BioWare is one of those special developers that makes waves with every release. So it should be no surprise that Mass Effect 2, the sequel to one of the most successful new IPs of 2007, saw more hype than ever. Given how much I enjoyed the first game, I tried to avoid whenever possible any videos, photos, news, or spoilers of Mass Effect 2 until I had that green plastic box in my hands. First impressions? Creepy box art straight out of a SciFi Channel original movie.

This quickly dissolved once the game had booted up and I played possibly the coolest opening sequence ever, right up there with the intro train scene in Uncharted 2. I won’t spoil it for those of you who haven’t yet experienced it, but it is truly a spectacle to behold. Its great to be back in Shephard’s shoes, although they fit a little differently this time around. Almost everything has been overhauled, from the combat and equipment to the skills and player advancement. Mass Effect 2 abandons many of the RPG elements of the first game, which itself was already a significant departure from the typical RPG genre.

While I found this to be a refreshing change, I can imagine it will be a shock for some, and a disappointment for others. The equipment and inventory management, for example, have been completely thrown out the window, and the variety of equipment has been minimized. In Mass Effect 1, I’d be busy upgrading and swapping out armor and weapons, and worrying about duplicate pieces of equipment and whether I had the proper armor coating or ammo type on each of my weapons. While none of this took away from my enjoyment of the game, the changes made in ME2 certainly were noticeable.

A significant chunk of the game’s story revolves around building your team, and has you jetting around the galaxy to recruit these individuals. While there is a clear overarching mission in Mass Effect 2, these side quests to collect your teammates are so enjoyable, and such an effective way of creating compelling character backstories. Your team is much larger this time, and I found that I hardly used some characters during my first playthrough. In Mass Effect 1, each character was significantly different skills-wise, whereas in ME2 (much like in Dragon Age: Origins), there is some overlap, and your decision of which squadmates to pick is often based on personal preference.

If nothing else, the one defining feature that makes ME2 a great RPG is the engaging and dynamic storytelling. The decisions you make in the game carry great weight, and are compounded by your prior decisions in Mass Effect 1.  I constantly wondered the outcome had I made a different decision with a conversation, an action, or a squadmate. All of this is handled pretty beautifully, making it a game I plan to play over and over again as I patiently await the next installment. In all, Mass Effect 2 is a different, but worthwhile sequel to one of my favorite western-made RPGs. Though 2010 is still young, I suspect it will be remembered as one of the year’s best.

I’m not the only one out there who hasn’t been impressed with the Wii’s current software offerings.  Longtime Nintendo fans have had little reason to show much love for the system.  Since Smash Bros, Nintendo has failed to deliver its usual lineup of great titles featuring its classic characters or quirky new IPs.  Despite this Nintendo has found great success by expanding its market to the new “casual crowd”.  This new demographic is less concerned with graphics, gameplay and storylines than they are fascinated by the gimmicky concepts of most Wii-developed games.  Wii Sports, Wii Fit and Wii Music come to mind.  These games lack any real depth, especially Wii Music, which makes Beginner on Guitar Hero look like an epic challenge suitable for only the most nimble-fingered player.

Third-party development is just as embarrassing.  Some developers have attempted titles catering to the “hardcore” crowd.  However, these titles do not often find much critical and/or commercial success as Nintendo’s top-tier titles.  Some developers have become wary of publishing hardcore titles on the Wii for fear their audience has moved on to the Xbox 360 or PS3, which is certainly true in my case.  A few years back, I would have bought a third-party title for the Gamecube over the original Xbox just to show my support for Nintendo.  Now most blockbuster third-party titles on the 360 or PS3 cannot be replicated for the Wii.  It has happened, but at what cost? Hence the trend of developing casual or party games.

And I’m not saying that every game has to have state-of-the-art visuals or a deep storyline, but it had better deliver on the gameplay.  One of my current favorites is Left 4 Dead 2, which has a pretty basic plot (survive the zombie apocalypse).  It’s visuals aren’t as realistic as Gears of War or Assassin’s Creed, but damn if it isn’t one of the most fun and addictive games of recent memory.  The problem with most software on the Wii is it just seems like developers are cutting corners, especially Nintendo.

