How do you sell a problem like Next Gen?

Games Industry International had a really poignant article written by Johnny Minkley that really began to dissect the next gen launches of previous systems and what might be necessary to sell the ever looming new systems on the horizon.

The article mentioned, of course, how tired consumers are getting of the current gen systems and the cyclical money machine that the industry has become. Whatever the next gen systems are like, Minkley hit the nail on the head when he said that "the first thing to say is it had bloody better be a 'quantum leap' from the creaking innards of today's systems."

A quantum leap would be nice. More processing power, graphical capability, memory and refined tech could really help those suffering from constant Red Ring fear. Not to mention some tighter online security. Yes, Sony, I'm looking at you. But even shiny bells and whistles will not really "sell" the consoles to consumers. Sure, people will buy the systems out of habit, but will we really see them as the next gen that we've been waiting for?

Minkley said "looking at every single launch title across PS2, Xbox, Xbox 360 and PS3, I see only a single, clear system-seller in there: the original Halo." I have to agree with him, despite my own indifference to the series. When "Halo" came out with the original Xbox system, that was what I associated Microsoft's gaming platform with, "Halo." I couldn't for the life of me tell you what came out with the PlayStation 2, and the only thing that stuck out for the PS3 was "Uncharted" due to its graphical glory and interesting story. The Wii, obviously, was heralded in with "Red Steel" and other such failures, much to Nintendo fans' dismay.

Remember this? Of course you do.

"Halo" stands strong as a game that really sold a system though. You could only play it if you had an Xbox and therefore, you needed one. There are some folks who never upgraded their Nintendos, PlayStations, and even Xbox's, but merely moved from one system to another's more advanced counterpart. We all know that person who has a PS2 and an Xbox 360 or that one guy that still has his Xbox but seven thousand Sony titles to fill his time on his PS3.

But hidden in the middle of the article and a little at the tail end is the real point that Minkley nailed. Microsoft may pull ahead if it begins to make deals with cable providers and offer some sort of package deal with the new next gen Xbox's to give television as well as gaming. This would be a brilliant move and that kind of diversification of tech is what is selling most frequently these days.

Many bought a PS3 solely due to the fact that it came with a Blu-ray player installed in it. Even Blu-ray, though, had difficulty achieving widespread success. Had it become the dominant form of in-home digital media, the PS3 would have trounced any sort of effort by Microsoft or Nintendo, simply because of the system's versatility.

Next gen systems may begin fighting to provide the consumer with a jack-of-all-trades rather than a quality gaming experience alone. Personally, this makes me weep for the future of gaming if we're just trying to make compact computers that display on televisions rather than machines built to provide us with the most streamlined gaming experience we can. Really, that's what these machines have become, and if I had wanted that I would have just upgraded my PC over the years and not cared about getting a system at all.

Minkley says that the war might be fought over contracts and who can give us more bang for our buck when it comes time for release. I think he's right. What the fight should be over, though, is who can make the next "Halo" type game and really make something that draws people to buying the system rather than just giving us a load of expected next gen titles and then waiting a year for something truly special.

Your gaming past is coming back for your money

SNK Playmore has recently revealed that there will be a large sale including NEOGEO titles (up to 50% off on certain games) on the PlayStation Network. So, if you've got a hankering to relive your past years of gaming on your current-generation handhelds, you're in luck from August 28 to September 25.

NEOGEO games were the cornerstone of many people growing up in the floundering game industry of the late 90s. Video games had established themselves as a hobby and pastime for many in their basements or in arcades shut away from the world. Pizza joints and laundromats soon became high-traffic areas that proudly displayed "The King of Fighters" or "Samurai Showdown."

I remember that near my house there was a Lampost Pizza that had at least two NEOGEO machines that had all of the sports and fighting games that the company offered. There was something so simplistic and easy about the titles that they really were worth a couple of quarters, but you always wanted to play them if you had time.

C'mon, you guys recognize this game.

Soccer, or for our European readers we shall call it football, is a foreign sport to me. Every night in the pizza place though, I owned at "Super Sidekicks." Italy was never trounced by Brazil in my perfect little NEOGEO universe.

This is an interesting move by SNK Playmore. The Japanese-based company might be on to something without realizing it at this juncture of the gaming industry, or maybe they're just that smart. The current generation of games are very recycled and the industry is indeed hearing and feeling the backlash from consumers.

Bringing back past hits like "Metal Slug" and "Fatal Fury" is an easy way to capitalize on nostalgia and will certainly sell well. Whether or not people will play the games is another question altogether. I have the entire "Metal Slug Collection" on my Wii, but I can't remember the last time I played it. Though I do remember that when I did play it, it dominated the same amount of time as a session of "Skyrim."

If this sale goes well, it definitely signifies that the industry is in need of some very hardcore thinking and reworkings. Perhaps it's time to go back to basics rather than sticking with what makes money and what is easiest to fund. The money machine is starting to lose its shine, and gamers are tired of the product.

For those interested in the NEOGEO titles now available on the PlayStation Network, here is the list of games:

"ALPHA MISSION II"

"ART OF FIGHTING"

"BASEBALL STARS 2"

"BASEBALL STARS PROFESSIONAL"

"FATAL FURY"

"LEAGUE BOWLING"

"MAGICIAN LORD"

"METAL SLUG"

"METAL SLUG 2"

"SAMURAI SHODOWN"

"SHOCK TROOPERS"

"SUPER SIDEKICKS"

"THE KING OF FIGHTERS '94"

"THE KING OF FIGHTERS '95"

"THE KING OF FIGHTERS '96"

"WORLD HEROES"

Grand Theft Auto V game update

The pictures are out, the trailer's been playing on repeat on fans' computers since the minute it was released and boy are people excited about it. "Grand Theft Auto V" is causing some buzz after the extremely impressive in-game trailer was released some months ago and after the absolutely stunning screenshots of leisure activities and cityscapes have been thrust upon the internet.

There has been little to no information about what the game will be like when it's in the hands of gamers, how large the city is, who you will play as, what the story is and what changes have been made to improve upon the work done in "GTA IV" and it's expansions in "Liberty City Stories."

Now, beggars can't be choosers when it comes to what information is released by a company and depending on levels of development there may not be any information that Rockstar wants to give out for fear of it changing during stages of development. But if gamers like hunting for knowledge and investigating on their own, there are plenty of sites like igta5.com and gtav.net that have speculation and dissections of the trailer to guess at who might be in the game and who you might play as and what the story will be.

