it's also compelling on more intelligent planes. It's not perfect, but to quote the man himself, "glitches happen." Director Shane Black and all others involved have crafted one of the very best super hero movies.

Nintendo Made a Big Goof

I'm a big Nintendo fan. And I'm not even one of those Nintendo fans that says things like "Nintendo used to be good but now they've lost their way." No, no, I bought a Nintendo 3DS on launch day and don't regret the $250 purchase one bit. I think that Super Mario Galaxy 2 is one of the best video games ever made. I'm even willing to call myself a fan of Waluigi, folks. This is why, dear readers, it really saddens me to hear that Nintendo is cracking down on Let's Players.

Let's Player Zack Scott was the dude who kickstarted conversation about this new policy of Nintendo of America. He claimed that Nintendo forced ads onto his videos which shoots the ad revenue completely to Nintendo, not himself. Nintendo issued the following statement:

"For most fan videos this will not result in any changes, however, for those videos featuring Nintendo-owned content, such as images or audio of a certain length, adverts will now appear at the beginning, next to or at the end of the clips. We continually want our fans to enjoy sharing Nintendo content on Youtube, and that is why, unlike other entertainment companies, we have chosen not to block people using our intellectual property."

I love how Nintendo is trying to paint this as a good thing. Those other companies have these videos taken down, we just want to take these Let's Players' money!

There are some problems with that line of logic. For one thing, those "other entertainment companies" are, a vast majority of the time, not video game companies, they are music and film companies. I'm not going to necessarily defend or bemoan the actions of those companies, but there is a fundamental difference between what they do and what the big N is doing. What those "other entertainment companies" typically do is remove uploads of full songs and clips of films, that may include lyrics or subtitles, which are of course owned by the company and not the uploader. Let's Players film their own personal gameplay experience, and a huge component of the video is their entirely original commentary. 

If somebody uploads a full movie onto YouTube, the people who view that video have watched that movie. When someone uploads a video of New Super Mario Bros. Wii with their voice playing over it the whole time, the viewers aren't watching New Super Mario Bros. Wii in the same way that one would be watching a directly uploaded, say, Skyfall. Gamer X's playthrough and commentary of New Super Mario Bros. Wii is a different thing than the video game New Super Mario Bros. Wii. If you want to play New Super Mario Bros. Wii, you have to play New Super Mario Bros. Wii, you can't just watch a Let's Play of it. If you want to watch Skyfall? Sure, if some dude throws it on YouTube, you could - for the most part - get a proper viewing of the film.

Now, hey, sure: I don't deny that some people watch a Let's Play and, because they watched it, no longer have a desire to buy and play the video game. I watched a playthrough of Heavy Rain, and when I was done, my desire to actually pick the game up and play it was vastly diminished. I totally understand not liking that. But to use those situations as a means of justification for doing what NOA is doing is far from reasonable, especially on a pragmatic level. 

In a broad sense, I feel safe in saying that Let's Plays help game sales much more than harm because the experience of playing a video game is vastly different from watching someone else play the game. I've been motivated to buy and play a game more than I've had my motivation diminished, when it comes to watching Let's Plays. I think most people would agree that watching a video of someone playing a game is more likely to entice someone to play the game rather than take away that potential desire.  At least, surely, it has massive potential to create interest in the game.

And yeah, Nintendo isn't saying that these videos can't exist, but these big time LPers that build a career off of their videos - some of whom playing mainly or perhaps even exclusively Nintendo games - aren't going to waste their time on Nintendo titles if there's no money in it for them. There are similar websites like Blip that could be used as an alternative, but YouTube is much more popular - everyone reading this knows what YouTube is, but Blip? Not so much. I only know about it because of ThatGuyWithTheGlasses, and you may not know what the heck that is either. 

It's not just LPers that could be affected: Reviewers, for example, could fall into this trap as well, if it meets NOA's criteria. Shouldn't there be a legal issue in what Nintendo is doing? I'm no lawyer, but I don't think it's out of the question to say that these LPers' videos are completely legitimate, based on Fair Use law for their criticism. 

