A list of 21 upcoming Videogames that may (or may not) merit your attention:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20396917,00.html

I found a couple of interest...particularly the latest Need For Speed game, which was made by the folks behind one of my favorite car race/chase/crash games, Paradise City.  And then there's the new version of Civilization.  Jeeze, the number of hours I've spent playing the various versions of that game...

Interesting article regarding a new internet gaming service that apparently can help you do just that:

http://www.slate.com/id/2257825/

...both of which came from Salon.com.

First up, an article concerning the creativity -and perceived lack of acknowledgment from the community at large regarding this creativity- of video games:

http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/06/20/tom_bissell_extra_lives_interview_ext2010/index.html

I think the thesis is a valid one...are/can video games be "art"?  With each new wave of games, one has to acknowledge that some serious creativity is behind certain works.  Not all, mind you, but certainly more than a few.  Some of the role playing games, in particular, show a great deal of ingenuity and beautiful artistry.

This second article is from a Mac "devotee" who is getting a little fed up of the whole Apple scene and is moving to Linux.  His reasons for ultimately rejecting Apple hit pretty close to what it is about Apple that I don't particularly like.  While friends were stating the joys of owning an Apple product and how evil/bad Microsoft was, I always felt that the two companies were more alike than dissimilar.  And I felt that Apple, if anything, was a more closed system that forced its buyers to spend money on Apple approved/controlled products.  The ultimate goal, which the author of the article notes, is a locked in system where Apple maximizes their profits and controls everything that comes in or goes out.

But you can read the article and decide for yourself...

http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/06/20/from_mac_to_linux/index.html

This one is from Chris Sullentrop, at Slate:

http://www.slate.com/id/2255619/pagenum/all

I have spent WAAAAY too many hours playing the game, as well.  While I couldn't get into Grand Theft Auto (I have the PS3 version of IV and after playing a few hours I let it go...it just didn't do all that much for me.  Maybe I'll return to it one day), I have to admit Red Dead Redemption has sucked me in.  However, not to the degree of Mr. Sullentrop.

Yes, its a good game and, yes, while you control the main character, you can be surprised by some of his actions.  However, some of the mini-stories your character goes through tend to end a little too abruptly, without much closure.  Further, the territory is VERY broad and moving around can be, after a bit, a chore (There are shortcuts and ways around this, to a degree, but its not as satisfactory as I would like).

Despite this, I would still recommend the game for any fan of westerns.  I don't know how far into the game I am (As of today, I'm well into the Mexican storyline, but still haven't opened up the northeastern section of the map), but I plan to work may way to its end.

And if there's a sequel...I'll be there.

But if you're curious about it and on the fence whether you want to buy it, check out the video below.  At the very least, it gives you a great idea of the games very stunning graphics...

In case you haven't yet realized that computer/entertainment companies (and all companies, for that matter) view their competition as nothing less than villains to be dispatched, then take a look at this intriguing article:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article7118570.ece

Like great Greek tragedy, one must always be on the lookout for too much hubris.  I suspect the Nintendo quotes, regarding Sony's Playstation, might qualify.

But, like all things, time will tell.

I suppose it was bound to happen...video games from the dawn of the home video game era (and in this case we're mostly talking the Atari 2600...I used to know it simply as the Atari system!) are becoming quite the collectables...

http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/03/20/mf.rich.off.video.games/index.html?hpt=C2

Ah, for those old days.  I still recall getting my first Atari system and Space Invaders.  I was SO into that game back then.  Even if the Atari version wasn't anywhere near as smooth looking as its coin operated counterpart, there was something magical about having your very own copy of it.

According to Entertainment Weekly:

http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20336031_20342707,00.html

Unlike movies, it appears that sequels to video games are just made to be "built upon".  You have all the general ideas and, in some cases, sophisticated enough graphics that can be reused or simply tweaked (such as characters, scenarios, etc).  A focus can be made, therefore, on expanding your original ideas.  This is unlike the movies, where you essentially start from scratch with each new film.

(Btw, I'm enjoying Mass Effect 2.  Never played the original, but love the sequel.  Same goes with Uncharted in all respects...never played the original but loved the sequel.  On the other hand, wasn't that big of a fan of BioShock and therefore am not so interested in the sequel.  The visuals were stunning, but the game itself just didn't grab me.  To each their own!).

(Btw Part 2: Some of the best "sequels" I ever played were the Ultima games.  Thought the first (yes, I AM that old) was decent enough, but Ultima II, which I played in high school, absolutely blew me away.  Years later, at which point they were up to Ultima VI or so, I revisited that game and couldn't believe how...primitive it was compared to what was out there.  I know Ultima became an online experience, but haven't really followed it since that point).

...at least what happened the past year:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2009-12-29-vidgames200929_ST_N.htm

Like the article I just posted regarding music in the past decade (you can assess it here), this article focuses on the general trends for the video game industry in the past year, where things were good and where things fell off.