This looks like a scene from one of the "Fast and the Furious" movies.

One worry that's circulating is that Rockstar is focusing too much on the aesthetic and not on the quality of the game. The "GTA" series has always been one of the games that people can count on to bring some new graphical power to the industry and if not "GTA" then Rockstar will produce something else that will drastically change the graphic game for video games.

From "Red Dead Redemption's" beautifully hand-sculpted landscapes and environments to "L.A. Noire's" unbelievable facial tech brought to the table by the now defunct and somewhat disgraced Team Bondi.

"GTA IV" and the "Liberty City Stories" definitely needed some fine tuning. This is to be expected from games that are about large, open-world stories with tens of thousands of NPCs and variables working in tandem to create a believable urban atmosphere.

I can almost smell a Red Ring of Death on my Xbox 360 just looking at this picture.

There is no question that the game is allowed some bugs with the amount of work that is happening on a second by second basis. However, controls can be tightened, glitches can be fixed and if the game is going to be on current-gen consoles then they need to account for the processing power that is available to them to ensure no crashing occurs.

These may seem like common fears and cautions, but for a game like "Grand Theft Auto V," these minor annoyances can pile up over time and really make or break the game. The recent dark-horse hit "Sleeping Dogs" has people talking about how Rockstar can take a hint from Square Enix about a large-scale game with an open world. Maybe they will, maybe they won't, but people are definitely excited about "GTA V."

Don't fear the Slender Man

Hope you didn't need to go to the bathroom.

It's pitch black, your flashlight is running out of batteries and this is the fourth time you've seen that tanker truck sitting in the middle of the park. Of course you're lost, how could you not be after running for your life from him. The music gets louder as he gets closer and you know you're supposed to run but you can't move fast enough. Turning around, just to see how close he is, you're shocked to find that he's just outside your field of vision, much closer than you want him to be.

This is not the next "Silent Hill" game, nor is it "Resident Evil." It's in fact, "Slender," created by Parsec Productions. This survival-horror gem comes to you free of charge on the game's site while it is still in beta testing. Not only that, the team at Parsec is encouraging fans who have the game to send them feedback and help with troubleshooting on their forums.


"Slender" is not pretty, it's not complex and it doesn't introduce any new game mechanics to make it a groundbreaking IP. What it does deliver is a frightening and simple experience that is almost laughably easy to come up with, it's a wonder no one has done it before.

For those who haven't seen the viral YouTube video playthroughs by numerous internet celebrities like Tobuscus and Pewdiepie, the game's goal is to collect eight papers that are scattered throughout a park in the dead of night with nothing but the ability to jog and use a flashlight. The entire time, the player is being chased by Slender Man, the internet boogie-man created on the Something Awful Forums some years ago.

Slender Man doesn't slash you, he doesn't attack you, nor does he whittle away your health over time if you are unlucky enough to be caught by him. What he does do is end the game immediately. Done. No more playtime. Not only that, but if the player is getting too nervous and needs a break they can't pause the game to get a reprieve. If you hit the escape button the game takes you to the main menu and you must start over, ultimately forcing you to endure Slender Man's pursuit in a fresh situation no matter your progress.

Slender Man as seen in the popular YouTube series Marble Hornets.

To correctly nail down exactly what makes "Slender" so popular is hard because of the many great things about it. The simplicity behind the game is rather mesmerizing: run for your life and get what you need before Slender Man gets you. Atmosphere is built by music and lack of visibility. Slender Man's positions are always just outside of your flashlight's radius and often times players tend to see him when they do a sweeping arch to make sure that he's not behind them.

Making a game with the intent to scare a player is not an easy task. The games that tend to be the scariest and have the most successful franchises always end up using the same tricks. In "Slender," the idea that there is no escape from Slender Man except for victory or quitting is quite brilliant. It reinforces the idea that the player is really trapped in their situation and they have to stick it out. If they quit the game, it's either because they can't win or they're admitting to themselves that they are really truly scared.

I highly recommend you all go pick up this game to see how a game can be scary without monsters, violence, flashy graphics, or even story. "Slender" is a study in suspense and simplicity. Check it out, and make sure to bring clean underwear.

NVIDIA GeForce GRID moves the console out of your home

Every company seems to be breaking in to the cloud-gaming market with a different strategy. NVIDIA is doing this by taking the console hardware out of the picture completely with its GeForce GRID technology.

GeForce GRID is essentially the idea of moving your graphics card to a server farm and sending those images back to you over a standard Internet connection. In gaming applications, you have a controller that is hooked up directly to your TV or other device that sends your input to NVIDIA’s servers where the graphics are rendered and then streamed back to you in real-time.

The advantages of doing this are that you don’t have to continually upgrade your PC to stay on the bleeding edge of gaming technology. As cloud technologies and networks continue to grow faster, your gaming experience auto-magically gets better without hitting your wallet as much as getting a new graphics card would.

GRID is competing with OnLive's existing streaming service by claiming faster response times and significantly improved graphics using their own Kepler-architecture graphics cards.

NVIDIA claims the latency when compared to a standard console is nearly matched, but in my opinion there is still work to be done.

NVIDIA demoed the technology at E3 2012, and while I was intrigued in a technological, nerdy kind of way, I was underwhelmed as a gamer. The idea of moving the graphics processing power to a server farm miles away from me and transmitting high quality images at a decent frame rate in almost-real time directly to my TV is nothing short of impressive, but as a gamer, the abysmal response time for any little input is pretty pitiful.

Hawken's graphics were impressive, but maybe not the best
demo choice because of the response time.

The demo I played was mech-themed first-person shooter "Hawken" using the Gaikai online gaming app on a Samsung Smart TV. The decent graphics on screen and the absence of a console was what caught my attention. I started to play, getting a feel for the shooting and navigation controls and one of the first things I noticed was the lag.

NVIDIA says they’ve been able to get the lag down to 10ms, a time that my friend didn’t even notice but was incredibly debilitating for me.

The whole idea reminds me of those days when I would stay at a hotel that had an N64 controller in the room. I could use the remote to browse through a bunch of titles and pay some price to play on demand without the console actually sitting right in front of me.

NVIDIA’s GRID technology itself is pretty amazing, but it’s going to take some time before the supporting technologies like network speeds are going to be able to support an experience to compete with standard consoles.

