Even I Would Say I'm a Fan-Boy at this Point.

Oh man do I have to rant about this.

Long and short of it, the Sony NGP is going to be a financial failure (unless Sony drops the price considerably), and the Nintendo 3DS is going to own the handheld market for the next five years.

Let’s review: About five years ago my friends and I were sitting at a restaurant and we were talking about the next generation of consoles. I said the Nintendo Revolution (the Wii’s name at the time) was going to outsell Sony’s PS3 with exceptional ease. To my surprise, my friends thought I was crazy, citing games like Metal Gear Solid and Devil May Cry coming to the PS3 and others games along those lines would make it worth buying. I said that those franchises are good, but motion controls are going to change the way we play games for a long time. Once again they laughed it off. Let’s fast forward to December 2009, me and my friends are at the same restaurant (Longhorn Steakhouse, in case you were wondering) and we have the same conversation, kind of in retrospect really. This time, I bring up how year after year the Wii has been outselling the PS3, and the Wii is incredibly fun to play. Both friends agree, and we all have a good laugh.

    What made the Wii so successful? It’s not like Nintendo had a great run of consoles before hand. I mean, let’s face it, the N64 was only ok with good titles every so often, leaving those with Playstations to have a GREAT library to choose from. The Gamecube had so little third-party support it’s embarrassing to think of and its online play was comparatively part non-existent. So why would I say Nintendo had an ace up its sleeve? How about launching a console with a Zelda game that has motion controls? How about it was the first console with motion controls so simple my own mother could appreciate them? Oh, and how about this, the price was literally HALF the cost of the PS3 and it came with Wii Sports, a great way for anybody to appreciate the new controls for free! And what’s this, it’s backwards compatible with all Gamecube games and controllers! For only $250? Yeah, I was the first one in line at a BestBuy to get it.

    What did the PS3 launch with? Umm, Resistance, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, Madden, and Call of Duty 3…. the rest were basically mid to low range games. Plus the price tag was $500 to $600, which is around what one usually pays for rent at a decent apartment, thus leaving only those with a ton of disposable income to buy the thing. Also, only certain versions were backwards compatible with Sony’s ridiculously large library of PS2 games. Why the fu** would Sony not include backwards compatibility into all of their consoles? It’s obvious that it’s not impossible to do or too costly. Well, technically speaking the PS3 cost $801to make and Sony lost $200 for everyone they sold. I am, to this day, surprised so many people bought this system upon its first inception.


   So, now that we have a little history, we can understand what brings us to this rant. Well, the DS is getting on in years, it’s about 7 years old and the many iterations it has behind it are ok, but it’s about time for something new in the handheld market. Enter the 3DS, a more powerful DS, with GLASSES-LESS 3D. Recently, I was invited to Gamestop to get my hands on one of these and test it out. I am telling you right now, this thing is pretty damn amazing. The 3D isn’t gimmicky looking like some movies in theaters that are converted to 3D from their 2D roots. It feels and looks almost exactly like a DS, so it feels familiar, or and it completely backwards compatible with all DS games. Call me a fan boy, call me over optimistic, but at $250 this thing is a steal.

What about the Sony NGP? Well, don’t get me wrong it’s powerful with 4 processors, good looking with a AMOLED screen, and dual analog sticks, and it has a capacitive pad on the back of the console for touch controls. All this sounds impressive, but it also sounds really, REALLY expensive. Analysts predict with these expensive parts, the system should cost between $400 to $500, double the 3DS’s price. Big negative on it's part is the complete lack of UMD backwards compatibility. Sony, how is it you put forth all this effort INVENTING a new form of media and then a couple years later spend day in and day out trying to move away from the media outlet you invented and touted as the best form of portable media? Nintendo 3DS, I just pop in a DS cartridge if I want to play my DS games on it. NGP? I have to download the PS game from the Sony store at an additional cost! It seems Sony will try to adopt flash based memory cards for it's...WAIT a fu**ing second, so Sony is going to the cartridge format? Hasn't Nintendo being doing that for, I dunno, decades now? Words can't describe my lack of excitement for the NGP. Hell, the only reason I ever bought a PSP was to play particular SquareEnix titles (FFVII:Crisis Core, FF Tactics: War of the Lions, Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep, FF: Dissidia 1 & upcoming 2) and.....Patapon.....I like Patapon. Honestly, though that is pretty much been my entire PSP collection, niche RPG games. Everything else, I buy for my DS.


