Why the Xbox One Will Have a Harder Battle Than the Xbox 360

I think it's safe to say that the Xbox 360 proved successful for Microsoft. They are within 3 million sales of breaking 80 million units worldwide since it's initial launch in November of 2005. While it has had it's own hiccups with hard drive issues and the infamous Red Ring of Death, it still went on to impress a lot of gamers and is still their system of choice.

So similar to Sony coming into the PS3 era, Microsoft should feel pretty confident to be able to capitalize on the accomplishment that was the 360. But much like Sony, Microsoft may have gotten a little ahead of themselves and came out with their chests puffed out feeling on top of the world. But after the Xbox One announcement yesterday and the ensuing devastation of gaming press picking apart the news they glossed over at the event, Microsoft appears to be backpedaling a bit and starting to realize they may not be in the position they once were. They are no longer on the cruise ship 360, they are pulling away from it in the rowboat that is Xbox One.

Microsoft came out of the gates with an advantage. They had an appealing online structure that no other system had and, with the runaway series of Halo, many fans who would support the 360 with it's release. And while the original Xbox was only 4 years old, the 360 was the beginning of the next generation of consoles especially with the Wii and PS3 not far behind. So of course upon it's release, it had no next-generation consoles to spar with making it the newest and best console to have as a gamer. And as most gamers know, it's hard to resist that urge for something new.

So as the first system out, they already had an advantage over the Wii and PS3. Of course, we all know what happened once the Wii was released and how it won over all of the mothers who watch Oprah and the Nintendo fans who were hoping to finally see an HD Mario and Zelda. And while the latter didn't get what they want, the average non-gamer consumer received the product they wanted, albeit, one that didn't stay in their frame of mind outside of Wii Sports and various exercise games.

But the PS3 took a different route. Instead of selling gangbusters, they decided to piss off the fan base with an overpriced system that only the hardcorest of hardcore fans would purchase. Blu-Ray wasn't expected to turn out like it did (HD-DVD all the way, amirite?!), PS2 was still running rampant in sales,  and the 360 didn't look worse graphics wise and cost less. PS3 was on the ropes, and the 360/Wii were throwing the jabs.

All it took now for Microsoft was to strengthen their relationships with third party developers. This was clearly evident with the deluge of exclusives the system had their first few years. Games like Blue Dragon and Infinite Undiscovery, which would feel natural on the PS3, were instead 360 exclusives. Games that came out first on the 360 (later ported to other places) such as Mass Effect and Bioshock helped change the gaming industry for the better. Then Microsoft rubbed in their own exclusives with Gears of War, Halo 3, Crackdown and Forza 2. Microsoft was on the ball with exclusive games that other systems would either not receive or receive much later.

But it wasn't just the third parties that jumped into the ring with Microsoft. The 360 started something this generation with it's service allowing indie developers to really strive. While Geometry Wars impressed people immediately, the Live Arcade really hit it's stride around the time of Braid and really showed gamers what these smaller developers could do. It proved that the Live Arcade didn't need to be classic games brought back, and that the games were on par with retail games in terms of quality.

Although the PS3 started to hit it's stride, Microsoft still excelled when it came to ease of development. Due to the difficult PS3 hardware, most devs would work on the 360 version and then port over to the PS3. Developers have come out and said the trouble of developing for the PS3 created more negatives than positives in their mind, which resulted in poorer versions on the PS3 in terms of frame rate, graphics, textures, etc.

It would also be foolish to ignore how big Call of Duty really sparked the "Bro"-mentality of gamers. While the PS3 has these gamers as well, they were shadowed in sheer number of those on the 360. For example, within the first few months of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare's release, the PS3 had only sold less than a 1/3 of what the 360 had sold in software. To many gamers, the Xbox 360 was a Call of Duty machine and that hasn't changed whatsoever.

But somewhere along the way, the focus of the Xbox 360 started to shift from games to media. The interface of the Xbox changed to incorporate more ads and more difficulty in finding games. The Indie Games alone proved a challenge to find. The focus on apps such as Netflix became more important over the exclusive games they once released as those began to dwindle to Live Arcade and first party devs. But like some of the older exclusive games, even the once Live Arcade exclusives started to trickle to other platforms including Limbo and Castle Crashers.

So instead of being game-specific exclusives, they went a slightly different route by looking at timed-exclusivity. This is most evident with Call of Duty where DLC is released a month in advance for the Xbox 360, but other games have done it as well including Bethesda's Skyrim. This was to encourage sales for software on the 360 so players who had the game would be able to access the DLC at an earlier stage than those on the PS3.

As this generation comes to a close and the next console war is about to reignite, it's easy to see where the advantages the Xbox 360 had over the PS3 will not play out in the same way for the next systems. The Xbox One will not be released a year before the PS4 and instead will have to go toe-to-toe with it this holiday season. The people who want a new generation console will not have only one to choose from, they will have two.

Chief financial officer Masaru Kato has stated that the PS4 will not be a financial burden for Sony the way that the PS3 was. The PS3 had it's own special hardware that was costly for Sony and this generation they are not making the same mistake. Using third party for production and hardware is allowing the system to be created at a cheaper price. Meaning, the price point between the Xbox One and PS4 should be much closer than the large discrepancy that the PS3's price point provided. And with these hardware specs being pretty similar, the difficulties of developing for the PS3 are now moot and the Xbox won't be able to tout that over Sony any longer.

