I-n-j-i-n

Geass is still very good, but it's almost getting too convoluted with all the personality allegories and connections. I mean, even Orange jumped ship. And yeah, Kaiba is getting a good dose of Deus Ex Machina in its storytelling. It was all lowkey and very artistic, but now it's like Star Wars on steroids.

Um. It's still a good 1.5 to 2.0 million in terms of sales. That's big money if you multiply it by $60. I don't think you can really call ANY single game as a system seller. Really, how antique is that silly idea? MGS4, FF13, Gears of War, Legend of Zelda, Mario. They're all amazing titles that may gravitate gamers, but people bought the Wii for the Wiimote, the 360 for the online/hardcore gameplay and the PS3 for being the high tech centerpiece (though that's somewhat arguable now). But really, I do feel pretty sorry for PS3 fans who did buy the system with the promise from Sony that it'll be the one big exclusive for the system. Once Kingdom Hearts and MGS4 and other big titles jump ship, I can expect a depression-age suicide streak by the PS3 fans.

AC is high maintenance only because the AI is non existent. If the animals had even a smallest amount of compassion for the town, they'd pick up all the f'n weeds, stop picking petty fights and maintain the village. That said, I'll probably buy it anyway.

Sony still has a lot of 1st/2nd party exclusives. Conversely, the 360 still isn't quite as robust as Sony with their 1st party games. But I'd say 'forget it' with the 3rd party stuff. The 360 is running away with them. That and the PC/360 exclusives are working for them apparently. I think more marketable Japanese games will make the switch too. I didn't think Ace Combat would be the precedent.

But don't you see the contradiction there? Why improve if it's perfectly fine? They improved because it was not that good. Hopefully with the new version of the Wiimote, we won't have to be relegated to sliding-control feel and the lack of control on open space. You're right. You can point and click and all that. That part of it worked perfectly fine, but moving the controller as a 3D mechanic, it was clearly faulty. It was like with the DS screens. The older DS buttons were ROCK HARD, the edge of the handheld was sharp and the screens were dim. We only knew afterward with the much improved DS. I now wonder if the new Wii consoles will have the add-on built in the machine? I almost think it should be like the wii sheath.

Didn't you just answer your own wonderment why people look back at the old functionality and see how flawed it probably was? I mean, precise movements wasn't really there and in the end, many games like Mario Galaxy used it as a mouse cursor more than a free floating motion sensor it was meant to be. Aiming also was not as precise as it should have been for FPS style controls. Now I hope they make another Mario game just to take advantage of the more precise controls. I may be complaining like this a lot, but I do think it's great for the functionality. Now they just need to get rid of friend codes forever. Oh, and if Sony and MS are going to copy it for their PS4 or Xbox720, they should rightfully adapt the new technology instead.

It's weird, because a lot of Sony fanatics are now saying Star Ocean was a Playstation thing. In retrospect, it was.

Shouldn't you take advantage of the free fixes while MS is still being generous about it? That's the thing though. If Nintendo is admitting that the Wiimote wasn't as responsive as before, why should we buy the peripheral? It should be free IMO. Not that it's that big a deal for me (only one controller..), but the idea of buying constant upgrades? And it's Nintendo that's doing it? That is ironic.

Again, the red ring of death is still a statistical minority. Maybe half a percentile out of all the consoles so far. The Wiimote had its share of problems with the controller slipping and finally Nintendo upping its responsiveness. And really, both are still nagging problems to those that had such problems but both MS and Nintendo are aiming to fix them. And my first generation 360 basically had no problems from the start. As for the Wii, I have to agree with the whole 'waggle the wiimote because it's unresponsive anyway' thing. It was handicapping the control scheme for a long time now. To me, that is a bit more egregious since only Nintendo seems to have figured out how to use it efficiently (but even then, it wasn't exactly ideal... like in Metroid Prime 3, it was a bit wonky compared to using that combination of older/newer control scheme). Then again, I'm not sure how the 3rd party will exactly survive with the Nintendo games being as great as they are and taking all the spotlight anyway.