I think Peer Schneider of IGN hit the nail right on the head with this tweet:

"@PeerIGN: Only possible outcome: fewer Nintendo Let's Plays by the most influential YT elite + less Nintendo mindshare on the biggest video network."

Copyright infringement makes me queasy. For example, while I'm no SOPA supporter, I think I'm more anti-piracy than a lot of people. But I can't wrap my head around this decision from Nintendo. As a big fan, I'm disappointed. Here's hoping this doesn't become a large-scale, long-term issue, as it seems it will be at the moment. As it stands, Nintendo is on a road that will continue what may be their biggest problem; a distinctive negative stigma of Nintendo within the gaming community.

***

Information from IGN: http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/16/nintendo-enforces-copyright-on-youtube-lets-plays?abthid=5194b3ca49fe79bd6e000004

Remember Me?

I haven't thrown any new content up on this blog in... awhile!

Hey. What's that? What have I been up to? Well, I've been writing for this comics blog I created called The Comic Current.

It's a good blog. I'm very proud of it. Tweets linking to various posts have been retweeting by folks like Dan Slott (main Spider-Man writer for years), Charles Soule (current writer on Swamp Thing), Allison Strejlau (artist on the Regular Show comic), etc. My main hobby has been comics for the past two years or so, and that's one outlet in which I share my love for it all.

I still have other things I'd like to write, but I haven't been doing that as much! I wrote about Homophobia for my personal blog on Tumblr this one time. It was good stuff. I also wrote something today that is relevant to this blog.

I'm coming back. I've been writing a lot for The Comic Current, but I don't just want to write about comics. I want to write about video games and movies and politics and music and maybe even some creative stuff, and this is where that's gonna happen. Tumblr is pretty trendy and is a slick and cool way to get your work around the web, but Blogger one-ups it when it comes to accessing older work and stuff like that. So I'll have content firing on both outlets.

Expect cool stuff soon, and frequently; both here and on The Comic Current.

Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time (Video Game) - Review

Sly 2: Band of Thieves is my favorite video game of all-time. It's more or less a flawless game, which heavily plays into its place as my all-time favorite, but it also has a lot of nostalgic significance to me. The story of the Sly Cooper series was one of the first, if not the first, video game story to really click with me. Young Matt would just skip the cut-scenes in the games he played, but Sly 2 didn't give the player that option. Young Matt was forced to watch the cut-scenes, and Young Matt became engrossed in the tale of a mischievous trio of anthropomorphised animals. So engrossed that he hunted down the first game in the series, and so engrossed that he excitedly got in on the third game when it released back in 2005.

And then, the series was gone for awhile. Developer Sucker Punch moved onto the more popular Infamous series on the Playstation 3. Imagine my excitement when the Sly Cooper HD Collection revealed that a Sly 4 is in the works. It was first slated for a 2012 release on Playstation 3, but that was changed to a Playstation 3 and Playstation Vita release on February 5th, 2013. I loyally went down to the game shop on its day of release and bought myself a copy.

The first game in the series, Sly Cooper and the Thievius Raccoonus, was, for the most part, a standard, linear-style 3D platformer that uniquely mixed in elements of stealth, had a quirky story, and used an interesting visual style. The second game became less linear in its progression, beefed up the story, vastly improved the graphics, and allowed the player to take control of more than just Sly Cooper. Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves used the same framework as Sly 2, but threw even more gameplay concepts and characters into the mix. Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time continues the story of the series by using the same structure of the second and third games, but scales its gameplay variety and character roster to something comparable to the second game. The game is out on both PS3 and Vita, the PS3 version includes a free download of the Vita version, and players with both can take advantage of a cloud-save function used to continue progress across platforms [which works brilliantly]. It's successful in capturing the magic of the older games in the series and is a great game in its own right, despite hitches such as consistent technical problems and an unsatisfying conclusion to its narrative.