To the games and exclusives, Sony definitely has the advantage in terms of sheer studios. However, Microsoft clearly doesn't mind throwing money at their problems as evident in the Xbox One reveal and the special partnership with EA. While Sony hasn't revealed exact details of how many exclusives they have (although they said all of their studios are working on PS4 games), Microsoft is bringing 15 to the table within the first year and 8 of them are new IP's. As of right now, the known exclusives (not counting PC) for each system are:

PS4: Infamous: Second Son, Killzone: Shadow Fall, Knack, Drive Club, Primal Carnage Genesis, War Thunder, The Witness (timed exclusive)

Xbox One: Ryse, Forza 5, Quantum Break

More will clearly be announced in a few weeks at E3.

Lastly, there has been quite a bit of indie developers voicing their opinion about the PS4 and Xbox One. Jonathan Blow surprised everyone coming out during the PS4 conference and letting indie developers know that this is the console they should go with. Days after the conference, he was brought onto the Playstation Blogcast where he helped explain why that is. While he did mention how it's easier to develop than the PS3, he didn't hold back when it came to the difficulties of developing for Microsoft and the hoops he had to jump through. This was only backed further when he mentioned that he had still not seen a dev kit for the new Microsoft console, but Sony was more than eager to get one out to everyone who had asked.


This seems to follow in line with how Microsoft has been treating indie devs with their procedures in the past few years. Everything became clear when Fez creator Phil Fish voiced his concerns about spending thousands of dollars per patch to fix problems with the game. Many were not happy that Fish wouldn't fix the issues, but it brought to light an even bigger problem and that was how costly it was to do so with Microsoft. Since then, Microsoft has not been able to avoid that criticism and have done their best to dodge any questions about it. Phil Fish had his own comments about the Xbox One reveal on Twitter...but you should look at that on your spare time...preferably not at work.

While indies were overlooked at the Xbox One conference, the feathers were really ruffled in post-conference comments from people throughout the Microsoft community. Nobody seems to know exactly what's going on with conflicting information coming out about used game fees, how used games work, the importance of always being connected to the Internet, how the Live TV will work with the various Cable Providers out there, and many more I'm forgetting. This inability by the people at Microsoft to have one voice with these answers, and their way of saying information is wrong without really clearing it all up, is making Microsoft look bad. The conference itself felt lifeless and a string of promo videos and the voice of gamers can be heard in disgust as little was shown on the gaming side. And what was shown, were trailers with no actual gameplay.

Microsoft seems poised to shoot themselves in the foot this gen, because so far, they have done very little to provide themselves good press. The conference held yesterday should have been the time to clear up the negativity around their console and rumors and instead all it did was create more concern about the Xbox One. Microsoft will not have the fortune of Sony blowing sales this time around, and they won't have a year head start on sales. If they do not do something at E3 (or before then) to clear up the confusion and worries of the people looking for a next-generation console this year, then they are doomed to lose this console war before it has begun.

Xbox One: Concerns for Next-Gen

Microsoft has unveiled it's new system: Xbox One. While most groan at the name (I know I did), it's Microsoft admitting they are focusing on everything, not just gaming. The "All-In-One" console. See what they did there? Clever.

The majority of the conference itself was focused on the casual crowd, not the gamers. We saw a lot of what the Kinect can do and the numerous apps that the new console will use. The integration, if working properly, looks amazing and better than what it currently does. While all of this is intriguing, as a gamer, that's not what I care about. And unfortunately for those who saw the conference, I wasn't the consumer they were caring about. Games were featured in the last 20-30 minutes, with only two real exclusives in Forza 5 and Quantum Break. I love games, but I don't get surprised with the reveals of EA sports games which come out every year.

So I wanted to make a post regarding my biggest concerns for the Xbox One, especially since most of the big news has been coming out after the conference itself. And it seems to be with good reason.


Internet Connection Required

Microsoft was quick to point out after the conference that the always-online rumor is indeed that, a rumor. But there were two caveats, one being, that an Internet connection is required. As Joystiq points out, Xbox had a Q&A on it's website answering various questions posed to them by users and while admitting that it isn't always-online, you must have an active Internet connection for the console.

To stoke the fires a tad more, the post was removed shortly after.

So at least to my understanding, it seems that while it's possible to run games offline, there will be cases where needing an Internet connection is required regardless. One of which could be to just log in and "save" your profile to that Xbox. The other...



Used Game Fees

Wired broke the news that used games will be playable. Hallelujah! That rumor has now been debunked as well. But not so fast, there may be something hidden they didn't quite mention straight out!

According to Microsoft, all game discs need to be installed to be playable on the new Xbox. Not a big deal, it sounds like something Sony currently does on the PS3. But where the concern comes in is with used games and the ability for multiple accounts to play the same game. For a second account to play the game, a user will be given the option to pay a fee and install the game. You read that correctly, a fee to play an online game.

EA recently announced that it is dropping it's online pass option from it's games because it just wasn't working and it was listening to it's fan base. But then news of this drops, and it seems to make sense. Instead of having online passes, just have "game passes" so you need to pay a fee whether you play single or multiplayer.

Jon Hicks with Xbox Magazine then went on to confirm that a used game will need an additional fee to be played. And once it is installed, the original user will have it uninstalled which seems to lead more credence to that required Internet connection.