I was actually expecting a MGS4 announcement only to hear this happen. I have nothing against the PS3 since I actually do want it a lot, but in terms of video game utility of being able to play all the biggest games, the 360 is like the spiritual successor to the PS2 at this point. Now only if they announce Persona 4 or Persona 5 for it. I didn't think the conference was necessarily bad. It was obvious they were going after the casual gamers there, and the system still had a lot of hardcore demographic games on it. I think it's obvious what they're trying to do. And we still haven't seen too much from all the JRPGs for it either. And the Wii copies, I think it's a good idea. Might as well start somewhere.

So FINALLY Nintendo confirms the deep rooted fear that the remote is *gasp*, not responsive at all and only a select few Nintendo games were able to use it very well. I'm honestly a bit disappointed with the news in a way. Because the wiimote should have been like that from the start. It's like they're making ground. Oh, and not to mention that I should spend more money because Nintendo made a boo boo and the controller needs fixing.

Doesn't Doki Doki Panic have more of a popularity with its gameplay anyway? I think I saw that in GameCenter CX.

Yeah, but Chris Nolan is being a total copout by saying that he isn't committed and has said that the Dark Knight is most probably his final one. Maybe the same for Christian Bale. It's like the crew for Spider-Man falling apart.

Apparently the big news for Nintendo is Animal Crossing.. which I'm not exactly thrilled about since they are obviously going to use friend-codes and the AI in the games are non-existent. But I hope they can change a few things drastically. I want to see some Star Ocean 4 footage for the 360 if they have any. Oh, and that new Sony portable system that seems to be planned.

Cool, I would have never expected an XBLA game to be getting an addon. The only 'problem' I might have with the game is when the enemies just go overboard with their attacks purely on luck. I just hope that doesn't happen too much in Galactrix.

Speaking of Puzzle Quest, I don't think it's an expansion but a full fledged galactic sequel. Look it up on GameTrailers.com. I think it looks pretty intriguing and the game just might be as 'too-big-for-a-puzzler' kind of game as the first. If the gameplay lives up, I'm downloading it instantly.

The only thing about this movie is that I have qualms about Harvey Dent. I'm not sure a character like him is actually necessary unless they're building up for a possible trilogy that may or may not happen because Chris Nolan is acting like a fickle bitch about the third movie rumors. But after my personal disappointment with Ironman and Hulk, I think Dark Knight and Hellboy 2 should lift my expectations a bit.

I would plunk the extra for the elite if I had the money. 20GB is nowhere near enough if you have a few demos, downloaded games and music/movies put in there. It'll probably take you a few weeks to fill it all. I think even 120GB probably won't be enough for me personally. And HDMI just makes everything that much simpler (ONE PLUG) and with better graphical results.

Yeah, visually and aurally it was really beautiful. Some of the prettiest moments in a JRPG I've seen at spots. I just disagree with the near perfect scores it got back in 2000. It was a well made game, but I guess everybody were into giving high scores for RPGs back then.

Why? Most people didn't like it as a sequel and the jury was out on how good it was regardless. I actually think I liked it more than many people did, but it does have a pretty convoluted story compared to the straight forward one in CT. I think it's only natural that a complication of the original would divide opinions. Especially when CC ended up being a totally offspin, alternate dimension spinoff instead of a sequel.

I liked Cross, but it exactly wasn't the best standalone game either. Way too much psychobabble and it was incredibly hard to relate to 90% of the cast members. Most of the game played out like the boring parts of Xenogears. And the ability to play as 40+ characters was the biggest gimmick I ever saw in a JRPG. And only 10 or so of them were even really usable.