Possible teaser websites for two popular Square Enix franchises appear

A few days ago some new teasers from Square Enix went live on the web. Speculations are running wild about then, but it's pretty safe to assume we can be sure of what they are.

Could this be a tease for the finale of the "Lightning saga.

The first being a screen shot on Square Enix's Facebook wall that shows stormy clouds and the words "A Storm Gathers." This could be a possible teaser for "Final Fantasy XIII-3" seeing as we were left with a cliffhanger in "XIII-2." The font is very in tune with the kind of text you'd see in "Final Fantasy XIII."

Square Enix is also holding a conference in Tokyo Sept. 1 in regards to "Final Fantasy's" 25th anniversary and has stated that members of "FF:XIII's" development team will hold a conference about whats next in what it referred to as the Lightning saga (named after the games' protagonist). For more about this, we'll just have to wait until Sept. 1, but that's not too far away.

The other piece of teasing goodness is the new website http://www.square-enix.co.jp/subaseka/, which displays a timer with (at the time of this article post) has roughly three days until zero. Other than the timer, the only things shown are a silhouette of a city skyline line and credits given to Tetsuya Nomura and Gen Kobayashi.

This screen captures the same stylistic feel of "The World Ends With You."

The font on the timer is very similar to "The World Ends With You's" font style, and the buildings in the background are very reminiscent in the style of art used in the game's box art. Tetsuya Nomura and Gen Kobayashi were also the artists on "The World Ends With You," so that can be a huge hint.

The dead give away is when you visit the site background music starts to play.

 The music playing is very similar to the main theme of "TWEWY," "Twister." A trick that people have been talking about is that when you move the date on your computer closer to the date the song changes to a remixed version of "Twister" and "Calling," both of which were in the original "TWEWY" game. At the time of this article being posted the song is "Calling." The date scheduled for the timer to end is Monday, Aug. 27, so check back with us then to see what this turns out to be.

PS Vita sales disappoint at 2.2 million units worldwide

I can't think of a single person who was actually excited about it.

According to a recent article from Edge, the PS Vita is being outsold by its predecessor, the PSP, by almost two units to one.

This really isn't a surprise to anyone since the portable system has been abysmally received in Japan and had one of the worst releases in America compared to any other handheld. Granted, the Vita probably had more commercials than the 3DS, and is more versatile and technically impressive, but something just doesn't seem to sit right with consumers.

In my article reviewing the Vita I stated that there really isn't anything wrong with the system per say. Really, the issue becomes the purpose and need for use of it. For the price tag, $250 new (I'm sure you can go to any game store and buy a used one), it makes sense. There is a whole lot going on inside of a PS Vita. The dual touch pads, high powered graphics, game types, music capabilities, movie capabilities, camera and WiFi connectability are all equally impressive and functional.

The problem arises from need. Gamers are really having to ask themselves if they really need this device. After all, it's literally a portable PlayStation 3 system and one of the big draws is being able to continue playing games off of your PS3 onto your Vita should you have to leave the house. Obviously, there aren't enough people interested in doing that at all.

When it comes down to it, a handheld system's strengths are in the ability to entertain for a few minutes up to an hour or so, then be put down. That's how Nintendo has done it for years and continues to succeed. The games on a GameBoy or DS were always ones that were easy to pick up, but satisfied you enough after putting them down a few minutes later. "Pokemon's" entire appeal is that it has the combat and adventure feel of "Final Fantasy" with a lower level of involvement. Sure you could spend hours on the game training and whatnot, but you didn't have to in order to have fun.

I mean, it looks fun.

The games so far on the Vita (we've done at least three reviews so far) have been good games. However, the best of them were the fighting games because really, that's the best example of the Vita as a handheld. "Uncharted: Golden Abyss" was an amazing game. However, the amount of attention and invested time to play it is too great for it to be a game you play on the go. So if you're not playing it out and about, but rather at home, there's no reason to play a PS Vita on a couch when a PS3 is there with all three "Uncharted" games.

Then there are the multimedia aspects like the camera, videos and such. With all the portable technology that is at the disposal of consumers in regards to tablets and even phones, there's no need to buy another gadget that has the capabilities that previously owned tech possesses.

The fact is that the Vita came too late to the party. Much like that friend who brings a six-pack of beer when everyone's already moved on to mixed drinks and hard alcohol, Sony brought something useful and competitive to the table, but consumers have just moved on. And for the price tag, it just doesn't seem worth it to even try it out.

GameStop enters the cloud, leaves consoles in the rain

GameStop has bet big on the cloud-gaming market, but has decided to leave consoles out of their game streaming service in favor of tablets, PCs and TVs.

In 2011, GameStop acquired two companies, Spawn Labs and Impulse, and announced that they had plans to create a cloud-based gaming service similar to OnLive that would be used to “compete fiercely” with Steam. The service would allow customers to purchase a game and instantly start playing it on any of their supported devices. It would even allow them to sample games using free trials.

GameStop has demonstrated how their cloud service
might work on their website.

OnLive, an existing on-demand game-streaming service for all Internet connected devices, including consoles, has been rumored to be struggling financially. Could this leave room for GameStop in the market, or does it mean they will also struggle for success?

The service, which is slated for release next year was originally thought to have support for consoles, but GameStop says that their decision to drop support for consoles was due to customer feedback during a closed beta and their success in selling mobile devices like the Nexus 7 tablet and iPad.

Those interested should also look out for a public beta later this year.

The market for console games is still huge and GameStop's choice to omit them from their service could mark a disadvantage compared to possible competitors. Even while the tablet-gaming market is growing, the decision would limit access to games from the major players. 

GameStop has recently begun selling tablets and have stated they may even expand further into the market by creating their own tablet. I’m wondering what else GameStop has in store on their path to “becoming a technology company” instead of just being a games retailer. 

The fine line between spin-off and stand-alone

With games nowadays reaching their third & fourth installments or so in their respective series, it’s safe to say most have had their own spin-offs. Some are good and essential to the series and others are better left alone. Sometimes these games, whether good or bad, get mixed in together and because of that some people would rather not deal with them and just wait for the numbered games in the franchise to come out. That's not good and I believe that the lines between pin-off and stand-alone game should be made clear.