Kinect Requirement

Big Brother is watching you. And now, you won't have a choice. IGN has word from Xbox UK Marketing Director Harvey Eagle that Kinect is a requirement for the Xbox One, otherwise, it will not work. Eagle went on to assure that the Kinect will work even in non-living room layouts including bedrooms, but as current Kinect owners know, that statement needs to be proven to be believed.

While the idea of Kinect is awesome, it has fallen far short of it's potential. If it works as intended, fantastic, but most devices don't usually work flawlessly. And to force users to require this device makes little sense. Not to mention, who knows what exactly Microsoft sees from a Kinect transmission.



Exclusivity

I'm sure to most, this doesn't seem like that big of a problem. Exclusivity isn't anything new, especially when it comes to Microsoft and many of the multi-platform games.

The reason I put this as a concern is because it seems Microsoft is taking the safe route and not expanding on more gaming studios. I'm sure they are tossing a pretty penny to games like Call of Duty to receive DLC a month earlier than other systems, but I would much rather them go the route of giving that money to a developer and put out a console-exclusive game instead.

To continue and go this limited exclusivity route feels lazy. While it will undoubtedly help their sales, it just feels like a cheap ploy to lure gamers to their consoles instead of doing so with actual games that no other console can have. There is something that makes me cringe at this business practice and I refuse to give Microsoft any of my money for these lame tactics. But for those who love these games, some will be rewarded by early access, and some will be punished for it. All for the sake of that limited exclusivity. Ugh.




It's a shame that I'm being less and less interested in this new Xbox console. It seems that there are answers being obscured as much as possible, and these aren't questions that don't need to be danced around if they are easy enough to answer. Trying to hide behind all of these vague answers doesn't bode well for things like used games and required Internet connections, not to mention the concrete answers of no backwards compatibility or Xbox Live games being carried over.

It's great that Kinect should work better and more servers are being added, but if all of this negative sounding talk is coming up now, it makes me scared about what else is unknown to us.

Outlandish Video Game Fan Theories

Fan theories may border on fan-fic, but there is something about them that can take a substandard story and turn it into something else entirely. Movies and cartoons often get this treatment such as Dr. Claw being the real Inspector Gadget trying to get revenge on an inferior machine that replaced him or that The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is really Will Smith's trip through the afterlife. Just little twists to a story that can give someone a new take on it. And video games are no different. So I rounded up a few theories I found scouring the web, and thought I would put them out there.

Also, beware, if you care about spoilers, there will be some for some of these theories. So if you care about the secrecy of plot points in games from 20+ years ago...beware!


The Pokemon War

RPG's are full of cliche's, one of which is where the main character only has one parent. Usually, the mother. Pokemon is no different as you start off in the home with only your mother downstairs. No real mention has been made about who he is.

But, one small comment made from one of the gym leaders spurred a theory about what happened to Ash's father. In Vermillion City, the gym leader Lt. Surge makes an offhanded comment about how "electric Pokemon saved him during the war". Considering that Surge looks relatively young, it could be speculated that whatever war he was in has not been over for very long. Now if there was a war, perhaps Ash's father had left and never returned possibly being a casualty of it. Why Ash's mom would let Ash go on a journey with Pokemon after losing her husband doesn't seem to fit with it particularly well, but at least it seems like a somewhat plausible explanation.

Plus, it makes me want a Pokemon game set during a war time. Imagine a war scene with Dragonite and Charizard soaring overhead while ground forces of Rhydon's, Rapidash's, and Onix's crash into each other on the battle field. Seems like such an awesome setting that we'll never see.



Gary Oak Seeking Clarity

Gary was a headstrong turd in Pokemon Red and Blue who was made out to be your rival. You battle him on many occasions, one of which is in Vermillion City. Gary, like some players, usually kept the same Pokemon in his lineup for a chunk of the game. But there was a point in the game in which you visit Lavender Town, or as most people would remember it, the town where Pokemon souls go to rest in Pokemon Tower.

When you battle Gary in Vermillion City, Gary has a Raticate. When you see him and battle in Lavender Town, that Raticate is no longer in his party and he makes some sort of cryptic remark about "Have you ever seen a Pokemon die?" And while it's perfectly reasonable to think he let the Raticate go or kept him in his PC Box, it seems somewhat weird that he would have one empty slot in his lineup and no longer sport one of his early Pokemon while keeping the others.

So why would he be in Lavender Town? Well, the theory states that when you battle Gary on the S.S. Anne, all of his Pokemon faint. Due to difficulty of getting off of the ship in time, he wasn't able to make it back to a Pokemon Center before his Raticate died. Perhaps it was injured worse than the others or it had some weird disease, who knows. The point is, that one Pokemon died while the others didn't. So he traveled to Lavender Town and paid his respects to his fallen Pokemon.

So now Gary is on a mission. To go out and beat Ash and prove he is a better Pokemon trainer while getting some revenge on Ash for killing his Pokemon.

 Missingno Destroys Everything

I swear this is the last Pokemon related theory. But for those who remember playing Pokemon and taking a chance ruining their save file by capturing the elusive Missingno glitch, this is for you. For those who didn't know the pleasures of infinite Master Balls or Rare Candy's using Missingno, here's how it worked:

In the north part of Viridian City, a man will ask if you are in a hurry. You're not, so you tell him no and watch the demonstration that will benefit you in no way at this part of the game. Fly to Cinnabar Island or Fuchsia City (then surf to Seafoam Islands) and surf along the coast of the beach. Up pops Missingno. If you capture it, one of two things occur. Sometimes, your save data will mess up. BUT, the other thing can be a replication of the sixth item in your bag. Master Ball, Rare Candy, doesn't matter get replicated many many times.