Yeah, I think that is a really good point. You always hear about the fact that programmers are like construction workers of their craft while the designers are the artists. Maybe add in a top of the line music composer or even a novelist/writer and you have a real mix in your hands. Even if I'm firmly in the belief that games are art (again, not a traditional one), it's a paradoxical medium.

You see, I'm not saying that the way we controlled games were the ultimate. But it's not faulty or inherently flawed. You don't fault people in the past for using animal hides or using inferior paint for their art. You don't fault people in the past for using old language in their plays/books, nor should you necessarily fault the old ways of thought for their aesthetics of their time. Why do you need to single out games when it's PERFECTLY FINE for their purpose as of now? I don't get the reasoning that 'simple is best' as being the only epitome of something. What about complexity and something being involving? That's another avenue too. It just happens that games can encompass both simplicity and complexity and I fail to see how one is supposed to be better than the other in aesthetics of gaming. I think to lean one way or the other really lends itself to personal bias regarding such types of games and what they are supposed to represent as an artform. People keep mentioning Ico and Shadow of the Colossus in their simplistic nature, but that's only one thing. Bigger, complex pieces like Final Fantasy in all their mass market appeal and popularity doesn't automatically discount it from being another example of creativity being infused in a videogame. "sometimes they're overblown and pointless". Are you kidding me? That's only the most cynical view of it since most of the time it tends to serve the games they're on. Also, why should cutscenes be excluded from the entire gaming aspect? That's ridiculous. It's like saying you should take one small piece of development artwork or a screenshot or only the music of a game in order to call it an artform. But it clearly is a sum of their parts. For better or for worse. Forgiving of what? Why put such a ridiculously bad spin on simple mechanisms of games? And you may find them awkward, but I don't. Also, what about the fact that cutscenes typically are a smaller, storytelling segments and generally aren't simply made to be 'awkward'? What about the fact that you can skip it in successive playthroughs? Why the hell not? The input methods work not simply because it sells that way, but because *it works*. Gaming as a technology is still new and everything came out of the simple joysticks to the Nintendo digital-pads and it has been evolving as the games themselves. So you're saying that we should be hitting the epitome of interaction RIGHT out of the bat? I think you're off your knockers. Or just way too idealistic. And the whole bit about 'non art things sell well' has me confused. You're going around in circles there. Non-artful things are basically utilitarian/practical items. Games being playable is in the practical realm, but that has nothing to do with the overall creative input in it. Again, why is it some sort of a mortal sin for games to utilize what works best in our day and age? Because it isn't. It's perfectly fine. It can get better, but it doesn't mean it's so flawed that we should be looking at the most cynical view of it. Look at games like Virtua Fighter and all the inputs you have to memorize. And yet it works. You can't seriously expect Sega to come right up and give us total game control that'll most likely mangle the game due to the lack of control in the design department? As for the whole 'art isn't sales', that's another strange idea, because art, especially the more appreciated ones are all about selling its own image whether by its own greatness or with the way it impacts society either by being popular culturally or simply being perceived as important. If that wasn't true, then why are so many high-profile art costing in the millions? Even if that was not to be the original intention, you can't simply detach all the market forces that underlies the art world just as it does with anything else. Again, way, way too cynical and onesided. So there are some games that doesn't make use of good controls. But there are lots of them that do. And even with something like the Wiimote and the DS stylus and keyboard and mouse, they are always constricted by the ultimate need for a game to be fun foremost (again, casual gamers be damned, because gaming in the end, is for gamers. Let the casual games attract the casual gamers). Are you fucking kidding me? "laugh" at how things used to be? But that's simply how games have grown up. So we "laugh" at how Super Mario Bros didn't have battery/memorycard saves because they didn't have the technology? Or that Myst should be bashed because it's not as interactive as some of the newer successors of Myst itself? Okay, so why don't we laugh at the cavemen who painted on walls who didn't have color palettes to work with or a WACOM to scribble upon? How funny, right? Oh, and btw: Let me just say that's simply the most offensive thing I've heard in a while. Ebert wasn't even legitimately arguing about the art aspect in games, but basically stomping it down. Typical of older generation who never felt the impact of video games nor its relevance in his generation. It's almost like ancient boxing analysts bashing MMA for being the up and coming discipline. Honestly, I don't see a reason to draw the battlelines that way. Just because I feel that games are art in no way degenerates the integrity of the older/traditional artforms. Hell, I'm an artist myself, so I have a bit of a stake in older artforms too. I honestly don't see the inclusion as some sort of a 'saturation' of art. To me, it's enrichment. Much like graffiti became such. Remember when in decades past, where graffiti was thought to be the encroachment to traditional art? Yeah, that argument went far didn't it? As in that it died like a dog? So Ebert brought about the 'art in games'? I think it's safe to say that is hardcore, factually false. Though I'm sure the shitstorm Ebert brewed had a hand in creating the controversy, I refuse to see a heavy critic as the source of the discussion. Not to mention it's false since the 80's video game aesthetic of artistic expression has been there a full decade before the Ebert debacle. And of course, the laughable idea that automatically; Commercialism = BIG, BAD, EVIL and ANTI-ART. Yes, because anything Pixar makes is a laughable commercialism garbage, right? Any musical achievement really mean nothing because so many musicians do it for the money on top of the entertainment factor? So are all Broadway plays all an artistic sham because they charge high ticket fees? I mean, come on. Entertainment media do not excuse themselves out of being an artform simply because there's a pricetag and livelihoods involved. I can't help but feel that is something very offensive to anyone involved in such media. Oh, and another idea popped in my mind as well: What is an art if it isn't entertaining to the audience? If people don't gasp at their beauty, their controversy and very existence? Isn't that entertainment? Tell me how that isn't entertainment. I know a lot of art is very personal and often are entertainment for the artists themselves (as an artist, I can attest to that). But it's still a form of entertainment. Don't tell me it's a bad thing to do to go to museums to have fun watching the displays, heaven forbid.