Now my Wii remains packed away only to be opened when I host Smash Night or when I return home to bowl with my mother in Wii Sports.  There is some light to be seen on the horizon.  Since E3 2009, old-school Nintendo fans have had a classic trifecta of Nintendo greatness to look forward to: Mario, Metroid and Zelda!  Metroid: Other M is being co-developed by Nintendo and Team Ninja, the developer behind those gruelingly difficult Ninja Gaiden games.  It was recently announced for release on June 27!  Word is the action is bigger and the story more personal.  Super Mario Galaxy 2 is a sequel to what is generally considered the best Wii game out there, making it an obvious must-buy.  Mario will be hitting store shelves on May 23.  Zelda is another matter.  There have been claims stating it will be out this year and others that it will be released when it’s done.  Nintendo is notorious for delaying their high-profile titles, especially Zelda games.  With no actual game footage shown this year an autumn release seems highly unlikely.  However, this could be the title that dethrones Super Mario Galaxy if Nintendo plays it’s cards right.  I estimate we’ll know by the fall of 2011.

There are a few games that have a ton of things going for them; i.e. this and this. Most games on the market only have a few things going for them, but those few things pull the game along and ultimately make them fun and replayable. (example) And there are some games that really don’t have anything going for them. Darksiders is one of those games. Awful story, terrible graphics, boring gameplay, bland environments. The list could go on for a long time. Darksiders is truly a lesson in how not to design a video game. Ever. This game is one of the most overrated games of the last several months, and I would not recommend it to anyone. Go play this, this, or this instead.

I give Darksiders 4 out of 5 Sour Grapes.

Just thought I’d give a little explanation about a new post that I, MidwestGamer, will be starting. Hopefully those other fools who do this site will eventually do them too.

My new type of post is called the “I Heard It Through the Grapevine” reviews. These reviews will all be extremely short in length, so they’ll be very easy to digest. In these posts, I’ll address games that I heard “through the grapevine” were amazing, great, revolutionary, genre-definining, etc. You may like some of the games I discuss, and that’s fine. As a matter of fact, I encourage you to comment on the posts or message our Twitter account @NorthwestGamer and let us know what you think. We’d also like to hear from you if you have any suggestions for further “I Heard It Through the Grapevine” reviews.

These reviews will all have a ranking system, which will be quantified by “sour grapes.”

The worse I felt the game was, the more “sour grapes” it shall receive.

Example: Late last year I reviewed “Brutal Legend,” which heralded copious praise from all possible outlets. I played through the game, and disagreed. It was fun at times, but some parts really chapped me.

So I would give Brutal Legend 2 out of 5 Sour Grapes.

Hope you enjoy this new type of post. Please let us know what you think!

MidwestGamer

Did you like Devil May Cry? Or Ninja Gaiden? If so, you’ll like Bayonetta. If you read the reviews of Bayonetta, you’d probably want to try it regardless of how you feel about DMC or NG. The reviews of it are that good. But Bayonetta is not, and I quote, “The best action game I’ve ever played.” I’ve already played Devil May Cry, and this is pretty much the same exact game. Bayonetta has a completely throw-away story, and adds absolutely nothing new to the genre. (If you say that it does, you, sir, are a dirty rotten scoundrel.) If you like mashing the X and Y buttons continuously for 11 hours, you’ll definitely want to pick this one up.

It did have some okay combat, but this game was simply too ridiculous and repetitive to ever enjoy. I’ll give Bayonetta 3 out of 5 Sour Grapes.