I know when the Sony NGP comes out, people will try to defend it, say they love all facets of it, try to hack it like the PSP was hacked. Truth is, the PSP as it is right now is lack luster. The DS has twice the market share of the PSP, and the DS crushes when it come to software sales. In this list I found on VGChartz, the PSP does not have a single game in the top 100 best selling games of all time list. The DS? 12! 12 titles that have just racked in the dough! Granted, most of them were first party titles and half of those were Pokemon, but whatever sells, right? Just ask the Microsoft Kinect. OK, before you get mad at me, name for me three legitimately GOOD Kinect games, and I will retract and delete that statement. Until further notice, I still say the Kinect has a ways to go, but that's neither here nor there...

    If you are the person that thinks the DS is kids system ad the 3DS is going to be a kids system, too, please just grow the fu** up, man. Yes, the DS has kids games on them. Wanna know why? Cause they sell! Pokemon is considered a kids game, right? Then why was it a large group of "kids" (read: of drinking age adults) were standing in line outside my local Gamestop for the midnight release of Black and White? The DS and 3DS are as much a kids system as watching cartoons is a children's activity. Yes, the majority of the content is geared towards children, but that doesn't mean none of it can't be appreciated by adults. The day I can share a coherent and intelligent conversation with a young child about the finer religious and sexual themes in the entire series of Neon Genesis Evangelion is the same day a human being somewhere is attack by a black bear, shark, and struck by lightening all in the same moment. Basically meaning, if a child enjoys Pokemon, why can't an adult?

    So, here we are. I want the 3DS, as I have it reserved and plan to pick it up on launch day. If Sony can drop the price of the NGP and release solid titles with it, then we will talk. Well, the 3DS launch titles do look pitiful, but with the promise of Zelda, Star Fox, and Kid Icarus, all in 3D? I am there.

I've run out of game related puns!

I can see this Dragon has aged well!

Oh hey, there's a good one.

Dragon Age 2. My Bulletstorm review explains how I came into the possession of Dragon Age 2. I wasn't actually intending to play it, but I can often tell if I'll like a game or not based on the kind of people who pick it up and the kid of people who actually enjoyed the game. The Dragon Age 2 people were my kind of people.

Blah blah blah backstory. (Which is essentially the same backstory you get when you play Dragon Age 2)

This game fixed every problem I had with the original Dragon Age, made it look prettier, gave it a classier art style, patted it on it's bottom and sent it out into the world to be enjoyed by me. I am currently 4 hours into the game, but I am nowhere near even the middle of the story, and that makes me happy.

They fixed the combat system, making it essentially a button-masher, but with planning and tactics. Think Dynasty Warriors with the radial attack menu from Mass Effect 2. Oh hell, think Mass Effect 2.

Yep, they basically made Mass Effect 2 in the dragon days. The reviews complain about re-used areas, but I haven't been that annoyed by them. Sure you'll only go into maybe 30 different places, and all of them are fairly small, but I like that doing quests and missions in this way makes it fast and simple. I felt as though I was progressing whatever the story was while I played.

You attack with the bottom button, your skills are the other 3. Simple. You can play as any of your group if you'd like, and you even have your choice of Mage, Warrior or Rogue. And the game makes me want to play through it again with those different classes. Think Mass Effect mixed with Baldurs Gate. You don't have to get into the story and history of the games, you can just hack and slash and get the loot.