But what is Missingno? This is where the theory comes in. Some say it's the code that allows a Marowak to transform into a Kangaskhan (meaning that Cubone is a Kangaskhan baby wearing it's dead mother's remains as mentioned in the Pokedex). But the theory that I love is that Missingno is a shrunken sprite of the Kanto region map. Meaning that when you battle and capture it, essentially, you are bringing into existence a Pokemon who is an alternate version of the world that you are in. And when you bring an alternate version of that world into the same place and time of the one you are in, that causes problems to reality. Which in a weird way can be construed as...a glitch.

Super Smash Bros are Toys

As if the figurines aren't a decent indication of giving this theory a nudge in the butt, there's some fiction that goes with this theory regarding Master Hand and Crazy Hand. Imagine two brothers playing with their toys of various Nintendo figures. Once in a while they mix in some other ones like Sonic and Solid Snake, but the majority of the time it's Nintendo.

But then who is Tabuu? Some crazy father who doesn't like how the boys play, so decides to wreck them his way by being a little too hard on them. The kids don't particularly like their dad, so of course he is the evil character in the game who happens to use the villains for his own deeds. But taking him out of the equation, it's just some harmless fun between two brothers playing with their toys. By smashing them. Superbly. Super. Smash. Brothers.

Of course, if you don't like that, you could always go with the Valhalla idea where all of these characters have died and are transported to the Viking mythological land of Valhalla. Where they battle each other in epic battles for all of eternity...



Mario is a Villain

This isn't anything revolutionary by stating that some theories have Mario as a villain. He's kind of an ass to everyone including his brother and Yoshi, he constantly lets the Princess get kidnapped, he's imprisoned Donkey Kong, and let's not even discuss how everything in the Mushroom Kingdom (like the blocks) are toads having been transformed using magic from King Koopa as stated in the Super Mario Bros. manual.

So the theory is slightly expanded on a little more by taking a look back to the Super Mario Bros. game. Take a look at the world. Sweet and peaceful. Turtles and Goombas, not doing a damn thing but walking around. That is until Mario runs around shooting them with fire and jumping on them or kicking them into each other. The world itself seems to be just fine until you get into further stages.

As the game progresses, the enemies also seem to get a bit more fierce. You have the Hammer Bro's tossing around their work tools, Bullet Bills trying to convince you of gun control in the Mushroom Kingdom, and Lakitus tossing around Spinys hoping to murder Mario from above. So if there is this crazy man running around killing people in your kingdom and conquering castle after castle, you beef up your force and try to stop him. Unfortunately in Bowser's case, he fails miserably.

Princess Peach gets kidnapped by Bowser though, right? Well, what if she is trying to get away from her abusive ex-boyfriend Mario by seeking refuge with Bowser? Maybe the only reason she goes with him at the end is to avoid being slapped around by her plumbing psycho ex so she doesn't avoid ending up like Pauline (who mysteriously vanishes...). So perhaps instead of Bowser being the villain, he's just trying to rescue Peach from this abusive relationship only to be manhandled by the two brothers. Because let's face it, Luigi is a moron and probably thinks his brother is doing the right thing.

And he convinces everyone he did the right thing by putting on a stage performance from his "perspective" in Super Mario Bros. 3. Only Bowser, Princess Peach, and Mario know the truth. Other than poor Pauline.



Squall is Dead

This one isn't as much fun because it falls under another cliche used in storytelling not reserved for just RPG's, even though it is one. Everything is a dream. Or in this case for Squall, a dream if one dreams...IN DEATH!

At the end of Disc 1, Squall and the gang is trying to assassinate sorceress Edea who is guilty of creating hostilities in their land. This ends up as horrible as it can go when Squall receives a large chunk of ice straight through his chest. He then falls while closing his eyes as Rinoa reaches for him, and cut to black.

Disc 2 starts out with him waking up in a cell with no memory of what happened between the Edea attack and where he currently is. The hole from the ice shard is gone and nobody seems to mention this fatal attack again. Some think he was healed by Edea before being captured, but there would really be no point in doing so.

The site Squall Is Dead really nails the point home, but some points they touch on include the absurdity of the story from that point on (Moombas, weird twists like Cid and Edea are married and that the man behind Balamb Garden is not human, and Seifer's relationship with Rinoa becoming almost nonexistent from that point) is one of them. They focus on some dialogue that can insinuate something deeper happening, and they even have a breakdown of what could be happening in the end game cinematic. I know I sure as hell couldn't tell you what happened in it when I first watched it, so I am automatically assuming that their explanation is truth.

So if you don't mind feeling that the majority of Final Fantasy 8 is a dream sequence that Squall is creating as he's dying in an attempt to wrap up his own story, than this may be the theory to cling on to.



Rinoa is Ultimecia

Supposedly Square has denied this theory as truth, but it doesn't make it any less interesting in a game most people tend to dislike, one reason being for the characters.

During the game, Rinoa becomes a sorceress and fears for the potential outcome. After seeking advice from Edea, she finds support in Squall since most sorceresses tend to go crazy. So Squall is her emotional tether to remain sane. Fast forward to the future where Squall is dead and Rinoa has gone batshit crazy becoming the time compressing sorceress known as Ultimecia. And time compressing is her method of being reunited with Squall.

