Ten year anniversary of Grand Theft Auto III

"I know a place on the edge of the Red Light District where we can lay low, but my hands are all messed up so you better drive brother."

With those words, us gamers were introduced to the morbid Grand Theft Auto saga. As depraved as the series may be, Grand Theft Auto also represents a genius reflection of society. The series isn't just a playground for sadistic playing but also a statement about society as a whole. The storyline itself may not of amounted to much more than the standard vengeance and mafioso story. But the masterpiece of the games have never been the plot line. Instead it's the world building that has allowed the franchise to last a decade. Liberty City isn't just a a bunch of unexplorable buildings. It's a cynical representation of modern society as a whole. And exploring the American dream through the city has never gotten old.

It's not a game it's an experience.

I've never played the first two Grand Theft Autos and I doubt anyone my age has either. I've seen them in the bargain bins of game stores, but they never had the allure that the third entry did. GTA3 brought with it a maturity not really seen in games at the time. There were better looking games and more compelling games, but few games matched the anarchic fun of the original. Even today the game is fun to play because of it's simple wish fulfillment. I'm not saying that everybody that picks up the game is a sadist in training, but there is something empowering about the freedom allotted to the player. There are main missions and even side missions, but a lot of people never even bothered playing them. Instead we were instantly attracted to the ability to cause whatever chaos we imagined in the game world.

Now that I'm older though, I can see what upset my mother so much.

Released on Oct. 22, it's hard to believe that it's been ten years since the release. I still remember sitting in middle school lunch and hearing with morbid curiosity my friend's ability to run down old ladies in a stolen taxi. Those that accused the game of being a murder simulator didn't really give the gamers any credit. Yes even those my age were a bit too young for the levels of violence, but we understood the line between fake violence and real violence. None of us were impressionable enough to take the violence at face value, we knew it was all fake. Despite what Jack Thompson may argue, the game had no ill effects after the system was turned off.

Jack Thompson, failed anti-video game activist.

My first taste of GTA was sleeping over my friend's house. He showed me with great glee the ability to run around and cause mayhem. Violence wasn't even our goal. We were more interested in exploring the game world because it was nothing we've seen before. Sandbox games are ubiquitous now but then it was a revolution. Rocket launchers and tanks weren't weapons of destruction but tools we used to test the freedom the game world allowed, just like the radio stations and fast cars were. And while virtual cops tried to police the city, they were nothing but another level of the game to compete against.

Trying to survive against SWAT teams was part of the fun.

To this day I don't think my mother knows I owned GTA, I think she still believes I'm borrowing it from my friend Joe (sorry ma). But that inherent sense of wrongdoing every time I popped the disc in my PS2 only added to the allure. I knew what I was doing wasn't wrong, but the idea that it could be wrong was simply seductive. My friends and I wasted a lot of afternoons passing the control around and topping each others acts of violence. We would see how many cars we can collect in one parking garage or defend a parking lot from waves of police. Even seeing who can pilot the Dodo aircraft for the longest led to competition between me and my brother.

He was the better Dodo flier, I'll admit.

It's hard to defend such actions as paying a prostitute and beating her up to get your cash back (which I've done in the video game, it's just good economics), but unless you played it you don't know how little a deal it was. Shooting people and stealing taxi cabs was violent but also encouraged, even if it wasn't a part of the main mission goals. Not to say the missions weren't fun, but it was how you completed the missions that was the real treat. Now the gamer could dictate how they prepared for the mission, even if it meant piling up eight tanks in the street "just in case you needed them." That's where cheats came in.

It's a shame that video games has lost it's way in this respect. Nowadays, cheating is both frowned upon and penaltalized in games. But back before the gamerscore it made for some of the best game experiences I've had. There's a reason why I still have all the cheats from GTA3 memorized to this day. It simply added to the fun. Something as simple as weapons and health cheats opened up the game world to more mayhem. My personal favorite was the riot and "everybody has weapons" cheat. There is nothing more exhilarating than driving around and watching bagladies with RPGs. I just wish videogames still supported such user freedom.

Even the newer GTA games prefer you not to cheat.

Rockstar is one of the leading game designers today because they earned that title. GTA3 alone revolutionized gaming today with its social commentary, sandbox design and top quality production. GTA3 forced other game companies to catch up and for good reason. Even something as simple as quality voice acting set the game apart from everything else in the market. And the series is still going strong ten years later because shooting a random pedestrian in the face still has it's charm. Not to say it isn't wrong, but the gameworld of GTA has its own rules. We were just living in it.