I don't think that kind of analogy really works since you don't get the same kind of effect in most medium by default. Also, it's the business sense and that of the aesthetic of a particular game itself to put in impressive cutscenes and then have gameplay on the side. But nowadays, is that even worth something to argue about, when many games simply use their in-game engine to show cutscenes? Maybe for companies that still cling onto the idea of oldschool CG cutscenes, maybe. But I don't think that in itself is a total detriment of the art of gaming. That is just the way it works. Or at least it used to. Infusing cutscenes with gameplay is nice, but I don't really think it's necessarily essential. That's the strange and wonderful thing with videogames; it comes in all types and sizes. The game classics such as the Myst series heavily relied on detached cutscenes whenever you solve a puzzle (especially the crucial ones that goes off into a small movie) but that was the whole draw of it. Here we go again. The whole 'modern controllers are too complex' idea. I keep saying this, but that only seems to be the case for the truly complex games and for those who may not want to learn the controls or are casual gamers. I honestly don't see the problem in it since most games only use shoulder buttons for the bare-bones aspect such as inventory switching, camera-manipulation or gun/action commands. And compared to some kind of keyboard-monstrisity like a Commodore system's controller, I don't think the complexity is even there. Millions of gamers in the vast majority makes well with it, so how exactly is it about 'too forgiving' of the medium's "flaws"? That's simply a common complaint by casual/non-gamers. Like the Wii and 360/PS3 has shown, you can have both types of controller technicalities and one type of control scheme won't edge out the other. That said, the Wii is still a pretty complex controller if you're taking the button inputs into account. But not all games do use all buttons, do they? Same for the current controllers. And really, what's the point of dragging along the way gamers have played games all along in peace, only to try to appease to the casual and non-gamers? I find that kind of logic mystifying and stupefying.

If Nunnally dies, then it'd be a repeat of the first season. I don't think lightning will strike twice. And Euphemia was one of my favorites of the first season.