Most fascinating to me is the fact that video games seem to be moving closer and closer to becoming "interactive movies".  Batman: Arkham Asylum and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 were essentially first person movies (although the plot of Batman was a little easier to follow, IMHO, to that of Call of Duty, which veered into truly odd areas...did the airport scene really have to be there?  And what's with all those betrayals...what were the characters' endgame?!).

Regardless of the quibbles, video games keep pushing the boundaries, and I'm certainly curious to see what comes next.

A bit of surprising news.  It seems like just a couple of months ago they released Batman: Arkham Asylum to much acclaim.

Wait, it was only a couple of months ago!

Now there's word that a sequel to that game is coming:

http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/12/14/video-games-trailers-for-batman-arkham-asylum-2-and-star-wars-the-force-unleashed-2/

The trailer for the game (its rather brief, and offers not a whole lot to see, IMHO) is at the above link.  If you're too lazy to click it, you can watch the trailer below (courtesy of Spike TV):

Batman: Arkham Asylum 2 - Exclusive Debut Trailer

Now and again I try to catch Attack of the Show on G4.  Its a breezy, fun show, mostly focused on new technology and/or entertainment with occasional forays into other topics.  The hosts, Olivia Munn (not featured in this particular clip) and Kevin Periera are a delightful duo, and often make me laugh out loud during their (deliberately) cheesy skits.

This past week, Mr. Periera and Morgan Webb (co-host of X-Play on the same channel, a show devoted to reviewing video games), did a very funny trashing of Tony Hawk Ride, which, given this review, appears to be a pretty lame video game available for the holiday season.

Sometimes, the sadist in me loves a good skewering:

Here's a pretty thorough one.  It goes over both the good and the not so good about this highly anticipated game...

I suppose this is THE big video game release of the week.  I'm curious about it, although according to this video from msnbc.com, there is some controversy swirling around it...

Fascinating piece here regarding the recent spate of lawsuits against Electronic Arts, particularly involving their various sport games, which feature likenesses of various people who apparently didn't offer permission for the company to use them...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6267873/David-Bowie-immortalised-in-Lego-Rock-Band.html

Yes, David Bowie has been made into a...Lego.

Based on the Amazon.com reviews (check them out here), I seem to be in the majority regarding my delight with the new Batman: Arkham Asylum video game.  It's been a while since I bought any computer games, and in the past two weeks I've purchased two: Wolfenstein (two weeks ago) and Batman: Arkham Asylum (last week).

Wolfenstein comes from the company that once electrified the gaming world with their DOOM games.  Alas, Wolfenstein, while fun, is more of the same, without much new (at least that I've stumbled upon).

B:AA, on the other hand, is everything the hype lead you to believe it would be.  This is a MASSIVE game, with games within games within games, and a storyline that would make any comic book fan happy.

If there is one quibble, it is this: The game seems to want desperately to be an "R" rated version of Batman.  However, its obvious that editorial decisions were made to not go quite that far, but at times the boundary is skirted, and it is jarring.  Now, I could be wrong, but didn't one of the characters at one point referred to Harley Quinn as a "bitch"?  Not the worst word in the vocabulary, but still...

Also, there's a segment where Dr. Zsasz holds a female doctor hostage.  He has a knife to her neck and, if as Batman you don't take him out the right way, the game abruptly shifts to the Joker laughing and noting Dr. Zsasz killed his hostage.  But the graphic shift is so abrupt that I can't help but wonder if the programmers made that grisly death sequence, then wisely chose to...uh...cut it out.  Granted, this sequence (if indeed it ever existed) may have been removed, but you're still left to imagine the gory details of what just occurred.  Only seconds later, when you successfully get past this point, the same hostage character meets an explosive end, and this one is presented visually.

Further, there are many dead people on the grounds (police) as well and a fitting sense of horror given that we're trapped in an asylum.

So, I recommend the game, but would caution parents regarding allowing their younger ones to play.  This is most certainly not the Batman animated show come to life.

It's not often I'm intrigued with video game releases.  I tend to enjoy the car racing games (Paradise City and, more recently, Midnight Club are favorites).

But I also enjoy the first person action/adventure type games, and today arrives one that is very anticipated, Batman: Arkham Asylum.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2009-08-24-batman-arkham-game_N.htm

My understanding is that the platform version to get is the one for the PS3, for that one features one option the others (XBox, PC) don't have: The ability to play as Batman's nemesis, The Joker.

Interestingly enough, after nearly a year or so of not buying any first person games, I'm in the position of buying two in two weeks.  Last week I picked up Wolfenstein, the latest version of that old WWII action game (I played the very first version of that game way, way back in the early 1980's on an Apple II.  For its time, it was a stunning achievement).  So far, that game is pretty good, although I would further add that there's nothing terribly different about it compared to, say, the previous Wolfenstein game that appeared a couple of years back.

Then again, I'm still in the early levels!