Guitar Hero sh*tting the bed

It may be better to burn out then fade away, but few have burned out as spectacularly as Guitar Hero. The five-year-old video game series called it quits after years of success. Twenty games in five years is nothing to complain about, but it is just this saturation that doomed the brand. And since nobody forced Guitar Hero to sell out, it is only their greed that is to blame. Think like Aesop's fable where the dog tries to get another dog's bone, but it turns out to be his reflection in a river and he loses both bones. Just like with Aesop's dog, Guitar Hero wanted it all and now it's left with nothing (and instead of a bone it's a plastic guitar).

A guitar is a lot more badass.

It all started in 2005 with the first Guitar Hero game. Nobody had any faith in the game. The songs in the first game weren't even the original versions. Instead they were sound alike covers. RedOctane, the game publisher, didn't invent the rhythm game (I can never spell the word rhythm) but they did popularize the idiot proof peripheral that allowed frat boys to make fools of themselves at parties. We get it, it's like you're playing an instrument. That doesn't make you any less white, it in fact makes you lamer. Wearing a sweatband while playing is doubly lame.

Sup brah?

It was an immediate success, creating a bonafide phenomenon. Guitar Hero had everybody's hearts and minds. They did with it what anyone would expect them to do, exploit the hell out of it. The very next year a sequel was released. Now, Guitar Hero 2 wasn't bad at all and showed actual innovation when compared to Guitar Hero 1. Guitar Hero 3 was basically a tricked out expansion pack. You see, Guitar Hero 3 was the start of Neversoft's involvement in development. This is worth mentioning because Neversoft is the developer behind the Tony Hawk series. Tony Hawk also started out as an innovative game series. But, like Guitar Hero, its constant yearly releases doomed it to irrelevance. With no real innovation or point, the games just became hollow shells of themselves. This over-saturation leads to it's downfall. To wit, while everyone has heard of Tony Hawk Pro Skater (unless you lived under a rock or with the Amish), few realize his games are still being made.

Released 2010.

Just how Tony Hawk got edged out of the market by Skate (the more innovative game), Rock Band came on to the scene and stole Guitar Hero's thunder. Rock Band was even made by Harmonix, who helped make the first two Guitar Heros. So, Harmonix comes back with a vengeance and ends up destroying its monopoly on music based games. All because Rock Band thought out of the box and added cheap plastic drums to the party. It's no coincidence that a year after Rock Band came out, Guitar Hero released World Tour, adding it's own microphone and drums. While the argument could of been made that Rock Band was the knockoff, it showed enough innovation and ingenuity to prove itself as its own brand, forcing Guitar Hero to copy off it.

Guitar Hero answers this problem by furthering saturating the market with band themed versions. I love Aerosmith but I'm not trying to pretend to be Joe Perry for the whole game. I doubt Joe Perry even wants to be Joe Perry. Instead of trying to salvage their brand and reclaim credibility, they instead went for the cash grab. They may have made the short money but at the price of retaining a brand that once showed promise.

Is this the fulfillment of the promise?

I'm not anti-Hero. Guitar Hero is a fun and challenging game. Through the Fire and Flames has never gotten nerds attention until they mastered the multicolored fret buttons. And without Guitar Hero, the philistines of my generation may have never known some of the greats of rock. Yes, I'm sure that a rock star is spinning in his grave every time a kid says "I heard that in Guitar Hero," but it's still keeping the music alive.

I'm sure Iggy Pop's future ghost is pissed every time he hears, "I heard him in Guitar Hero."

First Signs Year End Review

By the end of today, 2010 will be a distant memory. Nothing new can happen in 2010, and because of this it is time to look back and see how the year was, on a pop culture level. Minus the music of course. It is my life's regret that I never got into music as well as I could have. I love music, I appreciate music, but I cannot in all honesty call myself a music person. For that, go to my friend's music blog. He has pretty good taste and his blog is a lot better than mine. For everything else, hopefully, I have you covered here. For each category I chose the best and the most disappointing. I chose disappointing instead of worse. It's easy to be the worst at something, but to disappoint takes effort and deserves the extra scorn. Also for television shows I am only counting shows that premiered this year. It's not my fault that bad shows lasted into this year.

Best Film of the Year: Inception

I regrettably haven't seen The Social Network or Black Swan yet. I love both directors behind the movies and have been wanting to see them (the trailer for Social Network was amazing) but just never had a chance. It is because of this I choose Inception for the best film of the year. After I see those two I may change my mind but for now Inception takes the cake. For one, it was one of the most original films of the year. Christopher Nolan took a chance, with a film that confused a lot of people, but amazed the majority. In the top grossing films of the year, it sits number four, surrounded by sequels and remakes. Not saying that box office makes a great film, but the fact that it was a major success critically and financially speaks volumes. South Park, which lost it's edge years ago, even did it's own Inception spoof. With millions of fans, a South Park episode, it's own meme and making spinning tops cool again; Inception wins. Should it win Best Picture? Now that's a different story.