A re-vamped inventory system makes augmenting weapons and armor a cake. I felt like I could understand what I was doing. You feel like your progressing in the game, after a particularly hard boss or mob, you level up. After 4 or 5 easier mobs you also level, and you can modify as you go. Prepare to breeze through the first 10 levels quickly, then it gets tough. The game also made me want to bump up the difficulty, making it so I couldn't just keep pressing A and kill em all.

It's a faster, slimmer version of Dragon Age: Origins. You might not like it, you might love it. Will it stay on my shelf forever? Maybe, since Dragon Age and Awakening are there, and I'm interested to see how they continue the series. Oh yeah, I also read the books, so that probably helps out a ton. Give it a try, why don't you?

A Bullet-Age for my Dragon Storm

I wanted to play Bulletstorm, and I wanted to play Dragon Age. I had to go ahead and stifle myself on getting the games when they came out and instead worked the system. And it all came up milhouse.

Here's what happened, I kept hearing such great things about Bulletstorm, but we kept getting copies traded in, the general consensus being that the game is good.... not great.... but not terrible. The whole package is decent enough, but not any one in particular thing could keep your attention for much longer than a week.
So fine, I says, I didn't even want to get it. But I did want to at least try it out. So I pick up a used copy, the week Dragon Age 2 came out. I didn't get DA2 because I hated, HATED, the first one. Something about a WoW combat system on a console bored me. To death. I got, and beat the Bulletstorm in the week, brought it back and put that money towards Dragon Age 2. And in the end it was the right decision.


First on the block is Bulletstorm. Talk about a game with more publicity and hype, this thing was so proud of itself and what it had planned. Too bad it didn't quite keep up. I firmly believe the publishers didn't actually play the game, simply pegged it to be more awesome and bad-a than COD. The commercials, the jokes, the references, all to show how ridic the COD series had become.

So then we get into the storyline of Bulletstorm. You and your ethnic partner (who has a serious personal problem), are stranded on a planet where they're hunting an evil general, with the help of a tough-as-nails girl. Scroll down, it's the Killzone 3 review. Scroll down really far, it's the Gears of War 2 review. Now there's nothing wrong with the same story over and over, if the game is good the story won't come into play much. (Although I do like that Game Informer complained about the storyline of Dragon Age 2, but  hailed the Bulletstorm story as smart).

I've played all of Fallout:New Vegas, and I ran into more bugs with Bulletstorm than I did Fallout. Just saying. The general concept is a decent enough theory, you get skill points for killing people in interesting ways,  and you can push, pull, and drag the people into different traps and pitfalls.

Problem is, at least for me, I ran out of interest in doing so quickly, and the game simply became a fight to the finish. There were skillshots I could easily pull off, and others that seemed so daunting and complex that I didn't even want to attempt them. The biggest draw of the game now is the Echoes levels, which are essentially re-playing each individual level on a time-run for top scores. Meh.

What really bothered me about this straight forward shooter (which is yet another one that would have done wonderfully had it been released on the PC back in the day) was that it was made by Gears of War people. Gears, known in a wide amount because of their cover and shoot from cover systems. Bulletstorm? You could crouch, crouch next to a barricade, and people could still shoot at you, over the debris. So... what's the point of crouching? The game is actually intending on you to be so fast and awesome that you don't have to worry about getting too injured. I took 4 screw-shots (a drill into the stomach) in a row, and my guy didn't die, but 2 sniper hits and I was face down. This was on normal. When you die in the game, be prepared to make an audible sound of annoyance, sometimes it just doesn't make sense.

The game overall seemed somewhat rushed, but was released the same time as Killzone, a week before Dragon Age 2, and two weeks before Homefront. So I'm not sure why the rush. The current appeal of  Bulletstorm now? The Gears Beta (which you have to have the Bulletstorm disc for *cheap*) and the Echoes levels. Beat your friends scores. Woo. Most of the people I work with have already done so. And shockingly they're already bored with the game, they just won't admit it.