Some points used to solidify this theory is that Ultimecia has the Guardian Force Griever which is the symbol Squall has both on his necklace and the ring he gave to Rinoa. Before the final battle, she mentions that she's attaching it to a character, so it can easily be Squall's Lionhart, but for the sake of the theory, we'll say it's the ring. Which in her mind, the Griever is her link to Squall. So when he died, Griever became her idea of Squall who "would always be by her side".

It's also worth noting that Rinoa and Ultimecia have some similarities like being the only sorceresses with wings (Rinoa-white, Ultimecia-black) and that they share similar facial structures which is reinforced in an FMV sequence which has the faces flash between each other.

Also, since the power she gained was the evil Adel's, she may have been tainted by his evil but been able to hold it off while Squall was alive. Once he died, the evil fully manifested itself and took over control of her entirely. And as for why she wanted to kill Squall, it was mentioned that the use of a GF can erase memories, so it's possible that she forgot who she was after using Griever.



Giygas is a Fetus

While it's more plausible to believe this theory as a symbolic interpretation over a literal one, some take this one a tad further than others.

At the end of Earthbound, you face Giygas, a being who loses mind and body due to being the ultimate force of evil in the universe. The way to solve this was by being put in "The Devil's Machine" which allowed Giygas to retain his power and part of his mind. And this is where the theory begins...

To some people, the machine Giygas is trapped in resembles a uterus with parts of it that could represent a cervix, vulva, and vagina. And what it holds inside is released once the machine is turned off, and the form surprised some people by looking like an outline of a fetus. Others have joked about seeing an outline of a duck and Mickey Mouse, but as outlined in the above picture, it looks pretty close to a damn fetus. Itoi has come out and said this was just a coincidence and not intentional, but people still run with it.

But...let's stick with the possibility that Giygas is a fetus. If his mind and body were destroyed and then put into the devil's machine, it could be trying to recreate a new body from the chaos (and thus) starting out as an infant. The evil tortured face that is shown in the fetus head and body could represent the evil still flowing through it. And it's choosing the form of an infant due to it's relation with Maria from the first game who took care of Giygas.

Plus, considering how weird Earthbound can be, would it really be that off the wall to picture yourself fighting an evil fetus at the end? Especially when the villain was created from a misinterpretation of a movie Itoi accidentally saw as a child making him think he witnessed a rape scene. Then trying to use the feeling he got when seeing that movie to incorporate it into this character and dialogue used.

There are some fans of Earthbound who absolutely HATE this theory, but whether it's as farfetched as they make it out to be...



Mass Effect Indoctrination Theory

Another game. Another cliche. Another dream. The Indoctrination Theory was the saving grace for Mass Effect 3 fans trying to gather some sort of ending that they thought was more appropriate than the ending they were given. It was their attempt to clear up some confusion and make sense of what exactly happened.

Which is to say, the ending may or may not have happened. Everything was in Shepards head. As Mass Effect pointed out many times during the series, Shepard is unique in being able to withstand the Reaper probing to manipulate the individual when so many have failed before hand. And Shepard has touched or been around quite a bit of Reaper stuff in these games, so he should be walking hand in hand with them near the end.

In the theory, he was. He was indoctrinated by the Reapers and everything that was experienced was a dream or hallucination. The way to break free from this control of the Reapers is presented by the three choices at the end of the game. If he chooses the blue (control the Reapers) or the green (synthesis), the Reapers inevitably win by still being a part of the universe. If Shepard chooses the blue, he can control the Reapers who in reality already control him. It's him giving away his free will entirely. With the green, he let's the machines be apart of every living thing in the universe which sounds like an end goal of the Reapers anyways. But there is the red option in which they are destroyed. The option for him to break free from Reaper control. Which, if selected, the player will see an extra scene at the end of Shepard coming back to life or "waking up" from the hallucination.

This would also explain why so many people were confused by the color options and why the outcomes didn't seem to match with the paragon/renegade color scheme the rest of the series portrayed. But, if the Reapers did have control of Shepard, then they would flip flop that and try to convince him that the bad/red option is to destroy them and you really want to select one of the other ones. It goes completely against Shepard's role in the series, but it would make some sense. And, if you look at it that way, the game is slightly meta by bringing the player into it and saying "you are indoctrinated as well...Can you break free?"

The folks on the Bioware boards put up quite a bit of evidence to explain how this theory makes the most sense, and it makes quite a good read. Especially if you were not happy with how everything turned out in the first place.



Chell is the Daughter of GLaDOS

Portal was one of those games that nobody expected to come out of thinking there would be this elaborate thought provoking story. It seemed like an innocent little puzzle game until suddenly BOOM, everything changes. But despite all of the changes, there had always been things not quite explained such as Ratman and who Chell was exactly. Some things did get explained such as who GLaDOS really is and the story behind Ratman, but Chell is still a mystery.

Like pieces of a puzzle, people have tried to fit a story into explaining who Chell is. And one of the most convincing ones out there is...she is the daughter of Cave Johnson and Caroline (GLaDOS).

So a little piece of fan fiction to elaborate on why this is. Portal 2 fills in a lot of holes such as Cave Johnson being the man behind Aperture Science who falls in love with a woman named Caroline. He gets sick and knows he will die and wants to leave something behind. His science isn't enough, although he uses it to make Caroline live forever in GLaDOS. But he wants a child. Someone his legacy can fall to when he is no longer there.