As I’m sure all of you know, oh loyal readers, Dante’s Inferno is a God of War clone. It has almost the exact same combo system, the exact same enemies, the exact same platforming, the exact same controls, the exact same everything. Many people have stated that, “Dante’s Inferno copies God of War in every way possible.” (Gamer.nl) But is that a bad thing? Did people complain that Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 and Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare were pretty much the same game? That MW2 was merely a glorified expansion pack? Or the same can be said about Halo 3: ODST. Or how about Left 4 Dead and Left 4 Dead 2? It is a proven fact that, at least in the gaming community, cloning can be a wonderful thing.

I’m just gonna put the whole “clone” thing behind us. Well, let me quote one more gaming mag here. “People do not play games because they break new ground. People play games because they are fun.” (Official Playstation Magazine) That is from their review of God of War. And it really is true. I mean, don’t get me wrong. Games that can be incredibly groundbreaking do intrigue me. But it’s games like this, no matter how original they are, that I talk about with my friends all day long. So if game clones are at least fun, and clones of games that I like anyways, I’m sure to enjoy them at least slightly.

And in the dust we leave the whole cloning thing.

Dante’s Inferno is a great game. It contains all of the qualifiers modern gamers use to classify “great games.” It has a great story, great characters, great gameplay, great visuals, and a great challenge. The story, as most of you know, is the tale of a man descending through the 9 circles of Hell. Dante is an awesome lead character. He seems so vulnerable and fragile. Throughout the game, we learn of all the sins Dante has committed, and we as the player must fight our way through Hell to earn forgiveness and redemption. You also get to encounter some truly great boss (NSFW big scary boobies) characters in this game.

The fighting mechanics in this game are truly great, with an awesome combo system and a very interesting leveling-up experience tree. There are so many choices for things you can make your Dante into; everyone will have a different experience fighting through the Inferno. The route I went, I tried to go as holier-than-thou as possible, meaning that I absolved most of my enemies rather than punishing them. This creates an interesting dynamic because you can level up both the holy and evil paths, thus creating a character than can start to absolve an enemy with his giant cross, then rethink his decision and cut off the enemies head. It’s just a grand ol’ time indeed.

The difficulty of this game was in no way too easy or too hard. It was pretty much just right for me. I sometimes died more than a couple times fighting a boss or doing some crazy platforming stuff, but other than that I had no real trouble. On the Hard difficulty setting, the enemies made some fights quite a struggle, but the simple yet elegant combat system really shone through on these sections.

One last point I’d like to cover talking about this game is the art direction. I have to hand it to Visceral Games. The Hell that they created in this game is something I will undoubtedly think of for years to come. Each circle of hell had such an amazing look and feel. I was worried when I first heard about this game that it would just turn into a 10-hour lava level. But Visceral pulled out all the stops and took so much time and put so much intricate detail into their vision of Hell. I mean, the groundwork was laid 700 years ago, but the developers really helped bring Dante’s hellish vision to life.

And that’s really all I have to say about Dante’s Inferno. For the 12 or some odd hours I put into it, I had a complete blast. Before I played the game I was a complete nay-sayer, touting the greatness of God of War and shunning this as a dupe for people dumb enough to buy into EA’s ploy for more money. But I was dead wrong. Sure, it’s pretty damn similar to God of War, but who cares? Video games are made for people to have fun! So do yourself a favor and go rent this bad boy. It’s one hell of a ride.

P.S. Is this not one of the coolest game trailers you’ve seen in forever?

There’s an aspect of First Person gaming that has largely been ignored by mainstream multiplayer developers: skill-based mechanics.  More specifically, these are game mechanics that require practice and skill to master.  I’m talking about Matrix-style fine control and physics manipulation that, when pulled off correctly, pushes the game to new levels of competitive depth.

The hardcore/pro gaming community refers to this as the “skill gap”–that is, the quantifiable advantage a hardcore player has over a casual player in normal gameplay (let’s assume a hardcore player plays one game 7+ hours a week, and a casual player plays 1 to 2 hours tops.)  The hardcore player has a better grasp of weapons, movement, and map knowledge, and should be able to reasonably beat a casual player; much like a person who practices the piano 8 to 10 hours a week would normally be able to play better than one who practices 1 to 2 hours a week.  Of course, there are exceptions to this rule, but for the sake of this article…let’s just assume that practiced players are generally better than unpracticed ones.