To me, a spin-off is when the gameplay itself has been reworked to make a brand new game which offers a different experience than what the franchise is used to. An example of this is “Super Mario”. Mario's done everything from sports, racing to partying. He's a regular jack-of-all-trades. His regular forte is either a side-scroller or an adventure game, but being pushed into these other games have left some pretty distasteful titles in his name. Then again some of the spin-offs have gone to make their own franchises like “Mario Kart” & “Mario Party” reaching the 7th & 8th installment already. Other famous properties have gone on to try and do this as well and a majority of flak from a game being dubbed a Spin -off comes from it. Games like “Sonic All-Stars Racing” and “Donkey Kong Konga Beat”. All of these have no relation to the main games but bring the series down in fans eyes.

Crisis Core was a necessary game but was received as just a spin-off

Now there are some games that really shouldn't be classified as a spin-off. Take the “Kingdom Hearts” series. There are six games in the franchise but only two of them hold a number. The others are spread out among various handhelds. While some would call them unnecessary spin-offs, these games are a very integral part of franchise. For example, if players hadn't played “Chain of Memories” on the GameBoy Advanced then players would be lost on what happened between “Kingdom Hearts 1 & 2” and not understand how a majority of the plot points came about in the sequel. In short, they'd be lost as all hell and the same can be said about the recently released “Dream Drop Distance.” If fans don't play that then they're lost on what will happen in the next game.

Spin-offs can also serve as a way to tell part of the story that couldn't be put into the game due to time issues or development issues. “Final Fantasy VII” was a great game with a great story but one big plot-hole was who Cloud's mentor Zack was. He was only brought up in the game for a small portion but he was the person that Cloud had molded his life around. Several years after the original game had come out, Zack's story was finally revealed in the PSP's “Final Fantasy VII: Crisis Core”. The game was labled as a spin-off but both the gameplay and the story made the game a stand-up title to be heard in the franchise. From the beginning, you knew what Zack's fate was but the story made you forget that and focus on what was happening at the moment. It’s these kinds of games that the title "Spin-Off" should not be applied to. These surpass that title and should not be brought down by it.

Games in which the story of the series are kept and added to should not be considered spin-offs. These need to be acknowledged as games that should be played and loved. Not as optional, random whims. Hopefully by now people will see the difference between the kart racing gaming and the heart wrenching story of a character.

Assassin's Creed: Liberation sneaks onto the PS Vita

I am beyond excited about this because it has me all excited about my PS Vita for once. "Assassin's Creed: Liberation" is the first game to come to a Sony handheld that is a story about a character that is not the focus of a major console game. Of course, the social games and phone games weaved in and out of the stories and other characters, but "Liberation" follows Aveline de Grandpre, a French/African woman from New Orleans.

That is a serious machete...

Based on the trailer, it appears that there are several uses of the Vita's touch mechanics being featured in this game.

The "Touch to Kill" demonstration was especially interesting. I'm not sure how it's activated or how one would pause mid fight like that, but that seems like it would make the game much less difficult than having to actually fight and press buttons to react.

Of course, the fighting system was made easier when the "Instant Kill" was added in the most recent "AC" games, letting you string several killing moves together. But, this fighting system seems to eliminate that completely and provide a more cinematic experience rather than immersive gameplay. That could bode ill for the franchise since it has previously heavily relied on reactionary combat mechanics. However, if executed properly, this could be a fun feature for someone weary of pressing the small buttons on the handheld.

The "Touch to Move" system is familiar to those who played "Uncharted: Golden Abyss," and as we see in the video it is used for things like rowing a canoe.

The rear touchpad on the Vita is probably my least favorite thing attached to the system. Every time it gets activated, I'm unaware of it and all of a sudden things start going haywire as my fingers are all over it and the Vita begins to freak out with too many digits on its back like a spastic cat. You really have to work at doing stuff with the rear touchpad, but once you get it down it works fine.

Graphically, "Liberation" seems to be pretty impressive overal,l but in the trailer you can somewhat see blocky figures and less-than-detailed character models. I'll definitely be judging this harshly since I loved the way "Uncharted: Golden Abyss" looked on the Vita. However, since this game is made specifically for the handheld, I have a strong feeling they'll be up to par with the power of the system.

Blow darts. Nice.

Plot-wise I'm not too concerned about what this has to do with the overall story of "AC," but the scuttlebutt is that Aveline will indeed interact with Connor either in this game or in "ACIII" at some point. What their relationship is and how it plays out will either be really cool, or just a passing lame cameo. Hopefully, events will cross over in both games that either explain a plot point in one, or solve a plot point in another.

Ubisoft is quickly becoming a powerhouse developer since the level of work they put into their games is almost second-to-none. The success of their franchises is obvious, even though most of their games don't really translate to FPS or RTS crowds. Even their press conference was heralded as probably the best of all of E3 this year due to their lineup on the Wii U and other systems. Some big things are coming from this company, and "Assassin's Creed: Liberation" definitely appears to be one of them.

Historical settings in games: what works and why

Let's go back in time. Back to when the Nazis were still an international threat, when the holy land was fought over by crusaders and jihadists, and when Los Angeles was still riding the wave of Hollywoodland's star power. No matter where we go, who we are or when we are, games that take us through the Time Vortex like Dr. Who on a whim always fascinate us.

Playing as a soldier doesn't always feel like being a soldier.

From "Call of Duty" to the "Total War" franchise, games that use historical time periods as their setting tread a fine line between reality and poetic license for entertainment. Kratos's exploits work wonderfully because they work within Greek mythology rather than weaving him through events in Greek history. Perfect. Whereas Ezio and Altair of "Assassin's Creed" meet major players in history but rarely effect the course of well-known fact (minus the Borgias, of course).


The key is immersion. What can the developer get away with and what can they bend without the player losing immersion. To properly immerse a player in the idea that, yes, you are back in time and this is how things are, is much harder than one might think. There is a lot of preparation and set dressing to do before the game even gets underway.

A lot of research must be done to properly understand the clothing, jargon, languages and proper cultural nuances that must be layered into the game world. Now, no one would really bat an eye at the Nazis shouting in English with German accents, but it is more frightening to hear a foreign language shouted at you and not know what it means.

Eventually, you feel proud of yourself when you pick up terms that you know mean "grenade" and the like that help to fight back more effectively and dodge appropriately. That's exactly what our soldiers have to do in war when they fight against a foreign enemy.

 Let's not forget the weather of France and the flowing language plastered all over buildings in small towns to really make you feel you are in a foreign land fighting against a foe that you can't understand. Though, apparently every American soldier is from the southern U.S. or grew up in Brooklyn.