What happens can be split two ways. One is that Cave and Caroline conceive a child in Chell.

That's a lot of "C's" in that sentence...

The other that I'm more fond of and going to explain a bit more is that Cave and Caroline don't have a child, but adopt. And the adopted child is an infant Chell.

In Portal 2, GLaDOS makes an offhanded comment about Chell being adopted. It comes off as a personal insult like she was prone to do in that game. But later on, she remarks to Wheatley "What's so bad about being adopted?" Perhaps, this is her true feelings coming out letting Chell know that being adopted isn't bad, because her adoptive parents would still love her. That being, Cave and Caroline.

Chell was also a kid of someone at Aperture Science who arrived at "Bring Your Daughter to Work Day". Which would fall in line with her being the child of Cave and Caroline. But like Chell, we don't know the last name of Caroline either. Both of the last names have not been given and in Chell's case, her last name was "redacted" from her paperwork. It seems like Valve is actually hiding her last name, but since we don't know any other Aperture Science workers, what would be the point? Why have a last name at all, or just give some random last name? Perhaps because it matches the same last name of one of the 3 characters we know in the game. Cave Johnson.

Then there are little things like the turret opera lyrics sing "My child. My dear dear child", the link between GLaDOS being a potato and a potato being what Chell had brought in as a kid, GLaDOS saying she loved Chell in the first game, dates of events seem to match up, and GLaDOS mentions two relatives with the same last name being in stasis (and who better to keep in stasis then the big man himself and the love of his life?)

It goes on and on, but reading the theory convinced me that Chell is the daughter of Cave and Caroline.



Aeris Lives!

And quite possibly the most famous theory, Aeris was supposed to live in Final Fantasy 7.

Most probably know this one, but for those who don't, Aeris dies. Stabbed in the back by Sephiroth right in front of Cloud. One of those tear-jerking moments that caused an entire fan base to hate a villain like no other. So when they started hearing rumors that Aeris could be alive, the game was picked apart to support this theory.

Parts of this theory have been proven false. One included treating Tifa like crap and being nice to Aeris. Never have Tifa in your party. Go on a date with Aeris at Golden Saucer. Stuff like that. In the cutscene where Aeris dies, Tifa is supposed to push her out of the way (as long as she is in your party) and be killed instead of Aeris. Doesn't happen.

Another was that Aeris's final Limit Break is only accessible after she dies. This is not true and can be found with a simple Google search. Her ghost was another example that she should return, but her ghost appears to be a weird game glitch as her ghost can be seen on Disc 1 in the church after she is captured by Shin-Ra, but before she actually dies.

So where exactly does this theory come from? There are two biggest arguments that I have seen. One includes the picture above which comes from the manual. Aeris is shown standing in front of the Highwind, although the airship isn't available until after she has died. The second is the lone cliff at the end before the fight with Sephiroth. If you gather all of the allies (including Vincent and Yuffie), every ledge is accounted for by a character except one. Supposedly, this is where Aeris would have stood. Then during the final battle, when you must split into three parties, one of the parties only has two members.

There is a way to bring Aeris back, but it involves using a Gameshark usually. But the talk of the Internet had lots of grinding as the solution to bringing Aeris back. This included having her final Limit Break, leveling up a Cure Materia to receive the "Restore" spell, and receive the Underwater Materia used to cancel the timer for the Emerald Weapon fight. All of this needed to be done before she left the party to her ultimate demise. Then and only then would this work.

While it does seem there is no way to bring her back without a cheat device, that hasn't stopped the discussion about whether or not she was originally supposed to. While the creators have said she was never supposed to have survived, people who use a cheat device have found unique dialogue that only Aeris will use. Most of these are when she isn't dead yet, but not a possible character to have in the party. Some suspect that means the story could have been re-written including the part where she dies. Could mean she was supposed to die at a different time, or maybe not at all. Even though this shouldn't matter at this point thanks to the movie and spin-off games, some people can't let this one go.

Earthbound: Free Your Mind

 

My love for Earthbound came about in the mid 90's after a trip to Blockbuster. On the shelf stood a game box the size I have never seen before. I had never heard of Earthbound and wasn't quite sure what to expect from it. But after putting many hours into the game in my childhood, although never having finished it, I was in love. Earthbound, also known as Mother 2, ingrained itself in my head and in my love for video games.

Now that Earthbound is making a resurgence on Virtual Console (whether or not stuff will be changed such as the music, who knows...), I wanted to make a post to my favorite game of all time. The name Earthbound is thrown around a lot with a cult love that some don't understand because they haven't played and appreciated it. But with the release of it on the Virtual Console, can it stand the test of time? In my opinion...without a doubt.

The first thing that stands out would be the look of the game. One of the criticisms the game received when it first released was the graphics. For a game that released late in the SNES life, many expected it to look better than it did. While the graphics aren't superb, there's a beauty in the simplicity and the bold colors that are used that really make the game pop. It's easy to put it down, but no other game quite looks like Earthbound other than the Mother series itself. But the game itself still looks amazingly gorgeous to this day.

The music in the game is also another standout reason to play it. I never listen to video game soundtracks, but there's so much aesthetically pleasing music that I always find myself singing a tune or wanting to listen to one from the game. You will know immediately what kind of music to expect once the first boss battle is over and you start the new day with upbeat music and a brighter world.