In the next several paragraphs, I’ll illustrate some examples of what I am talking about, and share some personal experience–having been a professional gamer and did a stint in the development world (working on games like Call of Duty: World at War).

My first multiplayer game was the Team Fortress Mod for Quake and Quakeworld, which exploded into the one of the most popular action multiplayer games in the mid-to-late-90’s.  Online tournament leagues and clans were all over the place, and the level of competition was unprecedented.  Team Fortress became one of the most recognized games in the history of first person shooters.

For the original TF, the Quake engine was highly flawed.  It couldn’t prevent people from executing physics maneuvers that severely divided the hardcore from the casual crowd. The expert player could bunny hop around play areas at speeds 10 and 20 times faster than normal.  Players could use rockets and grenades to fly airborne for long distances. At the time, the engine just needed an upgrade. 3D game physics had a long way to go, and these ‘flaws’ were the most glaring example of why.  These guys who were doing these things… They were cheating, weren’t they?  Who wants to play with cheaters?

ID Software improved their Quake technology and fixed the flaws.  Valve did the same with successive iterations of Half-Life. Bungie did it with Halo. Infinity Ward with Call of Duty, and Epic with Gears of War. These studios did exactly what they were supposed to do: fix bugs that were causing their games to be played against intended design.  From a mass-market standpoint, glitches and bugs are the great game-killer.   The more a game has, the less interested the core gamer is in spending money on it. Also, nobody wants to get a reputation for building flawed games.

It is time for this viewpoint to evolve. Competitive first person gaming needs a different kind of game–one which allows dedicated players to show skills gained from hours/days/weeks of practice.  Game developers should look back and learn from what the “flaws” in those old games unintentionally accomplished for the player.   They delivered a remarkably deep level of gameplay possibility, and a tiered level of gameplay risk/reward structure–i.e. perform a tougher and more risky maneuver, be rewarded with better results. Fail the move, and you are left more vulnerable or are killed outright.

Example: Let’s go back to Team Fortress, and Rocket-Jumping in particular.  Rocket Jumping was a quirk of the Quake engine that gave players the ability to launch themselves by shooting a rocket at the ground. The advantage of the height and distance achieved often outweighed the sacrifice in health.  Valve, after acquiring the struggling TF franchise, recognized this as a distinctive feature of the original QWTF and TFC, and included it in their latest game, TF2.  Rocket jumping, once a glitch players used to take advantage of explosion physics, has now become a staple part of the game.  Unfortunately, Valve failed to recognize and implement many other ‘flaws’ that would have added depth. One last point about Rocket Jumping: it isn’t easy for the casual gamer. It takes practice to pull it off effectively.

Granted, “embracing flaws” would be a dramatic shift in developer mentality.   Most of the time, if players are doing something that is outside of the intended design, it is labeled a bug and needs to be fixed.   To be sure, there are many of these flaws that aren’t fun at all, and really do force the game into such unbalance that most players would rather turn the game off. However, these kinds of glitches aren’t what I’m referring to.  There is a big difference between difficult moves that expand the game into new levels of playable depth (air control, rocket jumping, advanced melee, bunny hopping), and glitches that arguably take away depth–replacing it with cheap and easy (invincibility, wall hacks, leaving the map).  It’s important to recognize which is which.