The plot of Thieves in Time takes place directly after the events of  Sly 3. The Sly Cooper gang, a ragtag trio of master thieves, is split up after the climatic events of the third game. Sly is hanging out with police officer and love interest Carmelita Fox, whom only allowed this because she believes he has amnesia [he doesn't... hopefully things didn't get weird behind the scenes]. Meanwhile, Bentley, the brains of the Sly Cooper gang, successfully created a time machine with his love interest Penelope. The premise of Thieves in Time forms when the gang learns that Penelope is missing and there is a baddie with his own time machine thwarting Cooper ancestors throughout history. Each chapter takes place in a different time in history, and features a different, playable Cooper from the past.

The story's lots of fun and mostly maintains the tone of past games. It is a lot more comedic (Murray, the third member of the Sly Cooper gang, is more or less completely comedic relief in this entry) and often laugh-out-loud hilarious, but it still has a reasonable amount of smart, inventive drama that I more than appreciate as a fan of the series. It’s ridiculous, just like past games – the wheelchair-bound turtle Bentley doesn’t just have the rocket packs and hydraulics from the last game, but he also has Doctor Octopus-style mechanical arms this time around. There's a big plot twist around 80% through the game, and it hits hard and surprises. Overall it’s great, but the conclusion is weak and wholly unsurprising, despite the satisfying and engaging final boss fight.

And the game is quite striking. On PS3, I can confidently say that these graphics are some of the very best of its kind. This is very impressive cartoonish celshading, with intricate and expressive character animations and colorful and interesting vistas. On Vita, it looks pretty good, but the resolution and draw distance take noticeable hits. In both versions, the 2D animated cut-scenes are massively cut off by black bars on the television, but what’s there looks great. Voice acting is similarly impressive, with goofy and fun performances that fit the over-the-top characters. The original cast from past games more or less reprises its roles, as well.

The biggest problem with the game is something on a similar note, and that’s technical issues. The framerate on the Vita version is not awesome, as it frequently drops throughout the whole game. On PS3 it’s mostly pretty smooth, until the final chapter in which the framerate is just as unimpressive as the Vita version always is. Load times on both platforms are exceedingly bad, which may be the worst of the technical issues. I had the audio cut out while playing on PS3 at one point, and I got stuck in objects once on each platform, as well. These technical issues bring the overall experience down, but never made me think twice about booting the game up to play.

And that’s because the game is lots of fun. The gameplay is comprised mostly of sequences combing stealth and platforming. The game introduces new concepts enough to keep things fresh, and the organic nature of the level design makes the platforming engrossing in a way that games like Super Mario 64 just aren’t. During gameplay, it doesn’t feel like jumping from platform A to platform B, it actually feels like jumping from the chimney of a roof to a cable line. Every now and then the game will throw sections of brawling, or of dual-stick shooting, or of third-person shooting at you, and they’re fun while they last.

The game is rife with collectibles, creating an incentive to continue playing after the credits roll – or at least to make you play more carefully the first time through. The game is split into five chapters, each taking place in a secluded, [small-scale] open-world. Each has their own set of three types of collectibles. The bottles and treasures of past games return, the latter of which providing in-game money as well as the pride of collectorship that the former solely provides. The game also has masks, which are sometimes hidden within missions; all of which are replayable. I love the idea of exploring these little worlds to find treasures and bottles, but the prospect of replaying missions for masks seems exhausting. It’s just extra, so it’s hard to complain too much, but this is preventing me from doing the 100% completion I was more than happy to do with the second and third entries in the series.

As a big fan of the series, I’m happy with Sly Cooper: Thieves in Time. It’s unfortunate that the game didn’t get the extra time needed to stamp out the technical quarrels, and it’s unfortunate that the end to the story is as lame as it is, but the game succeeds as a whole. Sanzaru Games was able to make me smile in the same way that Sucker Punch did with the original trilogy on PS2. The story is taken in a fun direction, the goofy comedy squeezed out some Petras laughter, the leap in generation does wonders for the visuals, and the organic, engaging platforming is as good as it’s always been in the series. Bring on Sly 5, Sanzaru.  

