Till death do us part...

I was reading an interesting article in PC gamer magazine where 2 guys were debating on whether single player and multiplayer modes should be sold separately, and honestly I kind of have favor for both sides.

The first guy (we'll call him Mario) thinks that buying single and multiplayer modes gives him more for his money, plus he explains that game developers can make mega-bucks selling to a wider and combined audience.The second guy (we'll call him Luigi) disagrees and says:

"games don't need "mega-development" dollars" to be excellent values. Do you know of anyone that played COD:Black Ops for its single player, or its pitiful zombies co-op mode? They're back of the box bullet points, meant to give the impression that your're getting alot of content for your $60. That doesn't benifit gamers, it means overpaying for access to the piece of the game you actually want to play."

Then Mario says:

 "You're looking a gift horse in the mouth, you ingrate! Separating single-player and multiplayer modes into two purchases won't guarantee you'll save a penny. In fact, you'll probably be getting less for more! Look at Bioshock and Dead Space: both are single player only games that sold for full price. If their sequels had sold their new multiplayer modes separately, they would've still been full price for single player, then an extra $20 or so for the multiplayer DLC..."

I like to get more for my money as well , but for myself, I buy a game mostly because of the campaign, and if the campaign isn't good I could care less about the multiplayer because usually most multi-players are shoot-em-up and I'm not the best at those, but I play here and there just so I can laugh at how horrible I am, but If I know a game on hand that I will enjoy the single player mode as well as the multiplayer, for example, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, then I would definitely buy it together because I enjoy both modes.

So in conclusion I would love to save money on games if I wasn't playing one mode, but is it possible? And if so, should single-player and multiplayer get a divorce? Or should some games just stick to being good at one mode, for example, only make call of duty a multiplayer game only, and other games like dead space a single player only. I can say for sure and you can agree that some games have no business being multi-players.

I subscribed to Gamefly

After months of hearing about it I finally subscribed to Gamefly. One main reason I subscribed to Gamefly was to try out games I was "iffy" about playing. I could of bought it and traded it in but sometimes you can't even get the half the value you paid for when you first bought it, and those go for the games that are medium to least popular compared to the games you get 30 dollars for… but those are the games  you want to keep.

One thing about subscription services is they always have options that make you buy the best value. When I first clicked on the Gamefly page  it had "start for only 7.95 or try for free". I was like ok that isn't bad so I clicked in and saw the options….. OH 7.95  for the first month, (they always have a way to draw people in) and 15.95 every month after that for 1 game out at a time. Then another option was 10 days free trial and then 22.95 every month for two games out at a time. And then the final option (well it was the first option) was 11.95 for the first month and 22.95 every month after. Right off I knew the free trial wasn't the best deal because it will take like 2-4 days for your game to get here so that is at least four days taken from  your trial and you don't even have the game, then you get charged 22.95 on the 11th day…. I don't think so gamefly.

So I have the best value, 2 games out at a time , I get to keep them as long as I want, if I want to purchase them I can click the option and they "say" they will give you the case and booklet with  it, and you also have the option to trade in game for membership fees. The only thing about this is availability of the game. If it is low there is a chance you won't get it for a while so they send you the next actual "available" game on your GameQ. It sounds exciting but I guess I will see how I really feel within a month.

Excessively Bloody games: what's the deal?

I have noticed that 3 out of every 5 games I play are so excessively bloody. I don't know if blood is a turn-on for people, or it keeps them focused, but for me I don't need all the extra "graphics" just give me an option to turn it off. I know the outcome when someone gets stabbed I don't need it overly expressed. One game caught me by surprise, Fairy Tale Fights on PSN. I thought it was a little innocent game, and that maybe I can let my 3 year old watch me try it out. So when I started playing and got a hold of my first weapon and started attacking..... GUSH! GUSH! GUSH! SPLASH! Half my screen is covered in blood:

Dang, I'd hate to play a Bambi game, lol.

So many games to finish before Fall/Winter

Now that I beat most of the games I wanted to play, I have so many games I need to finish since 2008 from just about every system: PS3, Xbox 360, PSP, and Nintendo DS,sad huh.Why aren't I able to finish a game I just bought, but go out buy another game and beat that one in like 2 weeks.... and then buy ANOTHER GAME instead of finishing what I started a couple weeks back. Besides I need some games to play in my downtime until the Fall/Winter time comes, the time that the best games are coming out. So in the meantime I will be playing one of my older games to past the time:

Lost Odyessy
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
The Elder Scrolls IV : Shivering Isles Expansion
Mirror's Edge
Sims 3
Guild Wars, Factions, Eye of the North
The Last Remnant