In FPS gameplay, I’ve identified six different categories of multiplayer skill development areas during gameplay:

1. Weapons Skill – Players learn which weapons are most effective in which situations. They learn accuracy, range, and amount of fire before reload. They also learn grenade timing, proximity mine placement, and leading shots…etc.
2. General Movement – Players learn the environment, and how the game responds to movement commands. They find the fastest routes and shortcuts. This also includes wall and obstacle management (knowing how they interact with your player), as well as finding the limitations of speed and agility.
3. Locational Skill – Players learn how to use passive equipment like radars, maps, sensors, or even audible noises to locate other players and react accordingly.
4. Positioning – Players find and place themselves into positions where they have a good defensive firing angle on high-traffic areas (sometimes referred to as “camping” when done too much).
5. Mind Games – Players learn how to move in order to gain the best advantage. In a fight, this means possibly running and doubling back unexpectedly, hiding when their opponent is expecting an attack, or attacking when their opponent is expecting them to hide. This also means anticipating where your opponent is going to be, and moving to flank them from an unexpected angle.
6. Skilled Maneuvers – These are maneuvers that players use to ‘juke’ their opponents when in a direct and unavoidable fight. Jumping, ducking, diving to the side, or quick melee… these are quick and reactive ‘instant reflex’ situations that often require practice to use effectively.

These categories aren’t mutually exclusive.  In fact, the most complex FPS games find ways to force relationships between them. But the question remains: How much depth and attention do they add to those relationships?

Without depth, there is a very small learning curve for players.  We get games that focus on building depth in a very narrow scope–that is, Locational Skill, Positioning, and Mind Games. These are the most passive forms of game skill which, more often than not, cause chronic camping and boring standoffs.  Weapons Skill, General Movement, and Skilled Maneuvers are either over-simplified or tightly controlled.  Yet this is where most developers are missing the greatest opportunity for depth.   I’m not saying that developers ignore them entirely. I will be the first to point out several examples of FPS games that have very robust and complex weapon or movement lists.   However, for whatever reason, most games build depth by adding more features, instead of taking the features they do have, and building nuanced complexity and versatility.   The question isn’t, “How many different moves/weapons do you know?”  The questions are, “How many different things can you accomplish with that move or weapon, and how hard are they?”  How much time and effort did these things take to learn, and how much reward does the player gain by learning them? Do they get to access areas that would not normally be possible?  Do they get a chance to kill their enemy in an otherwise hopeless situation?  Allow people to ‘hack’ their weapons by hitting buttons a certain way.   Give people the ability to climb a wall or jump ten feet because they practiced it.  But: Don’t make it easy to do.

Hardcore players love to be rewarded for the skills they develop.  Also, developers love hardcore players, or they wouldn’t put so many gimmicks into the multiplayer leveling experience these days.  Many would say, “What do you think rankings, medals, and levels are for?”   The main goal of these gimmicks is to increase longevity of a game, giving players a reason to keep playing. This isn’t what I mean. As fun and rewarding as they are, these gimmicks do not achieve depth in gameplay.  Players want direct in-game results for practicing hard.  They want to hit the perfect button combos to cause them to tumble through the air and land perfectly while dodging bullets because they practiced the same move a thousand times.  Not only that, but adding playability depth would create another reason for players to come back to a game–if only for the bragging rights.

I know as I write this, one of the greatest arguments against this is yet unaddressed: Balancing. “If we add depth, we alienate our majority casual audience and turn them off when they get owned by flying backflip sniper headshots that they can’t do themselves.”  Yes, this was a legitimate concern 5 or 10 years ago. However, current online matchmaking and ranking technologies make the separation of skill-leveled communities much more feasible.  In general, if people want to learn how to increase in rank, let them learn to implement increasingly hard maneuvers and weapons tricks. Or as a last resort, try this: design the game to have a “casual mode” and allow players to pick a multiplayer playlist that fits their style. We do this already with “hardcore” game types in free for all or team deathmatch.

So ultimately, let’s design depth into our FPS games again–but do it deliberately this time.  Let’s allow hardcore players to fly through the air if they can master the trick. Don’t feel bad about making these tricks obscenely hard to do.  Players won’t mind the challenge, I assure you.

If for nothing else, gaming is becoming a spectator sport (Major League Gaming, World Cyber Games)!  Let’s just make it more interesting to watch!

(I found two videos that demonstrate some of the skilled weapons maneuvers that were accomplished in Quake TF and Halo 2. These moves are tough to do, and require much practice to accomplish, but once mastered, they provided a new level of depth to gameplay.)