I find myself in agreement with Sam Keller, ex-quarterback of Arizona State, whose likeness was used (and pretty blatantly) by EA for one of their video games.  EA makes plenty of money off the material they sell, yet they can only show the likeness of these athletes without actually saying they are those players.  As Keller, in the article below states:

“We signed a paper at the beginning of college saying we couldn’t benefit from our name,” said Keller, who is now 24 and living in Scottsdale, Ariz. “So why was the N.C.A.A. turning a blind eye to this and allowing EA Sports to take our likenesses and make big bucks off it?”

Now, I suspect there will be those who say: Keller didn't argue about this when he was in college (in fact, he even noted he thought it very neat), and now that he's out of college, he complains.  However, note this following line:

Legal experts said it would be difficult to quantify how much the likenesses of college players are worth, but by comparison, the N.F.L. players union earned more than $35 million in royalties from Electronic Arts in 2008.

That's a pretty big bit of money.  Granted, college likenesses would probably be much less, but if it's even a third of that amount of money...

The article follows:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/04/sports/04ncaa.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

For those that were interested in purchasing the machine, you may want to wait until August:

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/playstation/analyst-sony-cut-playstation-3-price-100-august-16102

I offer my humble recommendations regarding the system.  I like the fact that you can easily get system updates (provided you have WiFi) and plays games and Blu Ray movies.

But I'm sure most of you who have a passing knowledge of the system know this already...

For those who couldn't attend, but were curious, here's a brief summary of the goings on at E3.  Seems that they're in agreement that Nintendo was the least impressive (although I'm certainly finding some of their upcoming titles desireable!) and that Microsoft and Sony presented the best new material.

See for yourself...

http://popwatch.ew.com/popwatch/2009/06/wrapping-up-e3-2009-the-coolest-games-the-biggest-turkeys-the-.html

Instead of offering all the piecemeal articles, this one neatly encompasses all the major motion detector game controls previewed at E3:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/02/e3.nintendo.sony/index.html

Looks like the future rests in joystick-less video gaming.

Something to look forward to!

Hmmmm...should have waited a little before noting the Microsoft motion detection device (a camera).  Looks like Sony is working on that as well, for next Spring...

http://my.att.net/s/editorial.dll?pnum=1&bfromind=7404&eeid=6609252&_sitecat=1479&dcatid=0&eetype=article&render=y&ac=-2&ck=&ch=en&rg=blsadstrgt&_lid=332&_lnm=tg+en+topnews&ck=&l=hm

I suspect all the major video game manufacturers have realized that Nintendo's controller is...fun.

As I said before, despite the fact that I think the Wii's graphics are rather ordinary, the game play is far more enjoyable on this system than all the others.

Let's see what happens with the Microsoft and Sony motion control systems...

Microsoft announced a new gaming control system for their X-Box which features...no controls at all.  I like it, although clearly this innovation is a by-product of what Nintendo did with their Wii system.

I've been disappointed by the Wii's relatively low level graphics, but impressed by the game play of their controls.  I'm curious to see the Microsoft system, and hope that Sony follows suit (they, for my money, have the best graphics of any of the platforms, plus the added bonus of the BluRay player).

Anyway, the article follows:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/01/microsoft.natal/index.html

Not to be outdone, Slate Magazine has a fascinating article by Michael Agger about the much beloved (at least by those who experienced the phenomena first hand) Atari 2600.

Speak Atari: How the 2600 forged the home video game future http://www.slate.com/id/2213124/

In reference to my last posting, related to the article on what is killing the video game industry, just some personal observations:

Now it makes sense why so many "movie"-like games are released piecemeal.  I'm referring to games such as Half-Life or Fear or GTA.  With all the money spend on developing a concept/story, and once the players have played the original arc, its difficult to build up the enthusiasm to play the game again.

I worked my way through Fallout 3, had a lot of fun, recognized there were several "sub-stories" I hadn't worked through, but once I reached the game's end, I simply haven't had the interest in returning.  And that's not to say that Fallout 3 is a bust.  It's a damn good game, broad in design and fun to play (for the most part).  But the reality is that I can't see myself returning to it anytime soon, and I know that those sentiments are exactly what game makers do not want to hear.

Fact is, times are tough everywhere, and as the article I linked to below noted, even a "hit" like GTAIV, which sold some $500 million in initial sales, isn't selling all that much anymore.  Those who wanted to play it have done so, and that is that.

I know I've been linking to articles (alternatively) from Salon and Slate magazine, and one again let me point out a fascinating article, this one from Slate:

What's Killing the Video Game Industry? http://www.slate.com/id/2210732/

A fascinating article that, in retrospect, makes perfect sense.  The video game industry requires a great deal of funds for artistic staff and programming, to make their games look and play as good as they do.

It's not unlike investing many millions of dollars on a film and hoping that when its released it'll make a return on your investment.

Again, fascinating stuff, well worth reading.