Most Disappointing Movie: Book of Eli

Denzel Washington is one of the coolest people on the planet. He is, by any definition, the man. That's why it sucks to see him in such a disappointing movie. Maybe I had too much hopes for it. Book of Eli even had Gary Oldman as a villain, which should of been worth the price of admission alone. Oldman has previously proven himself as an excellent villain in half of his films. Here though he is wasted as a egomaniacal leader of a post-apocalyptic village. The movie, which starts off fine enough, turns into a half-asses parable. That alone would be tolerable, until they break out the mother of all twists. Although there are clues throughout Book of Eli, the twist still feels cheap and meaningless. Made only for twist's sake. Also this movie's trailer reminded me of Fallout 3, which I was obsessed with at the time.

Best New Television Show: The Walking Dead

Award winning comic book series, plus Frank Darabont (the man behind such new classics as Shawshank Redemption, Green Mile and The Mist), plus the most fearless network on cable equals an amazing program. Airing a zombie themed television show is ballsy enough, but to do that and take it seriously is where AMC and Darabont succeed. Once you get done watching the short season, you realize that the zombies aren't even the most important part. Zombies are just a set piece, a situation for our characters. When used in that way, zombie themed media are used at their most effective. We need to care for the characters. Not only is it a brilliant execution of a zombie story, which is more than just zombies for zombies' sake, but it's also a success in ratings. Walking Dead out performed every other show out there. AMC even managed to win over my demographic, which is hard unless you air a show on Adult Swim.

Most Disappointing Television Show: Boardwalk Empire

This one is a tough call for me. Surely there are worse shows out there (Outsourced). The thing of it is, Boardwalk Empire had so much promise. A-list talent, good production quality, and a good premise. Why then was I so bored with it? If it wasn't for the fact that I live ten minutes away from Atlantic City, I wouldn't of even bothered finishing the season. I just wish that they made it into a miniseries instead of a continuing series. If they had a finite amount of episodes they could of told a story with a much clearer direction and message. It's just too bad, I had so much hope for it. Really it isn't fair to Boardwalk Empire, because anything short of masterpiece will be disappointing.

Best Video Game: Red Dead Redemption

StarCraft II is amazing, but I've already mentioned it before on here. Also it's PC game and I'm not a big PC gamer. So, in it's place, Red Dead Redemption is the best game of 2010. Almost for the same reason that Inception was the best film on 2010, it was both an original and a success. Video game companies have attempted to mine the old west before (Gun, Red Dead Revolver, Custer's Revenge), however with Red Dead Redemption it all comes together seamlessly. It takes a bunch of play mechanics we've seen before, but it all synergizes together perfectly here. Rockstar already has my complete and utter faith in them, having revolutionized the sandbox gaming template. Here though they do more then their tried-and-true modern day crime theme, and it works. James Marston feels more real than half the people I see on the movie screen. And tell me you weren't amazed when you first rode into Mexico.

Most Disappointing Video Game: Fable III

I didn't actually play Fable III, to be fair I watched a friend play it. With that being said, it was a lackluster gaming experience for the both of us. The Fable series is respected and they obviously didn't half-ass the game. With all its work and polish, the game should of turned out decent. Each gamer was met with plodding gameplay and a disappointing story. The twist in the story was actually good, but the execution was terrible. That's the best way to sum up Fable III, good attempt but bad execution.

So there is my roundup for 2010. Don't agree? Be sure to tell me why. Here's to 2011, and hopefully it will be a good year. Happy New Years, dear readers.

New Medal of Honor game creates controversy

Jimmy Patterson will always be my hero.

Patterson once stole a top secret Nazi airplane, infiltrated the impenetrable Fort Schmerzen, destroyed the mighty railgun Greta, destroyed a V-2 rocket plant and stormed the beaches of Normandy. Patterson single-handedly won World War II. Why is it that you have never heard of him? It's because Patterson is a character in Medal of Honor and Medal of Honor: Frontline.

Do not mess with Lt. Jimmy Patterson.

The Medal of Honor series has always been a favorite of mine. Back when I was a kid I never had N64. So, instead of GoldenEye, all I had to play was Medal of Honor for my first-person-shooter fix. This was fine by me.

Medal of Honor was a favorite of mine growing up. I remember the first time my brother and I played it. It was intimidating, the idea of being surrounded by Nazis. I was already an Indiana Jones fan at this time so I knew how evil Nazis could be. Although WW2 video games are dime-a-dozen now, the original Medal of Honor was revolutionary. Shooters were still played only on computers and the move to consoles was still in it's beginning stages. Medal of Honor helped cement the idea of console shooters and allowing you to go against Nazi added a level of engagement. Who doesn't love to hate Nazis?