Halo 2 BXR and Quad Shot Tutorial

Quake TF Concussion Grenade, Bunny Hopping, and Grenade jumping Training Map

^NewtonsLaww

Who’s lame-brained idea was that?

Welcome to me! *Waves*

Hello World!

Thanks to Jeff, Zack, and Cassi for welcoming me aboard. A few days ago, Jeff asked me to write an intro for myself–and this is where I get worried.  Suddenly I am faced with the eternal question: Just how much nerd-cred should I reveal? And then I get even more worried–agitated even–when I think and identify some ‘gamer nerd’ tendencies that may or may not condemn me guilty as charged.

So, here’s some unabashed fun facts about me:

• I find TV exhausting, and I can’t sit still while watching unless it’s a really gripping suspense show like Dexter or BSG.
• Alyx from Half-Life 2 is my dream girl.
• When I work out, I think in terms of talent trees, skill numbers, and experience bars
• I probably spend over 50% of my income on video game related items (not that I keep track–why add to my guilt?)
• I used to own all the speed run World Records on Mirror’s Edge (I have some YouTube vids still up)
• I tested and worked in design support for a few of your favorite AAA titles (truth).
• This morning, in announcing to my girlfriend that I was going to grab some groceries, I robo voiced, “Shopping mode, initiated!” –Later, I wished for an achievement unlock after (unintentionally) tripping that kid into the dairy shelves.

So, I’m not a bad guy by any means–but I do have a beef. This one haunts me like trying to find all those damn feathers in Assassin’s Creed 2. In a nutshell, I am a die-hard advocate for improving the quality of gaming for everyone. Therefore, I have a huge issue with game companies that don’t seem to care about gaming experience.

As part of my contribution, I hope to shed some light on some game features that seem like they were designed a decade ago; features that could easily have been improved just by popping in another game of the same genre. Call of Duty Matchmaking, Soul Calibur 4 multiplayer, Fable 2’s menu system… each of these have such design flaws that it almost kills my interest in the game itself.

Aside from that, I’ll do some reviews and pitch my gaming cred wherever needed. My raison d’etre is to create harmonious and healthy video game development community as well as hopefully provide a voice for those of us so happy about or pissed off at a game, we can’t understand why.

So, in short. I’m really humble. Hit me up online. I’ll shoot/race/coop your face off.

XBL: NewtonsLaww

PSN: NewtonsLaww

Twitter: @NewtonsLaww

/pontificate

Evan

Earlier today, Director of Programming for Xbox Live, Larry “Major Nelson” Hyrb asked his sizable twitter audience the following:

What new features would you like to see in the Xbox LIVE Twitter or Facebook applications? I think we know…but tell us

Months ago, Microsoft was first to take a step into the social networking space, adding apps for Facebook, Twitter, and Last.fm to Xbox Live, the pay-to-play online network of the Xbox 360 gaming console. The Twitter app was essentially a simplified client to view and send tweets, with support for twitter search and trending topics as well. Though it worked just fine, there was hardly any value to tweet on the Xbox, for without a keyboard, the process of posting and responding to tweets proved to be quite laborious.

The Facebook app took the integration further, allowing users to post status updates along with the ability to edit their profile, and view photo albums. Arguably the most useful feature though was the ability to find facebook friends that also have Xbox Live. This Facebook app was a refreshing step in the right direction of integrating social media with gaming platforms in a truly useful way,

While I gave each app a fair shake, there wasn’t much substance to them, and little incentive to use them again (with the one exception noted above). I had all but forgotten about the whole affair until I saw Major Nelson’s tweet this afternoon, and that got me thinking.

Allow me to look up the gamertags of people I follow on Twitter, along with those who follow me.