The game essentially is a run of the mill shooter with some interesting elements (See Metro 2033, STALKER, etc). It's a decent game, but like I said, I beat it over a weekend, 7 hours to finish the storyline on normal, died twice, and another 2 hours to beat some of my friends rankings on Echoes. All of my friends however, had stopped playing, so leashing a fish in a barrel isn't that much fun. Rent it, give it a whirl, but don't make space for it on your shelf.

Dragon Age 2 to follow.

I never did figure out that title....

A surprisingly few number of people have played Beyond Good and Evil, for no real reason. Well, it being released with almost no advertising or marketing didn’t help anything. I remember seeing an ad or two in EGM, but that was about it. It also had a somewhat interesting commercial I don't remember seeing, but trust me, that helped either. This happens all of the time, though, a good game comes out and the marketing department drops the ball and nobody knows about it (Mark of Kri, Guardian Heros, Rhythm Heaven, etc.) Well, I decided to download it to my GameTap account and try it out. My take on it? It's a great game!

This game is good because, well, it’s very different. Your charcter, Jade, is NOT a last-action hero, destined to save the world. On the contrary, she is a simple reporter who lives with a talking pig that invents things, and both of you take care of orphaned kids in your spare time. It really doesn’t sound like much of a game until some weird aliens start abducting people. Well, to combat this, a military group called the Alpha Sections fight off these mysterious aliens, called the Domz, but in return of your safety they need an almost dictatorship like control over the entire planet of Hillys (your home). So, the plot opens up as you take on the reporter role to find out why the Alpha Sections are so mysterious and why do they need total control. Honestly, that’s all I can say about the plot without giving away the oh-so-juicy bits.

So, as a reporter, Jade’s main action is to take pictures of incriminating evidence and to take pictures of animals to earn cash on the side. Her only means of attack is with a stick called a Dai-Jo, which is next to worthless against most foes. I admit, none of this sounds like I would make for a good game, but it does! Seriously, the simplicity involved in this game is what makes it such a joy to play, and it doesn’t get in the way of the overall story either.

As with any review, I do have my complaints. A common complaint about this game is that it’s too short. Like, WAY too short. I beat the game in 11 hors, and I took my sweet time with it. I thought the game was long enough to get the point across, and right as you might have started getting tired of the game, it ends, so it worked out for me. Another common complaint is that the game is way too easy. That one…I can agree with. With the simplicity of the game, the difficulty is just not there. The hardest part of the entire game is the final boss, and really all he boils down to is a giant game of memorization (for those that get stuck at the final boss, trust me, it’s a pattern). Heck, 80% of the game is you sneaking around in shadows, trying not to get caught and taking pictures when you get the chance. Heck, you only attack enemies full-force only a handful of times in the game, other than that you are sneaking about. There really isn’t much to the game in the way of gameplay.

Here’s what it comes done to…how much fun can you have while doing simple tasks? Think of the premise of Doom. All you do is shoot demons and zombies in Doom, but it’s fun! It’s the execution of simplistic gameplay that make it fun or boring, and this game executes well. Ease of play aside, it really is good title that everyone should try. It’s only 1200 points right now on XBLA arcade or $15 on the PSN Network, so now it’s a steal to buy and play one of the most under-appreciated games. Hey, the more people that buy this game, the more likely the developers will make the sequel that much better.

The greatest game eva!

I gotta stop misleading you all with those titles. This blog is about the best genre of video games. Now of course it's all personal opinion, but it's been discussed in great detail here and abroad. (Ok fine, at gaming stores)

The greatest genre of video games are RPGs.

How did we get to this conclusion? Well, I have a stack of games to play, as I usually do, but this stack is different than normal stacks, it's

Dragon Quest IX
Pokemon Black
Golden Sun: Dark Dawn

Now, the savvy video game consumer would, and often does, ask "is this game worth my $60?"