If I had to make any negative comments about the music, it would simply be that it is the reason it's been so difficult to port over according to Nintendo. Since there was inspiration taken from American culture, there is a lot of nods to the Beatles (which Keiichi Suzuki gained inspiration from Lennon) which intimidated Nintendo from re-releasing it due to legal concerns.

The battle system has some unique aspects which I wish most RPG's would include. For example, none of the battles are random. You will see all the enemies before you engage them. Most enemies will scramble towards you in an attempt to battle, unless the player is overpowered. Instead of making the player waste their time easily dispatching an enemy, the enemy will instead try to run away and avoid battle. If the player touches them, most of the time it is an automatic win. No battling is required, just a quick flash, and you receive a "Congratulations" message saying you won and acquired some experience. Otherwise, the screen will swirl from the inside out with a specific color. If it's red (attacked from behind), you have been ambushed and the enemy will attack first. Green (you attack from behind) means you get the upper hand and attack first, and blue (face to face) means it can be a toss up who attacks first. This way, you are never surprised going into battle as you know instinctively to never get attacked with your back to the enemy.

The other quirk in battling I want to touch on is the rolling health points. While most RPG's have the health points automatically deducted after the attack, Earthbound will instead roll the points down until it reaches the number they were attacked. And in most games, if the attack is more than the health, you automatically die. In Earthbound, this isn't the case. A player can heal themselves before their life hits zero and the health will be added starting where their health was at. So if they receive mortal damage which should kill them, but heal themselves by 50 when their life is at 22, their health will be 72 (or maxed out if their health is lower than 72). On the other hand, if you can defeat the enemy before you health reaches 0, the battle will end and the character will live with whatever health was left. It's a fantastic addition that I wish was implemented more often.

 While the story is a tad cliche with the whole "boy on an adventure to save the world", it is surprisingly dark in many respects that one wouldn't expect with how lighthearted the majority of the game plays. The first indication is running into the insane cultists in Happy Happy Village which are dressed essentially as the Ku Klux Klan with a makeover. Another part of the game has one of your characters going through one hell of a torture sequence in an attempt to complete a personal trial to leave their homeland. And let's not even talk about the lead up to the final boss battle where you literally give up everything to save the world. Completely messed up for an innocent looking game, and much darker than most people will give it credit for.

But one of the most appealing things about the games is it's goofiness. I don't know if I've ever fought hippies or piles of puke in a game before, but Earthbound does it. Their filtered view of Western culture makes this game so fun and off the wall. If the weird enemies don't do anything for you, maybe breaking the 4th wall will. Riding the Loch Ness Monster after a bubble gum blowing monkey calls for it is pretty cool. Visiting a town of Mr. Saturns who are basically weird pigs with a speech problem(-o) is entertainingly dumb. Visiting a magic town where a walk down memory lane is somewhat depressing but oh so trippy. And speaking of trippy, what about visiting a backwards world where everything is in neon. There are so many things I can list that make this game so different than any other RPG I've ever played, and saying any more would spoil it for those who haven't played it.

So seriously, if you haven't played it, don't hesitate especially if you love RPG's. There's a reason it has the cult status that it does, and not on a "I love this game because it's so bad" kind of way. The game is smart on so many levels and should be appreciated on all of them. While it's not the most complex game out there in terms of it's leveling up system and the inventory limit can be frustrating at times; I don't think there's any game out there that quite compares to it. For it to have went unnoticed to so many gamers is a travesty, because it is one of the best games ever released and I will argue that with anyone. To this day, I have never played a game as much as this one and I have not grown bored with a single thing about it. And I doubt I ever will.

Microsoft and the Xbox Rumors

On May 21st, Microsoft will unveil the new Xbox to the world and have gamers talking leading into E3 a few weeks later. And while there's no guarantee of what will be shown or announced, I'm sure it'll be similar to what Sony's PS4 conference had with spec information and some games, I think there will be some focus on the non-gaming aspect the new system will have along with seeing the box (since that's so important to Mr. Microsoft Major Nelson apparently). Not to mention, the name should be announced so people can stop guessing whether it's going to be Xbox 362, The Xbox, Xbox Infinity, etc.

So in this post, I wanted to highlight some rumors that I find either interesting or need to be discussed with a somewhat open mind without jumping to automatic conclusions.


1. Two Models: To Game, or Not to Game

While it's a given that the next Xbox will have both gaming and non-gaming capabilities, rumor is that Xbox will have two different models. One of those models will not include a disc drive as it will be more of a Roku or Apple TV type device that is used as a media center device to stream movies and shows. One rumor is from someone claiming to have worked on this set-top box saying they will have functionality allowing an individual to search using gestures and voice-recognition, which makes it sound like Kinect could still be integrated into this sku.

Microsoft has taken strides to become more and more like Apple as the gaming side of Xbox has dwindled but the functionality with other apps and programs has become increasingly important. Having a box that rivals Apple TV with some new bells and whistles could be another way in doing so while still using similar hardware already being put to use in the gaming market of Microsoft. Whether or not Microsoft decides to go this route will surely be seen later this month, but there's no reason to believe they wouldn't as they seem to have a healthy dose of products to put on such a device.


2. Backwards Compatibility Add-On

The past few generations have been spoiled with backwards compatibility. Back in my day, we wouldn't expect a new console to play old games unless they were re-released on the new console. But thanks to the Internet and vocal minorities becoming vocal majorities, it has become commonplace for people to clamor for backwards compatibility.