A new Medal of Honor game is coming out on Oct. 12. This game, however, is the first to leave the 1940s setting. Instead it's set in modern day with more contemporary enemies. In a deliberate move to copy the Call of Duty: Modern Warfare games, Medal of Honor has left World War II. Medal of Honor, however, may lose its identity as it moves further away from its roots.

Guy looks homeless.

Call of Duty was originally a WW2 series. In this distinction it could be said that Call of Duty owes a debt to Medal of Honor. As consumers began to tire of shooting the SS in the face, Call of Duty moved it's setting to modern times. This idea and the creation of Modern Warfare would prove to be a success.

Shooters don't spend a lot of time in contemporary settings. A lot can be found in World War II or space, but the current atmosphere has always seemed off limits. Then came the release of Modern Warfare, and any body that has ever picked up a game controller can tell you how successful the title is. Modern Warfare was smart not to use actual terrorist organizations though. Medal of Honor did not have this foresight.

The original plan for the new Medal of Honor was to play as the Taliban in multiplayer matches. While team names in multiplayer have never amounted to more than "I'm blue team, shoot red team," this addition would obviously get some people upset. Modern Warfare was smart enough to know that a video game involving real, current examples would cause controversy. That's why they went to the trouble of creating a fictional enemy.

Modern Warfare did meet controversy with their last game, which involved a soldier shooting innocent bystanders in an airport. This scene, while creating controversy, also met with praise for its bravery. This is an example of good controversy that creates a debate. Medal of Honor, in it's ballsy move to set it's shooter in Afghanistan, has created negative controversy. The kind that gets it outright banned.

The Medal of Honor series use to have class. Now the series is just trying too hard against today's market. Don't use the Medal of Honor name if you want to make the antithesis of the series. Whether it makes for a good game or not isn't relevant. Even if the gameplay proves to excellent, the game is still a hollow, shallow shell of the brand.

In the end I guess I'm just selfish. I miss heroes like Jimmy Patterson.

Jacked up and good to go: Why StarCraft 2 is awesome

The moment has finally come. Years of waiting has come into fruition. I never thought the day would actually come but it has and all I have to say is: StarCraft 2 is worth the wait.

For the uninitiated, StarCraft is one of the most popular computer games played today. This is quite the achievement considering the fact that it came out in 1998. Just how popular is StarCraft? Consider the fact that it is basically South Korea's national sport or that it remained popular for 12 years

To put it into context, 1998 was the year 'N Sync debuted.

Is that not enough? Well then consider the fact that a 28 year old man once died from StarCraft related exhaustion. You read that correctly, a grown ass man died over his StarCraft addiction.

Over the years one would always hear rumors about StarCraft 2 but only enough to tease the loyal fan. A game this popular was bound to have a sequel, the question was when it would be released. To be honest I gave up hope on a sequel ever being released. Twelve years is a long time to wait for something. That's what makes July 27th all the sweeter. The second coming of StarCraft has finally arrived.

Hell, it's about time.

The question remains, is it any good? Does it live up to it's predecessor's name? Was it worth the wait or did Blizzard just take a crap in a box and ship it out with a cool cover? With the following behind the series, Blizzard would of still made a lot of money even if the game sucked (Halo series anyone?). Realizing this just makes me happy to report that StarCraft 2 is a complete improvement over the first game. One of the best games ever just got better.

Any possible improvement conceivable can be found in this sequel. While there are obvious improvements like graphics (the game better look better after twelve years in the making), it's the little details that shine. From troop management (using relay points for workers makes things a lot easier) to improved structures (I can't be the only person that was amazed by the supply depots), StarCraft 2 will shock you with how good it is.

Oh my God they go down now!

Some may be upset that StarCraft 2 has been broken up into three different games, one for each of the three races: Terran (the humans), Protoss (the aliens), and Zerg (the insect like cannon fodder). There are some that complain about just being able to play as Terran but I don't mind it since Terran is my preferred race anyway. There are some that complain about having to wait longer for the rest of the game but when you wait 12 years, what's another year? Lastly there are many that see the StarCraft 2 trilogy as a way for Blizzard to charge a player three time for one game. This argument shouldn't last after playing the first game however because there is enough production and playability in StarCraft 2: Wings of Liberty to keep gamers busy until the next installment comes out. The single player is challenging, engaging and the fact that your decisions have an impact on some of the story allows for playability that the original game never had.

Simply put, if you have any remote interest in StarCraft or the kind of games that StarCraft represent, you will not be disappointed.