Well, unfortunately nowadays, most shooters can be flown through at about 8 hours. Now some are already protesting and creating effigies of me to burn. Put down the paper-mache and the stick-on facial hair and hear me out. The average game has a limited amount of space they can use for their game, so gaming companies have to divide up their game wisely. A portion of it can go to the single player, another portion to the multiplay, some for the cutscenes, a little here and there for the FMVs, and you have a game.

Which as far as a side topic goes, there hasn't been a game (to date) on the PS3 that's more than 1 disc, however on the 360, it's quite common to find games be 2 if not 3 discs (some even 4 discs, what is this, ps2??) The reason being the Bluray discs can hold more blah blah blah. Regardless, they all have about the same amount of space to work with. (However, would a game on the PS3 be able to have more content than it's single disc 360 counterpart? well, yes, but gaming companies don't do that for the obvious reasons)

So you have to manage your game space in the right way, but understand that people want as much bang for their buck as they can get. You can pretty much see how a game is divided by looking at the achievements/ trophies for a single game. Get all of the awards and essentially you've done "everything" a game has to offer, usually. The multiplay has achievements, the single play has achievements on different difficulties, and the likes.

But you're playing the game for the game and the story, why on earth would you want to go through multiple times to get every single dollar out of the game? Because $60 clams is still a lot of scratch in this day and age. They used to have achievements where you'd get them for just finishing the single player storyline, on easy. Not no more. Conversely, you'll find a growing number of gamers getting the hot new game, blazing through it on easy, then deciding if they want to keep it or not. Sad? Maybe a little, but as long as they enjoy it on easy, they usually tend to keep the game and try it on normal.

Truthishly? I played Dead Space 2 the first time on easy, got through the game, and liked it so much I tried it again on normal. Now the discussion of "playing games on easy" isn't todays topic. We're here to discuss bang for buck. And shooters.... usually don't have it if you're just looking to get through a single player campaign and enjoy the game.

Imagine spending $60 on Black Ops if you didn't have the internet? Seems like a waste yes? There was a rumor ages and ages ago, and it was probably more of a wish than anything else, that a game like COD would come out and you would be able to purchase individual items of the game, pick what you want. The single player would be like $25, the zombies and bot mode would be $25 and the multiplay would be $30. You could still buy all 3 at $60, or buy what you want. Buying the normal arrangement individually would cost you more than the packaged game, so if you wanted it all, you could get it all cheaper, see how it would work? Inevitably, the gaming companies would make a fortune on the games themselves because of careful planning. The consumers couldn't exactly complain because they were given options, and it's essentially like a map-pack, but divided better.

Will this ever happen? Hopefully, you're already seeing more and more XBLA and PSN games for sale individually. Stand alone DLCs are still pretty common too. But for now, we're stuck with what we got. So if you want to enjoy the awesome single player campaign of Black Ops (Which to be fair, if that was all they had to focus on, the game would be stellar), or just the storyline of BioShock 2 (since no one really plays the multi anymore, trust me, I checked for you), you're still going to have to fork out the total amount of everything, even if you aren't going to use it all.


Then there's the RPG, those saucy dime a dozen ladies of the gaming night. A standard RPG clocks in at 30 to 40 hours. Yeah, not 8. Sometimes there's a difficulty setting, but usually it's not present to make the player put more time into the game. Yet, there's something enjoyable about grinding an RPG you like. (giggity).

You don't mind the extra time put in, because you can start to get better loot, which will allow you to defeat bigger mobs faster and so on. But an entry-level 30 hours? That's huge.

You have to enjoy the RPG elements of a game, but they make some that are tactic based, some that are turn-based, hack-n-slash, and some that are just straight up Zelda-esque fighting with leveling elements, all that push the clock at 30 hours. And that's just playing straight to the boss, assuming you never die or need to grind.

Name a few games like this? Deal.