Some war games like to put you directly into battles that really happened, and this is where it gets tricky. "Call of Duty" seems to do this very well by making you accomplish goals that aided in the battle's completion. Or, as in "Black Ops," they make you experience the fear and terror of Khe Sanh, while not putting you in some sort of position that would change the course of the battle just for the sake of playing in it.

He can see his house from there!

Then there are games like "Assassin's Creed" which put you directly in historical settings with important figures.

Now, since the franchise establishes that there is a sci-fi element to it, and that the whole premise is that history may not be what is written, they cleverly avoid having to stick to historical fact too much. Yet, they use immersion.

In the "Assassin's Creed" games, half of what you hear on the streets of Jerusalem is incomprehensible if you don't speak the language, while in Rome the streets are flooded with shouting in Italian. Even Constantinople has a mix of languages to really set the tone.

The colors used, landmarks, buildings and clothing cement the location. Not to mention the ability to visit historical monuments and climb all over them. Even though the game mucks with historical fact here and there, it really does rely on being grounded in history to provide an enjoyable experience for the player.

But what about games set in a well known time period and location while also using fictional people and places? Look no further than "Red Dead Redemption" and "L.A. Noire." New Austin clearly isn't real, but it felt just as beautiful and weather-beaten as any other part of the West during the Expansion Era of the United States. Even the region of Mexico that John Marston travels to is believable, though not all of Mexico was full of bandits and tyrannical colonels.

Then there's Cole Phelps and his descent into the gritty underbelly of Hollywood. Of course, using real studios was out of the question, but putting fictional ones seamlessly into the iconic Los Angeles landscape was simple enough and downright convincing. Having a shootout in an RKO-esque movie set, car chases through greater LA County streets and searching for clues in back alleys all sold the setting.

The streets of Armadillo are paved with dead gunslingers.

We love going back in time. It's why we go to movies and read books and play video games. The times we really enjoy it, though, are the times when we believe it - the times we're truly convinced we are seeing or experiencing an event from the past.

 Even if something about the game is far fetched, like flying through the Venice skyline on one of Leonardo da Vinci's flying machines, we still feel as if it's Renaissance Italy. Even if you take over the Roman empire as Carthage in "Rome: Total War," you believe it's possible using the historically accurate troops and tools of that time period.

The name of the game, ladies and gentlemen, is immersion. Say, that might actually be a pretty good game title. Anyone want to help me make it?

Mobile games designed for TV

Why are we waiting for the Wii U to come out when we already have it? It’s called AirPlay.

The latest versions of Apple’s iOS supports a technology that allows you to display your mobile screen on the TV. Hooray! That means PowerPoints for everybody! Not exciting you? How about games, then?

The comparison between AirPlay and Wii U may have been a bit of a stretch, but the technology still presents an interesting opportunity for game developers. Anyone who has an Apple TV can share their iPad’s display over WiFi to be displayed on the TV. For games, AirPlay can take it one step further and allow you to display something different over the TV than what’s being shown on the iPad screen. In practice, this means you can control your character on the TV while having your dashboard controls on the iPad, touch screen and accelerometer included.

Who could forget this little gadget?

The concept of a TV game being controlled by mobile devices isn’t new. We’ve been able to do this in the past with the Game Boy Advance Link Cable (remember "The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords Adventures" or "Pokémon Colosseum"). Downfalls included a limited title selection, still having to have a dedicated console and being limited by the Game Boy Advance controls. Today’s technology combination with accelerometer sensors, wireless multiplayer and high-resolution displays have created the perfect storm that could really let this idea grow.

Multiplayer is where AirPlay could really shine.

Being able to have four or so iPhones connect to an iPad, having the iPad project something on the screen and having the individual controls be on their respective devices could lead to some pretty innovative games. Anyone who has played the Wii U can instantly make the connection between what AirPlay games could be and the direction that Nintendo is going with their games.

Testing out the games currently available in the market shows huge room for improvement. Many of them suffer from lag issues, general bugs (why is my place flickering!?) and don’t truly take advantage of all the different gameplay methods AirPlay allows for.

Higher performance games create some issues too. The iPad does have the ability to render some pretty great looking 3D graphics, but adding AirPlay to the mix adds a lot more work for the processor. It needs to render the game’s graphics, then compress the image and send it over WiFi to your router and then your Apple TV in real time. This means that right now, expansive worlds with elaborate 3D graphics may not be the target game for this platform.

Apple’s devices aren’t the only place where this is happening, either. Ouya is an Android based game console that’s currently in development, and while it takes a different approach to gaming by building the actual system in to the device connected to the TV (where as the Apple TV only acts as a dumb box to display what the iPad is feeding it), it could very easily integrate Android-powered controllers and take advantage of the same multiplayer, accelerometer and touch-screen goodness.

One of the great things about the expansion of mobile devices as a viable gaming platform is that the barrier to entry is so small that pretty much anyone can just start making something. The problem before was that your creation was just stuck on an individual device with a 3” screen. AirPlay and other implementations of it really allow anyone to develop games designed for TV just like the bigger consoles.

Tablets. Who knew?

Are tablets the future?

It seems in the past few years, that mobile devices with touch screens have been on the rise. From Android devices to the iPhone, everyone nowadays has one, and, because of that, mobile gaming has become more prominent.

But bigger is always better, so tablets were made. Okay, so maybe the tablets weren't specifically made for the mobile gaming group, but they did have them in mind. So much in mind that at this year's E3, tablets and mobile devices had a big presence on the show floor.

Companies like Gree held a huge part of the floor showing off their new games and applications for various devices including "Farmville"-esque building games and “Resident Evil: The Mercenaries VS,” some of which are exclusive to the larger tablets. With what’s already on the iTunes App store, tablets are slowly starting to take over mobile gaming as a whole.

Mobile-game developer Gree at E3 2012.

The tablet’s success can be drawn up like this:

Mobile gaming previously involved just having a Gameboy in your pocket and being able to pull it out whenever. Now, convenience has become a bigger issue.

Why have a brick of a Nintendo 3DS in your pocket, only meant for playing games, when you can have a thinner iPhone which can be used for practically everything? You can be sitting at home working on something on your tablet and with just a few taps of your fingers you can be playing "Tetris."

It’s a big thing to be able to do that when in the past you'd have to change a disc or cartridge.

Consumers aren’t the only ones who've noticed this. Big name gaming companies have too.

The PS Vita could help bridge the gap from tablet to handheld.