Not to say it's not logical. It makes sense as to why people wouldn't want to keep 16 different systems laying around the TV and switching them out to play a few games if you could keep just one that played all of them. And with technology improving with each new iteration, eventually one of these would be able to play old games with little effort, right? In the case of the PS3 it's understandable why the PS4 won't be able to due to completely different hardware, but why not everything else? Cost? Console design? Hell, I don't know. If I could answer this completely, I sure as hell wouldn't be typing up this blog.

While rumors say the new Xbox won't be able to play 360 games, there are talks of an add-on that could be hooked to the new box to do so. Either way, Microsoft might find a way to convince people to get rid of the old system, but keep the games and upgrade to new hardware. While this would be pretty great, let's not forget how the current gen backwards compatibility fared as only some games would work and others wouldn't. Hopefully, if they create an add-on device, they would work out the kinks to allow all current-gen games play, and not only a selection of them.


3. Two Year Contract

Microsoft announced a model last year for a $99 Xbox that would then have a 2-year contract for customers to pay. Easy money up front, long term commitment. And while the total payment would come out to more than what you would just forking it all out at once, it may have been a positive experience for them. They haven't released numbers specifically for that model, but it could have been the beginning of a good idea for the next gen console.

Some look at the overall price and realize that you will pay more in the long run, but most customers won't care. It's easy to pay monthly than one lump sum at the beginning, and that's enticing to many people. Sony and Nintendo would be smart to have a similar option, but nothing has been noted yet. Microsoft looks poised (and is rumored) to release this option with great success, as it will look like a great deal sitting next to consoles priced $399 and up.

On the other hand, consoles make for great presents for birthdays and holidays. I'm not sure how eager some people are to buy "the gift that keeps on giving.....you bills each month". But if Microsoft releases a brand new console with this type of option, it will be a winning formula for them.




4. Always-On

Yep. That's the error message Sim City players received due to the always online setup with the game. If Microsoft decides to go this route, you may be familiar with similar error messages.

But Microsoft wouldn't really do that now, would they? I think people give them a little too much credit. Microsoft knows people will pay for their service even if they aren't entirely sure what they paying for. If I had to guess, it would be more ads and more content I would never use. Yet they get rid of 1 vs 100 which was amazing but is the one device I have to pay extra on to watch Netflix. Something is a little screwy there. But how many people willingly fork out $40-$50 a year on a service for party chat and "better servers". Heads up folks, you aren't paying for "better servers", you are paying for "Internet capability" which just happens to have "better servers". Considering how cluttered the dashboard has become and slow everything seems to have gotten, clearly the money being put on Live isn't going where it should be. But people still pay, and that's how Microsoft knows they have customers hook-line-and sinker.

Microsoft would be foolish to have the next console be always-on, especially after the disaster that was Sim City's launch. Factor in every Christmas where the influx of new users makes the system crash (or the release of a new Halo game) or just cases where it doesn't work where they don't really explain why; having the system be always-on would be the biggest slap in the face to their customers, not to mention the ones who don't have Internet. The negatives far outweigh the positives, and there is no benefit that anyone can muster except Microsoft...because it benefits them.

As much as I want to dismiss this rumor, there have been a lot of rumors about this. Adam Orth helped fan the flames with his twitter ramblings, docs have been released saying it's always online, Dev kit screenshots show always-online capability...there's just a lot coming out to simply dismiss this. If Microsoft thinks they can do this and do it well, best of luck to them. But they are playing with fire, and as Frankenstein knows, you don't want to piss off a mob of people who have fire.


5. Used Games

If the always-on concern doesn't frighten you, then perhaps the talk of no more used games does. I'm on the fence when it comes to used games. I love having the ability to sell my games to purchase a new one, but at the same time, I understand publishers need those purchases so stores will buy more games from them to sell.

But both PS4 and the Durango have had rumors about them not playing used games. Jack Tretton for Sony said used games will be playable on the PS4, and while it's not as definitive as that, Gamestop seems enthusiastic about the new Microsoft console. And if Gamestop is happy about it, then my guess is that it will play used games.

Cut and dry, right? Not quite. Not long ago, something was added into some games that caused a collective groan among gamers. Online passes. Once they were redeemed, other gamers wouldn't be able to access the online portions of the game if they purchased it used. Some would luck out as the passes weren't redeemed, but most gamers would have to fork out an additional $10 to use any online aspects of the game.

Now what if both Sony and Microsoft were being honest in that the consoles can play used games? The caveat being: You buy it used, you have to pay a little extra to be able to play it. Not an online pass, just a game pass in general. As criminal as that may sound, nobody can really complain in the long run. Gamers who had a problem with no used games would still have the ability to sell them to Gamestop, Amazon, wherever. Gamestop would still have sales coming in from used games. Publishers would receive a little something for used games whereas in the past they didn't. Everyone seems to win a little bit, even if it's not a perfect scenario for everyone. So while I think the rumor of no used games is bogus, I think there could be a possibility of some information being held back until the last possible moment.



In just a few short weeks, we may have an answer to a few of these rumors. Some answers may hide crucial information to see the full picture, but some rumors will definitely be put to rest. Microsoft will have some momentum going into E3, and the gaming world will be in full frenzy until the release of next generation of consoles.