(Tactics/ table based)
Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced (GBA)- 
(I personally have put in 50 hours into the game, and my team is only level 30, the level cap is 50, in the DS version it's 99, the DS version I have about 40 hours in)

(Turn-Based)
Dragon Quest anything
(currently my gaming crack, I'm like 10 hours in, and they're still giving me tutorials to skills)

(Hack-N-Slash)
Demon's Souls
(I'm 40 hours in, and I've only played 3 of the 10 classes)
Dragon Age 2
(I'm like an hour in, but I know there's more than 10 hours I can easily get out of this game)

(Straight up Zelda style)
Children of Mana (or any of the Mana series)
Tales of Symphonia




So what's all this mean? Well, if you're looking for a good way to spend your $60, maybe try something other than a shooter. I probably get one guy in every week annoyed at how quickly he's beaten every shooter, I try to tell him they aren't worth the full $60 if you don't play online, but it's hard to understand I suppose. I got him hooked on Borderlands, so there's hope. If he hates it, I'll suggest Final Fantasy 13, a good 60 hours of your life down the drain.

Try an RPG. Oftentimes they're portable, so that's always good too. And usually you can find a pre-owned one, so even cheaper.

The greatest shooter ever

The greatest shooter, or FPS game ever made is...

Metroid: Prime?


Ok maybe not. But here's what brought this all up. A regular was in the other day, and we were all discussing Killzone over Bulletstorm (sorry, if two shooters are released the same day, they're going to be compared, it's bound to happen). He blatantly said "Metroid: Prime is the greatest shooter to date".

Silence followed. How could this happen? A Metroid game beat out COD, Battlefield, even Goldeneye? That's when it struck me. All shooters are different, but the "best" one is hard to judge. This guy had played the COD series, played Bioshock and Borderlands, played all of the other shooter games, but he still stuck to his guns (wah wah) that M:P was the best. So what caused him to think so? Well, his arguments were environment and atmosphere. I'll be damned, he's right. To him, M:P gave him everything he wanted from a shooter. No multiplay so the single-player could be a long length, a good combat system, and an amazing soundtrack. So throughout the day, I've been asking people what they though the greatest shooter ever was. It unsurprisingly wasn't always COD. Not to start beating that dead horse again, but I think people are blinded by the current popularity and forget about the other good shooters that have come and gone.

Here's my short list of amazing shooters worth a try.

1. World is Not Enough
(think Goldeneye, but with more... other stuff)
2. Metro 2033
(a shooter should be complicated, and take bullet management, no one can carry 9000 rounds)
3. Metroid: Prime
(the guy was totally right, this was an awesome game that's faded into the background)
4. Deus Ex
(sandbox FPS, it takes some time to get into, but it was the start of what we take for granted now)
5. Return to Castle Wolfenstein
(no one will come close when it comes to atmosphere and story)
6. Thief: Deadly Shadows
(a shooter doesn't have to mean guns, it can be sneaky too)
7. Far Cry 2
(try the damn game, I don't care if it's old. You can start field-fires, think about that in combat..)
8. No One Lives Forever
(take Austin Powers-type comedy, mix it with a good early 2000s shooter)
9. Serious Sam
(although it's coming back, it sorta reignited the fast-paced Doom-esque shooter)
10. Kingpin: Life of Crime & Postal 2
(both got recognized because of their violence, but underneath the hype lies two games with surprisingly solid gameplay mechanics, and a deviation away from the normal "shoot in the head" logic).

You'll notice they're mostly older games, but they still make my list of games worthy of keeping around, if nothing else, it's nice to see games focus on the entire experience, not a package deal.

Metroid: Prime is the greatest shooter ever? I suppose maybe in some peoples eyes.
But as the Jimmy Carr joke goes "throwing acid is wrong.... in some peoples eyes". Think about it.

Ryu punching Spiderman? Not likely.....