It can be argued that Nintendo was the first to start the touch era, but it’s pretty safe to assume that their new console, the Wii U, has been at least ever so slightly influenced by the tablet craze. I mean the controller is basically a tablet with thumbsticks and buttons, and, to tell you the truth, it actually works. But for more on that, go check out Mike’sopinion of the Wii U.

Sony is also taking part in this trend. With the PS Vita having the dual touch-screens and all the similar capabilities of a tablet, it’s not a far cry to say that this handheld was made to appeal to both tablet users and handheld gamers. Like I said earlier, it’s all about convenience.

With these options, people who are on the fence about either getting a tablet or a gaming device can now have both in one, and this is what the companies are aiming for. To bring the core gamers and the casual gamers to one device that everyone can enjoy.

Now the question whether tablets are the future of the gaming industry or just a fad. My personal opinion is that maybe it’s here to stay. Most people already have a tablet device that they can play games on. It's unlikely that people will want to shell out another $200 for a Nintendo DS when they already can play a touch screen game on their phone. That’s why so many companies are coming up with more mobile games and platforms that seem similar to the tablet.

There is a difference, though, if you play on a tablet and a handheld system. Most people who play on a tablet only intend to play for 5 minutes or so as a way to kill time. A handheld is meant to be an activity, spending hours and hours playing, but this could all change soon enough with the growth of the PS Vita and Wii U.

What mobile apps can learn from games

The iTunes App Store, Google Play and other markets have given us reason to never let go of our phones as we use them for everything from keeping our appointments to hurling angry birds at pigs. If I asked you what your favorite app to use is I can almost guarantee you it would be a game. Why? Because even while you may use your calendar religiously or always be Instagram-ing your food, your utility apps (let’s call them that) are downright ugly and sometimes a pain to use.

Last month I took a trip up to Silicon Valley, a place widely regarded as the home of technological innovation, and had a long talk with a couple of entrepreneurial strategists about the interfaces used in utility apps today. We were talking about how both mobile and desktop utility applications that you see today are ugly, slow, and clunky.

My 4-year-old cousin can pick up my iPhone and immediately start playing "Annoying Orange" but my mother on the other hand holds on to her dumbphone because the cryptic icons and gestures of the latest smartphones don’t make sense to her.

I wouldn't touch this software with a ten-foot pole, let alone my finger.

Apple, as much as I love them, even seems to encourage a cookie-cutter type of app for their iPhone. Their Xcode tool gives a simple drag-and-drop interface to create user interfaces (UIs) that trap a developer eager to get their app to market into creating a subpar, boring UI that requires a manual (or makes you wish you had a manual).

Android gives more control to the developer, but that often results in the age-old problem of an ugly interface that screams engineering degree. No offense to those engineers who also have good design intuition. I know you exist too.

So here’s my point: what if we stopped thinking about utility app development from a boring, “this is an app to do work,” mantra to a more game-like point of view. Before you think I’m trying to turn everything all "Fruit Ninja" on you (although, you might like that), hear me out.

Game UIs are less restrictive. Maybe having that back button shoved in the corner of the top navigation bar isn’t the best place. Heck, maybe that top navigation bar needs to disappear altogether. Game designers are rewarded for making designs that don’t stick to a cookie-cutter style while utility app designers are punished for not being consistent.

Game UIs communicate more information using less screen real estate. The heads-up display in "Diablo III" relays more information in a smaller space than any office application I’ve used.

They also communicate that information more fluidly and less-intrusively. I hate how I have to switch windows or even spaces just to respond to a simple text or instant message. Games typically make use of windows with different opacities to attract focus.

Game UIs are easier to use. When I ask my game-shy friends if they want to play a game, the usual response is that they’ll watch me play for a little while and then give it a shot. When they pick it up, it all comes fairly easily because the game teaches you as you play.

Games are that easy to use because players have demanded an experience that doesn’t require them to read a manual. Game developers have already faced a lot of UI design and human interaction problems, and have fixed them (well, the good developers have) while standard utility-software development has been stuck thinking inside a box full of restrictions and standards.

Rely on your squad

It's tough being a squad leader, isn't it? What with having to make sure your team doesn't suffer critical damage, ordering them around and fighting enemies things tend to get a little hairy. What doesn't help is if your squad is as dumb as a sack of Deku nuts.

Squad-based gameplay has taken some leaps and bounds in the last few years, and some tragic and hilarious crashes. Everyone remembers games like "S.W.A.T." and the original "Rainbow Six" that had artificial intelligence that was just okay. Then there are games like "Skyrim," in which your companion character's battle tactics are sometimes the subject of horrific ridicule. Oh, Lydia, will people ever forgive you?

Then there are games like "Ghost Recon: Future Soldier" that really surprise you with how good the squad is and actually make you excited when utilizing their abilities. When the squad actually does what it's told and you can rely on them, you tend to enjoy the mechanic rather than loathe it.

What is the key to this, though? Why is "Ghost Recon: FS" so much better with squad AI than "Mass Effect?" Perhaps it is the design and purpose of the squad itself.

In games like "Halo," "Mass Effect" and even "Dragon Age: Origins," your squad is meant to supplement your playstyle and abilities. Instead, your marines end up getting in front of you or holding better weapons. Or Morrigan will stand her ground in front of a horde of Darkspawn rather than run or cast a large AoE spell. And let's not forget Liara just sort of sitting there instead of tossing her biotic powers willy-nilly at Geth to help even out the playing field.

Luckily, in "Mass Effect" and "Dragon Age," you're able to pause the game and tell your squad where to go and to do certain things to avoid outright death. Frankly, telling them what to do actually makes them more effective in the first place, and one wonders why they're AI controlled at all.

Sometimes it's almost like they're just there to model their outfits.

Unfortunately, in games like "Halo" and "Call of Duty," you're left shouting "Why are you shooting at that guy two stories up and in cover and not the three people standing right in the middle of the road?!"

Games like "Ghost Recon: FS" make you weep with joy when you have AI that can lay down effective suppressing fire or actually take out an enemy that you tell it to. The big difference is that these AI characters are actually meant to be played by other human beings rather than just be a squad for the sake of being a squad.

Games like "Dungeon Siege III" prove this, too. Alone, with a single AI companion, you are able to go through the game rather easily with an AI character that can do the most area damage (rather than picking one that you feel will do precise damage) and wound everything enough for you to make kills quickly. Replace the AI character with three other human players and the team becomes an unstoppable cadre of magic, swords and guns. Honestly, it's something to try if you haven't played that game with other people. Again, these AI characters are made to be played by other people.