Top Five Favorite Video Games of 2012

2012 was not an exceedingly exciting gaming year for me. Despite the birth of two brand new platforms, both of which I got in on, my interests veered more towards things like comics and film. I enjoyed enough games to fill a top ten list, but really, there were around five to seven games that really stood out to me. So I decided to do a nice, round 5 games. I love these games, and they left a real impact on me.

I'm pleased to present my top five favorite games of 2012.

5. New Super Mario Bros. U - (played on Wii U)

Christmas day - and the rest of my Christmas break for that matter - was Wii U week for me. The game that really captured my attention, and that really got me excited for Nintendo's new console, was New Super Mario Bros. U. Easily the best of the New Super games, NSMBU fills eight worlds with energetic and interesting level designs that look better than ever, thanks to Nintendo embracing high definition visuals. The new squirrel suit and the pink baby Yoshi are two of the coolest power-ups in any of the 2D Mario games, both giving the player a joyous sense of flight. The Miiverse integration smartly gives the experience a social flair, even when playing alone, and the option to play exclusively on the Gamepad is convenient. Nintendo still knows what it's doing. 

4. Hot Shots Golf: World Invitational - (played on PS Vita)
Yeah, I got on board with the Vita as well. Game releases sure are slow for the system at the moment, but that's partly due to its crazy launch day, filled with tons of big first-party titles. The first game I bought to go along with my Vita was Hot Shots Golf: World Invitational. Not Uncharted, not Wipeout, not Lumines, no - I went with the quirky, arcade-style gold game. It was great fun! The graphics are gorgeous, and do a great job of showing off the Vita's impressive display. The course design and character customization are great, as I've come to expect from this series. Golf games bore some people, but for me, there's not many things more exciting than an impressive shot across the map that lands right in the hole.

3. The Walking Dead - (played on iOS)
When Telltale's The Walking Dead set the gaming community on fire, with glowing reviews, game of the year nominations, and personal stories of tears, I was quite surprised. It seemed to me like it would be a "pretty good" series that got less and less relevant as it went on, but boy, was I wrong. The first season of The Walking Dead, which lasted five episodes, is a memorable emotional roller coaster. I was pleased to find that Telltale veered away from confusing puzzles and instead focused on storytelling, and I was even more pleased to find just how good the story it has to tell is. The game is incredibly tense all the way to its depressing conclusion, and it manages to give the player a tangible sense of moral responsibility for his actions. The game is also easy on the eyes, with a distinct comic-book-inspired look. It is a fulfilling experience that I am glad to have had.

2. Playstation All-Stars: Battle Royale - (played on PS3 and Playstation Vita)
Playstation All-Stars: Battle Royale gave me a feeling that I haven't had in around seven years - The feeling of playing Super Smash Bros. for the first time. Which is not to say that PS All-Stars isn't unique, because, as IGN's Colin Moriarty said in his review, "the two games are as different as Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat." Its focus on Super Attacks is what sets it apart from Super Smash Bros., giving the game a much more strategic feel. The game's inclusion of solid online play and the option to play on the go [with the Vita version, which comes free with a purchase of the PS3 version] made the game incredibly addictive for me, and it's important to note that its inspiration can't boast those features.

1. Lollipop Chainsaw - (played on Xbox 360)
I'm not nearly as loyal and passionate as many other fans of Grasshopper Manufacture and Suda 51, but Lollipop Chainsaw blew my mind. I love practically everything about this game, from its goofy, stupid and sexy sense of style to its thrilling gameplay, rife with old-school sensibility. The developers clearly chose not to censor themselves much, filling the game to the brim with sex, violence and overall crudeness. All of that, mind you, juxtaposes with rainbows, cheerleading and light-hearted 80s pop music. The game especially shines in its aesthetics, but the solid score-based beat-em-up action does not get buried in the barrage of sensory gold. I almost immediately jumped in for a second playthrough after my first, which is something I never do. This game is easily my favorite of 2012.

***

What were your favorites? How awful is my taste in games? There's a comments section below, bro.