Seriously, I want to love Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. Ryu hadokenning Wolverine. Spiderman tying the up Zero in his web. For the love of crap, Iron Man beating the hell out of Dante! What's not to love? I think it’s a great game. It has a ton of ambition behind it. It’s fun to play, easy to pick up with a lot of depth for the hardcore, like any good fighting game. The sound is epic, the character design is awesome, and the controls are forgiving and spot on. Heck, I can almost say nothing but good things about this game. Almost.

First I shall elaborate what I love, then I will get to what I hate. It should also be noted that I’m going to try something different, pictures. This blog is missing them and I feel they would highlight reviews and rants with better appeal. That aside, MvC3 is a beautiful fighting game. Usually, a 2-D fighting game has a control scheme similar to Street Fighter 2, (three sets of punches and three sets of kicks). MvC3 tosses that aside in favor of a simple six-button set-up, where 4 buttons attack and the other two call-out one of your three teammates. This set-up is perfect for an easy game or two you can get into.

Here is what I hate, and prepare for some serious backlash…. A fighting game is built around its multiplayer. Without multiplayer, a fighting game doesn’t exist. That’s really the end of the story on it. So why did Capcom f**k up what’s essentially a genre they invented? Yes, the single player game is, nothing special. The training mode is, well, also broken because you can’t set up a CPU opponent to fight you like you could in EVERY CAPCOM FIGHTING GAME BEFORE IT. So, in training mode it’s a way for you to try out your moves against a dummy that won’t move, or player two could be the dummy, which ever is available.

But the online multiplayer…Oh my God….fu** you Capcom. Seriously, you guys really bit the big one with this nonsense. Has anyone played Street Fighter IV? You know how while you are waiting in queue for it to be your turn you would watch the match unfold and try to gather some intel about the opponent you may go against? Yeah, that’s not here. As opposed to that, we are treat with this:

In case you can’t make out what this is, it’s a picture of two moving cards, bouncing back and forth while you wait for a match. Let’s see, your average match lasts about five minutes, and if you are in a medium sized room, which make you 4th in line…GASP…that means you have to wait 20 minutes before you can play. That’s 20 minutes (or more depending on the room size) of watching cards bounce up and down, with no way of knowing what the hell is going on. Is it a good fight? What tactics are the other players using? You don’t know! You get to stare a blank screen and “imagine” the fight as it unfolds.

Ok, some of you will argue that this way it conceals those tactics the other players may be using and you go into the fight fresh. To this, I say bull-sh**! I am old enough to remember “quartering up” in an arcade and waiting to play someone in a fighting game, whether it be Street Fighter or Tekken. This was how you learned, kids, by watching people perform better than you, and adapting. By the way, as mentioned, the last two Street Fighter IV games had this spectator thing going and it worked beautifully, why not here?

I will say that the connectivity from match to match is very smooth, with little disconnects (as SFIV was the king of) and maybe that could be the reason for axing the spectator mode. But seriously, waiting and staring at a blank screen while I wait for a match is boring as hell. Nothing notates the boredom I feel towards a game when I have to hit up a couple levels of Angry Birds before I get to play the game. Just saying….

It’s a decent fighting game overall, does a lot of things right, but the multiplayer wait time just pissed me off too much for words. I might be trading this game in the near future.


Ok, side note, to those that want to be good at this game, don't use this, the combos are too slow to input:

And try and use this, for obvious reasons:

Oh, and personally, note. I WILL be trading this game in. I liked the concept, but seriously, the controls are so simple and the movement within the game is so frantic, that I just started hating the game after a while. I mean, it's pretty good, but honestly, it just doesn't compare to what I will say is personally my favortie fighting game of all time:

Capcom vs. SNK 2, the Non-EO version.

It's paced correctly, you have different styles of fighting to choose from, the button layout is the classic control....awww....Yeah, I think I will trade in this game for Super Street fighter IV instead, whihc I believe is the beter game between it and MvC3.