If "Dragon Age" had a cooperative campaign that allowed for online players to outfit and level the teammates accordingly to fit their playstyles or the style of the team, the game could be much more difficult but exceedingly more fun. Put in the dialogue system from "Star Wars: The Old Republic" and you've got yourself a game of the year.

"Halo: Reach" worked well enough when you play the co-op campaign, but other than that it feels like you're the only one fighting the enemy and the friendly AI is along for the ride. "Gears of War" co-op is also really fun to play and can be even more enjoyable than the competitive multiplayer (more enjoyable if you ask me).

When thinking about putting co-op in your game, don't think about doing it just because you've got a squad in your game and you want to capitalize on multiplayer madness. If a player can outfit and command the AI enough to where she's playing all four members of her team, then maybe you should think about implementing a co-op system to make it less challenging for them and promote teamwork. Maybe even give the players rewards for doing so. Whatever you do, for the love of Kratos, make the AI smart enough that they don't run four miles down a hill to attack a dragon you've been trying to avoid because you're too weak. Please, stop it Lydia. I love you, but stop it.

Probably one of the best and most challenging multiplayer experiences to date.

All together now: a look at micromanagement gameplay

A lot of games have you taking control of dozens - or possibly hundreds - of units at a time tasking you with overseeing them all like some omnipotent being from on high. Being able to move from one part of the map to another, then back to where you were to ensure your squad is not destroyed while you tell your peons to collect more gold has been a standard gametype and gameplay mechanic for years on the PC. Some might say that it has been used well enough on consoles with games like "Starcraft" and "Lord of the Rings: War of the Ring."

In "Pikmin 3" you'll get to choose specific areas in which to launch your Pikmin.

Few remember "Pikmin," though. One of the flagship titles of the now ancient Nintendo GameCube, it was quite possibly one of the most innovative and impressive titles to ever be a console launch title. The sequel, which was released in 2004, marked the last time we would see any of the adorable little plant-like creatures jumping on top of larger animals in a mass of color to overpower and destroy. No more would we get the pleasure of watching their flowers bloom to show their strength level, and gone were the days of enjoyable item collecting with the quirky little aliens.

Yet at E3 2012 the world was given a chance to once again return to the strange planet that fostered these adorable creatures.

In the eight years since "Pikmin 2" there haven't been many other games like it. The only one that springs to mind out of sheer similarity and startling hilarity has to be "Overlord" and it's own sequel. The game had players commanding minions of different color and ability and having them parade behind you until you thrust them upon unwitting settlers or elves in a cacophony of fire and Cockney accents.

The idea of commanding squads like this into battle is - as I said before - nothing new, but what is still fairly new is the idea of commanding them on the field of battle alongside your soldiers. Over the shoulder views can only grant you so much of a perspective as there still is no real danger to yourself. Squad-based combat systems like the ones used in "Star Wars: Republic Commando" and "Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway" are closer to what "Pikmin" and "Overlord" achieve, though.

How many of you actually remember "Overlord?"

What I'm talking about is the idea of being in command of larger groups (20+ individuals) while still having to worry about your own safety and fighting the enemy with them.

"Overlord" allowed you to upgrade your magic and weapons so that you would truly feel like an all-powerful badass surrounded by scores of equally frightening critters. "Pikmin" was more toned down, but focused heavily on the strategic use of the Pikmin themselves whilst also protecting yourself from mortal danger.

In one word: Presence. That's what these games developed for the player, and that is sometimes what a game is lacking. The player often doesn't feel a part of the world, and there's no sense of danger or consequence when micromanaging. Just take the viewpoints as an example: over the top, distant, looking down on the action. "Pikmin" and "Overlord" put you toe-to-toe with monsters like other third-person role-playing games, but also gave you a ground perspective of the work you were having done. It's also a level of realism and survival that you normally don't see in a real-time strategy game.

Being present and aware of your surroundings while making sure something is collected. Constantly on the alert for what may lurk around the next corner, or what may even be stalking you at that very moment. That's good gameplay.

With "Pikmin 3" coming out for the Wii U, there's no doubt that the Vault will be taking a crack at it and seeing just how well Nintendo has perfected this style of gameplay.

When making your own games, don't forget about presence, and whether or not it matters to the gamer. See what you can do to make them feel invested in the environment instead of just the enemies and the goal. Make them fear for their safety as the character instead of knowing that if they just hide behind some rubble they'll be okay.

How much more dangerous and intense would any of the "Call of Duty" games be if you actually had to command the troops around you while fighting? What about leading troops into battle in "Skyrim?" Think about it.

Will U buy Wii U?

I’m not sure if that whole “full-disclosure” thing applies to me or not, but I must admit that I’m a bit of a Nintendo fanboy. Plain and simple. I’m probably going to be getting the Wii U when it comes out. I mean, seriously, who can resist swinging the sword around a few times in "Zelda" or totally pwning your friends in "Super Smash Bros." every once in awhile?

Moving past that, I can still see that Nintendo is in a very vulnerable position right now with the release of their next-gen console. I went to Nintendo’s E3 press conference this year, and what I saw wasn’t exactly awe-inspiring. Immediately after the presentation I booked it over to the Nintendo booth on the show floor and played almost all of the demos available (yes, even Wii Fit U with the ridiculously fit staff members there yelling at you to "squat lower!”).

Some of what I saw on the floor, namely "Takamaru’s Ninja Castle," "Animal Crossing: Sweet Day," and "Luigi’s Ghost Mansion," were quite fun to play and are the mini games that are going to help sell "Nintendo Land" and the console.

The accuracy of my ninja stars using the Wii U GamePad was ridiculous, and the flat out fun that resulted from pitting several players against one single opponent were concepts that aren’t seen or just not well executed on other consoles.

Other demos like "Pikmin 3" and "Just Dance" were either too similar to their predecessor or were just not as good as their Xbox 360 or Playstation 3 alternatives.

Also absent from the floor were games for players who like to, well, play video games using a standard controller. Even with a couple of exceptions ("Assassin’s Creed III," "Mass Effect 3") there is not enough software availability to prevent anyone other than the casual gamer from jumping ship to Microsoft or Sony.