Just like the Facebook friend lookup, why wasn’t a similar feature for twitter rolled out as well? Though I’m sure there’s a solid argument that the average Xbox Live user who is on Facebook is also likely on Twitter too, your friend/follower audience does not necessarily overlap completely. For me at least, plenty of my Facebook friends have 360s, but most of them are not followers of my gaming blog’s twitter account.  It seems like a fairly no-brainer, simple feature to implement, yet here we are without it.

Make Xbox.com more public, and integrate social streams from Facebook and Twitter as well.

Xbox, being a Microsoft product, has benefited from some of the natural synergies of other MS brands, such as the Windows Live ID. Xbox.com allows the player to log in with their Windows Live ID, view their friends, check achievements, etc. While a pretty cool idea on paper, the reality is a somewhat half-baked social network that is completly invisible to non xbox-live users, and has a frankly ugly interface.

But what if Xbox.com functioned almost like the World of Warcraft Armory, where you could look up anyone who had live (or by email address), check out their games, achievements, etc, all without necessarily needing to log in first. What if you could integrate your Facebook and Twitter streams? To me, Xbox.com is such a missed opportunity, one that sites like Raptr and GamerDNA have managed to fill in the interim.

There is a missing link. People like to share the networks that they are on. Look at all the social media icons on the sidebar of this blog, or any blog for that matter. Notice anything missing? Why can’t I link to my  Gamertag profile? Xbox Live is heavily reliant on network externalities, the idea that the value of a network grows as the number of people using it increases. So shouldn’t Microsoft want for me to  promote to everyone and their dog that I am on Xbox Live, and they should join too? It sure seems like a no-brainer to me.

Get these features out of the submenus, and put them front and center.

Probably what has hamstrung the Twitter application most is the fact that it was not readily available on the dashboard, you have to first go down to the community section, find the twitter icon, and then enter it. Its not available from the main xbox menu. And you know something? It needs to be. I need to be able to hit the xbox button on my controller, and in fewer steps than I can count on a hand, be able to post a status update. That update needs to be visible as my avatar’s “motto”, the small chat bubble that appears over Xbox Live member’s avatar when their profile is viewed. I need to be able to view any of my friends profiles and instantly be able to see their Twitter handle, if applicable, along with their linked Facebook account (should they choose to display it).

Stop hiding these applications if you expect people to use them regularly. Make it easier to update your status. Perhaps its offering the word predicting feature that the PS3 has. Perhaps its allowing you to tweet out your achievement the moment you receive it (I personally think status updates full of achievement notifications are annoying, but I know there are people that love this,  so there is definitely a market). Offer the ability to tweet the group you are in and the game you are playing, so that other friends that may not be logged on, but are watching their twitter feed will see it, and be able to hop on and join the party.

I doubt I am sparking any epiphanies for Major Nelson and the  Xbox Live team with these ideas, but you asked, so I answered.

Post originally appeared on 1/11/10 on jeffrshearer.com

Zack and Jeff: Uncharted 2: Among Thieves

To be honest, now that it’s here, it’s actually really difficult to talk about Uncharted 2. What can we say about Uncharted 2 that hasn’t already been said on any other game site out there? And as you probably know, Jeff did a formal review of the game already. So what’s left to say about Naughty Dog’s masterpiece?

For starters, we can tell you that Uncharted 2 has some of the best online multiplayer that the PS3 has ever seen. Sure, Killzone 2 nailed the basics, but Uncharted 2’s multiplayer just seems so fresh and new. Spanning from textbook deathmatches to more interesting variations of territories (i.e. Turf War or Chain Reaction) to the new and exciting Gold Rush mode, Uncharted 2’s multiplayer is destined to have longevity. Each mode feels refreshingly new, thanks to Naughty Dog’s unprecedented knowledge of level design.

Even without the multiplayer, Uncharted 2 is still the greatest game experience of 2009. The story can be ranked with Hollywood popcorn fare’s best, and has left a lasting impression on both of us here at Northwest Gamer that will undoubtedly be felt for many years to come. Not only is Uncharted 2: Among Thieves our Game of the Year for 2009, it easily ranks with some of our favorite games of all time.