Gamers who aren’t fans of Nintendo’s overly-saturated, colorful games are not going to suddenly flock back because of the announced Wii U Pro Controller. But does Nintendo want to appeal to this type of gamer right now?

It's like a theme park without the sweating and lines.

From someone who loves seeing products evolve instead of simply upgrade, I applaud Nintendo for the advances that they’ve made with their hardware and some of their software. The Wii U platform has given developers a memo that says, “Go forth and develop!

Many of the feelings of inadequacy felt by visitors of the Nintendo conference are due to the fact that the games that are going to excite them and reinvigorate their trust in Nintendo have not even been shown yet. Instead of encouraging manufactures to simply put the latest GPU in their console to crank up the polygon count, we need to encourage developers to take a step back and develop a game that is an evolution from existing gaming methods instead of an incremental upgrade. Nintendo is making the radical move of trying to change gaming, and that takes a lot of guts.

Another big point of contention is the company's forthcoming attempt at a dedicated online service, Nintendo Connection. No one has been able to match Microsoft in terms of online playing experiences, and the Wii wasn’t even in the same universe when it came to online play.

At their E3 conference, Nintendo talked about all the communication that Nintendo Connection was bringing to the plate: video chat, message boards, etc. All of the things they talked about sound good in theory but I doubt how easily they are going to allow players to connect (Friend Codes, I’m talking about YOU!).

By being first out of the gate with Wii U, Nintendo has both a lot of power and vulnerability. Play their cards right, and Nintendo dictates early on what the playing field looks like when Sony and Microsoft release their next-gen consoles.

Releasing with a competitive price point, selection of 1st and 3rd party games and a Nintendo Connection that can compete with the likes of Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network are all crucial to a harmonious release that would put Sony and Microsoft back on their toes. Play their cards poorly, and competitors already have a favorable playing field when they release.

The E-lympics

I'm not sure Usain Bolt, the "Fastest Man Alive," holds his controller like that.

So, Kotaku posted this and the writer really spent a lot of time putting this article together about making a case for video games being in the Olympic games. It is an admirable effort and I applaud Kotaku's writer for really trying to do so much work, but no. I'm sorry, no. No no no.

Now, I love video games and I'm extremely ecstatic that e-sports are a thing now and are so popular the world over. That's brilliant and I'm happy. I really am. But as an athlete as well, having played basketball since I was six years old and then track and field until freshman year of college, I can say that the idea of a video game being an Olympic sport is just silly.

This is not to say that video games aren't trying and aren't competitive and that they don't show a large demographic from every country. That is totally true, I'm a gaming journalist and I know this. But, by saying this I am also saying that there are some sports in the Olympics that don't belong there as well and I have a hard time seeing those just as much as I do seeing video games there. But, going back to the Olympics at their core: running, jumping, throwing, wrestling and fighting. They're all physical tests of will and strength and athleticism. While some Olympic sports now toe the line on athleticism, others can have cases made for them.

To argue the point I'll look at Kotaku's points. "If shooting is a sport..." First off, anyone who has ever fired a gun in their life can tell you that holding a twelve-pound-plus firearm, aiming down the sight, bracing for the recoil and then cracking off the round is a physical and mental effort just as much as archery. Top marksmen spend their lives working hard at being able to hit targets that are being affected by the elements and working against a weapon that can also be inaccurate if the chamber and rifling inside the barrel is dirty.

Stephen Totilo, the writer of the article says, "while they may not involve running fast, jumping high, or even that much sweating, the one-on-one virtual combat of Street Fighter or the simulated clash of futuristic armies in StarCraft require a dexterity with a fighting stick or mouse that certainly exceed the muscular dexterity needed for the non-Olympic sport of competitive eating but maybe, possibly as much as is needed for the Olympic sport of competitive shooting."

Totilo makes a point that the finger dexterity of using a fight stick is quite possibly Olympian. I'm sure Clockwork of the competitive "Marvel vs. Capcom" circuit could attest to that. But the Olympics is about sports that everyone can do. Everyone has guns. Not everyone has a fight stick. Now, does everyone have a javelin or pole with which to pole-vault? No, but they are accessible and able to be worked with in school for most major countries for the exact reason that they are in the Olympics.

Next Totilo argues that since chess lobbyists are working hard to get chess into the Olympics, then video games might have a case too. No. There's a reason chess isn't in the Olympics, just as there's a reason golf will never be in the Olympics. While they require skill, they require intelligence and are clear competitions, they don't quite make it on the list of Olympian sports. Perhaps it is because when you think of an Olympian you think of someone fit, someone who is the best specimen of health and athleticism from a country (which could say something as to the possibility of perspective being the only reason sports are allowed to be Olympian), but you don't think of certain competitive golfers or chess players as Olympians.

This actually happened. Seriously.

A sport that is just like these that doesn't belong in the Olympics? Table tennis. That's right, I said it. What in the name of Zelda's ocarina is table tennis doing in the Olympics? Tennis I understand. Table tennis? That's like when power walking was in the Olympics. I'm lookin' at you, Beijing. I could hardly believe it. Oh yeah, that happened. They called it race walking. Don't believe me? Check it out.

So, I get it. I get there are things in the Olympics that justify putting video games in them. I totally understand it. However, look at the X-Games. Those are very athletic, very dangerous yet extremely skillful men and women who aren't allowed to compete in the Olympics because their sport isn't considered Olympian. What happened? They made their own competition that happens every year. This might be the answer for video games: The E-lympics.

I can't believe I just wrote that because it sounds horrible, but you get the idea and someone else can come up with a better name for it. This can be the place that the competitive fighting game players who absolutely destroy each other in "Street Fighter" and "Marvel vs. Capcom" can get nationally recognized. Those geniuses at "Halo" multiplayer will have a place to shine. You really want to show off your "Dance Central" skills and say that you can get a perfect on the hardest difficulty? Welcome to the E-lympics.

The games would have to be ones where there is a definite winner and loser, otherwise the judging by interpretation issue arises like in gymnastics and figure skating. The idea that someone's score is dependent on another person's opinion is not very Olympian, and I've argued for years that a new system should be made due to how incredible some of those routines are and how often I see a perfect one lose out to one where someone else trips and falls.

Toss the idea around with your friends. If you all like it, maybe we should push for the E-lympics to be made, and let the Olympics stay the way they are - slightly messed up and a little confusing, but the Olympics. Besides, ours can have a way cooler opening ceremony hosted by Master Chief, Kratos, and Lara Croft.